To the Anti-Religious

[Commoner]

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

The "rational-or-irrational" discussion is completely redundant.

It really is just a matter of semantics and it's distracting from the main points. Dunemeister, if you look at it from the opposite standpoint, you could say all our beliefs are rational. If nothing else - we were able to convince ourselves, we had enough evidence to justify them to ourselves. Otherwise we would not believe them. What does it matter?

But if you look at it from a bit more of a pragmatical standpoint, we have to draw the line somewhere. If you believe in anything supernatural (something really, really unusual) for which you have no evidence (and maybe even couldn't have any) other than that which you could only "use" for yourself, I don't think you can consider that belief completely rational. True or false is another matter.

I mean, really - rational, not rational, irrational - what does it matter, you're still completely wrong!

 

[Vile Atheist]

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.

And I'll address themadhair and Dunemeister here too. The length of posts in the exchange between Dunemeister and myself is growing exponentially so I'll try and make this as concise as my long-winded nature will allow me.

At the very least, we can all agree - and I'm sure including Dunemeister - that a belief is rational if it has non-conflicting evidence behind it, even if that evidence isn't necessarily conclusive. The question is whether or not a belief can be rational in the absense of any evidence.

My personal view is that everything must have evidence behind it, whether empirical or logical. Even someone's philosophical views may rely on empirical data. No matter what we do in our daily lives, we require some amount of evidence - usually weak and inconclusive because we live ordinary lives. When you cross the road, you want to be sure you get to the other side. You look both ways to ensure no vehicles are approaching. That is evidence that when you will cross the road, you will make it safely.

Following Smoke's example, someone's belief in leprachauns would be rational if they experienced leprachauns and it can be demonstrated that they are free of any mental deficiencies that would lead to those beliefs.

I would accept Christianity as rational if someone who claims to have experienced God was shown to be free of any mental condition that would facilitate that. More importantly, confirmation that the experience was of the Christian God.

I would accept Christianity as rational if history confirmed the events of the Bible.

I would accept Christianity as rational if believers had a higher moral sense than non-believers (including other theists).

I have given other examples of how I would consider Christianity to be a rational belief in another post with Dunemeister. But Christianity has not fulfilled my criteria for that. All I ask for is one piece of non-conflicting evidence and then I'll consider Christianity a rational belief.

I cannot think of one belief I have that does not rely on any sort of evidence, either empirical or logical. And I emphasize that not all the evidence has to be conclusive, just non-conflicting.

However, Christianity does have conflicting evidence against it. There are other religions that make virtually the same claims as Christianity. If Christianity were true, it would have to demonstrate how all other religions are false. What prevents a Jew from using IIHS? Or a Muslim? Or a Hindu?

The problem with saying you have faith in a particular religion is that the existence of all other religions forces the person with faith to justify why they accept one religion over another. Evidence, on the other hand, is objective. Evidence is something someone of any religion or lack thereof would accept to bolster or debunk any religious claims. Anyone can look at evidence and apply the scientific method and arrive at pretty much the same conclusions. It's not subjective faith, but an objective conclusion.

Evidence is objective, which is why it makes logical sense to use it to substantiate all your beliefs. Even when you get into philosophy and especially subjects concerning morality and ethics, you may still rely on empirical facts to give your reasoning for accepting something as moral or immoral. Thus, your belief is substantiated with evidence.

Evidence-based beliefs are strong beliefs because it takes other conflicting evidence to shoot them down. It's not simply a matter of "I have faith in Jesus" "Well, I have faith in Ganesh!". It's a matter of "I believe X is true because A, B, and C." "Well, I have evidence D, E, and F that conflicts with A and B. Thus, I have come up with conclusion Y to account for the conflicting evidence and C."

Doesn't that ultimately make more sense instead of trying to slip the ropes of the burden of proof by trying to claim that believing in something requires no evidence? How do we know it is true?

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.

He lol. And I thought that the "non-contradicting" bit would be obvious. Meh. In any case, I agree.

 

[Smoke]

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

Speak for yourself.

 

[rageoftyrael]

The real problem is, how many theists actually look at their religion from the other side? How many actually think about it? I would say not many. If you guys did, a lot more of you would be athiests.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The real problem is, how many theists actually look at their religion from the other side? How many actually think about it? I would say not many. If you guys did, a lot more of you would be athiests.

That's pretty much why I became atheist lol.

 

[Dunemeister]

The "rational-or-irrational" discussion is completely redundant.

