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

[ReliStuPhD]

Belief is an article of faith and as such is emotional by default

No, belief is not "an article of faith." A particular belief can be (e.g. "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day"), but not belief as a category.

And because emotion is irrational as opposed to rational then the premise that belief in God is not rational is logically true

So your syllogism goes something like this?

1. Belief is emotional
2. Emotion is irrational
3. Ergo, belief is irrational

I think it's fair to say it's a sound argument, but is it a valid one? #1 seems to me to be self-evidently untrue (e.g. your belief that unicorns do not exist on Planet Earth is not emotional). While it may be true that some beliefs are emotional, not all of them are, so Premise 1 is clearly invalid. Or so it seems to me.

[ReliStuPhD]

And by the same token, cannot a person can hold a correct belief irrationally? For example, if I think the world is round because of pictures I see from scientific journals, I am perhaps believing rationally; but if I believe the world is round because I think it's a pebble on the seashore of infinity, then the belief (i.e. the conclusion) is ultimately correct, but the warrant is irrational.

If my irrationality produces an untrue conclusion, we call it a superstition. If my irrationality produces a true conclusion, perhaps we call it a lucky guess...but either way, it's a true conclusion.

And if this is true, it wouldn't matter how bad the reasons were by which some group of people was believing in God, or even whether they eschewed reasons altogether; that would simply not be determinative of the answer to the question of the existence of the Supreme Being. And thus whether their "belief in God is not rational" does not tell us about the truth of that belief. The "rational" part only tells us about their means; it does not tell us about the rightness of their conclusion.

Agreed. To summarize:

Rational beliefs can be right or wrong.
Irrational beliefs can be right or wrong.

Or perhaps there's a linguistic twist here? If a belief is irrational, it would mean it does not accord with logic or reason. Can we think of such a belief--one that does not accord with reason or logic--that is right? (I guess some theists here would say "God!") So perhaps it's better to say:

Rationally-held beliefs can be right or wrong?
Irrationally-held beliefs can be right or wrong?

[ReliStuPhD]

As an aside, I'm surprised that so few atheists have responded. Perhaps they're all still in class?

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhD:

Surreptitious may be speaking only for his own view, or even just floating an idea, so I won't criticize his logic beyond agreeing with what you've said about it: form = valid, but reasoning = fallacious and suppositions = incorrect. Quite so.

However, this is not the first time I've seen such arguments. In fact, I see this a lot from antagonistic Atheists.

Usually, what they want us to accept, without further thought or question, is that "faith" or "belief" means something irrational, emotional, superstitious or even known-to-be-untrue. Now, they advance this as if it were some sort of indisputable definition, something not to be inspected or questioned for any reason. And having thus "secured" their premise, they go on to insist that therefore no one could possibly be so outrageous as to suppose any "religious" belief could ever have ANY basis in fact, reason or evidence. Some will even be so bold as to venture, "If it has any evidence, it's not belief at all."

It's all completely wrongheaded and untrue, to say nothing of smug: but it gives them such consolation to think it's an important argument, and that if you were not already addicted to irrationality you would surely be persuaded by it.

Ironically, when they present it they are really trying to tell you (the "believer") that they know far more about your own epistemology than you yourself do, as if it took a real Atheist to really explain what a religious person actually thinks!

P.S. -- The Atheist may not be in class...but some may tied up culling the bargain bins for surplus copies of "The God Delusion."

[thedoc]

Belief is an article of faith and as such is emotional by default

No, belief is not "an article of faith." A particular belief can be (e.g. "Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day"), but not belief as a category.

And because emotion is irrational as opposed to rational then the premise that belief in God is not rational is logically true

So your syllogism goes something like this?

1. Belief is emotional
2. Emotion is irrational
3. Ergo, belief is irrational

I think it's fair to say it's a sound argument, but is it a valid one? #1 seems to me to be self-evidently untrue (e.g. your belief that unicorns do not exist on Planet Earth is not emotional). While it may be true that some beliefs are emotional, not all of them are, so Premise 1 is clearly invalid. Or so it seems to me.

