@Ghostmaker

Hi I enjoyed your responses. I think though that you might have assumed (understandably) that I was trying to prove (or defend the belief in) the existence of God. That certainly wasn’t the case, so it seems you missed my point in a couple of places.

You stated:
"As I say, the principle that dead people stay dead is a fairly well established one."


I think we just have to disagree on this one. There are many situations in which people die and come back, even to the point that some are intentionally flatlined for surgical purposes. Dead for three days? No. However, Christ is pronounced dead and hastily buried (because the sabbath was coming), and not seen again until three days later. Even if he were a completely normal human being it would be possible that he survived. People have been prematurely interred, etc. So there is little evidence to offhandedly dismiss that claims of witnesses who saw the results. You may why then would you believe that he's the son of God if it were possible for a normal human to survive? I would reply his message, his life, and his example.

You stated:
"Then again, that isn't so much a belief as an emotion towards or a preference for your own children. Your belief in the existence of something can't be based on that same ground."


That's true but it’s out of context. I did not present it as a basis for belief. I presented it in refutation of the claim that logic was inherently better than illogic. Logic is merely a tool for processing information. If the information you place into the process is faulty then logic will lead you to the wrong conclusion. Intuition can be just as useful and can at times lead you to a better conclusion than logic. It's not that I see one as better than the other. It's that I see both as useful and appropriate in different situations.

You stated:
"Crazy Anglican has also questioned the validity of assuming the non-existence of god when there is no evidence, on the grounds that the truth is the default belief."


I made no assertion that truth was the default belief, so I'm not sure where you got that one. What I challenged was the validity of sidestepping an issue by stating that your own position was the default. My statement was a kind of preemptive strike against the misuse of Occam’s Razor as a rhetorical device (ie “assume no deities” being used to say “Well, because there is no evidence that God exists we have to assume he doesn’t”). Occam’s Razor was intended as a time saver for use in physical & mathematical exploration. It tells you where to begin searching. If you cannot test your results then it is useless. William of Ockam stated plainly that it was not to be used in a discussion of the existence of God. Neither of us can know his motives in this, but I think he understood it’s limitation when dealing with the metaphysical.

@putin: you're right, but people who value others and form healthy emotional connections might rationally argue that doing so helps them from communities which improves their chances of survival and access to food/medical treatment/loans of money etc.

Basically, while it isn't the only important part of being human, being able to think critically, and argue rationally is a valuable asset in our collection of skills. Sure you don't need to know why you form relationships to be successful, but by understanding you can alter/tweak/improve you life/community.

You can be more certain that you are doing things for the right reason if you understand what that reason is in the first place.

There is a rational reason for believing in God(security in one self, and your place within the world), and an irrational one (circular logic associated with the infallibility of the bible). Are you trying to argue that there is more value in being irrational in general (not limited to this specific case)?

"An individual's sense of morality is rather meaningless unless it is based on some kind of broader (collective) principles."
Does this apply to God too?
When I said "my morality" I did not preclude that morality being based on on "some kind of broader (collective) principle".

@Crazy Anglican

first on Ockam's razor: i feel it would be appropriate to assume that all the laws of physics (and the chemistry which arises from those laws, and the biology which arises from that chemistry... and so on up to complex emergent social patterns which appear in games...) are the rules which govern everything they describe, and thus no God is required.

Now I freely admit that for those things which are no described, ''what happened before the big bang'' (if you can even talk about before the begining of time) ''Why the constants of the universe are those particular values'' and ''Why certain symmetry laws are violated in certain ways'' - by which i mean who set up the rules the way they are - The is no reason to presuppose that there is or isn't a god. I would be forced t be agnostic on the matter and I do agree with you that there Ockam's razor is not usable.

However that does bring me to the point of being agnostic of a God which may have created the universe as we know it, but which as far as we can tell does not intervene.

I'd go on to suggest that humans having souls and the other great apes not having souls is a crazy concept, and you should spend some time in the company of a social group of great apes, other than humans, to find out if there is in fact some fundamental difference between ourselves and our closest cousins. I think they think in very similar terms to ourselves.... So unless soul has nothing to do with mind, and i think it would be unfair to give an Ape the ability to feel pain, and all the injustices that we humans feel, but to exclude them from 'en-soulment'

Things that are considered morally good are usually not rational at all. For example, courage is considered morally good and is probably the most irrational of all possible behaviors. Love is another. Loyalty is another. Generosity is another.

