Can Belief In God Be Rational?

[Sunstone]

Can a belief in deitie(s) be rational? Or, is such a belief necessarily irrational?

If it can be rational, under what circumstances can it be rational?

Is there a distinction to be drawn between a rational belief in deitie(s) and a reasonable belief in deitie(s)? If so, what is that distinction?

Does an experience which is open to interpretation as an experience of deity constitute reasonable or rational grounds for belief in deity?

Must all belief in deity be based on faith? If so, are there any circumstances in which faith is rational or reasonable?

Can a belief in deity be more rational than a denial of deity, even if it is not perfectly rational?

 

[klubbhead024]

I think a belief in what can't be proved is strange...

 

[Hacker]

A belief in the God of the bible is irrational in my opinion, specifically when one claims that "God is love."

 

[klubbhead024]

A belief in the God of the bible is irrational in my opinion, specifically when one claims that "God is love."

Ya.. if God is love, then why don't we say, "I God you"?

 

[Wandered Off]

Deductive reasoning is most often used to reach conclusions when we lack all information. For example, detectives will take what they interpret as clues at a crime seen to try and reconstruct what happened. Similar reasoning can be applied to the existence of a first cause, although alternative explanations are certainly as plausible. I don't think such reasoning is irrational at all.

Personal experience is certainly can be a rational basis as long as we understand that it is purely subjective and not likely to apply universally. It's dangerous to reach "universal" conclusions from personal experience.

Belief can be more rational, IMO, than absolute denial of deity (so-called "strong athiesm"). In order to categorically assert the non-existence of a deity, one would need complete knowledge of everything in the universe (and beyond, if there exists beyond). Ironically, such knowledge would qualify one for godhood.

 

[Ozzie]

Can a belief in deitie(s) be rational? Or, is such a belief necessarily irrational?

If it can be rational, under what circumstances can it be rational?

Is there a distinction to be drawn between a rational belief in deitie(s) and a reasonable belief in deitie(s)? If so, what is that distinction?

Does an experience which is open to interpretation as an experience of deity constitute reasonable or rational grounds for belief in deity?

Must all belief in deity be based on faith? If so, are there any circumstances in which faith is rational or reasonable?

Can a belief in deity be more rational than a denial of deity, even if it is not perfectly rational?

See thread "Argument from need" by Robtex

 

[JabbaWalker]

I think a belief in what can't be proved is strange...

Do you believe you will be alive tomorrow?

 

[Fluffy]

Can a belief in deitie(s) be rational? Or, is such a belief necessarily irrational?

This would center around what would we would be comfortable in calling a deity. If a deity is simply a bigger, better human (see the Greek pantheon for example) then there doesn't seem to be anything inherently irrational about a belief in that deity although there may be circumstantial reasons (lack of evidence) that make such beliefs irrational.

On the other hand, if we start to include attributes that are logically incoherent we start to run into other difficulties. It seems like a belief in the existence of a square triangle will always be inherently irrational because the properties of the object of my belief cannot all be held simultaneously since they override each other.

There may be a middle ground inbetween these extremes or we may find it perfectly acceptable to call bigger and better humans "gods" right alongside the more... tricky deities.

More when I get back from work.

 

[gnostic]

Can a belief in deitie(s) be rational?

Only if you don't think about it.

 

[Random]

I do not think belief in Deity can be properly rationalised, there's a difference there from the question in the OP: however, although I do not believe in a literal transcendent God-entity, I do not begrudge those theists who do believe it their faith. On the contrary, I want them to be right: if an omnibenevolent God is real, then it would be truly irrational to deny or reject Him.

 

[FatMan]

I think it is very rational provided one condition is met - - -

That the belief in a God is contingent on the belief that he is the creator of our existence.

Let's face it - belief in religion is at it roots meant to be an answer to where we came from and where we are going. Even if you remove the creation vs. evolution argument, the origin point of existence had to come from somewhere. Even if a "Big Bang" Theory is espoused, where did the materials for the bang derive from? At the core of that answer makes belief in a God rational.

 

[Random]

I think it is very rational provided one condition is met - - -

That the belief in a God is contingent on the belief that he is the creator of our existence.

Let's face it - belief in religion is at it roots meant to be an answer to where we came from and where we are going. Even if you remove the creation vs. evolution argument, the origin point of existence had to come from somewhere. Even if a "Big Bang" Theory is espoused, where did the materials for the bang derive from? At the core of that answer makes belief in a God rational.

