Talking Religion...

[MaxBuck]

...Goodnight Moon (my mother despised this book yet lovingly read it to me repeatedly).

Why did your mom have so strong a negative reaction to Goodnight Moon? That sounds almost like hating Mr. Rogers; hard to do.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Substituting ignorance of how the universe came to be (or anything else for that matter) with God is irrational. And why is God the de facto best alternative to ignorance? I'm content saying that I don't know for sure how the universe was created, but I do have some hypotheses (and I'll even acknowledge that God could be the creator, although I give that a very low probability).

I have to disagree with you that "It is quite possible for an intelligent person to come to a conclusion which may not be supported by scientific evidence and yet is still entirely rational". So it would be rational to claim that the sun revolves around the earth, or that possession by evil spirits causes mental disorders, or that Catholics are drinking actual blood during the Eucharist? Or what specific conclusion did you have in mind (and please don't state a belief in God because there is no scientific evidence for that)?

Can't speak directly for BayBuck but, I don't think he meant in spite of physical scientific evidence. In other words we can be rational on things that aren't science.

Edit: In other words rationality isn't exclusively owned by science.

 

[Brewtus]

Can't speak directly for BayBuck but, I don't think he meant in spite of physical scientific evidence. In other words we can be rational on things that aren't science.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "things that aren't science" since everything in the physical world is encompassed by science. And belief in anything outside the physical world for which there is no direct evidence, is irrational by definition.

But I agree with BKB above who stated that "irrational" shouldn't necessarily have negative connotations associated with it. I have some irrational beliefs (like I'm certain that the Buckeyes will win a National Championship this year), but I'm also able to acknowledge that they are irrational. Just like belief in God is based on faith and not rational thought supported by evidence.

 

[BayBuck]

I have to disagree with you that "It is quite possible for an intelligent person to come to a conclusion which may not be supported by scientific evidence and yet is still entirely rational". So it would be rational to claim that the sun revolves around the earth, or that possession by evil spirits causes mental disorders, or that Catholics are drinking actual blood during the Eucharist? Or what specific conclusion did you have in mind (and please don't state a belief in God because there is no scientific evidence for that)?

I think that a rational conclusion follows from a rational process leading up to that conclusion, and as has been mentioned "scientific evidence" is not the basis of reason. I agree with muffler that there seems to be a disconnect here in terms of the definition of "rationality", which is generally more synonymous with logic than science and I feel is being used too broadly by Dawkins (and in turn, by you here).

I stand by my assertion that a person can rationally come to a conclusion that is unsupported or unaddressed by science. I did not come to my own religious faith in an irrational manner, nor are my beliefs irrational because they cannot be proven to you.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "things that aren't science" since everything in the physical world is encompassed by science. And belief in anything outside the physical world for which there is no direct evidence, is irrational by definition.

But I agree with BKB above who stated that "irrational" shouldn't necessarily have negative connotations associated with it. I have some irrational beliefs (like I'm certain that the Buckeyes will win a National Championship this year), but I'm also able to acknowledge that they are irrational. Just like belief in God is based on faith and not rational thought supported by evidence.

So, you're discounting all of philosophy, which supposedly rationally draws conclusions from things that aren't necessarily physical?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Here's a link discussing irrational

I confess to not reading the whole thing, but a couple of things I was able to gather (and which fall in line with my understanding of the term)

1) An "irrational" belief is one which you might "hope" is true, even in the face of significant evidence against

I believe it be true that a believer such as myself can correctly be accused of "hoping" G-d exists. I would not, however, go so far as to say one does so in the face of evidence to the contrary. I would concede a lack of assured evidence in support of the contention, but I would also expect a concession that there is no affirmative support of some other position as well. In short, there is hardly any "evidence" FOR or AGAINST a G-d. That is, if He IS... I see no reason why our present reality would not continue to behave as it actually does.. Likewise I can conceive of this reality behaving in the manner it actually does and there not being a G-d responsible for it.

2) An "irrational" belief is not "false" by its very nature.

Taking even Brew's "I think the Buckeyes are going to win the NC in 2009" example... this remark, while irrational, has indeterminate truth in fact. We can be sure that Brew believes it (I realize this is an overstatement of what we can be "sure" of, but it's beyond the point I think), but we cannot be sure that the Buckeyes will indeed win, or that there is even compelling reason to believe so. (While there may indeed be)

 

[Brewtus]

So, you're discounting all of philosophy, which supposedly rationally draws conclusions from things that aren't necessarily physical?

I think we're going off on some hypothetical tangents here so let me go back to my original statement that belief in God is irrational. For those who disagree with me, take me through the rational and logical steps of how you came to believe in God. I've been in these discussions many times before and in the end it always comes down to faith (which is a belief in something for which there is no evidence, which is not a rational and logical concept).

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I think we're going off on some hypothetical tangents here so let me go back to my original statement that belief in God is irrational. For those who disagree with me, take me through the rational and logical steps of how you came to believe in God. I've been in these discussions many times before and in the end it always comes down to faith (which is a belief in something for which there is no evidence, which is not a rational and logical concept).

Your question cannot be answered without agreement on what irrational means.

 

[jwinslow]

Why did your mom have so strong a negative reaction to Goodnight Moon? That sounds almost like hating Mr. Rogers; hard to do.

Mindless repetitive blather, not to mention the repetition she lovingly provided on many nights.

Generally an overly positive person, I must have asked for it constantly

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think we're going off on some hypothetical tangents here so let me go back to my original statement that belief in God is irrational. For those who disagree with me, take me through the rational and logical steps of how you came to believe in God. I've been in these discussions many times before and in the end it always comes down to faith (which is a belief in something for which there is no evidence, which is not a rational and logical concept).

I would argue in reverse....

