Is Atheism a Rational Stance?

[DaBigCheez]

Look at gravity. We consider it a proven fact today (well, proven theory rather than hypothesis). Thus, making decisions using our understanding of gravity (e.g. we will fall from a building if we step out the window) is rational. However, let's say tomorrow that our friends at CERN do something completely unanticipated and disprove the theory of gravity. That would make future decisions using the old theory of gravity irrational. But it would not reverse the rationality of our decisions at the time. We would not have been acting irrationally. We still would have been wrong.

Question for my own interest: Is it rational or irrational to use Newtonian physics in everyday scenarios? We know they're wrong - relativity is more accurate - but, for most things, they're not wrong enough to matter (for high-precision things like GPS they are, but for driving a car five miles to meet your friend, relativistic effects are negligible). Is it thus irrational to use a tool we know to be wrong, or is it rational as we know it gives the correct output to the degree of significance we care about? (I realize that even if it is irrational, it's danged *useful*, just because the equations are easier to work with.)

Or, does holding in mind the caveat "I know that this is just an approximation to the true answer which is close enough for my purposes" make it rational, as we're not truly holding the belief that it's right (which, for someone who knows of general relativity, would be irrational), just that it gives approximately accurate predictions for these sorts of scenarios (which has been borne out by the evidence provided by past trials)?

[Azrael]

I know that pi isn't 3.14, but for most of what I need it for, that approximation gives me a sufficiently good answer. I'm using reason and facts to come to a decision. Sounds like it fits the criteria.

Now, if I start insisting that it's a nice, round 3...

[Shivahn]

Look at gravity. We consider it a proven fact today (well, proven theory rather than hypothesis). Thus, making decisions using our understanding of gravity (e.g. we will fall from a building if we step out the window) is rational. However, let's say tomorrow that our friends at CERN do something completely unanticipated and disprove the theory of gravity. That would make future decisions using the old theory of gravity irrational. But it would not reverse the rationality of our decisions at the time. We would not have been acting irrationally. We still would have been wrong.

Question for my own interest: Is it rational or irrational to use Newtonian physics in everyday scenarios? We know they're wrong - relativity is more accurate - but, for most things, they're not wrong enough to matter (for high-precision things like GPS they are, but for driving a car five miles to meet your friend, relativistic effects are negligible). Is it thus irrational to use a tool we know to be wrong, or is it rational as we know it gives the correct output to the degree of significance we care about? (I realize that even if it is irrational, it's danged *useful*, just because the equations are easier to work with.)

Or, does holding in mind the caveat "I know that this is just an approximation to the true answer which is close enough for my purposes" make it rational, as we're not truly holding the belief that it's right (which, for someone who knows of general relativity, would be irrational), just that it gives approximately accurate predictions for these sorts of scenarios (which has been borne out by the evidence provided by past trials)?

I feel you're sort of falling into a trap wherein "rational" ceases to really mean "rational" and begins to mean something else (It's a very very common trap, and I don't know if it has a name. Rationality worship? Logic worship?)

What I'm basically saying is that rationality is the exercise of reason (thanks Wikipedia!). More or less, you have some axioms. Do you use logical systems to deduce some conclusion? That's exercising rationality. In the case of driving the car to meet your friends, if you're trying to ensure you get there at some time, then it's actually irrational to use relativistic equations unless they're preprogrammed into something, or you enjoy doing that sort of thing. You want to ensure you get there by some time. Newtonian physics are the easiest tools to use to determine when you should leave. The error is not going to be significant, especially not enough for them to say "You're late you late fuck!" rather than "Oh hey you are on time! Let us drink beer and eat delicious gems."

Since your goal is to be on time, and assuming you don't want to waste time doing unnecessary equations, the rational thing to do is use the simplest tool that will ensure you're on time.

Using Newton's laws rather than Einstein's is only irrational if you have reason to believe that Newton's laws will give an unacceptable result, and Einstein's won't. Well, assuming you have the premise "I want an acceptable result"

[DaBigCheez]

Eh, fair enough; I tend to think of what you're saying more as "logical" than "rational" (i.e. properly logical, not how Mr. Spock would use the term), and was getting overly caught up in the definition stated earlier as "determining what to believe through the collection and examination of evidence".

Basically, Azrael's answer is what I was thinking - approximations are hella useful, and using them is perfectly rational, it's just that you don't want to start insisting the approximation *is* the reality. And science in general (unlike most science journalism) is actually quite good at saying "this model is an approximation, but seems to give us pretty good predictions/results" without getting too caught up in "this model seems to give us pretty good predictions/results, it must exactly describe how reality actually is".

E: Shivahn, I know what you're talking about with the "rationality worship" thing; I know that "science" and "Scientism" get confused for each other a lot, and it's possible that rationality and Rationalism do the same thing (thanks for the word Bharrata), though I'm less familiar with that off-hand.

[Bharrata]

Eh, fair enough; I tend to think of what you're saying more as "logical" than "rational" (i.e. properly logical, not how Mr. Spock would use the term), and was getting overly caught up in the definition stated earlier as "determining what to believe through the collection and examination of evidence".