Whereas things that are based on rational self-interest are usually considered immoral. Greed, sexual promiscuity, etc.

Now, of course, you can say all the "irrational" behaviors are in fact rational, and define rationality in such a way as to basically include every human behavior possible. But that then means that rationality is unscientific because it cannot possibly be falsified. It's the empiricist equivalent of saying everybody acts according to God's will. It also means that describing something as "rational" is meaningless since everything is rational. Also, I highly doubt most people's motivations for building families are based on calculations of access to food, medical facilities, security from threats, etc. In fact, it doesn't make sense since families and other social relationships are very costly, and I would argue have more costs than any benefits to the individual. Especially in the modern world where the need for social networks for acquiring food and security is becoming less and less.

Another question is why is faith in God based on rational self-interest more "understandable", noble, and moral than faith that isn't? You say there are rational and irrational reasons to believe in God, why are the rational reasons better?

blaming God for humans killing each other in the name of religion is bollox. Humans choose to believe, humans choose to spread that belief, and humans choose to kill in the name of religion. (if you believe in free-will, you should find it hard to argue this)

However without religion humans(in Nazi germany or Communist Russia/China/Cambodia) Managed to find names of things which were worth killing for. It's not like religion deserves some special treatment, most religions talk about how to live your life in happiness and with good relationships with your neighbours (and i imagine this applies as much to the person who lives in the next house as it does to the person in the next country)

That humans kill each other should not be unfairly attributed to God. If God exists and does not intervene in human affairs - as it appears to most people at least most of the time - then for whatever reason that is, it only proves a non-interventionist God. Not that God doesn't exist.

@Putin, I never said most people do cost/benifit analysis on their familial commitments.

Most people evolved in a society which putting family first most of the time made you more likely to survive. I hope you're wrong about the modern world being a different one where altruistic behaviour is not rewarded.

@Orathaic

I'm confused then as to why you say rational reasons for social relationships are better and that we should strive to be rational. I think I am misunderstanding your point.

I didn't claim that rational reasons to believe in god are better . I claimed that you can explain a belief in God using rational means if you seek to do so. And you didn't answer my question: Are you trying to argue that there is more value in being irrational in general?

In this specific case, I don't know that i could believe something just because it would make me feel good. (while knowing that this was why i was believing it, on faith just because it made me feel good) It would be much easier to lie to myself convincingly enough that I thought i was believing for another (perhaps irrational reason) this would be better at making me actually believe....

You are claiming that being rational makes sociopaths.

Whereas i am claiming that there are rational reasons to explain the behaviour of normal people, and that understanding those reasons, (why it is good/useful to trust/help your community) helps you to better understand you place in the world.

sorry, that was obviously pointed @ putin. should have said.

@putin:
I can't disprove faith, but I can at least try to disprove the claim that God exists with the properties that Christianity says he has, which is what I've been attempting to do.

"I'm not sure why rationality is on some kind of higher moral plane than irrationality. Psychological patients which were found to be completely rational and devoid of emotion found it impossible to operate in the social world, and had no meaningful relationships. Rationally calculating the positives and negatives of every social interaction would make you a rather anti-social, and morally reprehensible person. Opportunists, Machiavellians, and people who use others for their own personal gain have a bad reputation for good reason."

People can be rational without being anti-social. Opportunists and Machiavellians just place a higher value on personal gain than on morality, rationality has nothing to do with that. Besides, your only example for when irrational behavior or thinking is better is social situations, which isn't an accurate example, even if it did apply to a situation where we are attempting to arrive at an accurate result. Isn't it an insult to call someone irrational? And are there not plenty of anti-social people who are irrational? The example is irrelevant, because social situations simply do not show how to most effectively and reliably arrive at a true conclusion.

I thought I answered your question. To clarify, since much of what is moral behavior is irrational, then yes there is more 'moral' value to irrationality than rationality. To sum up - I think we should strive to be moral, not necessarily rational.

