Philosophy Now Forum

Finally (FINALLY!) we have a bona fide topic that deals with the Philosophy of Religion (it was really starting to dry up in here).

ianrust, a (Christian?) theist, has asserted the following:

ianrust wrote:"Belief in God is not rational."

Rather than continue to keep that particular debate to myself, I figured it would be worthwhile to bring this to the fore as its own topic. OK, you atheists, theists, and in-between-ists, have at it.

PS I've added a little poll, just for the heck of it, so please, please vote (even if you don't want to get into the actual discussion). We just don't have enough polls around here.

Like a good philosopher, I should ask what is meant by "belief" and "rational". That might seem specious, but it actually will influence the vote.

Is "belief" a thing one only does in the absence of evidence of any kind, or something one does when one's evidence is insufficient, or something one does on the basis of a probabilistically convincing weight of evidence, or of indubitable evidence, or none of the above?

And "rational": is that as in "rational numbers," or as in "sane" or as in "using reasons," or as in indubitably certain by reason of formal demonstration....

Ah, you get the drift.

So I'd say, belief type 3 plus rational type 3...then belief in God is rational. But if we take belief type 1 or 2, and rational type 1 or 2, then I'd say belief in God is non-rational, but really because I don't believe in either of those definitions...so it depends on the definitions we're accepting. (#4 and #4 only describe mathematical, logical and other abstractly formal situations, not empirical ones, I would say).

ianrust has defined "rational" as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" (same post). I'm happy to stick with that definition. As for "belief," I don't believe he's laid that out explicitly. If he did, I missed it. I'm inclined to think there has to be at least some evidence (at least I hope people don't make decisions on what to believe absent any sort of evidence).

Maybe. But Atheists seem to think they do.

But I agree with you.

If Ian's claiming "rational" means "in accordance with reason or logic," then I trust he's not thinking of a formal, mathematical type of proof, but perhaps an empirical grouping of evidence sufficient to warrant epistemological confidence. I wonder if he's thinking there's no evidence relevant to the question of the existence of God...

Hi,
Depends how we define "rational". And "God" And probably other stuff Hence my response to the above survey is "None of the above"

IMO a "belief" is some concept or idea that you hold to be true, and is not necessarily based on evidence or lack of evidence. I reject the statement that proof will destroy belief, I can believe an idea whether it has been proven or not. FYI, I view "faith" the same way, I can have faith that some concept or idea is true, with or without proof. Religion and the belief in God is not, for the most part, based on evidence, other than anecdotal, which is only valid for the individual who had the experience, but usually there is nothing physical that can be shown or given to another as proof. Most of the physical objects that I am familiar with, are the subject of interpretation by those viewing the object. I would agree that belief in God is not rational, but religion and faith is not usually considered to be rational. But that does not mean that a person should not believe, many concepts and ideas that people believe are not rational, since many do not have any direct physical evidence, but are based on interpreting the effects that are produced in experiments. That an effect is exactly what was predicted by a theory, does not constitute physical evidence, but is a very sound basis to believe that the theory is true.

BTW, I dated a Pole once, she was hot, but I think my wife would get upset if I got involved with another one.

thedoc wrote:I reject the statement that proof will destroy belief, I can believe an idea whether it has been proven or not.

Just so I'm sure on what you mean, you maintain you could hold to be true something that was proven not to be true? It seems to me that's what the first part of your sentence implies, but the second (at least grammatically) does not include this element of "disproven-ness" (i.e. "not proven" is not "disproven").

thedoc wrote:Religion and the belief in God is not, for the most part, based on evidence, other than anecdotal, which is only valid for the individual who had the experience, but usually there is nothing physical that can be shown or given to another as proof.

Yeah, so I'm not sure that this use of "belief" as "based on evidence" works. Maybe if we said "based on evidence or reason?"

thedoc wrote:I would agree that belief in God is not rational

So, given the definition of 'Rational" above, you agree that belief is God is not "in accordance with reason or logic?"

thedoc wrote:That an effect is exactly what was predicted by a theory, does not constitute physical evidence, but is a very sound basis to believe that the theory is true.