Basically, Azrael's answer is what I was thinking - approximations are hella useful, and using them is perfectly rational, it's just that you don't want to start insisting the approximation *is* the reality. And science in general (unlike most science journalism) is actually quite good at saying "this model is an approximation, but seems to give us pretty good predictions/results" without getting too caught up in "this model seems to give us pretty good predictions/results, it must exactly describe how reality actually is".

I may be unnecessarily re-wording your thoughts for you, but rationality is the process of using reason to solve a problem. Using reason to decide which tools, the size of your measures and your types of metrics is included in solving the problem. Part of the issue (not for you specifically but for others in the thread in general) might be a confusion over the connotative differences between rationality and Rationalism a la Descartes.

edit: keeping in mind the reasons why the bounds of your solution do not adequately describe every aspect of its realistic implementation while still solving the problem for you would also be rational.



2nd edit:

I know that "science" and "Scientism" get confused for each other a lot, and it's possible that rationality and Rationalism do the same thing (thanks for the word Bharrata), though I'm less familiar with that off-hand.

Those two examples are somewhat similar, the difference as I see it being that Rationalism was a movement wherein the consequences and power of pure reason were explored and refined by brilliant thinkers and Scientism (as I understand it) is pretty much non-experts misunderstanding the scope of the scientific method - this last bit goes hand in hand with your criticism of most science journalism and the readers of it who believe it to be ~100% unchangeable fact.

[Aaeriele]

Why God is easy enough to understand. It's easier to believe there is something other than random chance in control, something you might be able to influence through worship.

Rationality isn't about what's easy to understand. Quantum physics is not easy to understand, but for those who have studied as much of the available evidence as possible, it's currently the rational conclusion.

[Shivahn]

E: Shivahn, I know what you're talking about with the "rationality worship" thing; I know that "science" and "Scientism" get confused for each other a lot, and it's possible that rationality and Rationalism do the same thing (thanks for the word Bharrata), though I'm less familiar with that off-hand.

Ah, yeah. I didn't really mean that to be directed too much at you, most just inspired by the phrasing. I just know that there's a tendency for many people to think rationality is some weird state where we can't do silly human things like consider emotions and such, and I wanted to remark on it.

[morriswalters]

Why God is easy enough to understand. It's easier to believe there is something other than random chance in control, something you might be able to influence through worship.

Rationality isn't about what's easy to understand. Quantum physics is not easy to understand, but for those who have studied as much of the available evidence as possible, it's currently the rational conclusion.

Rationality serves a purpose but who beside physicists use quantum theory directly. Most people don't and can't live in that world. 2000 years ago the night was dark and full of things nobody understood. Better to believe Zeus was in Olympus and would takes gifts to ease the way. It is really no different today. Contrary to what some here may believe you have very little control over things that affect you greatly. Being rational in a real sense means finding a way forward that you can live with. Being an Atheist is rational if you can live with what it implies. Big surprise, some people don't want to, or can't. They want to believe that someone is in control who cares about them. The whole mythos of Christianity is built around that idea. A God who sees all and knows all and who will punish transgressors and reward his faithful when they stand before him.

[Bharrata]

Rationality serves a purpose but who beside physicists use quantum theory directly. Most people don't and can't live in that world.

Regardless of whether they can understand the physics, they still live in that world, very much.

2000 years ago the night was dark and full of things nobody understood. Better to believe Zeus was in Olympus and would takes gifts to ease the way. It is really no different today. Contrary to what some here may believe you have very little control over things that affect you greatly. Being rational in a real sense means finding a way forward that you can live with. Being an Atheist is rational if you can live with what it implies. Big surprise, some people don't want to, or can't. They want to believe that someone is in control who cares about them. The whole mythos of Christianity is built around that idea. A God who sees all and knows all and who will punish transgressors and reward his faithful when they stand before him.

Xenophanes disagrees:

But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
...
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired.

"But mortals think that the gods are born
and have the mortals' own clothes and voice and form"

~ 570 - 475 B.C.E., quotes taken from the wiki and originally Clement of Alexandria.

[LaserGuy]

What if you grew up knowing your parents, then someone says "your parents do not exist"? This is the mountain your trying to prove to people does not exist. Think about how that will sound to them for a moment.

Uh, nobody is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. That isn't necessary. It is more than sufficient to note that there is simply no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore, no reason to believe He exists. Moreover, all of the things that God is purportedly able to explain we have, so far, done a pretty good job explaining without invoking His existence. Indeed, in every single case where God was supposed to be the reason that something happens that we have been able to test, it has turned out that God has no part in it at all. While we certainly haven't tested everything yet, God's possible sphere of influence grows smaller by the day. Yes, we have not yet been able to figure out how the Universe began, but we've seen that God is not responsible for lightning, or for earthquakes, or for plagues or diseases; that He is not responsible for healing the sick, for the creation of new species, for creating the Earth or the Sun or the moon, or any of the pieces that make them up.