I would agree with this assessment. Belief is not always emotional. Science has established the speed of light and I accept that figure, but I have no emotional connection to that belief. And it is a belief only, because I do not have the means or the ambition to test it myself.

Emotion is not always irrational. I love my wife, an emotional response, but I made a rational decision when I decided that we would get married. There were emotions involved in my decision to stay with her, but the final decision was more rational than emotional.

So based on those 2 statements the argument, though sound, is invalid.

(Several times in my life I was involved with 2 women at the same time. In the first situation I allowed emotion to rule, and it didn't work out. The last time I relied on rationality to guide my decision, and it has worked out much better. After that the only 2 women were my daughters and that was a totally different situation, I had to be rational to maintain control.)

[ReliStuPhD]

Well said, gents.

[Buddhist guy]

Usually, what they want us to accept, without further thought or question, is that "faith" or "belief" means something irrational, emotional, superstitious or even known-to-be-untrue. Now, they advance this as if it were some sort of indisputable definition, something not to be inspected or questioned for any reason. And having thus "secured" their premise, they go on to insist that therefore no one could possibly be so outrageous as to suppose any "religious" belief could ever have ANY basis in fact, reason or evidence. Some will even be so bold as to venture, "If it has any evidence, it's not belief at all."

Yes Indeed!!

[ReliStuPhD]

"If it has any evidence, it's not belief at all."

Or worse, "I don't believe that, I know it."

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah, that's a common one. But since the Atheist is already claiming, by pure definition of being an Atheist, that he has knowledge of the non-existence of the Supreme Being, one cannot really be surprised if his additional claims to information are outrageous and absurd. After all, if you think you have disproved God, what's left for you to do?

[ReliStuPhD]

Yeah, that's a common one. But since the Atheist is already claiming, by pure definition of being an Atheist, that he has knowledge of the non-existence of the Supreme Being, one cannot really be surprised if his additional claims to information are outrageous and absurd. After all, if you think you have disproved God, what's left for you to do?

[thedoc]

"If it has any evidence, it's not belief at all."

Or worse, "I don't believe that, I know it."

That is one of the, (to me), most annoying statements that a Christian can make about their religion. I understand the difference between a belief and something that I know, but many Christians don't seem to understand that there is a difference.

[Immanuel Can]

thedoc:
Don't take this as a challenge, but as a sincere question: what do you "know"? Can you give some examples of a few things you suppose you "know," and perhaps as well some you only "believe"?

[thedoc]

thedoc:
Don't take this as a challenge, but as a sincere question: what do you "know"? Can you give some examples of a few things you suppose you "know," and perhaps as well some you only "believe"?

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. I don't have a large telescope, so I rely on astronomers to teach me about the stars and galaxies and the universe. I don't have a particle accelerator, so I must rely on those who do have access to that equipment to teach me about atomic structure. Those are 2 examples from the extremes of physical reality, but for much in between I don't have access to the raw data, and must rely on others to interpret and teach me what they have learned, so these things I "believe" are true. There is much that I believe to be true, because there is little or nothing to contradict what I have been taught. Sometimes when there is conflicting opinions I will try to make my own determination, but many times I will decide that the issue has not been resolved yet. One rather mundane example of what I learned from what I could see and touch. Many years ago automobile tires were given letter size designations, and I observed that within a certain range, letter sizes of the same letter size carried the same maximum load in pounds. This I determined by observing as many tires that I came in contact with, and it never failed. So I counted this bit of information as something I "knew".

[ReliStuPhD]

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.

[Immanuel Can]

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Interestingly enough (and assuming I understand philosophers correctly), those are actually beliefs.

Correct. In fact, Descartes pointed out that the entire external world was not indubitable knowledge, just high-confidence belief. He said that all we can really "know" is that we ourselves exist...not even that others do, and the same would be true even if they're members of our family.

Nothing in the empirical world is anything more than probabilistically believed in, and none of it is a product of certain knowledge. Interesting, no?