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

[jgh7]

Thank you for refuting all of my arguments. If you would be so kind, Id like to ask a few more questions to clarify things.

Ask as many as you like. Frankly, I think the answers already offered by others are pretty good, but since you did address me directly, I'll briefly share my own answers.

1) In your first paragraph, you say that the Big Bang is the first moment, and that all of space was in a single location from which it expanded at the first moment. My question is: Why was there even space there to begin with, what caused it to be there?

For X to cause A, X must come before A. But if A is the first moment, then it's not even meaningful to ask what caused it; it couldn't have been caused.

But you already know this, since your idea is to make God the uncaused cause. This doesn't work though. Consider the two basic opions:
a) There is a first cause and it's the BB.
b) There is a first cause and it's God, and we also have the BB.

The second idea requires us to believe in more things, but it makes no further predictions and offers no further explanations. In other words, it costs more but buys us the same thing. There's strong evidence for the BB but absolutely none for God.

One of the basic principles of scientific epistemology is parsimony, which says we should believe no more than we absolutely must. Therefore, we'd stick with (a) and dump (b) because it's more than the evidence allows.

No offense, but I think this whole argument of stick with what's the simplest explanation is very silly. I bet if scientists stuck by that rule for all of there research, we would have much less knowledge than we do today. As far as I see it, we don't know if the BB was caused or uncaused. You just like to assume that it's uncaused and you ridicule people for having the idea that there might be something before it.

2) You start your second paragraph off by assuming that it's possible that space wasn't the beginning, but that there was something before it that could have caused it to come into existence. It looks like your contradicting your first paragraph. In any case, you say that whatever this power might be, it need not have the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I'm afraid humans honestly have no way of knowing what sort of power or intelligence is required to create the universe. You closing remarks are correct however. I was arguing for the logical possiblity of God. That's all that there is: possibilities. I said this was a mystery, and that there are multiple possibilities. You obviously have chosen the possibility of there being no God, while I have chosen otherwise. What exactly was your argument for why my possibility is irrational while yours is rational?

Above, and in my previous message's second paragraph, I entertained the unsuported idea of the BB somehow (don't ask how) being caused, purely to show you that this doesn't help your case. If I had endorsed an uncaused universe and then endorsed a caused one, as opposed to merely entertaining the notion to prove a point, then there would have been a self-contradiction. Be very careful not to make false accusations.

A strong atheist would deny even the logical possibility of a God, but that's not required for atheism in general. For example, while I'm actually a strong atheist with regard to all forms of God defined in a way that is meaningless, incoherent or generally logically impossible, I'm a weak atheist with regard to all other gods.

In other words, I can shrug off the mere possibility and remind you that, while many things are possible, few are actual. So if you want to say that some sort of God is at least logically possible, I'll generously grant you that. But if you want to claim any God exists, you'll have to show compelling evidence, not just wave our hand around and insist that you just want to believe.

What would be irrational is believing that God exists when there is no reason to, as rationality does not allow arbitrary belief. Even if two things are possible, we can only believe what the evidence shows to be most likely, and that means applying parsimony.

There was a time when most evidence showed the world to be flat. Would you have been ridiculing people who would have suggested otherwise? But you are correct in that I only want to say that there is a logical possibility that God exists. If you already acknowledge that and acknowledge that people are entitled to look into this possibility, then I have nothing left to debate with you.

3) In your last paragraph, you state that I'm being dishonest by attempting to use a God of Gaps argument. Believe me, I have no intention of being dishonest, I'm trying to be as honest as I can in my arguments. If this really is a complete mystery, than all anyone can do is fill in the gap with something. You're entitled to fill in the gap with your hypothesis of a natural cause where the universe always existed. I find your hypothesis to have to many unanswered questions. But at the same time mine also has unanswered questions. As of now it just seems to be personal preference as to which hypothesis one wants to explore. But I think you're the one who is ultimately dishonest and deceptive when you try to discourage people from trying to find God.

Yes, desperately dishonest because if there is actually a gap, that means we can't fill it with anything right now. Saying God did it doesn't tell us anything more, so it's unparsimonious. It's effectively a misleading placeholder until the day we find a real explanation.

It is far more honest to admit to current ignorance so that perhaps we can one day overcome it. Of course, it doesn't help that, historically, these gaps wind up actually filled by science, and God is kicked out, only to be brought out again to pretend to fill another gap.

