Kuyper

I'm carrying this thread over from the one called "A Christian's thoughts", because it seems to be a sub-thread within that discussion. Things might get muddled in a hurry, so I decided to split it off. Hope no one minds.

What started this ball rolling was the post that said, in effect, beliefs without evidence are irrational. I questioned that assumption and asked "why?" What makes that true?

Here's the general flow so far:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Philosoft
I'm not sure what you're asking for. "Rational" is an attribute, an adjective used to describe something else. It's not something that needs to be evidenced; we just say something is "rational" if it has properties x, y and z.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Partly correct. The question now is, what must those properties be? As you present the case, properties x,y and z can only include those which have sufficient evidence.
However, that is not the common usage of the term “rational”, about which more below.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philsoft:
Why do you need evidence for a definition? If you wish to have the common usage changed, then you need to argue for a more inclusive definition...
The evidence is that this is what people mean when they say "rational belief."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I respectfully disagree. You are confusing two different usages of the term “rational”. If we examine the dictionary definition of the term we find the following:

rational
adjective
showing clear thought or reason
She was too upset to be rational.
We need to decide what would be the most rational course of action.
There must be a perfectly rational explanation for what happened.
(from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
(From the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary)

rational
/"r n( )l/ adjective 1 of or based on reason. 2 sensible. 3 endowed with reason. 4 rejecting what is unreasonable. 5 Mathematics expressible as ratio of whole numbers. rationality /-"n l-/ noun. rationally adverb.
•2balanced, clear-headed, considered, judicious, logical, lucid, normal, reasonable, reasoned, sane, sensible, sound, thoughtful, wise. 3enlightened, intelligent, logical, reasoning, thinking.
(From the Oxford Paperback Dictionary)

Note that there is nothing in any of the above definitions that requires evidence for something to be rational. The requirement (that is the properties x,y and z to which you allude above) is only that it be reasonable, based on reason or sensible. Thus rational belief is only belief that is based on that which is reasonable. (Note that I’m not just referring to religious belief here, but to ANY belief which one holds. It is this usage by which most people understand the term “rational belief” and not as you originally stated: “rational belief = belief supported by evidence.”

You seem to want to define the term such that the only properties that qualify to make something rational is if those properties have evidence. That is a philosophical position (as opposed to a definitional one) in the general neighborhood of classical foundationalism (or sometimes referred to as evidentialism). That philosophical position is highly suspect and being self-refuting is only one of its difficulties.

That is why I posed the question in the first place. It is simply not axiomatic that "rational belief = belief supported by evidence". There is no commonly accepted definitions to which one can appeal to support that notion either. If anything, appeal to a definition works against it, as I outlined above.

K

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Faith which is not based on evidence is not based on reason (rea/son v. 1 explanation 2 cause) but rather on supposition (a guess, something assumed) and is therefore irrational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps you could explicate how reason = evidence? That isn't at all clear from what you jotted here. It also isn't clear why one need accept your statement that "Faith which is not based on evidence is not based on reason". Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on that as well.

K

Biff:

Faith, the belief that something exists, which is not based on evidence would be based on what then? The only thing you are left with is assumption. You don't know something exists but you assume it does. But to think that something exists based only on assumption (usually stated on these boards as "I believe because I believe") credits your desires as being the creators of reality. Something exists because you want it to exist. In anyone past the age of 2 such ideas are considered irrational. Devoid of reason, because you have no reason (no evidence) to reach this conclusion.

Kuyper:

How do you know I have no reason (or evidence) to hold a particular belief? Explain what you mean by evidence in this context. I think I do have reasons aplenty to justify my theistic belief as totally rational. In saying that I don't, you're simply making a judgment call that says "I don't like your reasons". Well, first of all, you don't know what those reasons are, because we haven't discussed any of them and secondly, what difference does it make whether you agree with or like my reasons? Is there an objective standard out there telling us what does and does not constitute a correct set of reasons that one must have before holding theistic belief as justified? If so, who wrote the standard? What makes it true? Why should I pay any attention to it whatsoever?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Philosoft
How? I'm only talking about a subset of rational things - rational beliefs.

You seem to be taking an unnecessarily narrow definition of "evidence." Nowhere is it written that it must be physical evidence.
[/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kuyper:

No, but that's the fundamental intuition of what one means by evidence. If you're using the term to include something else, then please elaborate.


quote: Philsoft:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the options? Maybe you should decide what you mean by "reason"? Can a reasonable believe have no evidence for its truth?

*shrug*
Try as I might, I can't come up with a belief that I hold without evidence. Do you have any examples?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kuyper:

Sure. Your belief in your own existence. You can't claim to have any evidence of your own existence for the simple reason that there is no non-circular way for you to acquire the evidence. In order to say you have evidence of your own existence you'd have to assume your existence from the outset in order to believe you were having any of the relevant sensory experiences necessary to ascertain the evidence. It's a hopelessly circular process. Yet you and I and everyone else are perfectly rational to hold belief in our own existence without evidence.

Here's another: belief in the existence of other minds. I don't know of any good argument or experiment thay anyone can use to demonstrate the existence of other minds. Yet we are perfectly rational in believing that minds other than our own exist.

Here's another: belief in the reliability of your memories.