This universe exists.
Is G-d Possible?
If yes - G-d may exist
If no - G-d may not exist

Does this universe exclude the possibility of G-d?
(My answer thus far): No.
Thus, is G-d possible: Yes

Technically, that's as far as I can go.

Bringing in ideas from other disciplines, however, I would suggest that if a thing is possible, it MUST exist (Multiple Universe Theory (ie M-theory, etc.)) Because today's "cutting edge" science on cosmology is inclined to believe in an infinite amount of universes, I am therefore, I think "rational" in my belief in a creator G-d. Because he is "possible"

 

[muffler dragon]

FWIW - I've never understood the word "irrational" - used in the philosophical sense of the word - to be derogatory in any way. I've always considered it as a word describing a certain type of thought. One based more on the emotional than the physical.... Not saying my understanding is "correct" just that I don't think the word is used in philosophical contexts to connote any degree of particular contempt.

Thanks for the difference in perspective. I understand.

Here's a link discussing irrational

I confess to not reading the whole thing, but a couple of things I was able to gather (and which fall in line with my understanding of the term)

1) An "irrational" belief is one which you might "hope" is true, even in the face of significant evidence against

I believe it be true that a believer such as myself can correctly be accused of "hoping" G-d exists. I would not, however, go so far as to say one does so in the face of evidence to the contrary. I would concede a lack of assured evidence in support of the contention, but I would also expect a concession that there is no affirmative support of some other position as well. In short, there is hardly any "evidence" FOR or AGAINST a G-d. That is, if He IS... I see no reason why our present reality would not continue to behave as it actually does.. Likewise I can conceive of this reality behaving in the manner it actually does and there not being a G-d responsible for it.

2) An "irrational" belief is not "false" by its very nature.

Taking even Brew's "I think the Buckeyes are going to win the NC in 2009" example... this remark, while irrational, has indeterminate truth in fact. We can be sure that Brew believes it (I realize this is an overstatement of what we can be "sure" of, but it's beyond the point I think), but we cannot be sure that the Buckeyes will indeed win, or that there is even compelling reason to believe so. (While there may indeed be)

Very interesting.

I'll have to take some time to digest this, and how it relates to my theistic belief.

 

[BayBuck]

I think we're going off on some hypothetical tangents here so let me go back to my original statement that belief in God is irrational. For those who disagree with me, take me through the rational and logical steps of how you came to believe in God. I've been in these discussions many times before and in the end it always comes down to faith (which is a belief in something for which there is no evidence, which is not a rational and logical concept).

I think more pertinent would be the rational progression to accept the limits of human knowledge and then take a reasoned leap into the realm of faith. Whether you accept that logical progression is not the issue here, since you are not the arbiter of rationality despite your own belief in your ability to determine its boundaries. Despite your attempts to conflate science with reason, your charges of irrationality remain simply an opinion--my own opinion is that faith and rationality are not exclusive (though relying too heavily on one may tend to promote an antagonism to the other).

 

[Gatorubet]

FWIW - I've never understood the word "irrational" - used in the philosophical sense of the word - to be derogatory in any way. I've always considered it as a word describing a certain type of thought. One based more on the emotional than the physical.... Not saying my understanding is "correct" just that I don't think the word is used in philosophical contexts to connote any degree of particular contempt.

I'll kill you, you heretic!!!!

 

[Brewtus]

Here's a link discussing irrational

I confess to not reading the whole thing, but a couple of things I was able to gather (and which fall in line with my understanding of the term)

1) An "irrational" belief is one which you might "hope" is true, even in the face of significant evidence against

I believe it be true that a believer such as myself can correctly be accused of "hoping" G-d exists. I would not, however, go so far as to say one does so in the face of evidence to the contrary. I would concede a lack of assured evidence in support of the contention, but I would also expect a concession that there is no affirmative support of some other position as well. In short, there is hardly any "evidence" FOR or AGAINST a G-d. That is, if He IS... I see no reason why our present reality would not continue to behave as it actually does.. Likewise I can conceive of this reality behaving in the manner it actually does and there not being a G-d responsible for it.

But if there is no evidence that something exists, why is it rational to believe that it does exist anyway? Also, the "evidence" for and against God is not equal. And if you're going to open the door and believe that something exists without evidence, how do you know what to believe in and what not to? Do Zeus and Ra exist? If not, what criteria do you use to be certain of there non-existence which is different than your belief in God?

2) An "irrational" belief is not "false" by its very nature.

Taking even Brew's "I think the Buckeyes are going to win the NC in 2009" example... this remark, while irrational, has indeterminate truth in fact. We can be sure that Brew believes it, but we cannot be sure that the Buckeyes will indeed win, or that there is even compelling reason to believe so. (While there may indeed be)

I agree. Which is why I'm not 100% atheist and I don't know how anyone can be 100% certain that God does not exist. I think it's very unlikely, but I will acknowledge that it is possible.

 

[Brewtus]

I think more pertinent would be the rational progression to accept the limits of human knowledge and then take a reasoned leap into the realm of faith. Whether you accept that logical progression is not the issue here, since you are not the arbiter of rationality despite your own belief in your ability to determine its boundaries. Despite your attempts to conflate science with reason, your charges of irrationality remain simply an opinion--my own opinion is that faith and rationality are not exclusive (though relying too heavily on one may tend to promote an antagonism to the other).

But isn't that just belief in a "God of the gaps"? In other words, God exists in matters that humans either don't have adequate knowledge of yet or will never be able to comprehend with our limited brains. We're not certain of exactly how the universe came to be, so God must have created it. Or we're not sure what happens after we die, so God must have given us souls. I have issues with accepting that once we reach the limits of human knowledge we must then take a step into the realm of faith. What's wrong with just saying "I don't know"? Maybe someday mankind will learn how the universe was created, what then? Is there no need for God?