To the Anti-Religious

[lunamoth]

Those are my rational reasons for adopting the position I do. You may have rational reasons yourself and disagree with me. And I freely accept I may have an unnoticed flaw in my position. However, I based it mostly on evidence and supplement it with logic with the goal of reducing suffering (which is also evidence based).

Hi CM,

Your evidence may lead to the conclusion that it is desirable for humans to reduce human suffering. But, from a naturalistic, materialstic view, there can be no reason why it is good to reduce human suffering because nature, by definition, is not sentient and can not care what happens to the human race.

You need to appeal to something that you consider higher or outside of or transcendent of nature to get to the conclusion that reducing human suffering is good. You appeal to human consciousness as that authority.

But isn't human consciousness just a product of nature itself? If human consciousness is solely a product of nature, then does nature in fact care about humans?

luna

 

[lunamoth]

It is rational because it is evidence based. What "meaning or sacredness" do whales perceive when they put themselves in harms way to protect another wounded whale? Or in a pack of dolphins (is it a pack :S?) when they push a sick member of their pack up to the surface to get air?

Hi, CM. You seem to be playing pretty fast and loose with the terms 'rational' and 'evidence-based.' How can something be rational at all if it is just instinctive? What is the cut-off point, so to speak, where we can say that a species is rational? And if there is no cut-off point, your whole argument about using evidence and reason pretty much goes out the window.

There is a mistaken impression that this perceived "sacredness" is exclusive to humans. And since it can be demonstrated perfectly rationally why our morality and emotions are the result of brain chemistry resulting from genetics resulting from evolution - and all that has lots of evidence behind it, it makes sense to act to relieve suffering in others. Altruism is a part of human nature. Human nature is a result of our genetics.

And no, you probably shouldn't listen to me because there are people much more qualified than I to present this sort of evidence in ways that are more accessible to you. On the contrary, I encourage you to read more on this subject and find out science's answers to this.

I have read quite a bit on this subject.

That is not sound logic above, CM. Either we have reason that can alter our instinctive choices, or we don't. If it is all instinct, there is no reason and all the evidence in the world can't lead to any kind of conclusion, much less a moral conclusion.

There are obvious differences between religions. But with respect to the three great monotheisms, does God not demand worship? At that, exclusive worship? Does God not demand obedience?

If so, then religious followers must act to worship God, to obey God, to please God. That's what their morality must be based on. Any action that doesn't fulfill the above isn't moral. Perhaps this isn't your particular morality.

But if not, I pose the question to you: Are good acts moral because they are good or because they are dictated by God?

All of this is off-topic and further I don't agree with your caricatures of religion.

I have faith that there is a greater meaning to our lives which makes humanism and all other acts of loving-kindness valuable.

<snip>
All of your discourse about needless suffering and unavoidable suffering is your opinion. Yes, you consider various material, scientific facts to help you form your opinion, but as I've said over and over, choosing degree of suffering as the basis of your moral choices does not logically follow from a universe that does not care about human suffering. It is arbitrary and biased, not logical. Reasonable, compassionate, humanistic, yes. But not logical.

I'm not quite sure what precisely you mean by "materialistic utilitarian". If you are in reference to my moral code, which I've demonstrated is based off of evidence (though not necessarily conclusive) and logic, you would agree, I'm sure, I'm no sociopath or monster from the morals I described above.

But if you mean approaching morality from a purely Darwinian standpoint, you are correct. A moral code based on survival of the fittest would lead to policies of eugenics, etc.

The difference between my personal moral code and, say, policies like eugenics, is that eugenics - while rationally supported by evolution - still causes immense suffering. And it's for that simple matter why I'm not advocating eugenics.

I still do not perceive "faith" in my morals.

By materialist-utilitarian I mean someone who says that they view the world only based upon a naturalistic view and that truth is the same as 'what works.'

Why does a utilitarian need to take the suffering of others into consideration?

BTW, I don't think that most people who claim to be materialists or utilitarians actually are sociopaths. By far the vast majority are guided by a humanistic faith that they maybe don't acknowledge.

Nietzsche, unlike some moderns, realized the real implications of the true loss of faith.

 

[Vile Atheist]

In my comment about conversion, I was trying to refocus us on the case. The case isn't one where I'm trying to prove the truth of Christianity to you. This might occur, for instance were I trying to convert you. In such a case, where you remained skeptical, evidence might be required to demonstrate the probability that Christianity is true. Our case is different. In our case, we are assessing the rationality of a hypothetical Christian believer. Is a person rational for believing Christianity where it is agreed that the evidence is sufficient to support actual belief or where the Christian came to believe it without appeal to any evidence whatsoever? Some say such Christians are irrational for believing as they do, presumably because they don't have (enough) evidence.

I was speaking in general terms, not specifically Christianity, but if you so desire, we can stick to whether or not belief in Christianity is rational.

I defined rational and irrational earlier (somewhere) in this thread. This is the basis on which I judge a claim to be rational.

A rational claim has to be supported by evidence. Not necessarily conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless. It might be very weak evidence in comparison to the ordinarity of the claim, but it is still rational if the evidence can be shown to verify what you are claiming and there are no logical conflicts or other possible and reasonable conclusions that can arise from the evidence.

