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

[InTheFlesh]

Though there are many gods, there's only one true God. He is the creator of all things. What proof do you have against him?

A lack of evidence is enough to support a disbelief for an individual, a disbelief that is held until proof of said diety is presented. But most atheists do have reasons that they do not believe in God - they range from outrageous stories to Biblical contradictions to God's conflicting personality traits.

I understand what you're saying, but the reality of the matter is that there is evidence which you choose to ignore. Why are you assuming a conspiracy that all the testimonies given by many different men are lies? What proof do you have against all the different eye witnesses? You believe the books were written by men right? So how do you know that their testimonies are lies? Why should I believe you (no proof of your accusation) over someone who put there life on the line to tell us that the gospel is real?

[InTheFlesh]

Well, that's not what I said or meant. (see bolded text)

That's why I asked. Wanted to be sure.

I think the value of believing or not believing in God/s is very debatable. Humans engage in self-deception in pretty much every area of their lives, usually out of self-interest. Fairy tales obviously are good for something. From an economics POV, consumed goods are always consumed at a price and thus possess value.

I have to say that the idea of believing something that's false, or without caring whether it's false, is repulsive to me. For that matter, I would be repulsed by any person who said, "I believe in God, but I really have no idea if it's true and don't care."

TC

I have to say
that accusing something of being false
without having any proof
is repulsive to me.

What makes you think there is no proof? Define the God in question and see if any proof of falsehood can be offered.

Though there are many gods, there's only one true God.
He is the creator of all things.
What proof do you have against him?

You didn't answer my question, so I don't even know how I would be able to answer yours. I can't begin to disprove an undefined hypothesis. How would you describe this 'creator of all things? other than that it is the creator of all things? Even many atheists believe in something that led to everything else.

You asked me to define the God in question.
First of all, if you believe that there is no God,
why do you ask which one?
There is only one God, the maker of all things,
so what proof of falsehood do you have against him?
What part of the life of Jesus is false?
Jesus is before all things.

[Thought Criminal]

You asked me to define the God in question.
First of all, if you believe that there is no God,
why do you ask which one?
There is only one God, the maker of all things,
so what proof of falsehood do you have against him?
What part of the life of Jesus is false?
Jesus is before all things.

You keep demanding that we disprove your claim, but that claim is unsupported so there's nothing to disprove. If there really is a rational basis that justifies a belief in God, you're going to have to offer evidence and argument to back up your conclusion. Consider your bluff called.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

I understand what you're saying, but the reality of the matter is that there is evidence which you choose to ignore. Why are you assuming a conspiracy that all the testimonies given by many different men are lies? What proof do you have against all the different eye witnesses? You believe the books were written by men right? So how do you know that their testimonies are lies? Why should I believe you (no proof of your accusation) over someone who put there life on the line to tell us that the gospel is real?

1) Testimony is not evidence, as people can only testify about what they believe.

2) Ordinary testimony about extraordinary claims is unconvincing. The supernatural is defined so that it cannot be tested, so nothing stops a person from making stuff up.

3) Conflicting testimony is unconvincing, whether it's within a holy book or among them.

4) Testimony that claims things we can show to be erroneous undermines the credibility of all other claims. If the Bible says pi = 3.0, how can we trust it on matters as vague as God.

For these reasons, the Bible is not rational justification for believing in God. But that should have been more than aware of that by now.

TC

[InTheFlesh]

You asked me to define the God in question.
First of all, if you believe that there is no God,
why do you ask which one?
There is only one God, the maker of all things,
so what proof of falsehood do you have against him?
What part of the life of Jesus is false?
Jesus is before all things.

You keep demanding that we disprove your claim, but that claim is unsupported so there's nothing to disprove. If there really is a rational basis that justifies a belief in God, you're going to have to offer evidence and argument to back up your conclusion. Consider your bluff called.

TC

Criminal Minds
First of all,
it's NOT my claim
so get your facts straight.
You are the one accusing the biblical testimonies.
How is the gospel unsupported?
Why do you think that you still have to fight the message of Jesus off today?
Why be ignorant that there is evidence?
Are the scriptures not historical writings?
Obviously they were written by man right?
Why do you easily disregard them without proof against them?
According to what you preach,
if you don't have proof against something,
it can be possible.

[JoeyKnothead]

There have been many cases in history, and the courts where the testimony of folks turned out to be wrong. Sometimes it was outright lies (see them two in the Dover case), sometimes it was mistaken identity/facts. And of course everyone knows the further you get from the events in question the more likely error will creep in.