It is never merely a matter of personal preference. If we don't know, we can only say we don't know, not that God did it. Your deep error is in wanting to jump from "Well, we haven't completely ruled out every possible form of God" to "Therefore, I'm going to believe in God despite it not being ruled in by any sort of evidence." This is, to be frank, intellectualy dishonest and reprehensible, and I will continue to discourage such errors.

Feel free to try to find God, but don't ever pretend you already have.

TC

This whole debate with you has been rather odd. You seem to be making a straw man of my arguments. I've never once said that I knew God was the right way and that anyone who doesn't fill the intellectual gap with Him is incorrect. Have I not been saying throughout my entire arguments that one is entitled to believe in God just as one is entitled to believe in a natural cause? Did you not admit in this post of yours that God was a logical possibility? If I knew God was the answer, then I would be giving you arguments for why He was the answer. Instead, I think he's a possibility and I give arguments for why He's a possibility. Also, if we don't know something, then perhaps we need to admit that we don't know. I admit that I don't know. But we also are allowed to make guesses and explore our guesses. My guess is God, and I hope we can now agree that I'm rationally justified in believing in God and researching my belief.

[Beastt]

Before making any other comments let me thank you for having the personal fortitude to stand up as a minority and speak out. I disagree with your stance but I agree with your loyalty. Hopefully, in the course of discussion/debate, you will come to realize that the stronger and better points fall to non-theism.

No offense, but I think this whole argument of stick with what's the simplest explanation is very silly.

The principle of Occam's Razor wasn't chosen arbitrarily or without reason. It was observed to be a practice which leads to correct conclusions far more often than not. We could always suggest that there is some supernatural force implicated in anything science fully explains without references to the supernatural but stacking additional, unnecessary and unevidenced complexity atop that which is fully explained without it, is not only a violation of Occam's Razor but has also lead to a long, long list of false beliefs throughout human history. You likely know these beliefs as "superstitions", among which, one of the most prominent is theism.

I bet if scientists stuck by that rule for all of there research, we would have much less knowledge than we do today.

That would be a bet you'd lose. As already stated; the principle behind Occam's Razor is employed not arbitrarily or out of personal preference. It is applied because it demonstrates over and over that it works. Whenever you have two possible conclusions concerning any topic, and each seem to present an equally plausible explanation, the one which doesn't stack additional complexity above and beyond the needs of the explanation is by far, the one most likely to be found correct upon testing.

As far as I see it, we don't know if the BB was caused or uncaused. You just like to assume that it's uncaused and you ridicule people for having the idea that there might be something before it.

It should be noted that among all of the mysteries of nature which were once attributed to the supernatural, not a single one has ever been confirmed to be other than purely natural. So it's far more than an assumption that the Big Bang was not caused by any sentient force. It's purely consistent with the evidence and therefore, the more rational conclusion.

If you have evidence about the Big Bang suggesting that there is cause for a sentient act then please present it. In fact, if you have any credible evidence of any supernatural force, I would ask that you present it for discussion.

[Goat]

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?

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.�

- Matthew 2:16

Herod died in 4 BC, therefore, according to Matthew, Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC. Herod couldn't have given this order if he was dead, so if Matthew is correct, Jesus was born before 4 BC.

“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be gathered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.�

- Luke 2:1-4

The event Luke is describing took place in 6 AD, its well documented that this is when Rome took over this area and installed Quirinius as governor. So, if Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem when Quirinius was governing Syria (which included Judaea), then it had to have taken place after 6 AD.

Matthew, according to historical events, says that Jesus was born on, or before 4 BC.

Luke, according to historical events, says that Jesus was born on, or after 6 AD.

At very least, a 10 year difference.

I have many reasons for my disbelief, this is just one of the Bible's contradictions...

<CHANNEL A FUNDY MODE ON>
Well you see, here was a previous census then Quiirninus was governor the first time.We just don't have any proof, but we found a stone that talked about someone being a governor early, and it might have been Quirninus because the name was not to be found.

[Thought Criminal]

As far as our earlier conversation is concerned, by the way, I think we're at an impasse. I may reply to it in part later, but in general, I don't agree with your definition of "irrational," and you don't agree with mine or give credence to any of my ideas, so I don't see that we have much to talk about.