Everyone holds beliefs for which they do not have evidence. So why can't belief in God be one of those? Whence the requirement that belief in God must have evidence to be rational? What justifies that requirement? Who requires it? What does one mean by evidence in this case?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by K
Kuyper:

Do you consider the belief in the Hindu gods rational? How about belief in the Greco-Roman gods? How about belief in astrology, ghosts, psychics, and vampires? These are all beliefs that are faith based. They are NO DIFFERENT from belief in the Christian gods and, I would say, completely irrational.

Can you explain to me why it is rational for a person to believe that bunch of gods is sitting around at the top of Mount Olympus controlling the world?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you don't mind, I want to put this question on hold for the moment. Not because I don't have an answer (I do), but because I want to lay some groundwork first, which will become clearer in the other parts of this discussion. Then, I'll come back to this one. It's a good question and perfectly legitimate, so I don't want to ignore it...just table it for the moment. Deal?

(If I should forget...please remind me)

In fact, I think I might carry this entire discussion over to a new thread as it might get confusing here in a hurry.

(which I just did)

I think that includes everything up to this point. So let's take it from here.

Thanks
K

Kuyper

OK, now that I've carried over the comments from the other thread to get this one going, I'll try to clarify the question.

The intuition often expressed, usually but not always by atheists, is that for a belief to rational it must have evidence. I'm asking why? What makes that statement true? For that matter, it isn't even clear what one means by the term "evidence" in this context.

It just isn't self-evident that the proposition is true, so perhaps someone could put forward an argument as to why it is. Then we can go from there.

Thanks
K

Silent Acorns

I think the problem here hinges on the words "evidence" and "belief". Stricktly speaking, reason is a process by which one moves from a number of postlates (i.e. assumptions) to reach a conclusion. Evidence and belief have nothing to do with it.

To say "I beleive that the conclusion is true" is the same as saying "the conclusion is consistent with reality", but the conclusion is only consistent with reality if the postulates are as well. How can we find out if the postulates are true? We have 3 basic options:

1) derive the postulates from more basic postulates
2) find evidence that the postulates are consistent with reality
3) declare the postulates to be self-evident

Obviously, choosing (1) doesn't solve anything since it just creates new postulates which need support as well. Choosing (3) doesn't solve anything, which leaves (2).

Therefore, you need evidence to see if a rational conclusion is true.

Kenny

Silent Acorns,

By what means do you know how to properly interpret the evidence and then draw proper conclusions from it?

Philosoft

It's a definition. It's not true or false; it's simply what we mean when we say the words "rational belief." I don't know how to demonstrate or prove by anything other than the most trivial syllogism that a "rational belief" is objectively one thing or another.

How about 'Objects and thoughts whose experiences can be shared'?

This might be your problem. "Rational belief" is not a proposition. Honestly, I think you might do better attacking the standards for "evidence." I have no reason to change what I mean by "rational belief." In any case, I don't equate "rational belief" with "true belief." I acknowledge that an "irrational belief" has a nonzero probability of being true.

Theli

By the same means as we interpret anything we encounter in our lives. The mind is made up in a way so it detects similarities and relations between observations. And the model most consistent with our observations is the most truthfull one. A model that can predict events and future observations is a consistent one. A model that gets contradicted by observations is most likely a false one.
When it comes to evidence, evidence is the ground on wich every model of the world stands on. If claims included in a model cannot be comfirmed by observations then the model is lacking probability, and should not be considered true until observations present themselfs.

Kenny

Theli,

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Keith Russell

Kuyper:

The question is semantic.

I define 'rational beliefs' as 'beliefs based solely upon independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence'.

The answer to your question--based on this definition--is 'yes'. Further, I would claim that theistic beleifs qua theistic beliefs, cannot be based on evidence.

If, however, you ask someone who defines 'rational' or 'theistic' differently than I, you'll get a different answer.

This is why I am far more interested in concepts, than in which words we use to refer to those concepts.

If we don't understand what we each mean by the words we use, the words themselves are meaningless.

Keith.

capnkirk

Kuyper,

Your threadstarter is so long that I think I will need to post responses separately to different issues. Otherwise it gets too confusing to easily follow...so to the first issue:

You argued that evidence was not implicit to the determination of rationality. You offered definitions that included terms like reasonable in support of that argument. This merely transfered the burden of evidence from one word to another. What IS the basis of reason? If not evidence, then what? Certainly, you would concede that evidence au contraire constitutes compelling argument against a premise hitherto considered reasonable or rational. Evidence is better considered as the most reliable TEST of reason or rationality, than as an inherent quality of it. At least that should make the relationship clearer.

There is great peril in making any belief immune to evidence. It opens the holder to delusion. Most athiests contend that blind faith does precisely that.

I would argue that the only rational response to lack of evidence (pro or con) is to withhold belief, to remain UNcommitted. Again most athiests are just being polite when they say there is no evidence that there is no god (usually because we don't want have to respond to demands to prove a negative). Consider it more a debating tactic; since believers have the more extrordinary claim, don't let them transfer the burden of proof away from themselves.

There are (at least) two classes of evidence, physical and circumstantial, and just as within jurisprudence, they carry different argumentive weight.

It is in the light of these considerations that I (and others) argue that belief with out evidence is irrational. For the case where there truly is no evidence (pro or con), there can be no reasonable basis for ANY conclusion. It is a shortcoming of our language that (the word) disbelief implies an investment of will similar but opposite in sign to belief. Much like darkness means much more to most people than simply "absence of light".

Kenny

Keith, by this definition of ‘rational beliefs’, do you believe the following proposition:
“One ought only to hold rational beliefs”?

If so, does the above proposition meet your definition of a rational belief?