And what happens if, ten years from now, we are able to show how the Universe began, and have solid evidence to support it, without the need to invoke a God to explain it? Is there any room at all left for God?

[krogoth]

I would like to agree with LazerGuy to such an extent, to go so far as instead of saying "what proof of god is there?" but rather "is there any reason for us to invent him in the first place?"
I posted viewtopic.php?f=59&t=82278
I was lead to creating it because I felt it was too OT, but maybe it should be moved merged.

The reason I was thinking of it from this side, was most things can be discovered for oneself. Gravity,basic speed of light though a medium, but what evidence points to a creator without first having the idea of him?

[LaserGuy]

I would like to agree with LazerGuy to such an extent, to go so far as instead of saying "what proof of god is there?" but rather "is there any reason for us to invent him in the first place?"
I posted viewtopic.php?f=59&t=82278
I was lead to creating it because I felt it was too OT, but maybe it should be moved merged

My understanding is that the working theory in the sociology/anthropology is that religion was basically invented in order to do three things:
1) centralize control of the people in the hands of the priests or rulers
2) provide a common unifying idea that would help keep the populace from killing each other
3) create incentives for people to voluntarily sacrifice their lives for the benefit of the group

[Bharrata]

Why isn't a cultural product but instead something intentionally created for an explicit purpose? Unless you're referring to organized religion specifically.


From here forward, let's leave the whole "How did religion come to be?" discussion out of this thread.

- Az

[Technical Ben]

setzer777 I agree that a first cause is not necessarily a God. Yet the evidence may suggest a first cause. You show that science does not panic if the evidence shows a conclusion that is not popular. Science is suppose to welcome the evidence. But that's a discussion for another thread I think. On topic though, I was asking the opposite question to the thread title. So can it can be said that it is rational to consider a first cause? I ask, why do so many scientists consider it irrational to be anything other than atheist? Do atheists consider a first cause?

DaBigCheez, I do not see that it shuts down further inquiry. Are there not historians and archaeologists? Just because humans and their history is personified, do we say "humans did it, don't bother asking questions or looking further"? Nope. Why do the same if someone considers a personified (or sees evidence to a personified) first cause? We need to look for reason and rationality.
However, those who wish to lie, control and steal do try to stop further inquiry. This is not a relation to the belief in a first cause or a God. It is not necessarily "religion" either*. But the relation is in the majority of Religion that does lie, control or steal (so much so, can we can now call religion "wrong" on the subject of rational thought?). However, the same thing can happen in science if people allow it to happen (see homoeopathy). I would hope that does not happen to everyone.

So I do not see it as irrational to consider a first cause. If the question is "is it rational to consider a personified first cause" then that depends on the evidence. Does it look random, or does it look like foot prints, pottery and writing?

Azrael, I did not say "we can't prove anything". I said "we have to prove it ourselves". I'm agreeing with you.
If we did not prove it to ourselves (accept our parents word it was "santa") then we have no proof. But if we check for ourselves, we find it was our parents. Notice though, that neither the presents nor our parents disappear because of our discovery. What I see is many saying we should deny the existence of the presents (evidence) and the source (a first cause/God). Why? Because some silly parent (religion) called themselves Santa (God).


*As a piece of evidence that not all religion tells it's followers to avoid evidence and questions see the prophets of the Bible. They ask listeners to "see for themselves" or they ask God questions. this is the opposite to what I hear goes on in the modern Churches.

[jules.LT]

"is there any reason for us to invent him in the first place?"

One reason I find compelling is agent detection: "the inclination for animals and humans to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve an intelligent agent".

[Azrael]

setzer777 I agree that a first cause is not necessarily a God. Yet the evidence may suggest a first cause. You show that science does not panic if the evidence shows a conclusion that is not popular. Science is suppose to welcome the evidence. But that's a discussion for another thread I think. On topic though, I was asking the opposite question to the thread title. So can it can be said that it is rational to consider a first cause? I ask, why do so many scientists consider it irrational to be anything other than atheist? Do atheists consider a first cause?

Atheists don't believe in god. They don't deny that humans exist. Starting with the fewest assumptions, if humans exist we had to come into existence somehow. This is an application of simple logic. The next rational step is to ask how.

The typical atheist approach would be to use reason and falsifiable facts to construct theories -- like evolution to explain the mechanism that yielded humans, and the big bang to explain the mechanism that yielded the current structure of the universe.

What isn't rational is to work backwards to a point where we don't have a good working theory and invent an entirely unsupportable new order of omnipotent intelligence, and blame them for it.

What I see is many saying we should deny the existence of the presents (evidence) and the source (a first cause/God). Why? Because some silly parent (religion) called themselves Santa (God).

What evidence of a first cause are you saying is being denied? Who here is saying to deny it? 'Cause if all you're interested in is beating on external strawmen, I think we'll all pass.

[morriswalters]

It isn't a requirement that God exists. All that is required for the belief in him to be rational is for that belief to serve a useful purpose to the group who holds it.