That's okay; I have never expected everyone to agree with me, and as I've said elsewhere, I don't think theological beliefs are of any great importance anyway. I respect your position and you personally, and that's all to the good. Maybe we can have a conversation sometime where we can find some common ground. If not, I'm sure it'll still be interesting.

Peace to you. The rationality issue aside, I'd be interested in your reaction to the thread I mentioned earlier on the Chat forum. Maybe you can give it a squint sometime.

Sorry, which thread do you mean?

As for rationality, I don't see how you can argue that it gives us a free pass to believe whatever we like. The best I can do is suggest that you really think through what it would mean if it were acceptable to believe anything that hasn't been completely and totally ruled out. This is a huge list of mutually contradictory ideas, varying from harmless and loony to scary and nuts.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

No offense, but I think this whole argument of stick with what's the simplest explanation is very silly. I bet if scientists stuck by that rule for all of there research, we would have much less knowledge than we do today. As far as I see it, we don't know if the BB was caused or uncaused. You just like to assume that it's uncaused and you ridicule people for having the idea that there might be something before it.

The simplest explanation is the most likely one, and since we want to believe what's true, we're obligated to believe what's most likely. This doesn't stop us from looking for more evidence, but it does stop us from believing anything that the evidence can't support. This is precisely the rule that scientists follow, and it's extremely successful. When it's not followed, you get alchemy and astrology instead of chemistry and astronomy.

As for the BB, I didn't assume it was uncaused, I explained why it can't be caused, and then explained why it's more parsimonious to have an uncaused BB than an uncaused God.

There was a time when most evidence showed the world to be flat. Would you have been ridiculing people who would have suggested otherwise? But you are correct in that I only want to say that there is a logical possibility that God exists. If you already acknowledge that and acknowledge that people are entitled to look into this possibility, then I have nothing left to debate with you.

The possibility of future evidence means the possibility of changing my beliefs in the future. But until the evidence is presented, my beliefs must remain the same. You can look into any possibility you like, but you must withhold belief until and unless it is justified.

As for God, I don't think the one you're looking for is even logically possible, and if it is, it's only barely so. At best, it's wildly implausible.

This whole debate with you has been rather odd. You seem to be making a straw man of my arguments. I've never once said that I knew God was the right way and that anyone who doesn't fill the intellectual gap with Him is incorrect. Have I not been saying throughout my entire arguments that one is entitled to believe in God just as one is entitled to believe in a natural cause? Did you not admit in this post of yours that God was a logical possibility? If I knew God was the answer, then I would be giving you arguments for why He was the answer. Instead, I think he's a possibility and I give arguments for why He's a possibility. Also, if we don't know something, then perhaps we need to admit that we don't know. I admit that I don't know. But we also are allowed to make guesses and explore our guesses. My guess is God, and I hope we can now agree that I'm rationally justified in believing in God and researching my belief.

You can guess God and search all you like, but no, it would not be rational to believe in God now. It might never be rational, because you might never find any evidence. With rationality, evidence comes first, then belief.

TC

[Jester]

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

The term “spiritual position� refers to atheism as well as animism. I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism.

Regarding ethical position, I would say that it is arbitrary to claim that God cannot match your standards. On that topic, I’d want to know what our standard of comparison is, as well as the justification of that position.

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?

Yes. There are perfectly rational reasons – regardless of the fact that there is a great lack of knowledge surrounding this topic. A theistic position cannot simply and automatically be assumed to be less rational than an atheistic position when such reasons exist and have been put forth many times on this forum. This assumption seems every bit as much an argument from ignorance favoring atheism as I am apparently accused of making in favor of Christianity. Though, of course, I am inclined to add that I neither outlined more than a small fraction of my reasons for belief nor expect that you have offered many of your reasons for belief in your own spiritual position. I’ll begin to add a few, but a comprehensive overview of either of our philosophies would be far too much for a single thread. Simply put, I think it’s far to early to draw such sweeping conclusions about one another.

For a start, why don’t I suggest that there is historical evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. That’s a big enough subject for a dozen or more threads.

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.

That is true. Consistency is not the bottom line when it comes to ethics. I never implied that it was. What I did imply, however, is that inconsistencies are opposed to rationality. The support for the assertion that a religious perspective would tend to be more consistent than a non-religious perspective with regard to ethics is the simple fact that secular ethics are arbitrary. They are completely irrational, having no logical claim to truth whatsoever and, therefore, fall into direct contradiction with any belief that atheism is held as truth based on an adherence to logic or rationality.

