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

[Easyrider]

The ball is in cnorman's court (and all the other Supernaturalists) to answer WHY we should assume the existence of something undetectable.

You and Goat and Zzyzx, etc., are in a catch 22. Your pride won't let you get down on your knees and confess your sins and ask the Lord Jesus to come into your life and be your Savior, so you stay in the dark and don't experience him. Many of the rest of us have experienced ("detected") him. You keep hearing but never believing.

[Thought Criminal]

Tell me, can you show that 'truth' is objective? I would like to see objective evidence that 'truth' is objective.

Goat, this is not the time or place to fool around.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

You and Goat and Zzyzx, etc., are in a catch 22. Your pride won't let you get down on your knees and confess your sins and ask the Lord Jesus to come into your life and be your Savior, so you stay in the dark and don't experience him. Many of the rest of us have experienced ("detected") him. You keep hearing but never believing.

Hi. Are you claiming there's some rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God? You seem to be implying that your experience suffices, but how can we determine whether the source of your experience is God or simple hallucination? Keep in mind that we already know hallucinations exist, so they're a more parsimonious explanation than any infinite being could be.

TC

P.S.
I don't have any sins and I"m not into the kinky down-on-your-knees stuff.

[Beastt]

You and Goat and Zzyzx, etc., are in a catch 22. Your pride won't let you get down on your knees and confess your sins and ask the Lord Jesus to come into your life and be your Savior, so you stay in the dark and don't experience him. Many of the rest of us have experienced ("detected") him. You keep hearing but never believing.

This has nothing to do with pride. It has to do with logic, reason and evidence. You proclaim that you've "experienced" God and suggest that we should all try to do the same. The Muslim claims to have "experienced" Allah and suggests we all try to do the same. The Faithist claims to have "experienced" 'The Creator" and believes all who do not do the same are missing the point. Do you not recognize that most theists tend to call on the same subjective claims and each applies those claims to whatever they already believed?

This is why objectivity has lead to true discovery while subjectivity has lead to nothing but continual fighting and disagreement concerning various gods, none of which provide any objective evidence nor comply with reason or logic. Want to test your logic? Try the little 5-question test I posted (Post #73). So far the only one willing to answer the five simple questions did so because he knew that his theistic beliefs wouldn't force him to present illogical answers to maintain his theistic position.

[Zzyzx]

.

The ball is in cnorman's court (and all the other Supernaturalists) to answer WHY we should assume the existence of something undetectable.

You and Goat and Zzyzx, etc., are in a catch 22. Your pride won't let you get down on your knees and confess your sins and ask the Lord Jesus to come into your life and be your Savior, so you stay in the dark and don't experience him. Many of the rest of us have experienced ("detected") him. You keep hearing but never believing.

Hi Pete,

Nice of you to drop by and preach a while.

Some of us are not foolish enough to kneel, worship and confess to an invisible, undetectable being that others claim exists, but that we consider imaginary.

Similar claims are made for thousands of competing gods in addition to the Christian favorites. Thanks anyway, but I'll pass on the "opportunity". Go ahead and kneel, worship and confess to your heart's content.

[daedalus 2.0]

The ball is in cnorman's court (and all the other Supernaturalists) to answer WHY we should assume the existence of something undetectable.

You and Goat and Zzyzx, etc., are in a catch 22. Your pride won't let you get down on your knees and confess your sins and ask the Lord Jesus to come into your life and be your Savior, so you stay in the dark and don't experience him. Many of the rest of us have experienced ("detected") him. You keep hearing but never believing.

And here is the typical Xian response: "Believe what I do or burn in Hell."

Is that the best you have to offer? I guess so. You and Andrea Yates.

[Cathar1950]

The ball is in cnorman's court (and all the other Supernaturalists) to answer WHY we should assume the existence of something undetectable.

You and Goat and Zzyzx, etc., are in a catch 22. Your pride won't let you get down on your knees and confess your sins and ask the Lord Jesus to come into your life and be your Savior, so you stay in the dark and don't experience him. Many of the rest of us have experienced ("detected") him. You keep hearing but never believing.

A normal healthy person should be skeptical of those finite personals that claim the have experienced the infinite and even more skeptical when they equate it with their limited ideas of Jesus.
The only one here that is displaying an over active pride are those that claim to bow down to such a God as if somehow that is what God wants or desires from everyone. You keep preaching but never Say anything.

[Goat]

Tell me, can you show that 'truth' is objective? I would like to see objective evidence that 'truth' is objective.

Goat, this is not the time or place to fool around.

TC

Who is fooling around. I want to know what definition of 'truth' you use that makes it 'objective'. The word 'truth' seems to have many definitions. Is a 'fact' a 'truth'? Is truth a 'moral pronouncement'? I have seen it declared that 'abortion is murder' is a 'truth'.

[Beastt]

Tell me, can you show that 'truth' is objective? I would like to see objective evidence that 'truth' is objective.

Goat, this is not the time or place to fool around.

TC

Who is fooling around. I want to know what definition of 'truth' you use that makes it 'objective'. The word 'truth' seems to have many definitions. Is a 'fact' a 'truth'? Is truth a 'moral pronouncement'? I have seen it declared that 'abortion is murder' is a 'truth'.

