Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Negoba wrote:   How do you define rationality?

In a nutshell it's making sure that the claims that you make are demonstrably true. But of course you have to distinguish between the subjective and objective point of view. In the subjective realm more claims may be demonstrably true, since you can use your memory as a form of evidence. But in the objective realm - which you may claim might not exist, we discussed this and I disagree - you have to demonstrate that your claim is rational to other people.

Example of an objectively rational claim:

"The sun will rise again tomorrow"

Some philosophers might complain that we can't be 100% sure about anything, but come on.

Another objectively rational claim:

"There is probably no God"

This is rational because the many God claims cannot be demonstrated objectively to be true. So while by all means Theists can continue to believe that their particular version of "God" exists, the Atheist position (which this statement paraphrases) is arguably the more reasonable position. Again, once you accept subjective points of view then it all changes - but we're talking about the objective point of view here.

And finally, let's look at an irrational claim:

"God exists, and He wants you to have your male children circumcised"

There are no objectively rational reasons for believing that, and that is the whole point of this thread. Some Theists will agree that they believe this not for rational reasons, but because they have faith ... others will claim that their religion is objectively more reasonable than Atheism, and this is what I disagree with.

Using the word Probably in a supposed rational statement is probably irrational.  Any statement of any kind can be rational if you insert the word "probably".

According to you a rational statement has to be objectively verifiable, and "probably" cannot be verified.




Edited by Trademark - August 26 2010 at 12:52

^ Right.  I see the point.  Its been decades since I took that math.

Trademark wrote: Using the word Probably in a supposed rational statement is probably irrational.  Any statement of any kind can be rational if you insert the word "probably". According to you a rational statement has to be objectively verifiable, and "probably" cannot be verified.

Of course it can - either numerically or by using common sense (the one that also tells you that the sun will rise again tomorrow).

thellama73 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Another objectively rational claim: "There is probably no God" This is rational because the many God claims cannot be demonstrated objectively to be true. So while by all means Theists can continue to believe that their particular version of "God" exists, the Atheist position (which this statement paraphrases) is arguably the more reasonable position. Again, once you accept subjective points of view then it all changes - but we're talking about the objective point of view here. I disagree that such a claim is objectively rational. Unless you can put numerical probabilities on the existence or non-existence of a God (which you can't), you cannot make an objective claim about which is more probable. The sun example works because we can study the movement of the planets and the history of the sun rising and conclude that the sun has risen every day so far, so the odds of it continuing to do so are overwhelming. We have no such empirical evidence regarding gods, so we cannot make any objective claims about the probability of their existence.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your argument assumes that empirical tests are the only way to reason for the validity of a statement. For some statements you can also make simple logical points. For example, how about this one:

"Not all religions can be true"  -> "Probably none of them is true"

The word "probably" is very important here. Trademark argues that it makes the whole point meaningless. I would agree if we were talking about matters of absolute certainty. But please, compare these two statements:

"Probably none of the religions are true"

"My religion is probably true"

I think that the latter one is less rational - on an objective basis, like I explained above, where we don't allow reasons that cannot be demonstrated to others. You may think of some arguments, but they compete with those of other religions that have an equal (read: weak) reason to be true.

jampa17 wrote:   That's completely unaccurate. Rationality cannot be just "claims that you are sure to be true". If someone tells you his dream, is he deluded just because a dream isn't true? Rationality has to do with your state of mind, not the probabilities of the things that surround us and can be true...

If someone told me about a dream he had, that would be perfectly fine. If he told me that his dream proved to him that Christianity is true, I would indeed think of him as deluded - as in "false belief" - since it is infinitely more likely that he had a dream or hallucination which he misinterpreted than that the actual creator of the universe appeared to him. Until he can prove it to me, I'll go with the more rational explanation.

thellama73 wrote: I don't see how your conclusion necessarily follows from your premise. You re making some leaps in between. The fact that all religions cannot be 100% is granted, but you ignore the great deal of overlap between many of the world's religions and the possibility that most religions could be mostly true.

I'm not buying that ecumenical spirit at all. I agree that one solution to the problem of "all religions can't be true simultaneously" is to suppose that they're basically all the same ... but then the problem arises that we can't possibly know what to do. The conclusion would, if you buy into this, to become an agnostic (in the original sense, someone who still believes that a god exists but we can't know what he's like, and what he wants us to do), but even then I think that the more reasonable (rational) conclusion is to suppose that it's probably all bogus claims until there is some actual evidence that suggests that any of them is supported by some sort of evidence.

thellama73 wrote: The problem is that you are leaning alternately on hard science and unprovable assumptions. You cheerfully invoke "common sense," even though it is an undefinable term, when it suits your purposes, but if a theist argues that common sense is the reason for their belief you dismiss it as unscientific. You can't have it both ways.

I can, in this case - see my explanation about "common sense" that I posted in response to jampa17. Name me an argument from common sense that a Theist could make, and I'll happily dismantle it for you.

Theists: "There's probably a God"
Atheists: "There's probably no God"

Conclusion: "There either is or isn't a God"

On the other hand let's compare some specific Theist claims:

Theist A: "Only Muslims will be saved"
Theist B: "Only Christians will be saved"

Conclusion: "They can't all be saved" (if either A or B is true)

The fundamental difference here is that the Atheist position isn't a positive claim.

^ Sure. But if you think that everyone is saved, religion becomes irrelevant. So either way, Atheism is more rational. 

I think there's an important distinction that needs to be pointed out.

Edited by Negoba - August 26 2010 at 15:19