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

[Thought Criminal]

Don't faint, guys, but I agree with you. Radical skepticism is not a position; it negates the possibility of holding any position at all, and is a philosophical, intellectual, and debating dead end.

Forget about debate; if we can't assume that anything at all is true or real, what is there to SAY?

Actually, I raised this issue. And, if you care at all:
I brought it up not to argue that we shouldn't assume that reality exists, but to point out that some things are assumed without evidence. I then pointed out that this is a form of faith, as an attempt to refute an earlier claim that at least some atheists were completely without non-rational beleif in anything. Whether or not some people are purely rational in their beliefs was the actual subject.

Hope that clarifies a bit.

See, this is why I needed to reserve my right to comment.

As it turns out, the full story (which is available if you dig through the thread) is somewhat different than Jester might suggest.

I explained to Jester that axioms, rather than being unevidenced, are self-evident, hence requiring no additional evidence. Any attempt to deny an axiom implicitly affirms it, thus causing the denial to contradict itself. This is because all valid arguments depend upon the basic axioms that make rationality possible.

The key here is that axioms are not any sort of faith. Faith, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is belief that is not rooted in the evidence. Of course, Jester's goal is not to deny rationality, but rather to open up a gap for faith to squeeze in. This way, he can pretend to be offering a justification for theism on a rational basis while actually depending upon faith, which cannot be rational.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

No, I reserve the right to comment on anything you say at any time. I may address you or I may speak about you. You have earned no special dispensations through your behavior.

In which case, I would expect a logical reason why axioms should be accepted (as opposed to a pointing out that they are). Otherwise, we are not having a civil debate.

I'm not sure that we're having a debate at all. I've answered this question before, yet you keep asking it. Therefore, all I'm doing now is reminding the casual third party of where we left off.

TC

[Jester]

I explained to Jester that axioms, rather than being unevidenced, are self-evident, hence requiring no additional evidence. Any attempt to deny an axiom implicitly affirms it, thus causing the denial to contradict itself. This is because all valid arguments depend upon the basic axioms that make rationality possible.

I know this one wasn't to me, but figured this would be a better place to pick this up.

I must appologize for the frustration I'm obviously causing. I really haven't indended as such, but really want to understand, and to seek a rational answer to my question. I know this is taking much longer than you had anticipated, but do feel that it is worth it.
But apologies all the same, honestly.

In any case, getting back to the point:
How do we decide what is self-evident, and what requires outside evidence? I don't yet understand how we determine the difference logically.

[Thought Criminal]

In any case, getting back to the point:
How do we decide what is self-evident, and what requires outside evidence? I don't yet understand how we determine the difference logically.

I explained to Jester that axioms, rather than being unevidenced, are self-evident, hence requiring no additional evidence. Any attempt to deny an axiom implicitly affirms it, thus causing the denial to contradict itself. This is because all valid arguments depend upon the basic axioms that make rationality possible.

What part of that was unclear?

TC

[Beto]

In any case, getting back to the point:
How do we decide what is self-evident, and what requires outside evidence? I don't yet understand how we determine the difference logically.

I explained to Jester that axioms, rather than being unevidenced, are self-evident, hence requiring no additional evidence. Any attempt to deny an axiom implicitly affirms it, thus causing the denial to contradict itself. This is because all valid arguments depend upon the basic axioms that make rationality possible.

What part of that was unclear?

I've been reading many "self-evident truths" from several theists in this forum, and I disagree with them. If they're claimed as "axiomatic" how does one argue against them?

[McCulloch]

No, I reserve the right to comment on anything you say at any time. I may address you or I may speak about you. You have earned no special dispensations through your behavior.

This is supposed to be a debate about a question. Try to focus your attention on the question rather than the questioner.

In which case, I would expect a logical reason why axioms should be accepted (as opposed to a pointing out that they are).

Many kilobytes have been slain trying to determine a suitable set of axioms. If you believe that the proposition of the existence of God is axiomatic, then say so. Otherwise, please provide a list of premises and axioms which would lead a rational person to be justified in believing in God. If you agree with me that such a list cannot be found, then you should be arguing on the no side of this question.

[Beto]

I brought it up not to argue that we shouldn't assume that reality exists, but to point out that some things are assumed without evidence. I then pointed out that this is a form of faith, as an attempt to refute an earlier claim that at least some atheists were completely without non-rational belief in anything.

This is an important issue. Can you provide an example of a "thing assumed without evidence", or "self-evident", or "axiomatic", to an atheist, or non-theist, or supernatural skeptic, that isn't liable to objective empirical knowledge? In other words, is it a "belief" that can't be made "knowledge", through objective empiricism, despite the effort involved? If I don't think something can be known by any measure of effort, I have no reason to consider it "axiomatic".

[daedalus 2.0]

The problem with this debate is always a problem for Theists, especially Religionists and Supernaturalists.

In "our" world x=x, a+b=b+a, an empty set exists, a cannot be both a and not a, etc...

In the religionists mind, they don't agree. The universe is like a cartoon book and God is the Cartoonist. It is a mythology in which a person can morph into a god, a staff into a snake, demons can transfer from humans to pigs, and 1+1+1=1.

The problem is that they can claim this, but they can't show it. They declare it is Faith that makes you see it (but apparently no amount of Faith can help you explain it to someone else).

It is a phantom in the mind that they can't grasp but they take as a given.

All their experiences in life support the axioms of the Materialist (unless you are high on heroin...), but the Hope; the Faith, is something that over rides their Reason. Their religions even command that they abandon Reason.

I see no solution. The Religious person will always claim to be using Reason (because it is a human trait) but then try to disassemble it into a child-like, cartoonish version (even the Bible says your faith must be child-like). They must make themselves permanently gullible in order to accept the main tenet of Xianity:

1+1+1=1

[Thought Criminal]

I've been reading many "self-evident truths" from several theists in this forum, and I disagree with them. If they're claimed as "axiomatic" how does one argue against them?

That's an entirely fair question, and I think I can give you a fairly clear answer.

Before I do, let me just make sure that we're on the same page about the type of axiom being tested for. My RHUWD defines it as:

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Math. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

These are all rather similar meanings, but it's the first one that applies here. The second one is close, but seems to imply proof by popularity, and the third one applies only to formal systems.

Moving on...

The test for being self-evident isn't merely that it "seems obvious" to some people. Lots of things that seem obvious are false, and other things that are in fact obviously true still aren't axiomatic. It's obvious that I have ten fingers, for example, but that knowledge is empirical; I have to actually count them. It's just as obvious that the Earth is flat, but this turns out to be true only as a local approximation.

The test for self-evidence is that the statement is too basic to be formally proven in terms of anything else, but any attempt to deny it implicitly affirms it. Consider something like:

"Some propositions are true".

It passes the basic test, in that it's not clear how one might go about proving it in terms of anything else. Now try denying it:

"No propositions are true."

Great, this explictly denies the claim. Unfortunately, it implicitly affirms it. To state anything is to assert its truth. If we expose the implicit part in parentheses, we get the following self-destructing claim:

"(It is true that) No propositions are true."

Kaboom.

The reason it can't be self-consistently denied is the same reason it can't be formally proven in terms of anything else: it is such a basic part of the way we evaluate the very meaning of a proposition that we invoke it automatically even when evaluating it. In a sense, every proposition supports the axiom, because without this axiom, there cannot be any propositions.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

The problem with this debate is always a problem for Theists, especially Religionists and Supernaturalists.

In "our" world x=x, a+b=b+a, an empty set exists, a cannot be both a and not a, etc...

In the religionists mind, they don't agree. The universe is like a cartoon book and God is the Cartoonist. It is a mythology in which a person can morph into a god, a staff into a snake, demons can transfer from humans to pigs, and 1+1+1=1.

The problem is that they can claim this, but they can't show it. They declare it is Faith that makes you see it (but apparently no amount of Faith can help you explain it to someone else).

It is a phantom in the mind that they can't grasp but they take as a given.

All their experiences in life support the axioms of the Materialist (unless you are high on heroin...), but the Hope; the Faith, is something that over rides their Reason. Their religions even command that they abandon Reason.

I see no solution. The Religious person will always claim to be using Reason (because it is a human trait) but then try to disassemble it into a child-like, cartoonish version (even the Bible says your faith must be child-like). They must make themselves permanently gullible in order to accept the main tenet of Xianity:

1+1+1=1

One of the counter-intuitive results we find in population genetics is that markers of fitness have to be genuinely expensive in order to be credible. For example, the male peacock shows his health by accepting the handicap of a tail that impairs his ability to escape predators. The very fact that he can grow such a tail and survive to tell about it is evidence that a female peacock can safely rely on as an indicator of who deserves to fertilize her eggs. Nature is full of similar examples, such as stotting, white tail feathers and the various costs of testosterone.

A similar situation applies in memetics with regard to religious beliefs. There is a benefit to being seen as genuinely religious, since you are viewed as being more worthy of trust due to your moral commitment to God, but if it's too easy to pass yourself off as religious, this benefit is diluted. Therefore, you find conspicuously expensive indicators of religion, like the peacock's tail feathers.

I don't just mean things like huge, obvious crosses, but also the affirmation of beliefs that are not merely false but ridiculous. Anyone can follow a religion that only demands common sense and evidenced beliefs, but by committing to such nonsensical doctrines as trinitarianism, you really put yourself out on the line and show that your faith is true. The same applies to various taboos, shibboleths, and traditions that make your religion a burden that all can see.

TC