Irrational is the opposite of rational. It's unsupported by any evidence. Christianity - and any religion - has not a single speck of evidence to empirically demonstrate the existence of their respective God(s).

Let's try to look at what evidence a Christian believer may have in his favour.

- Historical evidence: Other historical documents confirm the Bible as being a reliable source of information.
- Prophecy fulfillment: A specific prophecy with a specific prediction (no ambiguity) that proves to be correct and is something the prophet could not have otherwise known.
- Lack of plausible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe
- Evidence that order could not have arisen in the universe naturally.
- Natural processes incapable of producing complex structures (like the age of the Earth being too short for evolution to take place)
- Evidence that falsifies evolution.
- Human thoughts and memories that could not otherwise be explained by physical processes.
- The void being absolutely stable requiring action to bring something into existence.
- Evidence the universe being created for a specific human purpose in mind.
- Natural events follow moral laws (i.e. Non-believers are struck by lightening, nuns never acquire disease)
- Evidence believers have a higher moral sense than non-believers.


These are all rational (though not conclusive reasons) for believing in God. But not a single item on that list has been demonstrated.

Instead, Christians like to tell me they rely on "faith". Well, faith isn't a rational reason either because it is subjective to the person holding it. And if God was totally all-loving, wouldn't anyone who brings themself to believe in God totally and convincingly WANT to be in a relationship like that? And yet, we see a rise of atheism in the West.

We have neurological mechanisms to explain exactly why people believe in God. It is a naturalistic process. If you can inhibit those mechanisms and one STILL believes in God, then you might have a case for using "faith" as evidence. Until then, you have no rational reason to believe in God.

Christians add to the list. They say we also have something called the sensus divinitatus (sense of the divine), which is where we (all of us) get our knowledge of God and morality from.

Christians further say that our noetic establishment has been damaged by sin such that the modules responsible for beliefs about God and morality have been terribly damaged. It's as if we have all been born with poor spiritual and ethical vision. Sin has also damaged our affective faculties such that we don't love and hate the right things. So even if our noetic faculties were working properly, we would hate the information provided and therefore not come to believe it. Think of a case where you hate an uncle for some reason. You find out your uncle is extremely generous, giving most of his money to charity and in his will, several million to you. Let's stipulate that as a matter of fact, he really was generous. Now your hatred may cause you to doubt that your uncle was generous. You might doubt his motives, saying he did it for the sake of his reputation or whatever. In any case, you probably wouldn't come to the conclusion that your uncle is generous.

To overcome this, Christians say, God has provided IIHS. Among other things, IIHS repairs the damage to some degree or other. Further, IIHS becomes itself a source of warrant for Christian beliefs. That is, Christian beliefs are warranted in the basic way, not by appeal to evidence.

I refer you to my posts with lunamoth in this thread where I showed how there is no difference between Christians and non-Christians on a moral average. There is hard evidence for that fact. The difference you see is your own perception, but the data indicates otherwise.

At best, your IIHS is useless if its purpose is to repair the damage caused by sin. Morality is innate in all humans. It's a naturalistic process guided by evolution and genetics. To deny this would be denial of an evidential belief meaning you would be required to provide your own evidence to contradict these claims.

The critic of Christianity, at least the one who says that Christian belief is irrational, is therefore MISSING THE POINT by asking the Christian to prove Christianity is true. Christians don't need to have an argument to rationally believe as they do, at least if Christianity is true. What is needed, for the irrationality complaint to go through successfully, is an argument that Christianity is in fact false. THAT KIND of argument would provide the Christian with a defeater for their beliefs.

You say Christians rely on the assumption that Christianity is true and therefore a basic belief and therefore it does not require evidence. And then go on to say that the critic of Christianity is the one who requires evidence to prove it is false.

Sorry, this doesn't fly. An assumption that Christianity is true does not equate to Christianity being true or rational. An assumption that Christianity is true does not make it a basic belief. And it's demonstrably not a basic belief by your own definition because it appeals to the belief that the universe had a cause and that cause is God. But cause and effect is also demonstrably untrue. We have plausible naturalistic mechanisms to explain the origins of the universe without invoking God. Christianity does not hold up as a basic belief. Thus, it requires evidence, lest it be irrational.

And I think some of my conversation partners have gotten the impression that, because I take Christian belief to receive its warrant basically, it is therefore indefeasable. Not so. A belief may have warrant at one time but not at another. Perhaps I was warranted initially in my Christian belief; later, I am apprised of a powerful atheological argument. Now if that atheological argument is a good one, and if it provides an actual defeater, and if I understand the argument, I now have a defeater for my Christian belief. It is no longer warranted to the degree it was before. I am now in the throes of an intellectual/spiritual crisis.

How about some specifics. How is Christianity falsifiable?

The rejoinder here has been that I have no evidence for the IIHS, no reason to believe that there is such a thing, and so my belief in IIHS is irrational. Well, as with the rest of Christian belief, the lack of evidence is not relevant. IIHS is part of Christian belief, so belief in it will also be warranted the same way as any other part of Christian belief, namely via IIHS, not through any argument. I don't believe in IIHS because of some nifty argument. Rather, I believe in IIHS in the properly basic way.