Sometimes this is easier to answer than others. I still assert that demonstrability should be utilized to establish what is truth and what is knowledge. As far as the abortion issue goes, it comes down to the definition of "murder" which is an illegal killing. So if an abortion is performed where such a practice is legal, it's not murder.

[cnorman18]

Atheists assume that there is nothing more to reality than that which is material, concrete, and/or objectively provable and verifiable; that nothing else exists, and any claims referring to anything outside of that concrete reality are meaningless and/or nonsensical.

It should be noted that there is no credible evidence consistent with any assertions that anything exists outside of what is objectively provable and verifiable. So this is much more than an assumption. It is evidence-based.

Wrong. The assumption, and it is clearly stated here, is that only objective evidence applies. You are here stating, just as I said, that the existence of a non-material and non-objective aspect of reality can and must be proven only by reference to a conception of reality wherein that is impossible. Begging the question, Q.E.D.

Were there vast unanswered questions (as existed in biblical days), atheism would be an assumption. Today atheism is the objective conclusion.

It is an a priori assumption, proven by the fact that you demand objective proof of the nonobjective, which is impossible. Again, begging the question; assuming the answer in advance.

Theists assume that there is more to reality than that; that there are dimensions and modes of existence that are not confined to the material realm, and that are not, or at least not necessarily, objectively provable or, often, even expressible in concrete, material, verifiable terms.

But theists can present no argument consistent with the existence of anything beyond the objectively provable and verifiable.

In terms of the objectively provable and verifiable, of course not. That is a blatant contradiction in terms, which I what I said. Such proof is impossible.

Nearly all of the things once attributed to spirituality, gods and the supernatural have now been fully explained and demonstrated via naturalistic means. If any god existed and cared whether or not we believe, why cover all of the evidence of his existence and provide us with nothing but dozens and dozens of man-made books, all claiming different gods from which to choose?

Different question. I am not here arguing for the truth or accuracy of any particular religion, even my own. I am arguing for the possibility of a nonmaterial, nonconcrete aspect of reality that is subjective in nature. As for the "God of the gaps" argument, see below.

"Prove to me that there is a nonmaterial realm, but you must do so by referring only to the material."

Were there anything else to refer to, I'd be happy to oblige.

The assumption is evident once again; there is nothing else to refer to. .

But no matter how often I ask, all I get are claims of subjective feelings and subjectively interpreted experiences.

Are subjective feelings and thoughts not "real"? We will examine that in a moment.

Were I to assume that these offered any real evidence of anything, I'd be equally compelled to accept all god assertions and all assertions concerning the supernatural because the same things are offered as evidence regardless of what the person claiming them as evidence, believes.

That doesn't follow. Even in the objective world, when contradictory testimony is offered--say, in a criminal trial--one is under no obligation to accept all the possible conclusions. Subjective judgment--such as the determination of a witness's credibility through one's intuitive sense of his truthfulness, often dependent on nothing more substantial than his demeanor on the stand--may come into play. In any case, the option of deciding both ways is not available. It isn't compelled anywhere.

Those who believe Allah exists and the Christian God doesn't, provide exactly the same proclaimed evidence as those who believe the Christian God exists and Allah does not.

Again, the correctness of any particular belief is not under discussion, but the possibility of any nonmaterial aspect of reality existing in any sense at all.

I have been asked for proof that there can be a nonmaterial and nonconcrete aspect to reality, a subjective reality than can be shown to exist in its own right. I think I can do so, but one must accept, first, that such a thing as "subjectivity" exists at all.

Let's examine the general proposition that nothing outside the objective and concrete realm exists.

If we take the term "exists" to refer only to that realm, of course, nothing can, by definition. But is there such a thing as subjective reality? And, which is more to the point, has it any importance?

I submit that there is and it does. In no particular order, here are three examples:

First, human thought itself is undeniably subjective. It exists only inside the mind of the individual until it is written down or spoken. Is it real?

To the thinker, obviously; to anyone else, by the standards presented here, it is not. It cannot be directly proven to exist except on the word of the thinker, and is otherwise unprovable and unverifiable. As an objective part of concrete reality, there is plainly no such thing.

One may think of, to choose a convenient example, a pink unicorn. It is clear that there is no such creature in concrete reality. But is the thought real? Of course it is, or one could not hold it in one's mind. An unexpressed thought inarguably exists, but does not exist in the real world. That thought, therefore--the thought itself, not the object of it--exists in a different order of "reality" and "existence" than the concrete. Its reality is subjective, not objective.

Further, such subjective thoughts can, also inarguably, have real effects in the real, concrete world. Thoughts can become reality. Concrete reality can also inspire subjective thoughts, which in turn can be reflected back into reality and alter it. Even dreams, which are about as subjective, nonconcrete and unverifiable as it gets, can and do have concrete effects and become real, and can be inspired or caused by real events.

There is no bright line between the subjective and the objective, no essential barrier between the two that cannot be crossed, though they are obviously separate.