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.

Well, if you’re not interested, your not. I do feel that you’re missing out on at least some understanding of other types, but it’s your opinion, rather than mine, that matters in this case.

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.

I agree that faith is not limited to any one belief, moreover I do not claim to have composed any air-tight rational proof of Christianity. I do, however, believe that there are rational reasons to believe in it, the fact that such reasons leave some unconvinced is not, nor has ever been, a factor to be considered.

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.

Faith is common to all of us, it is merely a matter of what we chose to have faith in. I’d imagine that you have faith in logic, as well as several other things. I would add as well that there is no contradiction between having faith and being a rational person, so long as that faith is in something rational.

Carl Jung put it this way (please excuse the length of this one):
...

This is as irrelevant as it is wrong.

Then I will assert that you have misunderstood it. First, I don’t feel that a simple assertion on your part should be taken as a rational refutation of Jung’s lengthy and careful discussion. Certainly, it seems arrogant to dismiss such a noteworthy scholar out of hand.

That merely addresses the accusation of it’s being wrong, however. As to the matter of its being irrelevant, I will counter that it comments directly on the issue. You seem to be contrasting faith and rationality, whereas Jung is arguing here that faith is not contradictory to a rational position. In fact, he argues elsewhere that it is not only irrational, but neurotic to believe that one can simply ignore one’s impulses to faith.

Finally, I am curious as to what your actual spiritual position happens to be. In my opinion, you support agnosticism well, but have thus far struck me as an atheist. If the latter is the case, I would expect justification for active disbelief in God. The claim that there is no evidence for God is only true based on very particular (I would say stinted) interpretations of the evidence. Without adequate justification of such interpretations, this is simply a matter of argumentum ad ignoratium.

[Thought Criminal]

The term “spiritual position� refers to atheism as well as animism. I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism.

You can "maintain" it until the cows come home, but an assertion is not an argument. If you wish to claim that theism is rational, you're going to have to back that claim up right now.

Regarding ethical position, I would say that it is arbitrary to claim that God cannot match your standards. On that topic, I’d want to know what our standard of comparison is, as well as the justification of that position.

If you want to try to make some sort of argument based on morality as your proof of God, go for it. Otherwise, this is irrelevant and off-topic.

Yes. There are perfectly rational reasons – regardless of the fact that there is a great lack of knowledge surrounding this topic, that does not make a theistic position automatically less rational than an atheistic position. This assumption seems every bit as much an argument from atheism as I am apparently accused of making. Though, of course, I am inclined to add that I neither outlined more than a fraction of my reasons for belief nor expect that you have offered all your reasons for belief in your own spiritual position. I’ll begin to add a few, but a comprehensive overview of either of our philosophies would be far too much for a single thread. Simply put, I think it’s far to early to draw such sweeping conclusions about one another.

You have thus far offered nothing that has withstood even casual scrutiny. I don't need to offer anything to justify my atheism, other than the simple reminder that you have the burden of proof here.

For a start, why don’t I suggest that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament. That’s a big enough subject for a dozen or more threads.

You can suggest it, but it's entirely unpersuasive. Why should we care what some old book says? What could it possibly have in that could prove the existence of God? Good luck answering that.

That is true. Consistency is not the bottom line when it comes to ethics. I never implied that it was. What I did imply, however, is that inconsistencies are opposed to rationality. The support for the assertion that a religious perspective would tend to be more consistent than a non-religious perspective with regard to ethics is the simple fact that secular ethics are arbitrary. They are completely irrational, having no logical claim to truth whatsoever and, therefore, fall into direct contradiction with any believe that atheism is held as truth based on an adherence to logic or rationality.

If you're going to try for presuppositionalism, you should just leave right now. This topic is about whether the belief is justified on a rational basis, while presuppositionalism is just a little trick to avoid ever providing any such thing.

Well, if you’re not interested, your not. I do feel that you’re missing out on at least some understanding of other types, but it’s your opinion, rather than mine, that matters in this case.

It's not my opinion, it's the topic. Faith, by definition, is not a rational basis, so it's irrelevant.

I agree that faith is not limited to any one belief, moreover I do not claim to have composed any air-tight rational proof of Christianity. I do, however, believe that there are rational reasons to believe in it, the fact that such reasons leave some unconvinced is, and has never been, a factor to be considered.

