Is a belief in god(s) Irrational?
Yeah... sorry. I didn't see the second statement right away. But my reply applies to both.
Anyway, the point of the question was to see where you stood on the epistemology of things for which there is no evidence but a plausible case. For example, there is a plausible case to be made we're in a simulation, but there is zero evidence and can be none. Do we abandon the theory? Is it "rational" to believe we are in a simulation, with zero evidence, only logical arguments about the frequency of simulations vs genuine worlds?
And if so, or not, why doesn't that same kind of logic apply to God?
Yes, it does. Science is applied though Methodological Naturalism, it only accepts that there is the Natural world and does not accept supernatural explanations because they are not useful. The vast majority of scientists adhere to Naturalism.
If you accept the supernatural, you are, by definition, rejecting Scientific explanations.
If you accept the supernatural, you are, by definition, rejecting Scientific explanations.
The most common scientific paradigm today is empiricism, which has the advantage of not having to make arbitrary distinctions that serves absolutely no purpose as a scientific tool.
Empirical method might often be practically identical to positivist / naturalist approaches, but again - that only shows why it is so vastly superior. Same strength, none of the baggage.
There is plenty of evidence, I'm assuming though that you don't find it convincing. But, the OP assumes the existence of this evidence and asks the question about whether or not it's going further than is supported by the available evidence to say that it supports the existence of gods.
Your post confuses me though. If they don't claim that the existence of God is logically inconsistent with the available evidence then why are they not convinced by it? And if they're not convinced by it, then am I right to ask if the claim that god exists is going 'beyond' the available evidence and is therefore irrational by the definition I gave?
There are some philosophers who defend the logical problem of evil as showing that traditional conceptions of God don't exist are inconsistent with the evidence, but the evidential problem of evil (which generally admits that the existence of evil doesn't logically imply that god doesn't exist) is more popular.
I guess I'm using the context of the existence of god more to explore the idea of 'rational belief' than actually trying to answer the question of whether or not god exists (since I obviously can't do that...). I'm currently studying Epistemology, so there may be more threads like this coming up as I muddle my way through this
Perhaps my explanation wasn't quote what I was going for. I would say a logical conclusion is one that can be sensibly drawn from the evidence available.
We don't need to have a debate on how neither side can prove their position, but to me the balance of evidence is heavily in one direction.
We don't need to have a debate on how neither side can prove their position, but to me the balance of evidence is heavily in one direction.
To me the term "God" is not synonymous with "any creator" For example, if aliens experiments in another dimension had spun off tiny black holes with self contained universes inside, they wouldn't be God. Similarly, if we're an advanced race who are basically brain-in-a-jar living out in this sim, we're not God either.
Anyway, the point of the question was to see where you stood on the epistemology of things for which there is no evidence but a plausible case. For example, there is a plausible case to be made we're in a simulation, but there is zero evidence and can be none. Do we abandon the theory? Is it "rational" to believe we are in a simulation, with zero evidence, only logical arguments about the frequency of simulations vs genuine worlds?
And if so, or not, why doesn't that same kind of logic apply to God?
Anyway, the point of the question was to see where you stood on the epistemology of things for which there is no evidence but a plausible case. For example, there is a plausible case to be made we're in a simulation, but there is zero evidence and can be none. Do we abandon the theory? Is it "rational" to believe we are in a simulation, with zero evidence, only logical arguments about the frequency of simulations vs genuine worlds?
And if so, or not, why doesn't that same kind of logic apply to God?
Nope, "science" does not apply methodological naturalism. It might apply it, but it's not even very popular, and views like these were largely abandoned at the same time that materialism, positivism and physicalism went out of favor. I suspect these days you'll see it more mentioned in talking points, blogs and debates that have little to do with science and more to do with discussions like these.
The most common scientific paradigm today is empiricism, which has the advantage of not having to make arbitrary distinctions that serves absolutely no purpose as a scientific tool.
Empirical method might often be practically identical to positivist / naturalist approaches, but again - that only shows why it is so vastly superior. Same strength, none of the baggage.
The most common scientific paradigm today is empiricism, which has the advantage of not having to make arbitrary distinctions that serves absolutely no purpose as a scientific tool.
