"Belief in God is not rational." (Discuss)

[thedoc]

Perhaps it is best to preface my statement that what I know, is what I can see and touch. Therefore I know that my wife and family exist. What I believe is what I can learn from others, that I cannot (for whatever reason) learn for myself.

Interestingly enough (and assuming I understand philosophers correctly), those are actually beliefs. Those things you might refer to as "beliefs" are actually based on a "folk" definition. The philosophical definition of "belief" is anything you hold to be true (if I remember that right). I'm not saying I'm convinced on this, but it's (mayyyybe) worth mentioning. I went several rounds one time with a philosopher who insisted that I believed that my feet were resting on solid ground. I insisted I knew they were. Since that philosopher is someone I count as a friend, I know (believe?) he wasn't jerking me around, and he certainly knows his stuff. Still, I never quite assented to his way of putting it.

That brings up the concept that everything you "know" comes through your senses, and that knowledge is limited by your nervous system. If you accept that everything you "know" is secondhand because of this disconnect, then yes you can only believe anything. However I choose to accept what I perceive with my senses as real and avoid that philosophical conundrum. Simply put, what I know is that which I can see and feel, in spite of the disconnect due to my sensory system, that which I believe is what I learn from others who have seen or felt what they perceived.

There is a third category of that which others believe to be true but have no direct evidence. I would tend to believe this knowledge as long as there is sufficient evidence to support it and little viable evidence to contradict it. A good argument is viable evidence.

[thedoc]

Perhaps it is best to preface my statement that what I know, is what I can see and touch. Therefore I know that my wife and family exist. What I believe is what I can learn from others, that I cannot (for whatever reason) learn for myself.

Interestingly enough (and assuming I understand philosophers correctly), those are actually beliefs. Those things you might refer to as "beliefs" are actually based on a "folk" definition. The philosophical definition of "belief" is anything you hold to be true (if I remember that right). I'm not saying I'm convinced on this, but it's (mayyyybe) worth mentioning. I went several rounds one time with a philosopher who insisted that I believed that my feet were resting on solid ground. I insisted I knew they were. Since that philosopher is someone I count as a friend, I know (believe?) he wasn't jerking me around, and he certainly knows his stuff. Still, I never quite assented to his way of putting it.

That brings up the concept that everything you "know" comes through your senses, and that knowledge is limited by your nervous system. If you accept that everything you "know" is secondhand because of this disconnect, then yes you can only believe anything. However I choose to accept what I perceive with my senses as real and avoid that philosophical conundrum. Simply put, what I know is that which I can see and feel, in spite of the disconnect due to my sensory system, that which I believe is what I learn from others who have seen or felt what they perceived.

There is a third category of that which others believe to be true but have no direct evidence. I would tend to believe this knowledge as long as there is sufficient evidence to support it and little viable evidence to contradict it. A good argument is viable evidence.

In my Philosophy 101 class (the only one I had room for during my college education) we had a substitute professor who emphatically stated that he was subjective in his view of the world. (at that time subjectivists believed that only their mental experience was real, and everything else was illusion).

[ReliStuPhD]

That brings up the concept that everything you "know" comes through your senses, and that knowledge is limited by your nervous system. If you accept that everything you "know" is secondhand because of this disconnect, then yes you can only believe anything. However I choose to accept what I perceive with my senses as real and avoid that philosophical conundrum. Simply put, what I know is that which I can see and feel, in spite of the disconnect due to my sensory system, that which I believe is what I learn from others who have seen or felt what they perceived.

There is a third category of that which others believe to be true but have no direct evidence. I would tend to believe this knowledge as long as there is sufficient evidence to support it and little viable evidence to contradict it. A good argument is viable evidence.

I think we share a lot in common here.

As for your substitute professor, I can only chuckle. It took them a while to realize that subjectivism is self-refuting.

[thedoc]

That brings up the concept that everything you "know" comes through your senses, and that knowledge is limited by your nervous system. If you accept that everything you "know" is secondhand because of this disconnect, then yes you can only believe anything. However I choose to accept what I perceive with my senses as real and avoid that philosophical conundrum. Simply put, what I know is that which I can see and feel, in spite of the disconnect due to my sensory system, that which I believe is what I learn from others who have seen or felt what they perceived.

There is a third category of that which others believe to be true but have no direct evidence. I would tend to believe this knowledge as long as there is sufficient evidence to support it and little viable evidence to contradict it. A good argument is viable evidence.

I think we share a lot in common here.

As for your substitute professor, I can only chuckle. It took them a while to realize that subjectivism is self-refuting.