[Technical Ben]

Oh, I totally agree with you about how we need to get to the conclusions Azrael. See why I keep mentioning Science can get to the right conclusions, but must not act irrationally to get there. And that Religion does not have the correct conclusion because it does act rationally getting there.

Sorry I was not leaving it as a strawman, but purposefully open. So that anyone can mention the evidence they think is relevant (for or against theism/atheism). Why not just mention my own consideration of evidence? Well, because someone sees presents and says "they got here by chance" and someone says "a person put them there". I'd get an endless thread of back and forth. I don't think it would help the discussion. But the evidence most appeal to would be cause and effect linked to existence (our existence is subject to cause and effect, so we are subject to a cause. Other existences need not be, but ours is observed as such).

But for me when I look at the universe (observation) and the actions inside it (repeatable experiments/predictable results) what can I conclude? Either they happened by chance, or they were effected by something else. Many would call the observations and predictions related to order and complexity as evidence of a God. But just like the example above, no matter what "evidence" is presented, each side can put forward "alternative theories". It's down to me to check my evidence, and down to others to check theirs. Would your interests in my proofs be to teach me to get better proofs and better results? Or to tell me what I should get as a proof and as a result?

Will you consider it irrational to think the universe requires a first cause because I see evidence of cause and effect? Would you consider the observation of order resulting from order to be irrational too?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

It isn't a requirement that God exists. All that is required for the belief in him to be rational is for that belief to serve a useful purpose to the group who holds it.

Suppose we grant that theoretical reason reduces to practical reason. Then this still isn't true. A belief wouldn't be rational just because it serves a purpose; it would have to be adopted because it serves a purpose. That is, in order to claim the belief's purposefulness as a reason for it, you would have to be willing to acknowledge in your own reasoning about facts that you are more concerned with utility than with truth. Again, this assumes that theoretical reason can be reduced this way.

But even on the practical side of things, this is just a special case of the myth of egoism. Say there are compelling public reasons — moral reasons, for example — not to hurt people on the basis of a false belief. Then it's contrary to reason — irrational — to hold a belief that drives you to hurt people. Even if the belief serves a useful purpose for you personally.

[morriswalters]

An interesting argument if I understand it correctly.

A belief wouldn't be rational just because it serves a purpose; it would have to be adopted because it serves a purpose.

This would seem to be true for most mainstream Religions. Accepting God to save your soul.

That is, in order to claim the belief's purposefulness as a reason for it, you would have to be willing to acknowledge in your own reasoning about facts that you are more concerned with utility than with truth.

Why? The design of Religion accounts for things that a mortal can't control. Therefore the Deity makes the rules but isn't bound by them. Believers on the other hand live in the world and are bound to it. But any conflict happens after death, when it doesn't matter. In the world it exists solely as a social construct. The design can absorb the fact of evolution and any other science you can name, and has done so.

Then it's contrary to reason — irrational — to hold a belief that drives you to hurt people. Even if the belief serves a useful purpose for you personally.

Your definition of irrational is not universally held, as has been demonstrated untold times over the course of history. That definition holds best within social groups, although not universally. Between disparate social groups it holds only so long as whatever source of conflict that may arise don't overwhelm the tendency to not kill.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

A belief wouldn't be rational just because it serves a purpose; it would have to be adopted because it serves a purpose.

This would seem to be true for most mainstream Religions. Accepting God to save your soul.

I think most religions would regard this as a perversion of the appropriate relationship with God. You're supposed to accept God because he merits acceptance, salvation being a consequence of this relationship. Accepting God just as a cynical means towards salvation in effect means that you're not really accepting him. Kind of like how refraining from wrongdoing just because you don't think you could get away with it isn't praiseworthy.

But, right or wrong, you're shifting from the point that I was actually making. Sure, faith has value if God exists — but you were trying to show how it's justified even if God doesn't exist. Or is this a Pascal's Wager thing?

Then it's contrary to reason — irrational — to hold a belief that drives you to hurt people. Even if the belief serves a useful purpose for you personally.

Your definition of irrational is not universally held, as has been demonstrated untold times over the course of history. That definition holds best within social groups, although not universally. Between disparate social groups it holds only so long as whatever source of conflict that may arise don't overwhelm the tendency to not kill.

My understanding of rationality is not universally held. Nevertheless, within my understanding of rationality, people have certain rational commitments that give rise to moral commitments. That people disagree is no refutation.

[Trebla]

Why God is easy enough to understand. It's easier to believe there is something other than random chance in control, something you might be able to influence through worship. Also the society of whatever God you might wish to pick creates a group to belong to and all the benefits of membership in that group.

Though this is jumping back a page, it seems it was lost in the shuffle as the final post of the previous page.

God is easy to understand? Then why do no two people understand him the same? Define God in a way that's easy to understand... this is generally cited as a major failing of the ontological argument, the fact that God (a being greater than which no being is possible) is, in fact, impossible to conceive of... if it's easy it should be consistent across cultures as well as individuals. So no, the statement that proceeds from that is the opposite of true. It's far more difficult to believe in something infinitely complex and unpredictable than a system of finite complexity and reproducibility.