Empirical method might often be practically identical to positivist / naturalist approaches, but again - that only shows why it is so vastly superior. Same strength, none of the baggage.
So, whilst science employs empiricism in that it only deals with the Physical (that which can be detected using the senses) it is far more than simply an empirical approach to gathering and understanding evidence. It employs a very specific set of criteria to make the evidence is gathers useful in a very specific way.
Science rejects the Supernatural because it's not Useful and the criteria that make something 'scientific' can't be applied to the supernatural. There are no mainstream scientific Theories that include a supernatural element and that is because the supernatural can't be; Corrective, Falsifiable, Predictive, Useful, Internally or Externally Consistent, Parsimonious, or Testable. I.e. there's literally nothing scientific about the supernatural, so science procedes on the assumption that the Natural is all that there is, and it's only because of that that it works and has been so successful in explaining what we observe.
So, whilst science employs empiricism in that it only deals with the Physical (that which can be detected using the senses) it is far more than simply an empirical approach to gathering and understanding evidence. It employs a very specific set of criteria to make the evidence is gathers useful in a very specific way.
The definition seems particularly strict and difficult to use. Or maybe that was the point of that particular exercise. It's also structured very tightly around "evidence" that it seems to have some particular perspective in mind. (For example, I would say that it's irrational to believe that 1+1=3, but I'm not sure what "evidence" I could put forth for such an abstract claim.)
Don't make me regret taking you off my ignore list Aaron, look at it as testimony to how much I want to understand what I'm learning....
I haven't said that science 'says' anything about Epistemology. I think it's commonly held that science is 'empirical', and to a point it is in that it deals only with can be perceived with the senses, but as I said, it is much more than that Epistemological Ideal (which is not achievable anyway), and then I listed the criteria that make it different.
Specifically it was the definition/requirement for a 'Rational belief', not a definition of the word 'rational' alone. I quoted it word for word and it was only whilst thinking about belief in this context that I began to wonder if a belief in god was an irrational belief because of the 'goes beyond the available evidence' part. AND, I'm not trying to prove anything really, just to make sure I understand what constitutes a rational belief, or not, and this particular context and the people I know who post here can be of great help to me.
The chapter is about different views on what it is to 'believe', and what informs and supports our beliefs (and that being 'rational' is a quality of the thinking behind a belief, where 'justified' is a quality of the belief itself), and 'rational beliefs' was one of the views mentioned and defined.
The definition seems particularly strict and difficult to use. Or maybe that was the point of that particular exercise. It's also structured very tightly around "evidence" that it seems to have some particular perspective in mind. (For example, I would say that it's irrational to believe that 1+1=3, but I'm not sure what "evidence" I could put forth for such an abstract claim.)
I haven't said that science 'says' anything about Epistemology. I think it's commonly held that science is 'empirical', and to a point it is in that it deals only with can be perceived with the senses, but as I said, it is much more than that Epistemological Ideal (which is not achievable anyway), and then I listed the criteria that make it different.
Specifically it was the definition/requirement for a 'Rational belief', not a definition of the word 'rational' alone. I quoted it word for word and it was only whilst thinking about belief in this context that I began to wonder if a belief in god was an irrational belief because of the 'goes beyond the available evidence' part.
Originally Posted by you
If we define an Irrational belief as one that 'goes beyond the available evidence and doesn't leave open possibilities not closed out by that evidence'...
AND, I'm not trying to prove anything really, just to make sure I understand what constitutes a rational belief, or not, and this particular context and the people I know who post here can be of great help to me.
Understanding that would be helpful for clarifying the distinction of an "irrational belief" as you've presented here with a "rational belief" (which is the thing you really want to understand).
The definition seems particularly strict and difficult to use. Or maybe that was the point of that particular exercise. It's also structured very tightly around "evidence" that it seems to have some particular perspective in mind. (For example, I would say that it's irrational to believe that 1+1=3, but I'm not sure what "evidence" I could put forth for such an abstract claim.)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/f...m-mathematics/
Fictionalism, on the other hand, is the view that (a) our mathematical sentences and theories do purport to be about abstract mathematical objects, as platonism suggests, but (b) there are no such things as abstract objects, and so (c) our mathematical theories are not true.
That depends on whether you think Maths is man made or discovered.