A little aside here, I was an Industrial Arts major, and in my class in philosophy was a psychology major who stated that she was going to transfer to a college that offered a philosophy major, because that is what she wanted to major in. I found it a bit ironic that I was explaining subjectivism and objectivism to her after that particular class. Her comment was "Do people actually believe that?" We were walking over to the coffee shop after class. she was really hot, and I don't know why I didn't pursue that relationship, except that she talked about transferring and being away from that campus the next year. I suppose I wasn't interested in a long distance relationship.

College was an interesting time and I met and was interested in several really nice women. I ended up with my first wife and my son, and I wouldn't change anything now.

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhD wrote:

As for your substitute professor, I can only chuckle. It took them a while to realize that subjectivism is self-refuting.

Yeah, it is...because subjectivism is only subjective. If it's objective, then subjectivism isn't true; but if it's subjective, then it isn't true for everyone, just for the subjectivist person. Classic.

thedoc wrote:

However I choose to accept what I perceive with my senses as real and avoid that philosophical conundrum. Simply put, what I know is that which I can see and feel, in spite of the disconnect due to my sensory system, that which I believe is what I learn from others who have seen or felt what they perceived.

Hey, you have the right, no question. But of course, it's the "however I choose..." bit that's the trick. It's not that we KNOW our senses are reliable, it's that most of the time we choose to believe that they are. And if we then call that "knowledge," then it would be saying that the basis of knowledge is that we choose to believe it -- and maybe that anything we choose to believe is knowledge! And that just doesn't sound right at all.

After all, I can choose to believe in things that are irrational or ill-informed. Or I can choose to believe in things I want to believe, but which may or may not be true to reality. Or I can choose to believe in things for which I haven't got conclusive evidence, but have some. Or maybe I can choose to believe in things for which I have strong but not ironclad evidence...

So I take no exception to your procedure of choosing. None at all. In fact, I think it's what we all do every day. What I question is why we would think that that kind of choosing created knowledge, whereas another choosing is said to produce only belief. I would ask, "What's the key differentiator there?"

[thedoc]

ReliStuPhD wrote:

As for your substitute professor, I can only chuckle. It took them a while to realize that subjectivism is self-refuting.

Yeah, it is...because subjectivism is only subjective. If it's objective, then subjectivism isn't true; but if it's subjective, then it isn't true for everyone, just for the subjectivist person. Classic.

thedoc wrote:

However I choose to accept what I perceive with my senses as real and avoid that philosophical conundrum. Simply put, what I know is that which I can see and feel, in spite of the disconnect due to my sensory system, that which I believe is what I learn from others who have seen or felt what they perceived.

Hey, you have the right, no question. But of course, it's the "however I choose..." bit that's the trick. It's not that we KNOW our senses are reliable, it's that most of the time we choose to believe that they are. And if we then call that "knowledge," then it would be saying that the basis of knowledge is that we choose to believe it -- and maybe that anything we choose to believe is knowledge! And that just doesn't sound right at all.

After all, I can choose to believe in things that are irrational or ill-informed. Or I can choose to believe in things I want to believe, but which may or may not be true to reality. Or I can choose to believe in things for which I haven't got conclusive evidence, but have some. Or maybe I can choose to believe in things for which I have strong but not ironclad evidence...

So I take no exception to your procedure of choosing. None at all. In fact, I think it's what we all do every day. What I question is why we would think that that kind of choosing created knowledge, whereas another choosing is said to produce only belief. I would ask, "What's the key differentiator there?"

Yes, in the end everything comes down to what we choose, whether is is knowledge or belief. I'm not sure what more I can say that will make more clear than what I have already stated. What am I not being clear about?

[surreptitious57]

Belief is an article of faith and as such is emotional by default
And because emotion is irrational as opposed to rational then
the premise that belief in God is not rational is logically true

The word believe is synonymous with the word think in everyday language though when applied to apparently self evident axioms
for which there is precisely zero evidence it means something else entirely. This is the context in which I use it myself. So since it
requires preciely no evidence or proof to be regarded as true then I logically take it to be irrational by default. Though I hasten to
add that there is nothing wrong in principle with having irrational belief as long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of others

Now I am an atheist and so obviously do not believe in God. But more importantly however I am an apatheist too which means that
it makes no difference to me whether he exists or not. And that is because it is something entirely beyond my control. And I am an
agnostic atheist too which means that while I do not believe in God because of the total lack of evidence to support the hypothesis
that he exists I can not absolutely disprove it so allow for that. So I am not certain that God does not exist. But unless evidence can
be provided for his existence I shall continue to think he does not actually exist. And I reject entirely any so called alternative ways
of knowing. Because they are far less reliable from an objective and scientific perspective so are nothing more than special pleading