[jules.LT]

It's far more difficult to believe in something infinitely complex and unpredictable than a system of finite complexity and reproducibility.

That "infinite complexity" doesn't seem to stop a vast majority of humans.
That's because the talk of "infinity" and "ineffability" really means "it's unknowable, so leave it alone", which is a much easier answer than going through the details of a finite system.

[Technical Ben]

Really? All those people talking about an infinite universe or multiverse are saying "just leave it alone"? Or "it's unknowable"? No, they want to encourage people to look further! I can only see the same when other things are said to be "infinite" or "infallible".

Correlation or causation? The excuse to not look for evidence is not related to the conclusions the evidence may give. But the people involved in collecting the evidence are the ones you should be blaming.

[DSenette]

Oh, I totally agree with you about how we need to get to the conclusions Azrael. See why I keep mentioning Science can get to the right conclusions, but must not act irrationally to get there. And that Religion does not have the correct conclusion because it does act rationally getting there.

Sorry I was not leaving it as a strawman, but purposefully open. So that anyone can mention the evidence they think is relevant (for or against theism/atheism). Why not just mention my own consideration of evidence? Well, because someone sees presents and says "they got here by chance" and someone says "a person put them there". I'd get an endless thread of back and forth. I don't think it would help the discussion. But the evidence most appeal to would be cause and effect linked to existence (our existence is subject to cause and effect, so we are subject to a cause. Other existences need not be, but ours is observed as such).

But for me when I look at the universe (observation) and the actions inside it (repeatable experiments/predictable results) what can I conclude? Either they happened by chance, or they were effected by something else. Many would call the observations and predictions related to order and complexity as evidence of a God. But just like the example above, no matter what "evidence" is presented, each side can put forward "alternative theories". It's down to me to check my evidence, and down to others to check theirs. Would your interests in my proofs be to teach me to get better proofs and better results? Or to tell me what I should get as a proof and as a result?

Will you consider it irrational to think the universe requires a first cause because I see evidence of cause and effect? Would you consider the observation of order resulting from order to be irrational too?

there's a MASSIVE difference between "first cause" as a physics experiment and the jump to "first cause as an undetectable living entity that not only first caused, but then also continually caused, and now currently gives more than one flying fuck about who you are, how you do what you do, who you fuck, what kind of meat you eat, what you do on sunday, et al"

science, at no point, denies anything about a first cause. science DOES however, tend to turn it's nose up at the idea of a sentient first cause. because they're absolutely no evidence for it. if there were evidence, real compelling testable evidence, then science would change it's mind about that.

[morriswalters]

I think most religions would regard this as a perversion of the appropriate relationship with God. You're supposed to accept God because he merits acceptance, salvation being a consequence of this relationship. Accepting God just as a cynical means towards salvation in effect means that you're not really accepting him. Kind of like how refraining from wrongdoing just because you don't think you could get away with it isn't praiseworthy.

But, right or wrong, you're shifting from the point that I was actually making. Sure, faith has value if God exists — but you were trying to show how it's justified even if God doesn't exist. Or is this a Pascal's Wager thing?

No it's a practicality thing. There is no payoff while you live that is tangible, at least that actually requires a real God. The primary payoffs all happen after the fact, when you die. The tangible fruits of acceptance of faith are of the nature of the placebo effect. They are real because you believe they are real. You social group all believe and that binds you to that group. It's internally self reinforcing. Perhaps my point will be clearer if you look at it from a different direction. What does a Christian give up for his faith that causes him some type of net loss. The very act of suffering or deprivation make him stronger in God's eyes and God gets the kudos when things go right. His beliefs suit his group and that others outside that group may believe that he is not rational is unimportant in any real sense.

My understanding of rationality is not universally held. Nevertheless, within my understanding of rationality, people have certain rational commitments that give rise to moral commitments. That people disagree is no refutation.

No one is trying to refute it. Nor was that my point. Referring to the OP's title, Atheism is rational to atheist's. It works for me. But Theists see it as something altogether different. The question itself has zero value since there is no absolute answer.

God is easy to understand? Then why do no two people understand him the same? Define God in a way that's easy to understand... this is generally cited as a major failing of the ontological argument, the fact that God (a being greater than which no being is possible) is, in fact, impossible to conceive of... if it's easy it should be consistent across cultures as well as individuals. So no, the statement that proceeds from that is the opposite of true. It's far more difficult to believe in something infinitely complex and unpredictable than a system of finite complexity and reproducibility.

Perhaps I should clarify. The idea of God is easy to understand. It is understood as people NEED to understand it. I would point out that as a practical matter nothing can be consistent in detail from person to person, much less cross culturally. I offer as evidence this discussion and the word rational.

[jules.LT]

Really? All those people talking about an infinite universe or multiverse are saying "just leave it alone"? Or "it's unknowable"? No, they want to encourage people to look further! I can only see the same when other things are said to be "infinite" or "infallible".