Arrgh! YES. :yes: I've made that point to many times to recall in the Science vs. Religion and Evolution vs. Creationism debates here on RF.

I mean, no-one has a sensible answer to where the colliding elements of the Big Bang came from originally, do they? No.

In the authentic mystery of life, I have found that just like science, one answer throws up a thousand more questions.

I have found that we are here to search but fated to never know for sure, many things.

 

[FatMan]

Arrgh! YES. :yes: I've made that point to many times to recall in the Science vs. Religion and Evolution vs. Creationism debates here on RF.

I mean, no-one has a sensible answer to where the colliding elements of the Big Bang came from originally, do they? No.

In the authentic mystery of life, I have found that just like science, one answer throws up a thousand more questions.

I have found that we are here to search but fated to never know for sure, many things.

Ahhhh....it's amazing that such a simple question like "the chicken or the egg?" can spawn such heated debates!!!

 

[Ryan2065]

Belief can be more rational, IMO, than absolute denial of deity (so-called "strong athiesm"). In order to categorically assert the non-existence of a deity, one would need complete knowledge of everything in the universe (and beyond, if there exists beyond). Ironically, such knowledge would qualify one for godhood.

So belief in a god is more rational than the absolute denial of the easter bunny, 3 headed loch ness monsters doing disco in a New York night club, and the tooth fairy? An absence of evidence where there should be evidence is in and of itself evidence.

Let's face it - belief in religion is at it roots meant to be an answer to where we came from and where we are going. Even if you remove the creation vs. evolution argument, the origin point of existence had to come from somewhere. Even if a "Big Bang" Theory is espoused, where did the materials for the bang derive from? At the core of that answer makes belief in a God rational.

Making up an answer to a hard question is rational now? I thought "We don't know and have no evidence for how it came about" is a good explanation...

Also you are saying energy had to come from somewhere... Even before time? Where there is no time, how can the cause and effect relationship "theory" to the beginning of time hold?

 

[Wandered Off]

An absence of evidence where there should be evidence is in and of itself evidence.

Some people interpret the very existence of the universe as evidence of a first cause. That is not irrational, IMO.

 

[Ryan2065]

Some people interpret the very existence of the universe as evidence of a first cause. That is not irrational, IMO.

Sure a first cause is fine... And defining that first cause God is fine... Anything past that, however, is irrational. Saying God did this, or god did that is irrational. Saying god is still around is also irrational.

 

[Wandered Off]

Sure a first cause is fine... And defining that first cause God is fine... Anything past that, however, is irrational. Saying God did this, or god did that is irrational.

Completely agreed. :yes:

 

[FatMan]

Making up an answer to a hard question is rational now? I thought "We don't know and have no evidence for how it came about" is a good explanation...

Also you are saying energy had to come from somewhere... Even before time? Where there is no time, how can the cause and effect relationship "theory" to the beginning of time hold?

I don't think I made my point well enough.

What I'm saying is that even a scientific person has a validity to question the origin of existence and that doing so would validate a belief in a God.

There is enough unknown to surely wonder what happened at the point life was created. I have a scientific and engineering background and even wonder about this.

 

[Ryan2065]

What I'm saying is that even a scientific person has a validity to question the origin of existence and that doing so would validate a belief in a God.

How does questioning where we came from validate a belief in God? Again... there can be unanswered questions.

There is enough unknown to surely wonder what happened at the point life was created. I have a scientific and engineering background and even wonder about this.

Sure it is fine to wonder about where life began... But when you start putting beliefs on life (ie a creator creating us) that is when you step over to the irrational arena. A lack of evidence does not make a belief in god rational.

 

[Willamena]

Can a belief in deitie(s) be rational? Or, is such a belief necessarily irrational?

Necessarily irrational, as we cannot directly know god. Justifications for belief in god can be rational, though.

Is there a distinction to be drawn between a rational belief in deitie(s) and a reasonable belief in deitie(s)? If so, what is that distinction?

Not a significant one.

Does an experience which is open to interpretation as an experience of deity constitute reasonable or rational grounds for belief in deity?

Every experience is open to interpretation. Every "experience of deity" is foundation for belief.

Must all belief in deity be based on faith? If so, are there any circumstances in which faith is rational or reasonable?

Belief is not based on faith; more often, it is based on information, which includes the experience of the world around us. Faith comes after belief.

Can a belief in deity be more rational than a denial of deity, even if it is not perfectly rational?

Um... no.