Either way, this is just another Aaron W distraction technique.
Either way, this is just another Aaron W distraction technique.
Indeed. What does the evidence tell you about this question?
Or it's so exactly on point that if you accepted this as being a valid understanding, you would have to abandon some of your beliefs, and you emotionally don't want to do that so you'll dismiss it out of hand.
Either way, this is just another Aaron W distraction technique.
I listed the criteria which, as far as I'm aware, are met by the majority of scientists. I'm not aware of any mainstream accepted Scientific Theories (I'm using the word 'Theories' as Scientists do) that include a supernatural element, are you? It's on the basis of those criteria, none of which can be applied to the supernatural, that the claim that ID is 'Scientific' is rejected.
I meant 'rational belief' but either way is fine. We're still examining what constitutes a quality of the thinking behind a belief that we would call rational or irrational (since 'rational' is a quality of the thinking and not of the belief itself), and the end result is the same.
And it's important here to keep that distinction in mind because it's not that different from "belief" vs "non-belief." It is possible to have things set up where we can say that a statement is "not irrational" without necessarily wanting to say that it's "rational." For example, the definition you gave would make some conspiracy theories "not irrational" without wanting to call them "rational".
But, the criteria to 'not go beyond the available evidence' seems clear, and I'm wondering if holding a belief in the existence of god is going beyond the available evidence (and also rules out possibilities not closed out by the evidence, i.e.e that there could be another cause of the universe) and fort those reasons, whether true or not, the belief in god's existence is irrational.
If you prefer, we can examine instead a belief that I have and hold it to the same standard since it's the epistemology that I'm interested in here, not the belief itself. I was simply using a context that meant I could post in this forum, but I might start a similar thread in the Philosophy sub-forum.
Have you resolved in your head the difference between the different ways that non-belief can play out? That is, the difference between affirming the claim "God does not exist" and not affirming the claim "God exists"?
Understanding that would be helpful for clarifying the distinction of an "irrational belief" as you've presented here with a "rational belief" (which is the thing you really want to understand).
Understanding that would be helpful for clarifying the distinction of an "irrational belief" as you've presented here with a "rational belief" (which is the thing you really want to understand).
There can be no such thing as 'Scientific' evidence of something supernatural, Science rejects the existence of the supernatural and god, by definition, is supernatural (non-physical), so what evidence is there for the existence of gods?
It seems that all evidence regresses to one base claim, that we could not be here unless we had been created by something that we'll call 'god'.
I contend that most religious people would be destroyed if a and b are untrue, but there was some impersonal creator who they can never know and connect with, and who won't stop them and their loved ones ending in eternal oblivion.
So I think the irrationality of most conceptions of God is a much lower bar than a generic creator entity who could take most forms
But, even if you could argue that this claim isn't going beyond the available evidence (and that's debatable), does it close out possibilities that the available evidence should leave open, that the cause of our existence is in fact something else? All we know is that we are here to ask the question, anything else is at best, a Hypothesis.
(And, if a gods belief is Irrational, does that mean that it can't be Justified, since the relationship between the belief and the evidence that it is based on is undermined by the fact that the thinking behind the belief is Irrational in the first place?)
“I Am the Eternal Now.”
“I am patient and fore-bearing. I do not speak to just some – but to all. I desire man’s welfare and do not cherish the thought of My Justice visiting earth. I desire the heart of man returns to Me – to be united with My Divine Will. This, however, is impossible outside of Holy Love. While you quarrel and debate approvals of man – listen to My Words, My Dictates, and return to My Divine Will. The hour of My Justice moves forward.”
https://maryrefugeofholylove.com/201...y-divine-will/
“I am patient and fore-bearing. I do not speak to just some – but to all. I desire man’s welfare and do not cherish the thought of My Justice visiting earth. I desire the heart of man returns to Me – to be united with My Divine Will. This, however, is impossible outside of Holy Love. While you quarrel and debate approvals of man – listen to My Words, My Dictates, and return to My Divine Will. The hour of My Justice moves forward.”
https://maryrefugeofholylove.com/201...y-divine-will/
The world today may have made great advances in medicine, in technology and in knowledge, but they have traded in the wisdom of what is necessary to enter My Kingdom in exchange for money, wealth and power. All things of this world – money, power, possessions, positions of power in government – are nothing in My Eyes. I can wipe them away with just one swipe of My Hand. Respect for human knowledge and advances in science are worthless, for they do not come from you – they are talents given to man from God because of His Love for His children. Were He to take them away, along with all the material comforts you have, what then would you be left with? Nothing.
https://fatherofloveandmercy.wordpre...ke-to-my-call/
I think the fundamental error you're making is that you're over-asserting what science is, which is leading you to all sorts of other difficulties.
