Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?

[Thought Criminal]

Many theists will tell you that their belief in God is based on faith, or on something equally nonrational or irrational, such as a special feeling they have, or their unshakable trust in their parents, or an ineffable experience.

Fine, but none of this carries any weight for me because, as a secular humanist, I have a commitment to believe only what is rationally justified, what a logical analysis of the evidence compels me to believe. It's possible that I might miss out on some truths this way, but I do avoid many, many falsehoods. Of course, I do want to believe whatever's true, so I'm always open to evidence.

Anyhow, this leads me to the obvious question: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

TC

[Confused]

MODERATOR NOTE TO ALL:


ENOUGH!!! This thread is in yet another downward spiral and everyone is contributing to it rather than trying to bring it back up to a respectful debate. Comments made that attack the debater rather than the debate are against the RULES!!!! And the most recent offenders KNOW this.

If this thread does not get back on track, I will lock it.

[Beastt]

It seems to me we have three levels of validity.

Purely Objective
We have the purely objective such as the post you're reading right now. You can read it, assess the ideas presented, send it to your printer and even take the printed page and mail it to a friend who will read the same words. There is little potential that a credible argument can arise to suggest that the post doesn't exist.

Evidenced but Unconfirmed
We have those things which comply with the evidence yet remain, as yet, unconfirmed. This might include things like dark matter. The evidence certainly points to the potential that it exists, but as yet, we have been unable to confirm that it does exist.

Unevidenced but Suspected
Finally, we have that which is unevidenced, yet still suspected. And in the case of theism, it is suspected by the majority, even to the degree of proclaiming it as knowledge.

I would suggest that despite the numbers of people subscribing to each level, the level of credibility follows the order of presentation. The purely objective is the least likely candidate for doubt. Some doubt can rationally be applied to that which is evidenced but unconfirmed and the most doubt runs to that which is unevidenced yet suspected.

And from there we must step to the degree of extraordinary claims inherent in a given concept which is unevidenced but suspected. History has a lot to say about such concepts. When we look to historical verification of the supernatural or spiritual, we find nothing. That should be taken as strong evidence (not conclusive evidence), as to the lack of probability for the concept.

As we work from the Purely Objective toward the Unevidenced but Suspected, and then continue into the extraordinary and realms which have always remained unconfirmed, I submit that we also work from a point of pure rationality, toward positions of continually lesser rationality.

[Vanguard]

edit

[InTheFlesh]

To me, this question can only be answered with a "No". It is a straightforward thing to show that this view is incorrect. Simply present a rational justification for a belief in God. As long as I have been posting here, no one has done this. Again, if I am mistaken, it is a straightforward thing to show that I am mistaken. Simply post a link to a post which contains a rational justification for a belief in God.

I think a good use of this thread is to be an open challenge. Anytime someone claims there's a rational basis for a belief in God, we can simply point here and ask them to prove it. As failed attempts accumulate over time, perhaps some people will begin to recognize that their beliefs are, at best, entirely irrational.

TC

Who will judge whether the attempts have failed or not?

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us"

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"

[daedalus 2.0]

Who will judge whether the attempts have failed or not?

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us"

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"

But I'm not askin to be wise. I only ask humble requests. they are only questions, nothing more.

How does the Xian determine the another Xian?

[Thought Criminal]

It seems to me we have three levels of validity.

Purely Objective
We have the purely objective such as the post you're reading right now. You can read it, assess the ideas presented, send it to your printer and even take the printed page and mail it to a friend who will read the same words. There is little potential that a credible argument can arise to suggest that the post doesn't exist.

Evidenced but Unconfirmed
We have those things which comply with the evidence yet remain, as yet, unconfirmed. This might include things like dark matter. The evidence certainly points to the potential that it exists, but as yet, we have been unable to confirm that it does exist.

Unevidenced but Suspected
Finally, we have that which is unevidenced, yet still suspected. And in the case of theism, it is suspected by the majority, even to the degree of proclaiming it as knowledge.

I would suggest that despite the numbers of people subscribing to each level, the level of credibility follows the order of presentation. The purely objective is the least likely candidate for doubt. Some doubt can rationally be applied to that which is evidenced but unconfirmed and the most doubt runs to that which is unevidenced yet suspected.

And from there we must step to the degree of extraordinary claims inherent in a given concept which is unevidenced but suspected. History has a lot to say about such concepts. When we look to historical verification of the supernatural or spiritual, we find nothing. That should be taken as strong evidence (not conclusive evidence), as to the lack of probability for the concept.

As we work from the Purely Objective toward the Unevidenced but Suspected, and then continue into the extraordinary and realms which have always remained unconfirmed, I submit that we also work from a point of pure rationality, toward positions of continually lesser rationality.

I certainly agree with the general strategy of recognizing different levels of confidence and working to find more evidence to illuminate the areas that are least clear.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

I think a good use of this thread is to be an open challenge. Anytime someone claims there's a rational basis for a belief in God, we can simply point here and ask them to prove it. As failed attempts accumulate over time, perhaps some people will begin to recognize that their beliefs are, at best, entirely irrational.

Who will judge whether the attempts have failed or not?

We will. Is there a successful attempt that you can point out?

TC

[InTheFlesh]

We?
Are you French?
You had determined that they were failures
before they were even posted.
You are not looking for someone to show you
that believing in God is rational.
Don't give me that I want to find the truth BS,
cause your mind is already made up.
According to you,
you have the truth.
So if you're convinced,
why start a thread to debate it?
Isn't that like beating a DEAD HORSE?

[Thought Criminal]

We?
Are you French?
You had determined that they were failures
before they were even posted.
You are not looking for someone to show you
that believing in God is rational.
Don't give me that I want to find the truth BS,
cause your mind is already made up.
According to you,
you have the truth.
So if you're convinced,
why start a thread to debate it?
Isn't that like beating a DEAD HORSE?

Way to go, poisoning that well...

All of us are here, I hope, to seek the truth. You can be part of this process by bringing up any successful arguments that the rest of us might have overlooked. Or you can write your defeatist haiku, accusing me of having a closed mind just because you have no evidence. The choice is yours, but I've reported you for your excessively hostile attitude and borderline vulgarity.

TC

[twobitsmedia]

We?
Are you French?
You had determined that they were failures
before they were even posted.
You are not looking for someone to show you
that believing in God is rational.
Don't give me that I want to find the truth BS,
cause your mind is already made up.
According to you,
you have the truth.
So if you're convinced,
why start a thread to debate it?
Isn't that like beating a DEAD HORSE?

Well said...you have summarized their position well. They, of course, will continue to claim they are seeking the truth, while claiming they have it all at the same time. Its an absurd position, but one many claim is "logical" and "rational."