Is Theism more RATIONAL than Non-Theism?

[Zzyzx]

.
In several current threads an Apologist argues that Theism is as rational as, or more rational than, Non-Theism. Let's address that issue directly.

Definitions:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Non-Theism: without belief in the existence of a god or gods

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Inferior: of less importance, value, or merit


Questions for debate:

1) Is Theism AS RATIONAL as Non-Theism? Why?

2) Is Theism MORE RATIONAL than Non-Theism? Why?

3) Is Non-Theism inferior to Theism? Why?

[theopoesis]

I tend to think there is a relational element to everything and therefore ultimately everything can be reasonable when it is understood and explained.

Considering that is roughly my starting point, I'll pull the car over and say we may have reached an agreement. Ultimately everything, including theism and/or non-theism, can be reasonable.

Or do I misunderstand?

[Goat]

The most important question would be 'Is your axioms anything more than your opinion'. If the axioms can not be supported via an examination of the results, then, no, your axioms are not more than your opinion.

That seems the rather classic example of an argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, not true at all. In absence of any evidence, or ability to confirm, it can not shown that it is anything more than opinion. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

Moderator Comment

Do I remind you of a good Christian? I'm a friggin atheist, not a saint! Mercy is for losers.

What???

Um..................I don't know.

Would someone mind helping me out here?

Please avoid posting one-liners that add nothing to the debate, they are against the rules.

I sorry for not being as smart as you.

Try looking beneath the surface, my comments were my way of saying - Please explain, I don't have an clue of what you are talking about.

Done with a little humor, of course, so that I don't appear to be the idiot I am in real life.

As per the rules, this explanation should have been provided to the moderator via PM. Please remember not to respond to moderator comments within a thread.

[Cathar1950]

I tend to think there is a relational element to everything and therefore ultimately everything can be reasonable when it is understood and explained.

Considering that is roughly my starting point, I'll pull the car over and say we may have reached an agreement. Ultimately everything, including theism and/or non-theism, can be reasonable.

Or do I misunderstand?

Within reason, I tend to like Whiteheads take :The purpose of reason is to promote the art of living"
My starting point is our existence and experience.

[ChaosBorders]

The most important question would be 'Is your axioms anything more than your opinion'. If the axioms can not be supported via an examination of the results, then, no, your axioms are not more than your opinion.

That seems the rather classic example of an argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, not true at all. In absence of any evidence, or ability to confirm, it can not shown that it is anything more than opinion. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

They can be dismissed as something you do not feel worth your time considering, if you so desire. However, that does not make them false. Can you objectively prove that the axioms he is using are not more than his opinion? If you cannot do so, then you were using an argument from ignorance when you stated such. (The same as he would be if he tries to argue that his opinions are true just because they cannot be shown to be false).

[Goat]

The most important question would be 'Is your axioms anything more than your opinion'. If the axioms can not be supported via an examination of the results, then, no, your axioms are not more than your opinion.

That seems the rather classic example of an argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, not true at all. In absence of any evidence, or ability to confirm, it can not shown that it is anything more than opinion. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

They can be dismissed as something you do not feel worth your time considering, if you so desire. However, that does not make them false. Can you objectively prove that the axioms he is using are not more than his opinion? If you cannot do so, then you were using an argument from ignorance when you stated such. (The same as he would be if he tries to argue that his opinions are true just because they cannot be shown to be false).

In which case, his entire thesis is 'argument from personal belief', also know as 'argument from ignorance'. To claim something is 'true' without any way to verify your assumptions, or your conclusions is the classic logical fallacy.

[ChaosBorders]

The most important question would be 'Is your axioms anything more than your opinion'. If the axioms can not be supported via an examination of the results, then, no, your axioms are not more than your opinion.

That seems the rather classic example of an argument from ignorance. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, not true at all. In absence of any evidence, or ability to confirm, it can not shown that it is anything more than opinion. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

They can be dismissed as something you do not feel worth your time considering, if you so desire. However, that does not make them false. Can you objectively prove that the axioms he is using are not more than his opinion? If you cannot do so, then you were using an argument from ignorance when you stated such. (The same as he would be if he tries to argue that his opinions are true just because they cannot be shown to be false).

In which case, his entire thesis is 'argument from personal belief', also know as 'argument from ignorance'. To claim something is 'true' without any way to verify your assumptions, or your conclusions is the classic logical fallacy.

He may well be making one too. I haven't followed the thread closely enough to know. But your statement that "your axioms are not more than your opinion" cannot be verified. They could be true and the reason that the results do not seem to support them is that he is actually missing additional true axioms that are acting as hidden variables. There's no way to know that.

[Goat]

He may well be making one too. I haven't followed the thread closely enough to know. But your statement that "your axioms are not more than your opinion" cannot be verified. They could be true and the reason that the results do not seem to support them is that he is actually missing additional true axioms that are acting as hidden variables. There's no way to know that.

Until he can show how his axioms can be verified, then they are not more than opinion , conjecture or word games.

That is a fact. They might be right, but he can not show that they are.

[ChaosBorders]

He may well be making one too. I haven't followed the thread closely enough to know. But your statement that "your axioms are not more than your opinion" cannot be verified. They could be true and the reason that the results do not seem to support them is that he is actually missing additional true axioms that are acting as hidden variables. There's no way to know that.

Until he can show how his axioms can be verified, then they are not more than opinion , conjecture or word games.

That is a fact. They might be right, but he can not show that they are.

Your last sentence is completely correct. Do you not see how it grammatically conflicts with the first two?

[theopoesis]

Until he can show how his axioms can be verified, then they are not more than opinion , conjecture or word games.

That is a fact. They might be right, but he can not show that they are.

Requiring an axiom to be verified is like requiring a triangle to be a square.

Axiom: 3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

The very fact that it is assumed without proof by definition means that it is not verified. All axioms are taken on faith (or an equivalent word). This is why I call myself a fideist. All worldviews, as I argued above without much of a rebuttal from anyone, contain axioms which are not verified. The only question is whether I begin with faith in God or with faith in something else.

For redundancy's sake, let's look at a few of the other words I have been using (dictionary.com froze on me, so I switched to merriam-webster.com):

Presuppose: 2. to require as an antecedent in logic or fact

If it is required as an antecedent, it is prior and antecedent to verification.

Assumption: 5.b. a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

If it is taken for granted, it is taken without evidence or verification.

A priori: 1.c. presupposed by experience, 2.a. being without examination or analysis, 2.b. formed or conceived beforehand

If it is presupposed by experience, or without analysis, or beforehand (i.e. before logic/rationality is constructed), there is no evidence or verification.

I admit that my axioms are taken on faith, but it gets old for you to dismiss an entire perspective as "word games" simply because it has axioms. Every rational system ever has axioms. Every single one.

Ludwig Wittgenstein once argued that most of the things we say are nothing but "Word games." He, I think, had a more technical philosophical definition than you. I admit we are playing different "games" but I, unlike you, admit that my perspective must at least have some element of assumption or faith in it. I offer the courtesy of not dismissing your view simply because it is, too, a word game. Rather, I seek to understand whether you are playing your game according to the rules you have established. If you are not, you lose at your own game. As best I can see, secularism has a losing record, and so I am a Christian, and a rational one at that.