Except it is evidentially untrue. It isn't basic.

Morality is innate to humans and even across cultural and religious lines, the same moral and ethical values exist. Of course there are subtle differences, but the core values are basic. No society values cowardice over bravery, or greed over generosity.

And THAT's why I've been arguing this whole time that, if you want to say that it is impossible that Christianity receives warrant the way I've described, you must argue that Christianity is in fact false.

Your belief in IIHS (from above in this post) is untrue. It doesn't receive the warrant you attribute to it. If IIHS is your only way of verifying (to yourself, at least) Christianity is true, then it is shown that you cannot verify Christianity to be true (I am not saying from this it is necessarily false).

 

[Vile Atheist]

I realize that this style of argumentation may be somewhat new for some. Part of the reason for this has to do with my denial of the importance of evidence. Let me now just say where evidence is important. Evidence is important in those cases where knowledge is not possible in a basic way. For instance, a CSI agent at a crime scene cannot know in the basic way who killed the victim (unless the agent is psychic, in which case her belief is warranted for her but not for us). The CSI agent must pick through trace evidence and other evidence to piece together what happened. When she is done, the agent makes a probabilistic case against a person. The belief that the butler did it receives its warrant, therefore, by way of evidence.

You mention Christianity as basic. Are other religions basic too in your opinion?

But is IIHS rational? Well, why not? How might basic beliefs be rational? Well, they would have to be produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth and operating in a cognitive environment for which they were designed. It seems to me that IIHS meets these requirements. It is indeed a cognitive mechanism. Since it's God, it's functioning properly. Its function is to provide true beliefs, and since God designed the system (indeed, IS the system), the design is a good one.

Except you cannot demonstrate that God is functioning. If you use IIHS to demonstrate this, it's faulty logic.

"IIHS is a basic belief that supports my belief in God." "IIHS is basic because the cognitive mechanism of God functions properly (though you have no way of affirming this beyond the assumption that God is perfect)." "Therefore IIHS is rational."

Not only can IIHS be shown to be false with empirical data, your basis for claiming it is rational rests on assumptions you cannot possibly confirm.

So is IIHS foolproof? Infallible? Surprisingly, no! Here's where the cognitive environment condition comes in. Just as my vision might be impaired when there is soap in my eyes, so my spiritual sight might be impaired under certain conditions. Perhaps I have suffered a severe trauma with my father that makes it difficult for me to view God as a loving father (words I take to be oxymoronic, say). Until the effects of that trauma are healed, I won't really believe "God is a loving father," even though IIHS constantly impresses the truth of that proposition on my awareness. With respect to that belief, I am calloused and insensitive. As a result, the belief "God is a loving father" is not warranted (even though, ex hypothesis, true).

Based on Christian assumptions about God and his supposed morality, I don't view him as a loving father either. Not because I'm unwilling to because of "sin" or whatever. But because I objectively view God's actions in the Bible as disgusting.

I've heard some Christians put forth the argument that if God was restricted in moral agency he wouldn't be omnipotent. But then God cannot be omnibenevolent because omnibenevolence would be a restriction of his omnipotency.

This isn't due to the ravages of sin, but to an objective standpoint. I see no decrease in my moral character by not accepting God. Thus in addition to the evidence, I see no reason why IIHS is rational.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi CM,

I am running out of time for an ever-expanding conversation. I think that if our points are sound we should be able to present them concisely. I realize that I asked you a number of questions which lead to this, so mea culpa.

If you want to continue, can we just limit the conversation a bit? You can pick whichever parts of what I said interest you most.

Thank you,
luna

 

[Vile Atheist]

Ironically, I can agree with you about how the Kalam argument fails, yet it doesn't move me one iota. It need not. However, the probabilistic causation you speak of doesn't actually harm Craig's case. Things are probabilistic from our point of view; that doesn't mean there wasn't a cause or that it was spontaneous. Moreover, you've said these things have no "evident" cause. What follows? That they have no cause, or that our physics is incomplete? In any case, the intuition that all things that begin to exist have causes is far stronger than observations from theoretical physics that themselves are dependent on arcane mathematics that only a few of us can even hope to recognize, let alone understand. But as I said, I fully agree that there are problems with the arguments. At best, they are probabilistic, and in any case, they themselves are not sufficient to bear the weight of Christian belief.

Not so. Craig argues for predetermined creation. By proposing probabilistic causality, Craig admits that some creation is not predetermined. Thus there is no "intelligent design".

The word "sin" has multiple meanings. It can refer to an individual act of wrongdoing. But it can also refer to our fallen condition. That is, humanity has fallen into a deplorable state in which we have lost our original righteousness. As a result of that, our affective and cognitive systems are dysfunctional. That dysfunction in turn results in more sins (individual acts of wrongdoing).

Empirical data says otherwise. Evolution says otherwise. We are consistently getting more "moral". We were never "originally righteous".

Well, we are created in the image of God. We have a kind of "background memory" a sort of vague, inarticulate rememberance of our status as God's vicegerents. We have what you might call a "sense of the divine." That we have this faculty explains the agreement across cultures; damage to the faculty accounts for the disagreements. Evolution (yawn) is utterly irrelevant.