I don't think there are rational reasons to have faith. Because faith is very difficult and very costly. Faith requires great discipline, self-control, and obedience. These costs overwhelm the "rational" benefits for security of place in the world. In fact, I do not think faith does anything to provide security of place in the world, because faith is acceptance that one's place is a mystery left in the hands of a higher power.

Hmm, maybe we're talking about different things. I'm saying that we should use logic to try to find out if God exists or not, I'm not saying how anyone should live their life, or how the best way to live is.

@zuzak

I don't follow. Why aren't social situations good examples? What is your definition of rationality?

I can come up with other examples in which 'rationality' is inferior, or at least is a more inefficient model of making decisions. I believe spyman already provided examples of cognitive shortcuts, or emotion-based decision-making.

For example, people's "gut feelings" about other people being threatening usually end up being correct. This isn't based on any history of past interaction and information is very incomplete. Yet the decisions are usually correct. People get a "sense" of foreboding and threat, and use cognitive shortcuts to behave defensively to avoid being harmed.

Another example is voting. Rationally, it doesn't make any sense to vote. The likelihood of an individual's vote being decisive is minuscule, and the costs of voting are greater than any possible benefit (waiting in line, registering, some times risking significant repression, etc). Yet if no one voted, democracy would be impossible.

@putin: interesting take on faith. I suppose the way i see it, not having a strict morale code to refer to means you have to evaluate every decision or situation as it comes up. Whereas having a strict morality based on religious doctorine gives you guidelines which are unbendable and thus makes it easier to make decisions (easier unless you question your faith).

Now maybe this does in-fact result great discipline and self-control etc. but i think it is also fair to say that faith and certainty that you are doing the right thing actually makes it easier to do a hard thing,that faith offers strenght. (if not making these things easy)

Still I do think that not having any regular routine (weekly mass, ritual/rites to mark birth, passing into adulthood, marriage) not having any long term goals to set your eyes on(like raising a happy family and securing your place in heaven, (say) ) Not having the certainty that no matter what God loves you. Does make life more difficult for those people with enough time on their hands to think and worry about what they should be doing, why we are here...

Ok, if we're talking about logic that's yes, a different question.
I don't see how faith can simultaneously be logical. In fact, logic makes faith meaningless.

@Putin: In short i am claiming that alturistic behaviour is rational if you assume the individual values the community over their own personal interests.

So in social situations people are behaving rationally, though perhaps not self-fishly.

Now they don't need to do a detailed cost/benifit analysis for each decision, but instead can act on 'gut feelings' and this is probably a more efficient way of making decisions most of the time, but it may not give you the best result all of the time.

However, we humans are limited in our capacity for decisions making, and time-constraints require that we take shortcuts sometimes. So I do think going on 'gut instinct' is right for certain situations.

sorry, i didn't fully read some recent posts, i believe what i have said was already covered...

My bad for that misunderstanding, I think. I'm just trying to argue against the possibility of God's existence here.

@orthaic

In response to your statement about Ockam’s Razor, I'd say that I agree inasmuch as an atheist has to lean toward agnosticism (if not embrace it outright) to maintain a logical outlook on the subject of whether or not God exists. The existence of God is an inarguable one. Choosing to deny the possibility of God's existence (as well as choosing to believe in him) is an act of will. Reason/logic leaves you uncertain because there is no evidence either way. That was exactly the point I was making.

It's fine to choose one or the other, but to describe those who disagree as illogical is not appropriate. Both views are illogical in that they are both made upon a dearth of evidence. Ockam's Razor doesn't support the atheist view because the outcome cannot be tested without dying and seeing for yourself (even then if you come back some people will refuse to believe you). It's much the same as thinking "We'll I've got two points on a plain so I can't assume a squiggle". Well, if it is a squiggle and you can never test it by plotting other points, then you'll never know that you were wrong. The theist view cannot be verified because of the nature/decisions of God. Either he exists and chooses to behave exactly as we believe, or he doesn't. Hence only a neutral stance comes closest to logical. Both other views are possible, but neither is supported.


As for apes having souls, I'm familiar to an extent with the idea that social behavior is similar in many animals. To be honest I give little thought to the idea that this or that animal might have some sort of soul or spirit (certainly Hinduism and Bhuddhism does embrace this idea). It seems a bit of a trivial point within Christianity, though, so I'll merely say that I have no idea. Given that there is no known measurement for a soul, neither of us can say one way or the other on that one.