Great job avoiding context and dodging the point
Also, it's quite possible that the universe is finite or that the concept of finitude somehow doesn't apply.

[Trebla]

Perhaps I should clarify. The idea of God is easy to understand. It is understood as people NEED to understand it. I would point out that as a practical matter nothing can be consistent in detail from person to person, much less cross culturally. I offer as evidence this discussion and the word rational.

This does not clarify at all... "the idea of God" is infinitely complex and is still much more difficult to accept than a physical system of finite complexity. If your point was to clarify that the idea of God is so impossible to understand that you can't even begin to explain it, then I suppose you clarified that, but reinforced the opposite point of what you're trying to make.

Edit: This line of discussion is barely even tangential to the rationality of theism/atheism and probably should not continue in this thread, if you'd like to start a thread on this topic (which is really just the Ontological argument in disguise) I may notice it and continue to discuss.

[LaserGuy]

Sorry I was not leaving it as a strawman, but purposefully open. So that anyone can mention the evidence they think is relevant (for or against theism/atheism). Why not just mention my own consideration of evidence? Well, because someone sees presents and says "they got here by chance" and someone says "a person put them there". I'd get an endless thread of back and forth. I don't think it would help the discussion. But the evidence most appeal to would be cause and effect linked to existence (our existence is subject to cause and effect, so we are subject to a cause. Other existences need not be, but ours is observed as such).

But for me when I look at the universe (observation) and the actions inside it (repeatable experiments/predictable results) what can I conclude? Either they happened by chance, or they were effected by something else. Many would call the observations and predictions related to order and complexity as evidence of a God. But just like the example above, no matter what "evidence" is presented, each side can put forward "alternative theories". It's down to me to check my evidence, and down to others to check theirs. Would your interests in my proofs be to teach me to get better proofs and better results? Or to tell me what I should get as a proof and as a result?

Here's the problem with "Intelligent Design" styled arguments that you are making. You are assuming that we have the capacity to distinguish between things that are designed for a purpose, and things that are not. We do this by looking at things that we have made, and comparing them to things in nature, and seeing that there are characteristics that are different between the two. However, if you agree with this premise, how can you then say that nature itself is designed? The only reason that we can tell that anything is designed is by comparing it to something that was not. If everything was designed by an intelligent agency, then we would have no way to tell the difference between things that were designed and things that were not. But this results in a contradiction with our initial premise. This argument is fundamentally flawed.

For that matter, how can you tell the difference between created by random chance and something created by an intelligent agency, if you are assuming that everything is designed by an intelligent agency? If that is the case, then nothing is designed by chance, and once again, you have no way to distinguish between the two.

[morriswalters]

Perhaps I should clarify. The idea of God is easy to understand. It is understood as people NEED to understand it. I would point out that as a practical matter nothing can be consistent in detail from person to person, much less cross culturally. I offer as evidence this discussion and the word rational.

This does not clarify at all... "the idea of God" is infinitely complex and is still much more difficult to accept than a physical system of finite complexity. If your point was to clarify that the idea of God is so impossible to understand that you can't even begin to explain it, then I suppose you clarified that, but reinforced the opposite point of what you're trying to make.

Edit: This line of discussion is barely even tangential to the rationality of theism/atheism and probably should not continue in this thread, if you'd like to start a thread on this topic (which is really just the Ontological argument in disguise) I may notice it and continue to discuss.

God, if he existed might be infinitely complex, the practice of Religion is simple. God doesn't need to exist. People just have to believe he does.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

The tangible fruits of acceptance of faith are of the nature of the placebo effect. They are real because you believe they are real.

Hence my point: to be acting rationally, you not only have to do what reason requires; you have to do what reason requires because reason requires it. If you just take a guess and get lucky, you aren't behaving rationally — even if your behavior looks rational from the outside.

So, in order to rationally believe in God for purposes of practical rationality, you have to recognize that you're doing it for practical reasons. But for most religions, pragmatically-motivated faith doesn't count as faith at all. If I say "I'm going to follow Jesus so that I'll feel good about myself," I'm not following Jesus. I'm following my own interests and injecting a kind of self-delusion.

No one is trying to refute it. Nor was that my point. Referring to the OP's title, Atheism is rational to atheist's. It works for me. But Theists see it as something altogether different. The question itself has zero value since there is no absolute answer.

But there is an answer. A picture of rationality where an inference can be rational for some people and irrational for others is an incoherent picture of rationality. Why? Because rationality, by definition, provides objective grounds for inference. If we find that something doesn't provide such grounds, we say that it isn't rational. It's not the other way around; there aren't a bunch of things we arbitrarily decided to call rationality, and we didn't just become arbitrarily attached to the idea that this arbitrary collection of things provides objective grounds for inference. Instead, when we find that something provides objective ground for belief, then we label it rational.

Trying to deny that rational things are rational for everybody is like trying to deny that objective facts are true for everybody.