It really is just a matter of semantics and it's distracting from the main points. Dunemeister, if you look at it from the opposite standpoint, you could say all our beliefs are rational. If nothing else - we were able to convince ourselves, we had enough evidence to justify them to ourselves. Otherwise we would not believe them. What does it matter?

But if you look at it from a bit more of a pragmatical standpoint, we have to draw the line somewhere. If you believe in anything supernatural (something really, really unusual) for which you have no evidence (and maybe even couldn't have any) other than that which you could only "use" for yourself, I don't think you can consider that belief completely rational. True or false is another matter.

I mean, really - rational, not rational, irrational - what does it matter, you're still completely wrong!

LOL

Well, let me just say that this is really the thrust of Smoke's objection, which I will get to. Let me just say that I agree with Smoke that we may be using different interpretations of the word "rational." I think she means "justified" or something like it. I take a rational belief to be one generated by properly functioning cognitive faculties in a congenial cognitive environment.

 

[Dunemeister]

The real problem is, how many theists actually look at their religion from the other side? How many actually think about it? I would say not many. If you guys did, a lot more of you would be athiests.

You'd be surprised. I might also ask you to take your skeptical attitude toward your atheism; you might become a Christian. (That's more or less what happened to me, although I started from agnosticism, not atheism.)

 

[Dunemeister]

Speak for yourself.

It's a consequence of your statement, not an honest appraisal of what you think. Here I think you simply don't see the consequence of your demand that all beliefs require evidence. If that's so, then most of our beliefs (the vast majority in fact) are irrational.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

PureX still hasn't presented that evidence for god...

 

[Commoner]

PureX still hasn't presented that evidence for god...

Of course not, it's proprietary knowledge.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Of course not, it's proprietary knowledge.

I see.

 

[themadhair]

PureX still hasn't presented that evidence for god...

You missed the thread PureX starter here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/85526-lets-present-some-evidence.html

 

[Vile Atheist]

That's very weak evidence for God...and not to mention if it isn't a logical fallacy, it's conflicting evidence. So it's not even reliable. Or it's an argument from a misunderstanding of a scientific concept. It's an honest attempt, but it doesn't succeed.

 

[Dunemeister]

I cannot think of one belief I have that does not rely on any sort of evidence, either empirical or logical. And I emphasize that not all the evidence has to be conclusive, just non-conflicting.

One of the problems here, in the way you are conceiving of things, is to conflate experience with evidence. They are decidedly not the same thing, philosophically speaking (and in our context, we are definitely speaking philosophically). For instance, I believe that there's a computer screen in front of my now as I type this. This belief is based on a certain experience that I'm having. However, my perception of the computer is not evidence for the proposition that there is a computer screen in front of me. It's not evidence for you, and it is not evidence for me. I do not form an argument such as "Right now I am appeared to computerly; usually, when I am appeared to computerly, there's a computer in front of me; therefore, probably there is a computer in front of me." I could argue like this, but most of the time I don't. And my belief is rational even if I don't. This is what philosophers call a basic belief, a belief directly dependent upon experience but not evidence. That is, the experience simply gives rise to the belief without any sort of argument (either actual or theoretical).

Evidence, to be philosophically precise, is a proposition that plays a role in an argument for another belief. This gets back to my example of the CSI agent who works a crime scene. The agent sifts through trace and other evidence to form the belief "the butler did it." The agent (presumably) doesn't have an experience that simply "gives rise" to the belief that the butler did it. Rather, "the butler did it" is a conclusion to a (probably complex) argument based on a host of other beliefs about the meaning and significance of the pieces of data. We can call these evidentiary beliefs if we like.

Granted this distinction, most of our beliefs turn out to be basic beliefs rather than evidentiary beliefs. So most of our beliefs are such that there is no evidence for them. Yet they seem perfectly rational.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Three main problems I see with this and hopefully you can address them.

1) How is Christianity basic, then? You give your example of "experiencing" the computer screen in front of us. I can experience the computer screen the same way as you do. We both have an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the computer screen. But obviously we don't experience the Christian God in the same objective way. So how can it be basic? The Christian God is invoked to explain the universe. Thus it is more of an evidential belief than a basic one, in a sort of way. "The universe exists, therefore God created the universe".

2) Do you not agree that evidentiary beliefs are stronger than basic ones?

3) Back to the computer screen example. You say the computer screen is a basic belief. But there is evidence for the computer screen. We can sense it and manipulate it. We can build them and understand them. The principles that go into the making of a computer screen can be applied to other fields. We wouldn't be able to do this if it were merely, say, a hallucination. So the computer screen is evidentiary as it has evidence behind it. Though we cannot prove conclusively our experience of it is a hallucination, the mere fact were able to do all those things is evidence that it isn't.