What's important is that we agree that Science only deals with what can be perceived with the senses, the 'Physical', the 'Material', and that god, as we understand him through standard doctrine is 'immaterial' and 'non-physical' and therefore something that Science does not agree can exist. 'Scientific evidence' for god then is a logically impossibility.
I listed the criteria which, as far as I'm aware, are met by the majority of scientists. I'm not aware of any mainstream accepted Scientific Theories (I'm using the word 'Theories' as Scientists do) that include a supernatural element, are you? It's on the basis of those criteria, none of which can be applied to the supernatural, that the claim that ID is 'Scientific' is rejected.
The challenge of whether or not it can be applied to the supernatural greatly depends on the definition of supernatural that you're using. There are some ways that are methodologically denied, such as "a supernatural event is one that defies that laws of nature." This is certainly beyond the reach of science.
However, if it happened to be true that ghosts exist and can interact with the physical world, it is at least theoretically possible to detect the action of ghosts because they intervene in the physical world. How much one can detect that is dependent upon the consistency/reliability of ghostly behavior.
A way to think about it is to imagine that humans were all ghosts with no physical form, yet could interact with the physical world. Humans are not predictable in the sense that if you set up an experiment, they will behave in exactly the same way every time. There's "randomness" (or "free-will-ness") that would make it very difficult to predict outcomes the way that we predict outcomes in physics experiments.
(Also, saying that you use "theories" the way scientists do suggests that you don't actually understand scientific theories the way scientists do because no scientists go around insisting that such-and-such is a theory because it meets criteria X, Y, and Z.)
I meant 'rational belief' but either way is fine. We're still examining what constitutes a quality of the thinking behind a belief that we would call rational or irrational (since 'rational' is a quality of the thinking and not of the belief itself), and the end result is the same.
Ok, I think I understand that what you're saying here is that by denying some proposition or other, we're not necessarily giving assent to another position (usually the opposite of what has been asserted) right?
That's fine, like I said, I'm not trying to prove that god doesn't exist or anything else really, only to examine what constitutes a rational belief.
A belief can be "not irrational" and also be "not rational" depending on the criteria being used.
But, the criteria to 'not go beyond the available evidence' seems clear, and I'm wondering if holding a belief in the existence of god is going beyond the available evidence (and also rules out possibilities not closed out by the evidence, i.e.e that there could be another cause of the universe) and fort those reasons, whether true or not, the belief in god's existence is irrational.
If you prefer, we can examine instead a belief that I have and hold it to the same standard since it's the epistemology that I'm interested in here, not the belief itself. I was simply using a context that meant I could post in this forum, but I might start a similar thread in the Philosophy sub-forum.
Edit: It's worth noting that "going beyond the evidence" is not a clear objective standard. So two people can agree to use your definition of "irrational beliefs" and disagree about whether a particular belief meets the standard of irrationality.
This is going to end well
You can, but that's insufficient. I don't think it's better to look at it that way. The underlying issue is that science isn't an abstract object with abstract rules that must be followed at all times. Science is a definitively human pursuit of human interests. There are definitely boundaries, but those boundaries shift over time with different human perspectives.
I think the fundamental error you're making is that you're over-asserting what science is, which is leading you to all sorts of other difficulties.
I think the fundamental error you're making is that you're over-asserting what science is, which is leading you to all sorts of other difficulties.
Not really. At least, not entirely. There's a ton of stuff out there that we can only detect with machines and not through our own senses. We're at a point where scientific discovery can be done by machines and artificial intelligence. (Basically, we program a machine to repeat a procedure and gather data, and then use learning algorithms to seek patterns in the data.) Human senses not required (at least, at that level).