So, if there are objective grounds for, say, not being a dick, then those grounds also hold objectively for people who don't think there are objective grounds at all, for people who don't think there are objective grounds for not being a dick, and for people who find it more convenient or "practical" to pretend that they're not being dicks.

[thc]

What if you grew up knowing your parents, then someone says "your parents do not exist"? This is the mountain your trying to prove to people does not exist. Think about how that will sound to them for a moment.

Uh, nobody is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. That isn't necessary. It is more than sufficient to note that there is simply no evidence for the existence of God

You nitpick at his wording and miss the point. If you've ever been around deeply religious people a lot, you may realize that people who are deeply religious all quite literally physically "feel" the presence of God. That is their evidence and from that perspective it is quite rational to believe in God. Religion is a very sensory experience. Imagine you are talking with your parents and suddenly, someone comes up to you and tells you that the "parents" you are talking to are not real. That is the kind of imagery Ben is trying to convey.

[LaserGuy]

You nitpick at his wording and miss the point. If you've ever been around deeply religious people a lot, you may realize that people who are deeply religious all quite literally physically "feel" the presence of God. That is their evidence and from that perspective it is quite rational to believe in God. Religion is a very sensory experience.

I used to be Christian, and still have a lot of Christian friends. I have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about, actually. I'm sure you'd agree, however, that those types of experiences are useless as evidence to me for why I should believe that their God exists. Experiences that you yourself feel but nobody else does aren't very convincing. It's the same problem with, say, people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. From their point of view, the abduction is definitely real, because they believe that they experienced it. But they lack any method to prove to anybody else that the abduction happened and are, quite justifiably, perceived as crackpots or mentally ill by pretty much everybody else.

Imagine you are talking with your parents and suddenly, someone comes up to you and tells you that the "parents" you are talking to are not real. That is the kind of imagery Ben is trying to convey.

Mental illness can cause the problem that you describe. I can imagine that it is probably quite disorienting for the person having the hallucination. That's why having independent verification is so important.

[thc]

Experiences that you yourself feel but nobody else does aren't very convincing.

But it isn't nobody else. Depending on your church, it's a few dozen, or even hundreds of people in the room experiencing the exact same thing you are, confirming that what you are feeling is real.

It's the same problem with, say, people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. From their point of view, the abduction is definitely real, because they believe that they experienced it. But they lack any method to prove to anybody else that the abduction happened and are, quite justifiably, perceived as crackpots or mentally ill by pretty much everybody else.

What you are dancing around and trying not to say explicitly is confirmation by the majority. Of course this doesn't work when it comes to religion.

[zmic]

What if you grew up knowing your parents, then someone says "your parents do not exist"? This is the mountain your trying to prove to people does not exist. Think about how that will sound to them for a moment.

Uh, nobody is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. That isn't necessary. It is more than sufficient to note that there is simply no evidence for the existence of God, and therefore, no reason to believe He exists. Moreover, all of the things that God is purportedly able to explain we have, so far, done a pretty good job explaining without invoking His existence. Indeed, in every single case where God was supposed to be the reason that something happens that we have been able to test, it has turned out that God has no part in it at all. While we certainly haven't tested everything yet, God's possible sphere of influence grows smaller by the day. Yes, we have not yet been able to figure out how the Universe began, but we've seen that God is not responsible for lightning, or for earthquakes, or for plagues or diseases; that He is not responsible for healing the sick, for the creation of new species, for creating the Earth or the Sun or the moon, or any of the pieces that make them up.

And what happens if, ten years from now, we are able to show how the Universe began, and have solid evidence to support it, without the need to invoke a God to explain it? Is there any room at all left for God?

Every scientific explanation is necessarily rooted in mystery. Even if you find the equation that describes everything, then you still don't understand by what mechanism that equation was established as the functioning equation of this universe.

[morriswalters]

@TheGrammarBolshevik

Since I am not a Theist my language suggests an acceptance of Christianity for pragmatic reasons. However the interpretation of what I have written should not reflect that Christians in some way adopt Christianity for pragmatic reasons, although I'm sure some do.

In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action.

That quote is from the Wikipedia. I'll use it as a baseline. Within my interpretation of that statement the concept of Christianity and by extension Theism in general meet that definition. I suspect that our difference of opinion lies within the phrase "reason to believe".

Rather than continuing to hash this out I propose a hypothetical problem. Use reason to solve this problem rationally. Prove to me that you "love" your "hypothetical" wife and kids. What tangible evidence could you supply that would convince me, who doubts that love exists at all.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Since I am not a Theist my language suggests an acceptance of Christianity for pragmatic reasons. However the interpretation of what I have written should not reflect that Christians in some way adopt Christianity for pragmatic reasons, although I'm sure some do.

So what the fuck are you arguing about? You keep saying things like "Well, you could do this for pragmatic reasons." Then, when I argue that such reasoning would be incoherent, you defend yourself by saying "I'm not suggesting that you actually do it." Well, it seems like the appropriate thing to do if you don't favor something is to quit pretending that it has merit.

In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action.