 

[Smoke]

It's a consequence of your statement, not an honest appraisal of what you think. Here I think you simply don't see the consequence of your demand that all beliefs require evidence. If that's so, then most of our beliefs (the vast majority in fact) are irrational.

That's not exactly what I said. I said that a belief with no basis in evidence or reason is irrational. I can't imagine by what flight of fancy you imagine that most our beliefs are irrational under that definition.

 

[Dunemeister]

Three main problems I see with this and hopefully you can address them.

1) How is Christianity basic, then? You give your example of "experiencing" the computer screen in front of us. I can experience the computer screen the same way as you do. We both have an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the computer screen.

Right. Zero. Again, you're conflating experience with evidence. They're NOT the same.

But obviously we don't experience the Christian God in the same objective way. So how can it be basic?

"Basic" doesn't mean universal. It only means without evidence.

It's possible for one's cognitive establishment to fail to function properly. Thus, for instance, Christians would say that sin interferes with humanity's knowledge of and attitude toward God. Or perhaps they are functioning just fine but are in a situation for which they weren't designed. On Alpha Centauri, I might form all sorts of crazy beliefs because of cosmic rays that don't exist here on earth, my intended home. My cognitive faculties are functioning as they are supposed to in this case, but they are in an environment for which they are not designed. In our case, beliefs based on testimony can have warrant for the listener only if they have warrant for the testifier. So if the testifier is lying (knows he's telling a falsehood), then the belief has no warrant for him; therefore it has no warrant for me, even if I fully believe it and have no reason to disbelieve it. Testimony isn't designed to function in an environment where everyone is an inveterate liar.

The Christian God is invoked to explain the universe. Thus it is more of an evidential belief than a basic one, in a sort of way. "The universe exists, therefore God created the universe".

In the context of debate about the truth of theism, sure. But in normal religious practice, God is not invoked to explain the universe. His hand in nature is simply assumed without any further ado. I simply look at the universe, and the belief "God is magnificently powerful and loving" (or others like it that entail the existence of God) simply emerge in me, and they form the basis for the rest of my thought.

2) Do you not agree that evidentiary beliefs are stronger than basic ones?

No. Indeed, most evidentiary beliefs are weaker than basic ones because they have complex chains of reasoning and metaphysical assumption they must appeal to. Each leg of the argument is only probabilistic, so the more complex the argument, the weaker the whole case becomes. (I said I didn't want to get into probability calculus, partly because it stretches my logical prowess, but I suggest you look into that yourself if you're better at formal logic than I am.)

3) Back to the computer screen example. You say the computer screen is a basic belief. But there is evidence for the computer screen. We can sense it and manipulate it. We can build them and understand them. The principles that go into the making of a computer screen can be applied to other fields. We wouldn't be able to do this if it were merely, say, a hallucination. So the computer screen is evidentiary as it has evidence behind it. Though we cannot prove conclusively our experience of it is a hallucination, the mere fact were able to do all those things is evidence that it isn't.

Not exactly. I'm talking about the belief I formed at the moment of typing, "There's a computer in front of me." Now perhaps all sorts of experience is required for me to even coherently form this belief. (I need to know what a computer is, how it differs from a TV, and so on.) But given that I have the necessary concepts, my belief that there is a computer in front of me is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Sure, I might have beliefs about what we can do with computers or that we can build them and so forth. But those beliefs play exactly no role in the formation of my belief that there is a computer in front of me right now. None. Not even theoretically. Not by any stretch of logic. Not at all. In no way....

 

[Dunemeister]

That's not exactly what I said. I said that a belief with no basis in evidence or reason is irrational. I can't imagine by what flight of fancy you imagine that most our beliefs are irrational under that definition.

Because most of our beliefs have no basis in evidence or reason, unless you take "reason" the way I do to mean "the proper functioning of cognitive faculties." The vast majority of our beliefs are formed without appeal to any evidence whatsoever. Perceptual beliefs, memory beliefs (which is actually the vast majority of our beliefs), testimonial beliefs (believed on authority, and together with memory, forms the vast majority of our beliefs), logical beliefs (we understand the logical principle and just see it's necessarily true and can't be false-- we don't have evidence for their necessity), and many others are basic. Relatively few (although those few are not, by virtue of their relative scarcity, diminished in importance) are actually formed on the basis of argument from evidence.

 

[darkendless]

Right. Zero. Again, you're conflating experience with evidence. They're NOT the same.

Without experience, evidence is useless.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Without experience, evidence is useless.

In fact, without experience, we cannot interpret evidence.