Now my atheism is an insiginificant part of my worldview and so is relatively unimportant to me overall. So my thing is not non belief
but death. For I have overcome my fear of it and so as a consequence do not need religion as such as it is predicated on fear of death
But I actually have absolutely nothing to fear from spending the rest of eternity in a state of non consciousness after I die. The reason
for that is because it shall be free from all suffering. Of course there is the possibility that it may not be true. But once again there is
precisely zero evidence to support any other theory and so unless there is any I will continue to think that nothing happens after death

I just say what I think to be true and then try to use reason and logic or evidence and proof to demonstrate the validity of it. So I do not
expect anyone to think like me as I only apply this criteria to myself. I fully defend the right of anyone to think whatever they want with
zero parameters. None of it matters in the grand scheme of things. But it is important in the here and now. Beyond that though not at all

[Buddhist guy]

Does it really matter if we cannot know anything with absolute certainty? What if in reality we really are being used as fuel in some grungy robotopia. To all intents and purposes "the matrix" would be real to us.

This is our situation regarding certainty and belief I think.

[Immanuel Can]

thedoc asked:

What am I not being clear about?

Well, for me, only that you seem to be using two words in two ways. If "belief" and "knowledge" are the same, then the statement "belief in God is irrational" is the same as the statement "knowledge of God is irrational." And that is now what you seem to be saying. But earlier you were differentiating the terms "belief" and "knowledge," it seemed to me; and that makes them into distinct terms. So I was wondering what the differentiator would be -- if you do indeed differentiate them.

That's all.

[Immanuel Can]

surreptitious wrote:

The word believe is synonymous with the word think in everyday language though when applied to apparently self evident axioms
for which there is precisely zero evidence it means something else entirely.

Okay, so self-evident axioms are things like...? Can you give a few? I just want to know what you consider "self-evident."

The second part, "for which there is precisely zero evidence" suggests two things to me. First, that you are "precise," which would seem to suggest you know something firmly, and secondly, that what you know is that there is "zero evidence" for some proposition (presumably you mean the existence of God?) So my next question would be, how did you manage to become so precise in you knowledge that there is zero evidence for that proposition? And given that a great many people insist there is at least indicative evidence -- and quite a bit of it -- plus rational arguments and probabilisitic arguments, plus textual evidence, historical evidence and individual experiential evidence, all supportive of the proposition in question, how did you manage to dismiss all that? I presume you must have some procedure for ruling it out, other than merely the statement that you don't possess any such evidence yourself...

What procedure gave you such knowledge? That is, how did you come to know there's zero evidence? Please show us your path.

[thedoc]

thedoc asked:

What am I not being clear about?

Well, for me, only that you seem to be using two words in two ways. If "belief" and "knowledge" are the same, then the statement "belief in God is irrational" is the same as the statement "knowledge of God is irrational." And that is now what you seem to be saying. But earlier you were differentiating the terms "belief" and "knowledge," it seemed to me; and that makes them into distinct terms. So I was wondering what the differentiator would be -- if you do indeed differentiate them.

That's all.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that whatever we choose is a belief, rather than something we can know. I have been through this thought process before and I don't believe there is a really definitive answer. I have "chosen" to accept the perception of my senses as that which I can "know" and what I am told by others as what I "believe". You have chosen to construe everything that you choose as a belief, so it all comes down to our different use of terms. I believe that is where it will stand, unless we choose to argue about choice and it's relation to knowing or believing.

One other concept that I developed in this process, is the idea that everything that comes to us from the outside is history. Everything that we perceive is history. The only thing that is now, is the thought that you have as you have it, and once you have the thought it becomes of the past. As far as sensations from the outside, there is a slight delay in everything due to the time it takes for the signal to reach the brain through the nervous system. Outside the body, light and sound both have known speeds at which they travel, so those signals leave the source and that source is now in the past when the signals reach your sense organs. In that sense everyone who studies anything is studying history, the question becomes, how far in the past, is the subject you are studying?

[Immanuel Can]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying...I have "chosen" to accept the perception of my senses as that which I can "know" and what I am told by others as what I "believe"...

Well, no: I'm not trying to commit you to any position of my own, just trying to figure our what yours is. For you use "belief" as both equivalent to "knowledge," and yet as different.

I'm not trapping you; I'm just trying to sort out your view in light of this.

One other concept that I developed in this process, is the idea that everything that comes to us from the outside is history. Everything that we perceive is history.

