Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I wonder how you would defend the bolded. What is it you mean by rational in this context? The reason I ask is that while I also think these arguments are flawed, I don't think those who defend their theism by using them are automatically irrational, especially not by definition.
I'm very open to having my views or definitions changed on this, but the dictionary definition of irrational is "Not logical or reasonable." Therefore basing belief in a proposition on a faulty logical argument seems - to me- to be irrational by definition. I'm genuinely interested in your take on this, if you don't mind giving it.
Quote:
I'm also just a lot more skeptical than most atheists on this forum seem to be about the justification that personal experience provides for theism. I don't think that more than a handful of people have had personal experiences that are actually relevant to the question of whether God exists. Obviously, lots of religious people claim to have had these experiences, but on examination their claims are often based on superstition, faulty interpretation of coincidence, ignorance, wishful thinking, and social expectations. Furthermore, in my experience the strength of these experiences isn't strongly correlated with actual certainty of belief.
The bolded is an empirical matter that I don't know the answer to. My point is that - as an empiricist - I think that first hand personal experience, however problematic it may be, is at least
the sort of thing that
could provide justification for a false belief. A failed logical argument is not the sort of thing that can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
FWIW I give these arguments no weight at all. Our perceptions simply cannot be trusted and I would no more attempt to prove that god doesn't exist simply because I haven't had any personal experience of him than I would accept the opposite as proof. That so many theists base their belief on personal experience just makes even less likely the possibility of god existing IMO.
The bolded is ignoring the distinction I made between justification and persuasion. To take an extreme example, imagine that a mad scientist removes some guys brain, puts it in a jar and feeds it false memories of being Napoleon. Is that guy irrational to believe that he is Napoleon? I would say not, even though his belief is false and we would not believe him (as we know he is a brain in a jar) and I would go as far as to say that he is actually (empirically) justified in believing he is Napoleon.