The fact that they're unconvincing means they're not sufficient for justification on a rational basis.

Faith is common to all of us, it is merely a matter of what we chose to have faith in. I’d imagine that you have faith in logic, as well as several other things. I would add as well that there is no contradiction between having faith and being a rational person, so long as that faith is in something rational.

This is a false argument based on misdefinition. In a lay context, faith can mean belief of any sort, and by this broad definition, everyone has faith since we all believe stuff. However, that is not the definition used in a philosophical context, in which it is defined explicitly as irrational belief. The whole point of this topic is to determine whether fideism or its equivalent is the only route remaining to would-be theists.

Then I will assert that you have misunderstood it. First, I don’t feel that a simple assertion on your part should be taken as a rational refutation of Jung’s lengthy and careful discussion. Certainly, it seems arrogant to dismiss such a noteworthy scholar out of hand.

Watch me. Jung's religious beliefs are about as relevant as my plumber's. For the record, he's Catholic.

That merely addresses the accusation of it’s being wrong, however. As to the matter of its being irrelevant, I will counter that it comments directly on the issue. You seem to be contrasting faith and rationality, whereas Jung is arguing here that faith is not contradictory to a rational position. In fact, he argues elsewhere that it is not only irrational, but neurotic to believe that one can simply ignore one’s impulses to faith.

I have no impulse to faith, and I'm not the least bit interested in Jung's unsupported beliefs about mental health. Like Freud, he was important in the formation of psychiatry, but his actual ideas are garbage.

Finally, I am curious as to what your actual spiritual position happens to be. In my opinion, you support agnosticism well, but have thus far struck me as an atheist. If the latter is the case, I would expect justification for active disbelief in God. The claim that there is no evidence for God is only true based on very particular (I would say stinted) interpretations of the evidence. Without adequate justification of such interpretations, this is simply a matter of argumentum ad ignoratium.

My position is no secret, but it is also not relevant. And if you're going to toss out Latin at random, I'll see your misapplied "argumentum ad ignoratium" and raise it with "onus probandi". Go shoulder your burden.

TC

[Beastt]

The term “spiritual position� refers to atheism as well as animism. I offered the concession that Christianity is not absolutely proven, but maintain that it is no less rational a position than atheism.

"Not absolutely proven" is a pretty severe understatement. Consider that Christianity has been asserted for over 2,000 years and presents little more today as a key to its proclaimed veracity than it did 2,000 years ago. In fact, for any slight gains it might claim, there are tremendous losses, most of which are covered with a transparent layer of "it's not literal" or "translational error".

If Christianity can be said to be no less rational a position than atheism, then it would be equally accurate to say that belief in Leprechauns is no less rational than disbelief in Leprechauns. The fact of the matter is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of Leprechauns than there is for the existence of God. The same would hold true for other asserted, but unevidenced entities such as fairies, mermaids, gremlins, zombies and unicorns.

I once opened a thread on a much larger Christian-dominated board asking Christians what evidence they might present against the existence of Leprechauns that would not also apply to their supposed God. The results were even less than I might have expected. There were numerous attempts to dodge and Christians proclaiming that I was attempting to belittle their faith, but in the end the result was clear; Christians were unable to demonstrate that there is any more evidence to support the idea of their God than there is to support the idea of Leprechauns. Yet they believe in one and disbelieve in the other.

[cnorman18]

Sorry, which thread do you mean?

This one:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

As for rationality, I don't see how you can argue that it gives us a free pass to believe whatever we like. The best I can do is suggest that you really think through what it would mean if it were acceptable to believe anything that hasn't been completely and totally ruled out. This is a huge list of mutually contradictory ideas, varying from harmless and loony to scary and nuts.

TC

Thanks for the advice. If I ever decide to abandon my intellect entirely and believe something scary or nuts, I'll keep it in mind.

[Thought Criminal]

This one:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

Thank you. Rarely do I get to see so many epistemological errors in one place. It turns out that, since truth is objective, none of what you wrote there is correct.

This is a huge list of mutually contradictory ideas, varying from harmless and loony to scary and nuts.

Thanks for the advice. If I ever decide to abandon my intellect entirely and believe something scary or nuts, I'll keep it in mind.

Well, you've already abandonded it to believe in something harmless and loony. You call it "God".

TC