This is why I wonder about your "not rational" response. I'll have to reconsider my comment above about belief and evidence, but it sounds here like you're not maintaining that belief is unreasonable?

PS The above is not meant to be pushback. Just trying to clarify.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:I reject the statement that proof will destroy belief, I can believe an idea whether it has been proven or not.

Just so I'm sure on what you mean, you maintain you could hold to be true something that was proven not to be true? It seems to me that's what the first part of your sentence implies, but the second (at least grammatically) does not include this element of "disproven-ness" (i.e. "not proven" is not "disproven").

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Belief can include both the belief that an idea is true, and the belief that an idea is not true. One can also have the belief that an idea has not been proven either way, and is still undecided about it. I know this is circular, but belief is what you believe about the world and people in that world, and also what you believe about yourself.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:I would agree that belief in God is not rational

So, given the definition of 'Rational" above, you agree that belief is God is not "in accordance with reason or logic?"

Yes, reason and logic are human attributes, and do not necessarily apply to God. There is no reason to expect that God will conform to human expectations. This is one of the common fallacies that atheists use to disprove the existence of God. God is defined in human terms and with human limits, and then that definition of God is shown to be impossible, according to human reason and logic. The fallacy is that God transcends human reason and logic.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:That an effect is exactly what was predicted by a theory, does not constitute physical evidence, but is a very sound basis to believe that the theory is true.

This is why I wonder about your "not rational" response. I'll have to reconsider my comment above about belief and evidence, but it sounds here like you're not maintaining that belief is unreasonable?

PS The above is not meant to be pushback. Just trying to clarify.

I had to think about that one a little.

I am maintaining that belief is not necessarily dependent on reason, belief can be reasonable or unreasonable, belief does not depend on human reason for people to hold that belief.

PS I don't object to clarification, sometimes in my effort to be brief, I fail to state my ideas completely or clearly.

thedoc wrote:

I am maintaining that belief is not necessarily dependent on reason, belief can be reasonable or unreasonable, belief does not depend on human reason for people to hold that belief.

The FACT of belief (i.e. the phenomenon that people believe things) is not reason-dependent. Gottit. But is the WARRANT of belief dependent on reason/evidence? And is religion, then warranted or unwarranted belief -- or both?

BTW, I dated a Pole once, she was hot, but I think my wife would get upset if I got involved with another one.

So that's the Pole position you're taking?

Fascinating! For my part I'd say that we are all as "rational" as we allow ourselves to be (Don't think there's such a thing as absolute rationality, this would imply omnipotence) It seems rational to me to suppose for example that Jesus was a real human being(Not provable,but rational as in possible. My own view being he was a real person, A very emotionally astute and perceptive human being in a Carl Rogers kind of way but not The one and only Son of god). I share this belief that Jesus existed with millions of Christians, however I find the idea that "God" is some kind of super being who created all the universe('s?) irrational for reasons relating to the Buddhist concept of emptiness/interdependence.

Immanuel Can wrote:The FACT of belief (i.e. the phenomenon that people believe things) is not reason-dependent. Gottit. But is the WARRANT of belief dependent on reason/evidence? And is religion, then warranted or unwarranted belief -- or both?

This is what I'm curious to know as well. I think the correctness of a belief is somewhat independent of its rationality. Take, for example, the belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth. In 200 BCE, belief that this was the state of reality would have been quite rational, even if it was incorrect. That is to say, one can reason oneself into a wrong belief, but it would still be rational (say, you didn't have enough information, you had evidence that pointed to conclusion x and nothing to contradict it, you were relying on what your senses told you, etc). People can hold wrong beliefs quite rationally, I would say. In the same manner, it would seem to me someone would have a difficult time holding a belief that was proven to be untrue (that 2+2 = 5, that mice grow large enough to swallow planets, etc).

Certainly this isn't exhaustive, so there may be examples I've left out that undermine my contention that belief is rational (so fire away!).

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.

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