That quote is from the Wikipedia. I'll use it as a baseline. Within my interpretation of that statement the concept of Christianity and by extension Theism in general meet that definition. I suspect that our difference of opinion lies within the phrase "reason to believe".

There are two different senses of "rationality." I'm actually writing a paper right now where I argue that, even though humans make all kinds of errors of reasoning, we're still a "rational animal" because we're able to do and believe things on the basis of reasons that we adopt. But when we talk about whether something is rational as opposed to irrational, or whether it conforms with the canons of rationality, we're not just asking whether someone somewhere has taken it up as a reason. In Kantian terminology, we're not asking whether it's anyone's subjective principle. We're asking whether it's an objective principle, one that is binding whether or not people decide to follow it.

I think this is obviously the sense of rationality used in the thread's title. Of course people are atheists, or theists, or anything at all, because of subjective principles. But if we're concerned that something might be irrational, this doesn't answer the question. We need to probe deeper, to see whether those subjective principles are objective principles. And, again, if they're objective principles then it's incoherent to say that they have no absolute or mind-independent validity. That's just what "objective" means.

[morriswalters]

My point here is that you can't probe any deeper. This has always been my point. There is nothing there to dig into. The only way to look at Religion or the lack of is subjectively. Saying that there is no evidence to support the idea of God is meaningless. There is also no evidence that there isn't. Using the label rational or irrational is not useful. It carries baggage which makes its use inflammatory. Functional might be a better phrase, but that's only my opinion. The core idea is beyond attack. You can fuck with the Bible and point out the glaring BS in it, you can look at history and wonder what it may have been like without it. But you can't reach the core because the only way to be sure is to die. I make this argument because it reminds me to not hate Christians or think of them as fools.

[LaserGuy]

Experiences that you yourself feel but nobody else does aren't very convincing.

But it isn't nobody else. Depending on your church, it's a few dozen, or even hundreds of people in the room experiencing the exact same thing you are, confirming that what you are feeling is real.

Oh, I'm not saying that the feelings aren't real. I'm sure that they are. And it is certainly possible to make a lot of people all feel the same thing, all at once. If I show a large group of people pictures of cute puppies, I can probably make most, if not all of them, feel the same way. Likewise, if I show them pictures of starving children, I can make them feel a different way. If I tell a certain story, in a certain way, I can probably make them laugh. If I tell a different story, I can probably make them cry. Certain types of music will make people excited, other types will make them tired, others will make them feel transcendent. Emotions are easy to manipulate, which is why they are unreliable. And what about the people who don't feel anything? What about the ones who are just faking it to fit in? How do they fit in the picture?

(We can see similar problems with related phenomena. For example, speaking in tongues can be learned fairly reliably in a classroom, independently of any religious association)

It's the same problem with, say, people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. From their point of view, the abduction is definitely real, because they believe that they experienced it. But they lack any method to prove to anybody else that the abduction happened and are, quite justifiably, perceived as crackpots or mentally ill by pretty much everybody else.

What you are dancing around and trying not to say explicitly is confirmation by the majority. Of course this doesn't work when it comes to religion.

Well, sort of. I'm talking about independent confirmation. For example, if you and I are working on a laboratory experiment together, and get some result X, then my evidence that the result is X and your evidence that the result is X should not be treated as two separate observations, but of as one observation. If a third party goes and does the same experiment without input from you or I and also gets result X, then that is independent confirmation of X.

[edit]Fixed quotation.

[Technical Ben]

Really? All those people talking about an infinite universe or multiverse are saying "just leave it alone"? Or "it's unknowable"? No, they want to encourage people to look further! I can only see the same when other things are said to be "infinite" or "infallible".

Great job avoiding context and dodging the point
Also, it's quite possible that the universe is finite or that the concept of finitude somehow doesn't apply.

Was the point that Religion teaches people to stop looking for answers? I agree! (On topic, that would rule them as irrational, correct?) But does a first cause or personified God require us to stop looking for answers? Are either of those dependable on the "infiniteness" of the subject? The universe could be considered infinite or finite by science, but science does not stop in either case. Why would it stop in either case to a caused universe?

DSnette, if I've jumped too fast, I'm happy to go back and slow things down. I was pointing out why it might be rational to consider both atheism or theism. Some here would say a first cause is sufficient for theism. Others that a personification is required. Or we can have anything in-between. So I mentioned a first cause or person, with perhaps "order" being an in-between. If someone has evidence to support one of those theories, are they acting rationally? If they only have evidence for one, and we are in disagreement, we look for more evidence. We already agree which of us considers our evidence as supporting which theory, right? Then is it rational or irrational to be interested in looking at each others evidence? I like looking at scientific evidence. I consider as much as I can.

If I am looking at the evidence wrong, I look at learning how to get better evidence. I see it more as a collaborative work than a competitive one though.

[edit]
I have to mention this because it is important. As thc said, confirmation by the majority is not sufficient for a "proof" or "evidence" or as a definition of "rational". See most of history, and even modern media and "popularity" for examples of wrong/mistaken beliefs.