Yes, I think this is true. I remember a Rabbinical saying that goes something to the effect of, "We are backing into the future," meaning that we're like a man walking backward, looking into where he HAS been, but never able to see where he is going...or, as you point out, even where he is at present.

We live in history...whether the very recent or the ancient past. And so everything we know is already a part of that inheritance from the past. Well said.

Now, what can you make from that?

[thedoc]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying...I have "chosen" to accept the perception of my senses as that which I can "know" and what I am told by others as what I "believe"...

Well, no: I'm not trying to commit you to any position of my own, just trying to figure our what yours is. For you use "belief" as both equivalent to "knowledge," and yet as different.

I'm not trapping you; I'm just trying to sort out your view in light of this.

One other concept that I developed in this process, is the idea that everything that comes to us from the outside is history. Everything that we perceive is history.

Yes, I think this is true. I remember a Rabbinical saying that goes something to the effect of, "We are backing into the future," meaning that we're like a man walking backward, looking into where he HAS been, but never able to see where he is going...or, as you point out, even where he is at present.

We live in history...whether the very recent or the ancient past. And so everything we know is already a part of that inheritance from the past. Well said.

Now, what can you make from that?

I would say that what I have bolded is my position on the matter. "Belief" and "to know" are both forms of knowledge, my differentiation is in how I acquire that knowledge. Interestingly I could learn the same knowledge by both methods and would then have to decide which took precedence, is it something I "know" or only "believe". Without giving it too much thought, I would say that knowledge that I have acquired through my own senses, (as opposed to another person telling me of their experiences), would be something that I "know".

I don't really try to make anything of The idea that all we know from the outside is history, I just accept that as the way it is. Perhaps I'm just a bit too acquiescent, and less of a deep thinker than others here.

[Immanuel Can]

No problem. I just mean that if everything for us is history, then we are completely dependent on memory, no? And memory, though it repeats for us empirical events, does not repeat them all accurately...nor any of them with complete clarity.

It's like when you've been away from your high school for a few years, and then you come back. And though you "remember" your high school, you are taken aback by how small the halls seem, or how low the water fountains are, or which wing lets you into the music rooms. Maybe only when you return do you recall how the library smelled, though you've thought about being in that library often. And yet you were really there, had "real" memories, and yet were empirically somewhat distorted in your view...

Well, take that to the present moment. Perhaps, being fresh, my memory is better there. But still, my perceptions are interpretations of recent phenomena mediated to my by (recent) memory. And memory, as we have seen, can be disturbed, distorted or incorrect. We always have to know, in addition to our memory, how far to trust what our memory -- long term or short term -- is delivering to us.

Our memory, then, isn't "knowledge," if by "knowledge" we mean perfect certainty. Even with memory, we have to decide how far to trust it, and we find there are times it lets us down. The best we can ever do is make probabilistic calculations about how accurate it may be...but we're not absolutely sure.

If knowledge is history, and history is dependent on memory, then knowledge is really just a form of belief: it's a decision to trust our memory or our perception to deliver to us information that is correct, and a trust that our interpretation of that information is also correct. But we're not sure...we don't, in the hard sense, "know" anything. We just believe very strongly.

[surreptitious57]

given that a great many people insist there is at least indicative evidence - and quite a bit of it - plus rational arguments and probabilisitic arguments plus textual evidence historical evidence and individual experiential evidence all supportive of the proposition in question how
did you manage to dismiss all that

Rational arguments may be sound in theory but that does not make them objectively true by default. I use the probability argument myself but come to the conclusion that because of lack of evidence the probability of God existing is either zero or as close to as possible. But I will admit that this is fallacious where God is defined as being metaphysical [ and he usually is ] which means that physical evidence for his existence can
not be determined. However that also means those that believe in God can not use physical evidence either as proof of his supposed existence Textual evidence in and of itself does not constitute evidence as such since it would require independent verification to validate it. Arguments from experience can be rejected because of the subjective interpretation of those involved. Eyewitness accounts of crimes are very unreliable and much more so than scientific methods of detection. Eyewitness accounts of supposed supernatural experiences would be just as unreliable

The standard metric I use for what constitutes evidence is the same one used in the scientific method : for something to be inter subjectively observed from as objective a position as possible. And then subject to the critical rigour of peer review by experts in that particular field. So
if it is then shown to be true I will accept it. Any thing that fails to meet this criteria I will not accept as evidence. I hasten to add that some
thing can be objectively true even if evidence can not determine it. But one can only work within the parameter of what can be investigated