Again, you ignore empirical data that corroborates my point. We can manipulate emotions and thoughts by playing around with brain chemistry. Brain chemistry that is dictated by genetics...

Evolution has everything to do with it because it shows how we came from a state of no moral code to a developed society with a moral code that serves us well. And evolution is a fact, despite the political controversy.

Right, because we have all been created in the image and likeness of God (on a Christian view).

So if God created us in his image, why do we sin? Is God not perfect?

Based on what is it "unlikely." I happen to have studied quite a bit of Roman history. The fact is that, although the Romans were very good at keeping records, we don't have one millionth of the empire's governance records. Most of what we think we know about Roman government is based on the shakiest of grounds. Indeed, a lot of it is pieced together through archaeology, and there we are on thin ice indeed. It is entirely likely that the mention in the gospels is the only evidence we have of this census. There's no particular reason to doubt the mention in the gospels. But once again, as a Christian, my basis for believing the census isn't historical argument.

One source does not confirm a historical event. You should know that if you studied Roman history extensively. The Bible is one source.

We cannot use a text to verify itself. It's like saying I wrote a story about how I turned into a dragon. And using my very own story to prove that I turned into a dragon. It's logically and historically inept.

I suspected as much. This is such a nest of confusions and misapprehensions I won't even go there. (Jesus wasn't really called "Immanuel". Really, now!) Pick up a few tomes on theology so we can have a basis for discussion. As it stands, you are clearly out of your depth.

I just chuckle to myself lol.

You haven't proven that all beliefs require evidence. You've only given an example of one. Try again.

Let me take your distinction between basic and evidential beliefs. Evidential beliefs obviously require evidence by definition. No argument there. Basic beliefs do not require evidence, though? This sounds like an argument from contingency to me. Let me try and demonstrate how your particular example requires evidence as that is more relevant to the discussion.


(1) Everything that is contingent has a cause.
(2) Everything that is necessary does not require an explanation.
(3) The universe is contingent.
(4) Therefore the universe has a cause.
(5) God is a necessary being for the universe to exist.

------ I'm sure you'll in complete agreement at least up to here. I am, after all, playing your ball game. -----

(6) If the universe does not exist, God is no longer necessary. [Note: If you debate this point, you have to abandon your own premise (5).]
(7) Either the universe is infinite or finite.
(8) Something that has a cause cannot be infinite.
(9) The universe has a cause, so it cannot be infinite.
(10) The universe must therefore be finite.
(11) We assume God is infinite.
(12) For an infinite period of time before the creation of the universe, God was contingent (unnecessary).
(13) Contingent things have a cause.
(14) God has a cause.

No, I don't believe you, but not because of the presence or lack of evidence. I don't have any evidence either way. I just don't believe it.

The real question (if you want it to be analogous to the case I'm discussing), is whether that belief is rational for YOU. It is, if it was created by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a suitable cognitive environment. My guess is that, since you look a lot like me, you're actually human. So I suggest a visit to a shrink.

For the sake of argument, I am actually Magog of Zudreb-9. Is this belief rational for you to uphold given what you know and don't know and what your experiences are as you -rightfully- say you have no evidence?

What amount of evidence - if any - would get you to believe this extraordinary claim?

By this point, I'm no longer surprised.

I'm no longer surprised that you would rather accept an extraordinary claim over a perfectly reasonable and likelier naturalistic claim with no rationale other than this flawed IIHS.

The basic premise of that book is wrong. God is not a "hypothesis" of any sort. So it's not relevant that God is a "failed" hypothesis.

It becomes clear why he titled his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" when you actually read it. What Stenger does is he takes empirically testable models of God and subjects them to the scientific method. He, of course, makes it perfectly clear almost at the very end of the book that some models of God cannot be empirically tested and are therefore not falsifiable.

But reading the book, you get the impression that he's attempting to disprove ALL models of God and the wording and language he uses seems to indicate that too. Nonetheless, it's a good source of information and he does show some good arguments in there. Though none that I would accept as conclusive disproof for any model of God.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Hi CM,

I am running out of time for an ever-expanding conversation. I think that if our points are sound we should be able to present them concisely. I realize that I asked you a number of questions which lead to this, so mea culpa.

If you want to continue, can we just limit the conversation a bit? You can pick whichever parts of what I said interest you most.

Thank you,
luna

Me too lol. It's a little much responding to walls of text. But you asked for the evidence upon which I base my morality and I presented it. There's no way I can do that concisely simply for the matter it's based on a lot of evidence.

If you want to continue, I'm game. If not, before we temporarily part ways before encountering each other on another thread, I'd like to thank you for asking a completely original question that made me actually reflect a bit. Your thoughts and opinions were a refreshing change of pace.

I'd also like to recommend to you Dawkins' The Selfish Gene again and that will give you a ton of information on this subject.

 

[lunamoth]

Me too lol. It's a little much responding to walls of text. But you asked for the evidence upon which I base my morality and I presented it. There's no way I can do that concisely simply for the matter it's based on a lot of evidence.

