Is Theism more RATIONAL than Non-Theism?

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:38 am

.
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?

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:55 am

Zzyzx

Unless and until theism can be demonstrated with reason backed by evidence it is not the most rational position. Given the current state of human knowledge, non-theism is the "superior" position.

Grumpy

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:45 am

I would say, once again, that the answers to these questions depends on what specific varieties or approaches of "theism" and "non-theism" we're talking about, and how one got there. "General theism" does not, as a practical matter, exist; and if there is such a thing as "general non-theism," it would seem to me to consist of never having thought about God or gods at all. Whatever else that may be, it can hardly be called "rational."

From my experience on this forum and elsewhere, it appears to me that a "non-theist" may be every bit as mindless, doctrinaire, and irrational as any "theist." It seems clear that that mindset is less common among "non-theists" than it is among certain varieties, at least, of "theists"; still, it inarguably exists, and the extremes on both sides make the questions impossible to answer in a general sense.

If the questions are intended to demonstrate that an intellectually-based, deeply thought out and honestly reached non-theism is more rational and "better" than a mindless, doctrinaire and intransigent form of rigidly fundamentalist/literalist "theism" -- well, that's so far beyond argument that it approaches fatuity; but, though both are much rarer in the wild, it's equally obvious that an intellectually-based, deeply thought out and honestly reached theism is more rational and "better" than a mindless, doctrinaire and intransigent form of rigidly objectivist/materialist non-theism. Like it or not, both exist and are visible here on this board.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:49 pm

.

cnorman18 wrote:I would say, once again, that the answers to these questions depends on what specific varieties or approaches of "theism" and "non-theism" we're talking about, and how one got there.

Perhaps I could have more clearly stated the issue as: Is the position "I believe in gods" more rational than the position "I do not believe in gods."?

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:53 pm

Zzyzx wrote:.
cnorman18 wrote:I would say, once again, that the answers to these questions depends on what specific varieties or approaches of "theism" and "non-theism" we're talking about, and how one got there.
Perhaps I could have more clearly stated the issue as: Is the position "I believe in gods" more rational than the position "I do not believe in gods."?

I still don't see how to answer that without the obvious followup questions, "What kind of gods do you believe in?" on the one side, and "Why do you believe/not believe in gods?" on both.

If we're going to be asked to make judgments about how "rational" a position is, it's reasonable to ask what rational processes, if any, got us there.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:00 pm

The only fair way to judge them is as individually held or specifically by some group or other as to the substance of both beliefs and the formation and development of such theists and non-theists beliefs.

On one hand some theist claim their position is above reason which makes it largely unfounded unless it is somehow rooted in the rational which is denied by the theist making any claims to being rational fidalistic and not open to comparison.

If we were going to fall for dichotomies with false options and unsupported claim of superiority for the theist hen the non-theists would be the less rational.

Kuan · Post by **Kuan** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:38 pm

I voted other because they both have equal merits and one is not greater than the other. Sometimes theism is justified and makes rational sense and then times it doesn't at all. Non-Theism is similar. Personally, I view someones argument that theism is more rational than non-theism as an attempt to discredit someones beliefs and a weak argument that really has no purpose in a debate. It makes him/her look like he/she is trying to be superior to help his arguments.

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:42 pm

Zzyzx

I wrote:

Unless and until theism can be demonstrated with reason backed by evidence it is not the most rational position. Given the current state of human knowledge, non-theism is the "superior" position.

To explain and expand I would say that I take the same position about Big Foot, UFOs, Alien Abduction, Magical 100MPG carburetors, Magnetic healing bracelets...

Unless and until ANYTHING can be explained by reason backed by evidence, not accepting it's existence is the most rational stance, I truly don't know how any other stance can be valid. Even math and logic, if used alone, may indicate something is possible, but without real world evidence they can never show that something is true. An example of the first(math)is string theory, an example of the second is Anselm or Gobel's Ontological "proofs".

Grumpy

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:12 pm

Grumpy wrote:Zzyzx

I wrote:
Unless and until theism can be demonstrated with reason backed by evidence it is not the most rational position. Given the current state of human knowledge, non-theism is the "superior" position.
To explain and expand I would say that I take the same position about Big Foot, UFOs, Alien Abduction, Magical 100MPG carburetors, Magnetic healing bracelets...

Unless and until ANYTHING can be explained by reason backed by evidence, not accepting it's existence is the most rational stance, I truly don't know how any other stance can be valid. Even math and logic, if used alone, may indicate something is possible, but without real world evidence they can never show that something is true. An example of the first(math)is string theory, an example of the second is Anselm or Gobel's Ontological "proofs".

Grumpy

Of course we could define theism as order and relationship and then anyone rational would believe in God and anything non-rational would be godless or something.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:20 pm

.

Grumpy wrote:
Unless and until theism can be demonstrated with reason backed by evidence it is not the most rational position. Given the current state of human knowledge, non-theism is the "superior" position.
To explain and expand I would say that I take the same position about Big Foot, UFOs, Alien Abduction, Magical 100MPG carburetors, Magnetic healing bracelets...

Unless and until ANYTHING can be explained by reason backed by evidence, not accepting it's existence is the most rational stance, I truly don't know how any other stance can be valid.

I expect that most people would agree with you -- and NOT accept stories, accounts, testimonials, opinions about Big Foot, Alien Abductions, etc without strong evidence that what is claimed is true -- EXCEPT when the topic is "gods" -- in which case the desire (or need) to believe (or achieve "salvation") overcomes the requirement for substantiation of claims.