Second, and more facilely, emotion, specifically, love. Does love actually exist? Say one loves a woman who does not love one in return. That emotion is clearly subjective and not objective; it is "real' only to the one who loves. It is unprovable and unverifiable; again, we have only the lover's word for what he feels. It may not even be clearly definable or explainable without self-contradiction and illogical vagueness: "I love her, I hate her, she's my life, I wish I'd never met her, I must see her again, I have to forget her."

What is "real" here? Again, by the standards presented here--provability, verifiablility and a strictly concrete definiton--that emotion cannot objectively exist. And yet, I am here to tell you, subjectively, it most certainly can, and may even be the most important and compelling fact in that lover's subjective reality.

I have heard it proposed that what we call "love" is nothing more than a biochemical reaction, which has evolved through the biological imperative to perpetuate the species. Very well; but does that not deny the subjective reality of the feeling? Do the hunger, the ache, and the ecstasy not really exist? In objective reality, they don't; they are not provable, verifiable, or directly knowable to anyone other than the lover. Subjectively, though, they clearly do exist, as anyone who has felt them can attest.

Are those feelings not real, not important, of no account and to be discounted and ignored? If that is one's position, and one is married, intellectual honesty should compel one to immediately inform one's spouse that one does not truly love him or her, that there is objectively no such thing, and that any such perceived feeling is no more than an illusion. Would that not be the rational thing to do?

Do you believe in the reality of the subjective, or not?

Claiming that the subjective does not truly exist and is of no importance, to my way of thinking, is tantamount to denying one's humanity and the very existence of oneself as anything more than an automaton, a sort of advanced animal that does not truly think or feel anything, but only thinks that it does. Denying that there is an inner, subjective reality, that exists on a different plane than the outer world, is like denying the existence of a forest while one is sitting in one of its trees.

Which brings us to the religious impulse. It has been said that the very existence of such an impulse implies that it has an object. If there were no such thing as food, there could be no such thing as hunger. As C. S. Lewis once memorably put it, "Fish do not complain about being wet." If this world were all there is, and we have evolved to survive in it, how is it that the need to believe in something more has been so universal through the ages? That argument by itself is not a particularly strong one, but it's worth taking into account together with what follows.

I reject the idea that the impulse toward God comes only from unanswered questions; I, most Jews, and most liberal Christians do not expect to find the answers to to the remaining mysteries about the material world in the pages of Scripture or by appealing to the concept of a supernatural God. For those, we look to science. The "God of the gaps" is no God I know or believe in.

In my own theology, which I understand to be well within the spectrum of Jewish thought, God does not exist as an aspect of concrete reality. Straight out. There it is.

But that is not to say that He does not exist at all. God is as real and existent as human thought and emotion, and in that same sense. Not objective, but subjective; not externally provable or verifiable, but existent nevertheless, on another plane--within the subjective mind.

Is God merely a human construct, then, a total fiction without meaning, or is He an aspect of subjective reality that can nevertheless be indirectly reflected in the real, concrete world?

Why not both?

An example I have used before; is mathematics a human construct, or is it an aspect of reality? Clearly, it is both; it is a human construct in that we have to figure out its laws and write them down, else they do not exist; and it is an aspect of reality, in that we cannot arbitrarily change them. A paradox, most certainly, but only because we have no language that adequately expresses its essential nature. The reality of it is clear to anyone who has studied it.

And so with God. Just as mathematics may be viewed as the concrete expression of that aspect of reality that we call number (as well as shape and form and more), it has been said that God is Mind itself; that He is the reason that anything makes sense at all, the Rationality behind all natural law and thought and the stability of reality itself.

Creator? Not exactly. More like the foundation and structure of Creation. (This is why I have always hesitated to classify God as "supernatural". "Super-natural," as in more natural than Nature itself, would be closer to the mark.) But, like mathematics, He exists not in the fabric of matter and energy that we call "objective reality," but within its structure and far beyond it; and He is most particularly and accessibly present in the subjective thoughts and perceptions of individual human minds,

I have said often that the only voice God has is our own; that we are His hands and ears and eyes, and that if God is to do anything in this world, it is we who have to do it. This is why.

I agree; the statement "God exists" is problematic. But not only in the indefinable nature and "otherness" of God. What, precisely, do we mean by "exists"?

You do not believe in a God who "exists" as a separate, supernatural entity Who intervenes in the real world through miracles and wonders? Neither do I. Such a God is easy to define, but that very ease of definition proves its falsity. The simpler the definition, the more false it is.

As I have said from the beginning, my belief in God is not objective, that God exists as an objective, concrete Being or Thing in the world of matter and energy. I will go farther here and say that any such belief is a false one, and in that sense I could be called an atheist myself.

The reality of God is subjective only, though still real in that sense, like thought and love; and, like thought and love, essentially indefinable and not quite the same for any two people who experience Him or encounter the God-concept in their own, subjective, minds.

I have no doubt that all this will be picked apart and dismissed as so much theistic doubletalk, nothing more than an effort to avoid a concrete definition of God and a way to duck the (simplistic and shallow) questions that have been asked.

I'm okay with that. There will be some, I hope, who will see this for what it is; a real, good-faith effort to explain the structure of a real, if subjective and unconventional, belief.