If you want to continue, I'm game. If not, before we temporarily part ways before encountering each other on another thread, I'd like to thank you for asking a completely original question that made me actually reflect a bit. Your thoughts and opinions were a refreshing change of pace.

I'd also like to recommend to you Dawkins' The Selfish Gene again and that will give you a ton of information on this subject.

On that gracious note I think I will wait for another day and another thread.

Thank you also for the conversation.

Cheers,
luna

 

[PureX]

(1) Everything that is contingent has a cause.
(2) Everything that is necessary does not require an explanation.
(3) The universe is contingent.
(4) Therefore the universe has a cause.
(5) God is a necessary being for the universe to exist.

------ I'm sure you'll in complete agreement at least up to here. I am, after all, playing your ball game. -----

(6) If the universe does not exist, God is no longer necessary. [Note: If you debate this point, you have to abandon your own premise (5).]
(7) Either the universe is infinite or finite.
(8) Something that has a cause cannot be infinite.
(9) The universe has a cause, so it cannot be infinite.
(10) The universe must therefore be finite.
(11) We assume God is infinite.
(12) For an infinite period of time before the creation of the universe, God was contingent (unnecessary).
(13) Contingent things have a cause.
(14) God has a cause.

The problem with this line of reason is that it's based on a few unwarranted presumptions. The whole cause and effect chain only applies to the universe itself. It does not necessarily apply outside of it.

In fact, the universe is really one single event, that is still taking place. We humans, because of the way we think, divide this event up into a complex of interrelated events, and we label that interrelationship between these perceived segments of the whole "cause and effect". But this interrelationship only applies to that which is occurring within the event we call the universe. What came before this event, and how it's related to this event is NOT PART of this event, or we would be able to recognize it as such. Therefor the general rule of cause and effect isn't relevant to it.

"3. The universe is contingent."

Upon what? It appears "contingent" from the inside because it's all one event, and so all the "parts" of the event that we see are related to all the other parts. But that says nothing about the entire event being contingent upon something outside itself. Nothing at all. So this statement is just a presumption based on nothing. Once this failed link is exposed, the rest of the chain falls apart.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The problem with this line of reason is that it's based on a few unwarranted presumptions. The whole cause and effect chain only applies to the universe itself. It does not necessarily apply outside of it.

In fact, the universe is really one single event, that is still taking place. We humans, because of the way we think, divide this event up into a complex of interrelated events, and we label that interrelationship between these perceived segments of the whole "cause and effect". But this interrelationship only applies to that which is occurring within the event we call the universe. What came before this event, and how it's related to this event is NOT PART of this event, or we would be able to recognize it as such. Therefor the general rule of cause and effect isn't relevant to it.

"3. The universe is contingent."

Upon what? It appears "contingent" from the inside because it's all one event, and so all the "parts" of the event that we see are related to all the other parts. But that says nothing about the entire event being contingent upon something outside itself. Nothing at all. So this statement is just a presumption based on nothing. Once this failed link is exposed, the rest of the chain falls apart.

You do realize that IS the argument from contingency? And I started off with those points - those assumptions that the argument from contingency makes in order ot demonstrate how it is flawed.

So in fact, you DO agree with me that this argument from contingency fails if the error is at presumption 3! Lmao!

 

[PureX]

You do realize that IS the argument from contingency? And I started off with those points - those assumptions that the argument from contingency makes in order ot demonstrate how it is flawed.

I agree that the "first cause" argument is flawed. It's a philosophical argument based on a presumption that ought not to have been made, and that I will not accept. But I'm not presenting you with the philosophical "first cause" argument. I'm presenting you with a simple scientific fact. And I'm claiming that that fact inevitably leads us to contemplate this "divine mystery" that is the source and sustenance of all existence. It's very difficult for most of us to dismiss this mystery as the result of chance, alone. And as such, I believe it stands as "evidence" for the existence of "God". In fact, "God" is the name many of us have given to this mystery.

The contingency argument does not reach beyond the event of the universe itself (the big bang), but the question of the source of energy and what controls it, does.

 

[Dunemeister]

It would be helpful to clarify in what sense we're using the word "rationality" in this discussion. Here are a few characterizations of rationality that have been proposed (by philosophers, at least).


Aristotelian rationality


Aristotle says humans are rational animals. Here the term "rational" seems to point to a property that distinguishes humanity from other animals. This property is the possession of ratio, the power of reason. Humans, unlike at least many other animals, have concepts and can hold beliefs; they can reason, reflect, think about things, even things far removed in space or time; humans are (or can be) knowers. Rational powers can come in degrees. We ordinarily think of ourselves as superior to other terrestrial animals, although we are usually prepared to say that some of them have at least rude powers of reason. There may also be aliens who far surpass us. So is the skeptic denying that a creature rational in this sense can accept Christian belief? Presumably not: given the many millions of rational animals who do accept it, that question has too easy an answer.


Rationality as proper function


So rational animals can and do accept Christian belief. But perhaps it is only malfunctioning rational animals who accept it, those whose rational faculties are dysfunctional or impeded in their function. A person in the grip of mania may form all sorts of weird beliefs; once the mania fades, we might say that rationality is restored. But during the mania, the person's cognitive establishment is dysfunctional. Therefore we can say that rationality is a matter of proper function, the absence of pathology. And irrationality is a matter of malfunction of (some of) the rational faculties, those by virtue of which we are rational animals.