The entire conversation, though, misses the point of living a life according to the teachings of Christ. For me it's much more instructive to ask what are Christ's teachings and will applying them in my life be beneficial to me, those around me, and my society in general? For me the answer is "yes". I'll share those teachings with others, but it's no particular problem for me that there are those who don't embrace them.

Re:voting rationally if no-one votes democracy doesn't work, thus it does make sense to vote. If however you assume everyone else will vote and your vote will have no effect then yes, you could rationally conclude voting is a mistake.

However if you're willing to assume everyone is capable of acting in one manner (voting, because they want democracy to work) and then come up with a rational for not voting yourself, you can almost certainly see that everyone is capable of coming up with that very same rational and thus acting on it...

now we're talking about strategy, multiple rational choices which a group of people can take... i don't see any irrationality in the situation.

I see your point about faith making decision-making easier and providing a sense of security, so to speak. However, that security is coupled with fear of not living up to the standards of the faith, the Deity. Since humans are driven by passions that lead us to excess, this is very difficult. Seculars only have to fear punishment by temporal authorities, religious people also have to fear 'spiritual' authorities. Seculars may not have a ready-made guideline for behavior, but they have the flexible to make choices that provide them the most comfort. The religious may have ready-made decisions, but these ready-made decisions require a great deal of self-sacrifice and discomfort. And just because the decision is ready-made, that does not make it easy to comply.

Protestantism's revolution is that it attempts to make faith "comfortable" for modern people. Yet even Protestant faiths usually require a good deal of self-sacrifice.

I think we have different definitions of rationality. For me, if you allow rationality to include altruism, basically everything can be defined as being rational. I'm not seeing what could be considered to be irrational.

@Crazy Anglican:

well if your only concern is whether those teaching are worthwhile in and of themselves then while spreading them to others there is no need to alienate half your audience (those atheistic amongst them) by caliming Christ was the only son of God, He being a mere human like all the rest of us makes his actions all the more worthy of veneration.

And gives us hope that the rest of us can live up to the ideals Jesus sets. I don't say Christ, because I don't consider him my saviour, he may have promised a 'heaven on earth' - as i read it utopia - to those who followed him, and i believe that much suffering could have been saved had more followed his teachings, (and still can be perhaps) but i don't think his ideal utopia has been achieved, thus i am not personally saved.

As for God's existance, if Jesus's teachings have value on their own merit, then it should be possible to be agnostic about god and still embrace them. (and a group which took this stance could include theists and atheists...)

"In response to your statement about Ockam’s Razor, I'd say that I agree inasmuch as an atheist has to lean toward agnosticism (if not embrace it outright) to maintain a logical outlook on the subject of whether or not God exists. The existence of God is an inarguable one. Choosing to deny the possibility of God's existence (as well as choosing to believe in him) is an act of will. Reason/logic leaves you uncertain because there is no evidence either way. That was exactly the point I was making."

I disagree, on the grounds that the arguments that have been presented against God presented here.
1. God should make everyone aware of his existence and let them decide whether to follow him if he is benevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent. And if doing so would violate free will, then he already violated free will by producing the Bible.

2. If God is omniscient and the creator of the universe, then he would be inevitably deciding how everything would turn out in the universe, because he'd know the effects of changing each seemingly insignificant thing on our decisions, and would be choosing between which universe we would be in, and therefore what decision we'd make.

@putin: if You were to believe value life above all, and you were to kill a doctor who was performing abortions, because that minimised the losses of life (As you rationally calcualte it) That could be considered rational (though perhaps intensely hypocritical).

If you value happiness above all and act in your own self-interest at the expense of your community (drug taking, vandalising, etc.) that could be rational, however if you thought it through in more detail you might find that more happiness could be achieved by choosing a more alturistic strategy, because treating others with respect and helping them tends to result in reciprocity, them repaying your kindness, that would also result in a rational strategy.

However if you value life above all and act in a way which only destroys life that isn't very rational. If you value your own happiness above all and act in self-destructive ways that may not be rational...

How does knowing what choice you will make annul the fact that you have a choice?

The production of the Bible does not violate free will any more than the production of any other document violates free will. People still have to 'choose' to believe and obey. Without the production of the Bible, people do not even know what the options are.