The challenge of whether or not it can be applied to the supernatural greatly depends on the definition of supernatural that you're using. There are some ways that are methodologically denied, such as "a supernatural event is one that defies that laws of nature." This is certainly beyond the reach of science.
However, if it happened to be true that ghosts exist and can interact with the physical world, it is at least theoretically possible to detect the action of ghosts because they intervene in the physical world. How much one can detect that is dependent upon the consistency/reliability of ghostly behavior.
A way to think about it is to imagine that humans were all ghosts with no physical form, yet could interact with the physical world. Humans are not predictable in the sense that if you set up an experiment, they will behave in exactly the same way every time. There's "randomness" (or "free-will-ness") that would make it very difficult to predict outcomes the way that we predict outcomes in physics experiments.
(Also, saying that you use "theories" the way scientists do suggests that you don't actually understand scientific theories the way scientists do because no scientists go around insisting that such-and-such is a theory because it meets criteria X, Y, and Z.)
I don't think I need to take it into account because I'm not trying to prove that it's rational to believe that god doesn't exist, that's not within the scope of the OP.
I acknowledge that this is what you're pursuing. But I'm not sure you're going about it in a meaningful way because your definitions aren't really helping you. If you want to talk about "rational beliefs" then you should present a definition for "rational beliefs" and not one for "irrational beliefs."
Edit: It's worth noting that "going beyond the evidence" is not a clear objective standard. So two people can agree to use your definition of "irrational beliefs" and disagree about whether a particular belief meets the standard of irrationality.
I understand what concepts Science is based on, what the Scientific paradigm is and why that makes Science mutually exclusive with views that include the possibility of the supernatural.
Naturalism is a simple concept and not easy to misunderstand.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy...
I didn't switch between, them I mentioned them both because science is both a concept that determines what is 'scientific', and it's the practical application of that concept, by scientists.
An acceptable definition of 'supernatural', for this discussion is 'not natural'. If it's not natural, Science doesn't think it exists. If ghosts turn out to have a Natural explanation, then they will no longer be considered supernatural.
I'm not talking about a lack of belief here, or a failure to give assent to a viewpoint, I'm only speaking to beliefs that have been formed and to whether or not the thinking behind them was rational. So for my purposes, the end result is the same which ever direction we approach it from.
I don't think I need to take it into account because I'm not trying to prove that it's rational to believe that god doesn't exist, that's not within the scope of the OP.
How does 'not irrational' differ from 'rational'?
"Not irrational" is different from "rational" in the same way as "not disbelieve" is different from "believe."
I'm failing to understand why a definition of a rational belief isn't simply the opposite of the definition for irrational belief.
I think 'going beyond the evidence' is perfectly clear.
If I get dumped by a blonde woman and decide that all blondes are horrible people, I'm clearly going beyond the evidence available to me and I'm not leaving open possibilities that haven't been closed out by the evidence, such as that some blondes are great people.
What if we increased the number of blondes to 10? To 100? Is it rational yet? Is it still irrational?
My belief is not supported by rational thinking, so it's irrational.
Thinking of it in terms of rational/irrational is not the best way to approach it. Well, I guess that depends on your motivations. Most of us can and do rationalize just about anything that's part of our current belief structure. In my view, the most beneficial framework is to think in terms of preservation vs truth.
When the negative aspects of reality disrupt us, thrusting us into chaos and doubt, do we react in a way that prioritizes preservation and sacrifice truth or do we react in a way that sacrifices preservation in favor of truth. It's a major error to believe that we can gain ground related to truth (the truth that matters most) without FIRST sacrificing the internal structures that maintain our emotional stability.
The dichotomy that the believer is irrational and the atheist is rational is a self preservation technique, which allows for the atheist a justification for continuing to avoid the level of doubt (and realization) that only exists in chaos.
When the negative aspects of reality disrupt us, thrusting us into chaos and doubt, do we react in a way that prioritizes preservation and sacrifice truth or do we react in a way that sacrifices preservation in favor of truth. It's a major error to believe that we can gain ground related to truth (the truth that matters most) without FIRST sacrificing the internal structures that maintain our emotional stability.
The dichotomy that the believer is irrational and the atheist is rational is a self preservation technique, which allows for the atheist a justification for continuing to avoid the level of doubt (and realization) that only exists in chaos.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE