Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
This is a fair question...I'll address this below.


SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Ok then.

Webster's
irrational: lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence

coherence: systematic or logical connection or consistency


Since my belief in God is consistent with the evidence I have witnessed...namely:

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.


then my belief in God is not irrational. It is rational.



Surely K, you would acknowledge this.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

There is no way I would agree to what you are saying. You want to look at you belief in a vacuum and call it coherent. Your use of the word coherent is reckless to say the least. If coherent means ONLY that some evidence is consistent with a belief - completely ignoring consistency in standards of evidence, etc, then ANY belief that is not directly contradicted by evidence is rational. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Because humans only have two arms, it is rational to believe that the other 19 are removed in-utero by invisible aliens. The observation is definitely not incompatible with the belief. This is a rational belief by your definition.

Because we don't float off into space, it is rational to believe that there are invisible demons whose names all start with Q who constantly pull us down. The observation is not incompatible with the belief. It is rational by your definition.

Do these seem like rational beliefs to you? Can you see why coherence (in how evidence is used to create a world model) is so fundamental to rational beliefs?

Since you claim that rational belief only requires evidence that is not contradictory to the claim made, I have to assume that you believe that the Heaven's Gate cultists' beliefs were rational as long as they had personal evidence.

I'm not sure this conversation can continue usefully. As I suspected all along, we are using different definitions of rational. Of course, I'm not left with a definition that calls any of the beliefs above rational (at which point it would seem that the definition is almost meaningless).

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
???

Hold on a sec. My 'use' of the word coherent is exactly the how Webster's dictionary uses it. Come on man...we are not debating what the meaning of the word 'is' is.



The main difference between my evidence/belief and the above examples is that although the evidences are not contrary to the hypotheses(invisible aliens, demons)...they in no way suggest the hypotheses.



We aren't using different definitions of rational. I gave you the link to the Merriam-Webster web site...you can look up the meaning for yourself if you disagree with me.


Here's what I'm having a hard time with K. In my world view...I can accept your belief that God doesn't exist (or disbelief or how ever you wish to phrase it) is rational. No biggie. I understand you see or feel no evidence. For you...God belief would be irrational. Fine.

However, I think the short coming of your strong-atheism leanings is that you can't (in truth are absolutely loath to) admit that my God belief is rational...as I feel I've illustrated above. Listen to me.

I'm not crazy.

I'm not a psychotic murderer like Berkowitz.

I don't blindly swallow whatever some cult leader tells me to like the members of Heavens Gate.

I am not dillusional.

I am not afraid of living life without a God.

I am not irrational.

I am a perfectly healthy, well adjusted, rational individual. I do see evidence of God in my life. Period.








I think you really need to rethink your perspective on things. Come on K...you need a better defense of your worldview than to call me crazy or dillusional.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

Not really. How can only focussing in on one aspect and ignoring the entire system possibly be considered systematically consistent?

Then if that is what you mean be "compatible with", then I withdraw my acknowledgement that your personal evidence was compatible with the existence of God. Your personal evidence, while not contradictory to the existence of God, in no way suggest that it is true. This has been demonstrated countless times.

The definition you supplied called for SYSTEMATIC CONSISTENCY. There is no systematic consistency when you insist on looking at a belief in a vacuum.

I never said that you were crazy or psychotic. I only claimed that one of your beliefs was irrational. There are many healthy, well adjusted people who hold irrational beliefs (astrologers, Scientologists, Hindus, etc). I would imagine that you are rational in a great many areas in your life. But these aren't reasons for me to call an irrational belief rational.

I understand that you see evidence of God in you life. That's great. Some people see evidence of astrology in their lives. Palm readers see evidence of its truth in their lives. Some people see evidence in their lives that convinces them that they should drop a load of cash on the Psychic Friends Network. These people may not be crazy. They may be quite well adjusted. But these beliefs are irrational for the reasons discussed throughout this thread.

Maybe, if I had done that. All I said is that your belief in God - for the reasons you gave - is irrational. You may think I'm suggesting that you're crazy when I give extreme examples. This is to show that beliefs that are clearly irrational to both of us can be arrived at using your methods of determining a rational belief. That's what a counterexample is.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
This is not what I mean by compatible or consistent. I think we agree that the evidence is compatible. What I am saying is that in addition to being consistent the evidence suggests that God exists. The evidences in your examples don't suggest the hypothesis.


??

In what way does...

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, at times I can hear God's voice.


...not suggest that God exists?



I think one very important thing that has surfaced in this discussion K is that you apriori categorize God belief as irrational THEN judge someone's personal God belief as irrational...instead of just considering the (in this case my) evidence.



What I am wondering is this, how would your interpretation of things change if you did not assume apriori that God belief is irrational?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

But your evidence doesn't suggest your hypothesis either. If I thought it did, I would also have to agree that personal evidence that the Vikings had for Thor would suggest that he exists as well. Or the fact that some people have personal evidence for astrology suggests that astrology is true. And even that personal evidence of the Heaven's Gaters suggests that there really was a UFO flying behind Hale-Bopp waiting to take people away who castrated and killed themselves at the right time.

In the same way that Heaven's Gate followers' personal evidence does not suggest that there really was a UFO waiting to take them away.


This is untrue. I have always maintained that belief in God is rational where there is convincing physical evidence that can be treated in a cosistent manner without creating an incoherent model of the universe. The evidence you offered doesn't meet any of those criteria.

Again, that isn't my assumption. Also, I was a firm believer for many years. I discovered (through a long painful process) that my belief in God was irrational while starting with an apriori assumption that God belief was rational. Since that time, I haven't met anyone who has provided any evidence that would make their belief in God rational, but that doesn't mean I've ruled it out apriori.

luvluv

K et al:

I've moved the primary focus of my discussion of this postion to the "James, Clifford, Burger..." thread. I hope you will all participate over there as well.

K

luvluv:

I saw that thread. I haven't had time to read all the background information, so I haven't participated. The discussion here between SOMMS and myself isn't directly related to James' argument anymore.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

luvluv,

I have been skimming that topic. I felt this op addressed the topic (justification of faith) pretty well.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas