First

Is it against your debate etiquette to say that I can easily agree with both of the angles proposed?

I am about to read the debates right now, but before I start, I would like to say that I'm not sure how helpful the framing of the question is. It seems like there's this implicit assumption that rationality is a good thing in this matter. I'm not convinced that's the case.

Nonetheless, I look forward to reading this.

Thank-you, Thucydides (and everyone else involved), for setting this up.

Read over the debate quickly. Hope to spend more time later.

The framing of the question is certainly a good discussion, but it may be more enamoring of the debaters themselves if you focused on whether their arguments were persuasive that belief is or is not rational, rather than whether rational belief is worthwhile.

The debate was a bit unsatisfying.

I think much of it was bogged down in definitions, and it's not at all clear what the debaters were debating. It would have been helpful if the two sides had been able to come to an agreement as to what rationality was or what rational belief was, but instead both decided to insist on their own definitions.

Semck had the affirmative position but spent most of the opening attacking a position which had not even been made. Very little was said advancing the rationality of belief in Christianity. Instead it was a scathing attack on materialistic reasoning, which PE side-stepped completely by taking a radical skeptical position.

P.E. insisted on an economic definition of rationality which I didn't think made much sense in this context. Also I think the extreme skeptic position weakened P.E.'s position on a number of fronts, or at least prevented him from making strong critiques of Semck's position. He could have argued, for example, that the theistic position does not accept new information to change it's preconceived conclusions, which is irrational, as compared to the scientific method, which adjusts its conclusions based on new information. But since P.E. rejected any kind of empiricist slant on his arguments, this wasn't done.

I'm inclined to view the thing as a draw.

I agree with Putin's conclusion that it was a draw and think that I could have done a much better job with the position I was taking than I actually did. Part (actually, most if not all) of my approach was in the fact that as the negative in a formal debate, my job (as I perceived it) wasn't about establishing my own position as much as it was ensuring the affirmative couldn't establish theirs. Basically, "ties" go to the negative -- if the affirmative can't establish a positive case for their position then the negative wins. So I played for a draw, and (IMO) a draw I got. But I'd have liked to redo my stance, especially now, since I don't really hold such a skeptical-bordering-nihilistic take now (and I'm not even really sure that I did then as much as I was using it in the debate).

I don't know that I'd have wanted to take this question if we got it again because 'rationality' is such an awkward criterion. Putin's right that the economic definition I used doesn't make much sense in this context, but it was the one I was most familiar with when dealing with the question, and we didn't end up settling the definition, which meant we spent most of the debate firing past each other.

Positive stuff: semck is a brilliant mind and excellent discussion partner; I knew this beforehand (and was rather happy to find I'd drawn him as my opponent), the debate confirms it IMO. And I think I did well if we accept the POV that the burden lies with the affirmative in establishing a case (though I certainly submit that this POV is problematic).

@bo, there's nothing wrong with finding both of us convincing, haha. I'm a little surprised either of us are tbh, but I'm glad to hear it if we were!

Why post all this crap?

Just link every conversation I've ever had with Semck, and watch religion get totally destroyed. Nice effort though, PE.

Oh my...it's finally seeing the light of day...

Is this a sign of the end times???

adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, well reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, coherent, intelligent, wise, judicious, sagacious, astute, shrewd, perceptive, enlightened, clear-eyed, clear-sighted, commonsensical, common-sense, well advised, well grounded, sound, sober, prudent, circumspect, politic;

By definition, No it isn't. It's based on Faith.

noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence;
2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine

The dictionary ends the debate on this question.

^^ Jeez Eric, way to make it clear you in no way read either of the arguments presented. I fully disagree with semck - I think the induction argument is nowhere near as powerful as he tries to make it sound, but to ignore everything he said just makes you look daft.

I was just trying to simplify things. It wasn't a direct response to you or anyone else. It was a response to the question.

"Is belief in God rational?"

No it isn't rational. It doesn't meet the definition of the word. It's based on Faith. If it were rational they wouldn't call it Faith. It doesn't mean it's wrong or right but just not rational.

Well *I* of course believe that, but semck has already very carefully and eloquently put forth an argument whereby is IS logical. An argument I don't accept, naturally, but you're just doing the equivalent of saying, "no it isn't" without even bothering to read his points.

*shrug* I guess if that's all you're after, fine fine.

Words have meanings. Anything based on Faith can't be rational based on the meanings of the words. I just answered the question. There's nothing to debate.

Also, the question isn't about "logical" it's about "rational".

which you just listed as a synonym :P

Semcks' very argument is contradicting everything you're assuming. He's saying that the belief in a Christian God, for him, is NOT faith based, that it is rational, in fact it is the ONLY rational conclusion one may reach.

Utter bupkus, of course, but you're just building a strawman.

Eric, belief in God based on the evidence is indeed rational. I'm sorry you can't see that.

@ Thucy, I must be a dill, I wrote down that lengthy https.......... "address" but all I got was the google message that the file did not exist, does this have any ramifications for Gods existence ? I triple checked what I'd written down from this thread & what I'd put in at the top of my Internet Explorer page & am reasonably sure my problem is not a typo, maybe it's my tired old clockwork brain

Still have me on mute, Mujus?

Its kind of sad you can only maintain your faith by shutting out opposing views.

I understand believing in God, even though I personally don't. There is a lot of both good and bad that can come with placing faith in a higher being and grander purpose. As long as someone is believing in God for the good reasons to benefit their own life positively, how is that not rational or logical? Aren't there both rational and irrational ways to have faith in God?

'Eric, belief in God based on the evidence is indeed rational. I'm sorry you can't see that.'

But there are those who could question the rationality of accepting the evidence you use. Which unfortunately comes down to subjective human experiences, and is rather hard to come to agreement on - perhaps because of human's intuition and emotional attachment to particular pieces of information/evidence.

@MMitchell - the link works fine for me.

@'There is a lot of both good and bad that can come with placing faith in a higher being and grander purpose.' - though whether the consequences of faith are good or bad are rather irrelevant to the question. It is not logical to believe something because it makes you happy, you can say :'In the absence of evidence, i choose to believe whatever makes me happy' - And his might be a rational thing to do, but your choice is still arbitrary and neither logical nor rational - it is emotional, but 'it makes me feel good' is not evidence for correctness.

Could some please let me know if understood this debate properly. To summarize the core of semck83's argument in a few sentences:

The strong version:
Reason can only exist in universe that has been created by God. Thus to deny God is to deny the existence of reason itself. Atheism denies God; therefore it is at its very foundation, anti-reason; it is irrational.

The weak version:
We can only be sure that reason exists if we believe in God that has created a rational universe. Since atheists do not believe in God, they cannot be sure that reason itself exists. Thus atheists' denial is tantamount to an admission they know nothing. Yet they claim to know that God does not necessarily exist. Since these two positions are logically contradictory, atheism is fundamentally irrational.

*rational universe: a universe that is ordered in such way that it may be understood via reason.

Am I on the right track with regard to semck83's views?

@orathaic, I'm not convinced yet. How are the consequences of an action irrelevant to the rationality of the action? Aren't all rational decisions based on analyzing the possible outcomes or consequences of the action, and either executing the action or not based mainly on that evaluation? I also think I'm approaching the debate question differently than most. Personally I think evidence that a God exists is what is irrelevant to the question, not the crux of it. The whole point behind faith is that evidence isn't necessary at all to have it. I see the rationality behind believing in God as simply the ability to understand the good that will come about by having faith, determining that the good is worth it, and consequently deciding faith is the personal right choice for the individual. Trying to find evidence that god exists in order to believe in him is what actually sounds irrational to me, as it flies in the face of the concept of faith.

The cosmological argument is very old, and very easy to disprove.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument

@ llama, thank you for the reference. It actually articulates very well my view of the matter with this statement towards the end of the page:

“Theism does not make [certain phenomena] very probable; but nothing else makes their occurrence in the least probable, and they cry out for explanation. A priori, theism is perhaps very unlikely, but it is far more likely than any rival supposition. Hence our phenomena are substantial evidence for the truth of theism”.

I'd also like to point out that I think many people are equating the following two questions and I don't think they should.

"Is belief in God rational?"

"Does God exist?"

On the debate between religion and science may I recomend this from the BBC?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005479y

It is from the excellent "In Our Time" series and I think that Stephen J Gould is particularly interesting in this piece, He even finishes by quoting the eigth psalm. Even the token Christain, Haldane, to my admittedly prejudiced eye holds up his end of the debate rather well, particularly on grounds of morality. Although naturally I realise that many of you hold a contrary point of view.

May I DE-recommend that BBC pulp and instead recommend THIS: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014799/

Holy Wars documentary about how 2 extremist from opposite beliefs meet.