Internal rationality


Here we need a distinction between internal and external rationality. Let's look at internal rationality first. Internal rationality is a matter of proper function of all belief-producing mechanisms "downstream from experience."


Experience
Experience comes in several varieties. First, there is sensuous imagery (sights, sounds, smells, etc.). Such imagery is important in perception; perceptual beliefs are formed in response to sensuous imagery.


There is other experience that goes with belief formation. The formation of memory beliefs is often accompanied by phenomenal experience, even if it is fragmentary, fleeting, indistinct, hard-to-focus. You remember attending Frank's party last year; the imagery you have is faint, indistinct, partial and fleeting. But there's another kind of experience present. The belief that it was Frank's party somehow seems right, acceptable, natural. It forces itself upon you; it seems somehow inevitable (what's the right word?). The belief feels right; it feels different from the belief that you were at Susan's party (to which you weren't invited). The same sort of experience goes with a priori beliefs. The proposition that 2 + 2 = 4 has no sensuous imagery associated with it at all (at least for me). But it still feels true; more, it feels necessarily true. Thinking about this proposition feels different from thinking about 2 + 2 = 7. Something about the latter belief feels rejectable, wrong; more, it feels necessarily wrong.


This second kind of experience is called doxastic experience because it always goes with forming beliefs. Internal rationality includes, in the first place, forming or holding the appropriate beliefs in response to experience, including phenomenal imagery and doxastic experience. With respect to the first, if I am appeared to in the way that goes with seeing a grey elephant, I don't form the belief that I am perceiving a Mozart opera.

Forming the right beliefs in response to doxastic experience is more interesting. A pathological skeptic might have the same sort of doxastic experience as the rest of us but still be unable to form the appropriate beliefs. I might be appeared to in the way that goes with seeing an apple fall from a tree. Out of pathological skeptical caution, I cannot believe that an apple is really falling. After all, it could be a cunningly contrived illusion, or I could be dreaming, or a brain in a vat, or.... This sort of response is precluded by internal rationality. On the other hand, take a person who believes his head is made of glass. That sort of response is not precluded by internal rationality. Perhaps this madman is subjected to overwhelming doxastic experience. The proposition that his head is made of glass is just utterly obvious to him, as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. Then the problem lies with the seeming, with their having this experience. However, given their doxastic experience, proper function requires (ceteris paribus) forming the belief. This person is externally irrational but internally rational.




Coherence, and responsibility
Lastly, internal rationality requires coherence. The idea is that if a person believes his head is glass, if he is coherent, he will also not believe that his head is flesh and bone. Further, an internally rational person will draw correct inferences from his beliefs. The man who thinks his head is glass will realize that playing football without a helmet is, for him at least, extremely dangerous. Still further, internally rational people choose appropriate courses of action. Given that you do believe your head is made of glass, you will avoid bumps. Finally, internal rationality requires preferring true beliefs to false ones, looking for evidence when that is appropriate, and in general trying to be epistemically responsible.


External rationality


External rationality requires proper function with respect to the formation of sensuous and doxastic experience. An externally rational person forms sensuous and doxastic experience in the right way. The sensuous and doxastic machinery itself is functioning aright.


Christian belief irrational?


Although a few might demur, most would concede that Christian belief can be held by people whose rational faculties are not malfunctioning, at at least not so as to involve clincial psychoses. Of course, Christian believers hold down jobs, some even as academics. But this doesn't settle the issue. Freud says Christian belief is the product of wish fulfillment, presumably not a cognitive capacity designed to acquire true beliefs. Marx says it's the result of a social malaise, the product of dysfunctional society. So maybe there's a non-question-begging way to say Christianity is irrational here, but it awaits something more than the raising of the possibility. The skeptic still owes us an argument.


Rationality as the deliverances of reason


Among what we know are self-evident propositions. Roughly, a proposition is self-evident if it is so utterly obvious that we can't even understand it without seeing that it is true. Examples include propositions like 7 + 5 = 12, and If Tom is taller than Jane, and Jane is taller than Matt, then Tom is taller than Matt. So taken, reason is our capacity to know the truth of self-evident propositions. This faculty also enables us to see that one proposition entails or implies another. The deliverances of reason, therefore, are self-evident propositions together with propositions self-evidently entailed by them. A proposition is rational, then, if it is a deliverance of reason. A proposition is irrational if its denial is among the deliverances of reason. So 7 + 5 = 12 is a deliverance of reason. It is rational. 7 + 5 = 13 is a denial of 7 + 5 = 12, so it is irrational. On this showing, lots of propositions -- contingent ones -- are niether rational nor irrational. Caesar crossed the Rubicon is not self-evidently true, so it is not a deliverance of reason. It is not "rational" in that sense. However, neither its denial, It is not the case that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Rationality, taken in the sense under discussion here, does not attach to such propositions.


Is Christianity rational in this sense? No. The central truths of Christianity are not self-evident. Nor can they be deduced from what is self-evident. Of course, that's nothing against Christian belief. The same holds for what is taught by historians, physicists, and evolutionary biologists.


Well, is Christianity irrational? Do the truths of Christianity deny or entail the denial of a deliverance of reason? If Christian beliefs were irrational in this sense, that would indeed be something against them. Some skeptics have taken this line. The classic deductive problem of evil is an example. Others have argued that Christian beliefs such as atonement or incarnation are self-contradictory. The results of this type of argument, though, are inconclusive. Everything depends on the precise formulation of the doctrine we are considering. Some of these formulations may indeed be inconsistent; but it is hard to find a really inconsistent formulation that is widely believed. Further, if a Christian comes to realize that he believes in an inconsistent version of a doctrine, he can easily replace that formulation with one that is consistent. However, those who press the idea that Christian belief is irrational are not really saying that Christian belief is merely inconsistent. Generally, the claim is that, even if Christian belief is perfectly consistent, there is still something seriously wrong with it. So clearly it is not this kind of rationality at issue when skeptics charge Christian belief with irrationality.

 

[Dunemeister]

You mention Christianity as basic. Are other religions basic too in your opinion?

Probably. But not all are properly basic.

Except you cannot demonstrate that God is functioning. If you use IIHS to demonstrate this, it's faulty logic.[/quote]

I don't so it's not.

"IIHS is a basic belief that supports my belief in God." "IIHS is basic because the cognitive mechanism of God functions properly (though you have no way of affirming this beyond the assumption that God is perfect)." "Therefore IIHS is rational."

More precisely, my belief in God is properly basic. IIHS is the mechanism by which one can have true beliefs about God (if Christianity is true).

Not only can IIHS be shown to be false with empirical data, your basis for claiming it is rational rests on assumptions you cannot possibly confirm.

Wrong and right (empirically). IIHS is, as I said, merely possible (if Christianity is true). If you wish to object to it, you have to show Christianity is not true (and therefore its proposed mechanisms are false).

Based on Christian assumptions about God and his supposed morality, I don't view him as a loving father either. Not because I'm unwilling to because of "sin" or whatever. But because I objectively view God's actions in the Bible as disgusting.

How objective can it be when millions of people disagree with you?

I've heard some Christians put forth the argument that if God was restricted in moral agency he wouldn't be omnipotent. But then God cannot be omnibenevolent because omnibenevolence would be a restriction of his omnipotency.

Weird argument.

This isn't due to the ravages of sin, but to an objective standpoint. I see no decrease in my moral character by not accepting God. Thus in addition to the evidence, I see no reason why IIHS is rational.

What evidence? The point I was making is that, if Christianity is true, it receives its warrant by way of IIHS (or something like it). I claim that the IIHS, if true, is a cognitive mechanism that would permit people to know the truth of Christian doctrines. Of course, it may well be false. But that awaits argument.

 

[Smoke]

IIHS is, as I said, merely possible (if Christianity is true). If you wish to object to it, you have to show Christianity is not true (and therefore its proposed mechanisms are false).

Christianity is false. I know this by the internal instigation of Eris (IIE). IIE is the means by which one may have true beliefs about God, if Discordianism is true. If you wish to object to the evidence provided by IIE, you have to show that Discordianism is not true.

 

[Dunemeister]

I was speaking in general terms, not specifically Christianity, but if you so desire, we can stick to whether or not belief in Christianity is rational.

I defined rational and irrational earlier (somewhere) in this thread. This is the basis on which I judge a claim to be rational.

A rational claim has to be supported by evidence.

Can you support A rational claim has to be supported by evidence with evidence? No? Must be an irrational belief, then?

To be rational (so you say), a Christian needs evidence:

Not necessarily conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless. It might be very weak evidence in comparison to the ordinarity of the claim, but it is still rational if the evidence can be shown to verify what you are claiming and there are no logical conflicts or other possible and reasonable conclusions that can arise from the evidence.

Yet

Christianity - and any religion - has not a single speck of evidence to empirically demonstrate the existence of their respective God(s).

Not a speck? You go on to list several possibilities for Christian evidences, and then say they are not conclusive. I agree. But you contradict yourself if you say they don't represent a "speck" of evidence. Your whole line demonstrates to me that you're not laboring under the view that Christianity is irrational. You simply don't think it's true. Therefore, any putative evidence must be completely, utterly, discounted so that it doesn't even count as a speck. Honestly, that comes off as intellectually dishonest or vacant.

Instead, Christians like to tell me they rely on "faith". Well, faith isn't a rational reason either because it is subjective to the person holding it.

All beliefs are subjective inasmuch as it is persons who have beliefs. But as I've been saying, if Christianity is true, it is warranted through faith (what I've been calling IIHS). IIHS, if it were true, would count as a reliable cognitive mechanism through which one can arrive at true beliefs about God. Therefore, in the sense of rational as proper function (see my post on definitions of rationality), Christian belief is rational. If it is rational in this sense, it doesn't matter whether the Christian has evidence in the sense your version of rationality requires.

And if God was totally all-loving, wouldn't anyone who brings themself to believe in God totally and convincingly WANT to be in a relationship like that? And yet, we see a rise of atheism in the West.

I'm not sure this follows or that the rise of atheism tells against God's benevolence.

We have neurological mechanisms to explain exactly why people believe in God. It is a naturalistic process. If you can inhibit those mechanisms and one STILL believes in God, then you might have a case for using "faith" as evidence. Until then, you have no rational reason to believe in God.

Well, why shouldn't we expect neurology to attend religious belief and/or experience? On a physical level, ALL our beliefs are attended by some sort of neurology or other. To be true, IIHS wouldn't have to violate this. We should expect this. I don't understand why it should be otherwise.

I refer you to my posts with lunamoth in this thread where I showed how there is no difference between Christians and non-Christians on a moral average. There is hard evidence for that fact. The difference you see is your own perception, but the data indicates otherwise.

I wasn't arguing that anyone is superior to anyone else. I argued only that we use moral language because we were created in the image of God. Thus we have a sort of vague impression of the rightness and wrongness of things. Sure, some of our intuitions are stronger than others. But why is it, then, that we have such a hard time acting morally? Well, that's because of damage to our divine sense. Through IIHS, some of this damage is repaired. That's not to say that everyone under the influence of IIHS becomes a paragon of virtue. It's also important to realize that not everyone who takes the label "Christian" has been affected by IIHS.

At best, your IIHS is useless if its purpose is to repair the damage caused by sin. Morality is innate in all humans. It's a naturalistic process guided by evolution and genetics. To deny this would be denial of an evidential belief meaning you would be required to provide your own evidence to contradict these claims.

Beg the question all you like....

You say Christians rely on the assumption that Christianity is true and therefore a basic belief and therefore it does not require evidence. And then go on to say that the critic of Christianity is the one who requires evidence to prove it is false.

No, that's not what I say. I say that IF Christianity is true, it would receive its warrant in the basic way, via IIHS, without recourse to evidence. IIHS is, ex hypothesis, a reliable belief-producing mechanism, and in the sense of proper function, the beliefs it produces would be rational. If the critic wishes to press the charge of IRRATIONALITY against the Christian, the critic must demonstrate that Christianity is false.

How about some specifics. How is Christianity falsifiable?

Well, you might show that the whole basis for it is undoubtedly a fraud. For instance, you might point to authentic letters from the apostles where they discuss in all seriousness foisting the fraud that would become known as Christianity on the world. Or you might show that Christian belief arises from a noncognitive process (like Freud or Marx tries).

Except it is evidentially untrue. It isn't basic.

You're mixing up terms here. A belief is basic if its warrant arises without evidence (like mathematical beliefs, logical beliefs, memory beliefs, perceptual beliefs, testimonial beliefs, and, so I say, some beliefs about God.)

Your belief in IIHS (from above in this post) is untrue. It doesn't receive the warrant you attribute to it. If IIHS is your only way of verifying (to yourself, at least) Christianity is true, then it is shown that you cannot verify Christianity to be true (I am not saying from this it is necessarily false).

I don't "verify" or prove the truth of Christianity via IIHS (or any other argument). I say that if Christianity is true, IIHS would be a way for it to receive warrant sufficient for knowledge.

 

[Dunemeister]

Christianity is false. I know this by the internal instigation of Eris (IIE). IIE is the means by which one may have true beliefs about God, if Discordianism is true. If you wish to object to the evidence provided by IIE, you have to show that Discordianism is not true.

I'll get to this, Smoke, because there is an answer to the tu quoque objection. I just don't have time today.

 

[themadhair]

I’m pretty much agreeing with ContentiusMaximus here, but I have to take issue with what (s)he considers to be a rational idea. I do not believe evidence is a requirement for an idea to be rational. Any idea that doesn’t have contradictory evidence would be rational imo regardless of its truth value.

 

[themadhair]

I'll get to this, Smoke, because there is an answer to the tu quoque objection. I just don't have time today.

All beliefs are subjective inasmuch as it is persons who have beliefs. But as Smoke has been saying, if Christianity is irrational, it is warranted through faith (what he has called IIE). IIE, if it were true, would count as a reliable cognitive mechanism through which one can arrive at the irrationality of Christianity. Therefore, in the sense of rational as proper function (see your own post on definitions of rationality), the Christian belief is irrational. If it is irrational in this sense, it doesn't matter whether the skeptic has evidence in the sense CM’s version of rationality requires.

 

[Smoke]

I’m pretty much agreeing with ContentiusMaximus here, but I have to take issue with what (s)he considers to be a rational idea. I do not believe evidence is a requirement for an idea to be rational. Any idea that doesn’t have contradictory evidence would be rational imo regardless of its truth value.

I think we may be using different definitions of "rational." I think a (generally) rational person can believe in leprechauns without being at all insane, but a belief in leprechauns is not a rational belief because it is not based on evidence or reason. In the absence of a rational basis, it is not a rational belief -- even if leprechauns do in fact exist.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think we may be using different definitions of "rational." I think a (generally) rational person can believe in leprechauns without being at all insane, but a belief in leprechauns is not a rational belief because it is not based on evidence or reason. In the absence of a rational basis, it is not a rational belief -- even if leprechauns do in fact exist.

So the vast majority of our beliefs are irrational. Check.