[InTheFlesh]

Are you speaking about Science!

[Thought Criminal]

I’m going to give you a conditional yes. That is, it can be justified as rationally as any spiritual or ethical position. We know remarkably little about the topic of whether or not God exists, but I’d argue that belief in him is every bit as rational as any other position. In fact, it is my position that belief in religion results in fewer contradictions in one's behavior and philosophy than does atheism.

If theism is only as justified as animism or ancestor worship, then it's not justified at all. I see no reason to lower the bar for "spiritual positions", whatever those are. As for ethical positions, I likewise keep the bar very high, much higher than your God claim can match

And that's all it is; a claim. You've put forth an argument from ignorance, insisting that we don't know enough to rule God out, but conveniently forgetting that there's no basis upon which to rule God in. Do you have any rational basis to justify a belief in God or are you just bluffing?

Finally, your "position that belief in religion results in fewer contradictions in one's behavior and philosophy than does atheism" is an unsupported conclusion, which I therefore summarily reject. For that matter, the measure of ethics is correctness, not merely consistency. It's very easy to be consistent by being consistently wrong.

As to the matter of belief rooted in faith, rather than reason, I know how frustrating that is to hear from certain types, and I completely agree that statements such as “I have faith� are completely irrelevant to a debate. I would, however, like to point out a positive side of faith which many non-theists never get to see (mostly due to the fact that the loudest advocates of faith don’t generally seem to have grasped this concept):

I'm not really interested in talking about the so-called positive side of faith. As you've admitted, faith is not a rational basis, so it's irrelevant to the topic.

Faith is not rational.
This, however, does not mean that a particular religion (or non-religious stance) that one has faith in is not rational. It could be reached through as logical a means as we humans are capable of using. But there’s the issue: humans are not rational. Very little of what we say or do is as rooted in logic as it is in emotional/instinctive impulses. Before we attach some deep religious meaning to this feeling, or go turning our noses up at it as some primitive thing, we ought to stop and realize that this is, first and foremost, a simple fact of being human. As such, faith (a non-rational belief) is a common part of everyday life for all people.

Faith supports all beliefs equally, but it's possible to have faith in something that is coincidentally true. You've noticed that I haven't ruled God out just because faith is so often claimed as the basis, but I do demand that a rational basis be offered instead. So far, you have failed to do so.

In any case, faith is not "a common part of the everyday life for for all people". Not that I need to disprove your unsupported claim, but I could do so simply by pointing at myself or any other rational person.

Carl Jung put it this way (please excuse the length of this one):
Anyone with some knowledge of Jungian psychology will be aware that religious faith is a common way in which people become “in harmony with these symbols�. It seems to be, by far, the most common. This is all to say that irrationality is not necessarily a lack of wisdom, nor is this irrationality necessarily complete. It is quite possible for a person to sense, follow, and practice such things, while remaining more rational than his/her non-religious colleges. In fact, a comparison of the lives of Jung and Freud would be an excellent example of this.

This is as irrelevant as it is wrong.

TC

[LittlePig]

You asked me to define the God in question.
First of all, if you believe that there is no God,
why do you ask which one?

My current belief or disbelief has absolutely nothing to do with you defining (or being unable to define) your God. How can I evaluate your God hypothesis if you don't describe it?

There is only one God, the maker of all things,
so what proof of falsehood do you have against him?

That all depends on what you say this God is. How can I specifically disprove what isn't precisely proposed? So, once again, please describe this God you say you believe in.

What part of the life of Jesus is false?
Jesus is before all things.

Hold on, I thought we were talking about God. Jesus is another conversation all by itself.

[InTheFlesh]

You asked me to define the God in question.
First of all, if you believe that there is no God,
why do you ask which one?

My current belief or disbelief has absolutely nothing to do with you defining (or being unable to define) your God. How can I evaluate your God hypothesis if you don't describe it?

There is only one God, the maker of all things,
so what proof of falsehood do you have against him?

That all depends on what you say this God is. How can I specifically disprove what isn't precisely proposed? So, once again, please describe this God you say you believe in.

What part of the life of Jesus is false?
Jesus is before all things.

Hold on, I thought we were talking about God. Jesus is another conversation all by itself.

It's not hypo, it's literal.

His name is Jesus
ever heard of him?

We are,
Jesus is God!