K

SOMMS:

And has been pointed out many times before, some other Gods ARE incompatible with your God. For instance, they can't all be the creator of everything. Some gods are defined as the one and only god (Allah for instance). This leaves no room for Jesus to also be divine. There is personal evidence just like yours even for the gods that are incompatible with yours.

It's completely irrelevant whether or not you personally have witnessed the evidence. I haven't witnessed your evidence, but you want me to call your belief rational.

The only thing that matters is that the evidence is just like yours.

This is at least the 6th time I've defined my use of the term 'personal evidence' to mean evidence just like yours - a personal accomplishment, "answered" prayers, and sense of peace and joy. You've already agreed to this definition. Why do you keep trying to act like it hasn't been defined this way?

If you believe in gravity because of you accomplished something, had some of your prayers to gravity answered, and had a sense of peace and joy since your started believing in gravity, then your belief is completely irrational.

Somehow I doubt that these are your reasons for believing in gravity.

But the existence of SOME of the gods that are supported by personal evidence is incompatible with your God. That is all that matters.

And even though this is completely damning to your position, there is an even more fundamental problem to your position.

If any irrational belief is supported by personal evidence just like yours, then personal evidence is not a sufficient basis for rational beliefs.

No, I'm claiming that if evidence exactly like yours supports an irrational belief or a belief that contradicts yours, then your belief based on the evidence is not rational.

I know we're discussing the rationality of your belief. Now it looks like you're trying to water "rational" down to mean having "some reason for believing." This is the weakest definition of rational yet. It make David Berkowitz rational. He certainly had some reason for believing that a 2000 year old dog was commanding him to kill. In fact, I'd be very impressed if you could find one example of a belief that is held by someone that is not held for "some reason".

Like I've been saying, we're using two different definitions of rational if your's only requires that a belief is held for some reason.

And you have completely failed to show that 5 not being divisible by 2 is inconsistent with 5 being the only odd number.

In fact I have shown numerous times why your belief is inconsistent and why your evidence does not suggest your belief. However, you've rejected them all because you insist that your belief must be evaluate in the absense of all other information. Again, that's a completely different definition of rational.

Their points are valid. There points don't undermine mine in the slightest. The fact that 'it could be chance' doesn't suddenly mean that your evidence suggest God exists.

Obviously. That's why I'm letting them debate from that angle while I'm taking a different approach.

I could also have gone into the paradoxes of the Christian God. That's already been done.

You asked my why your belief - based on your evidence - was irrational. I've shown it. Your belief based on your evidence is irrational because personal evidence like yours is not sufficient to support a rational belief. This has been shown with countless counter-examples.

You want me to call a belief that is based on evidence rational. Yet you insist that for the discussion to take place I have to accept your evidence as being a rational foundation for your belief!!! Why didn't you just ask the question that way.

"Assuming that my evidence sufficient for a rational belief, why is my belief - based on my evidence - irrational?"

That would assume that I don'k acknowledge your evidence. I acknowledge it. I just don't accept it as the foundation for a rational belief.

Would you really have accepted that your belief was irrational simply because I don't accept you evidence as the foundation for a rational belief? Somehow, I suspect that you would want to know WHY I don't accept it. And that would have led us right back through this tired thread.

You keep watering down the definition of rational. Whatever happened to coherence. The fact that I can't see my car right now is evidence that it no longer exists. Is it rational for me to believe that?

It's irrelevent whether or not the evidence exists for you. It only has to exist for SOMEBODY. If that were not the case, I could dismiss your belief as irrational because I didn't experience your personal evidence.

And Scientology, astrology, Heaven's Gate beliefs, and let's not forget prehistoric dolphin channeling. All of these things are supported by evidence exactly like yours.

I never said you did - only that somebody has personal evidence for them.


No, it only means that if somebody has personal evidence for them, that personal evidence suggests that they are true. After all, if your personal evidence suggests that God is true, then if somebody else has the same evidence for astrology, then the truth of astrology is suggested.

Just because you may believe Scientology, astrology, and prehistoric dolphin channeling are rational for those who believe them, that doesn't mean I grant that they are.

And if those aren't rational, then your belief isn't either SINCE IT IS BASED ON THE SAME EVIDENCE!

There is a fundamental flaw here. It's not THE EXACT SAME EVIDENCE. Fortunately, quantum mechanics explains the results from the tests that Bohr's model couldn't explain while not contradicting any of the results that Bohr's model did explain.

Now, given that Bohr's model does contradict what is observed in other tests, it would be irrational for me to believe in it.

However, since you insist on evaluating a belief only on the evidence presented for that belief while ignoring the contradicitons, it would be rational for me to believe in Bohr's model by focussing only on the tests that are not contradictory to it and dismissing the rest.

That's why I don't believe that matter is a wave or that matter is a particle. I believe that matter (and light for that matter) behaves like a wave in some instances and that it behaves like particle in others. I can even tell you what conditions are necessary for it to behave like a wave or a particle.

These aren't any more contradictory than the fact that water sometimes behaves as a gas and sometimes as a liquid. I can even tell you what conditions are necessary for it to behave as a gas or a liquid.

[QUOTE]Also, your belief in time and space is irrational...as there is huge amounts of evidence for General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics...yet these two theories are contradictory....therefore your belief in spacetime is irrational. [QUOTE]

First, I don't have to believe that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in order to believe in time and space.

Second, I don't believe that General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics are universally correct - only that they have specific regions of application.

I believe that Quantum Mechanics is a model that works EXTREMELY well for describing what goes on at the subatomic level. I believe that General Relativity is a model that seems to work fairly well on cosmological scale. The fact that the two don't work well together simply indicates to me that there is more to learn.

Selsaral

I want to add to my last post, to make some connections that were implied but not stated. Both Jobar and I have commented on the nature of coincidence. Humans are notorious at misinterpreting them, and I think this is a major motivation for superstitious conclusions. Anthropomorphism is another way in which humans think superstitously, by placing human characterstics on natural processes. Many gods are just super powerful humans, such as the Greek gods. With such a huge list of attempts by humans to place supernatural explanations on completely natural phenomena we see a definite trend. Either you are special and different from all the other humans that have gone before you, or you have to accept that it's plausible you are behaving just as superstitiously as everyone else, which led people in the past to conclude diseases were curses from the gods, you can tell the future by poisoning a chicken etc. I'd say all the things I've listed in these last two posts and probably more (the features of human nature) lead humans to superstitious conclusions.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Just to clarify K: IF the Judeo-Christian concept of God is true...then we should see evidence of other gods. God Himself says so...

Exodus 20:3
"You shall have no other gods before me."

In the NT Jesus even used the concept of other gods...
John 10:34-36
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

So as far as existence is concerned God is not incompatible with other gods, in fact the existence of other gods supports the Judeo-Christian framework. Now you are correct in saying that at most one of them could have created the world. However, this does not mean that their existence is incompatible...it means that their claims at Creation are incompatible.

So your objection about 'others see evidence for other gods' actually works against you K. It gives further support to the truth of the Judeo-Christian framework.


You can no longer merely dismiss the evidence I have witnessed because your base objection that 'it is incompatible that others see evidence for other gods' is faulty. Given this...how would you address what I have witnessed?






Uh...
YOU don't have to witness MY evidence for MY belief to be rational. I'm sure you'd agree.


This is the main weakness with your position K. You keep bringing up other peoples beliefs. Other peoples beliefs have nothing to do with the rationality of my belief.




And now your just acting silly. These are specific things I have witnessed that are evidences of God. There are many other things I have personally witnessed evidence for: gravity, momentum and calculus. If you claim my belief in God is irrational...you must also claim my belief in gravity, momentum and calculus is irrational because I have personally witnessed evidence for it.
















Well...their points actually do undermine yours K. Because they aren't dismissing the evidence like you are...instead they are giving reasons why it doesn't necessarily suggest God. They are saying 'You've witnessed answered prayer? Cool, it could have been chance'. On the flip side...you are claiming 'answer prayer' is inadmissable as evidence. Hopefully, your position on this has changed given the above clarification.




And has been shown, this is ridiculous statement. If one must not believe anything they have witnessed evidence for...then one can't have a rational belief in things like gravity and momentum. I'm sure you would agree this is completely asinine...moreover, I know you well enough that you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

You must rethink your position on this K. I am confident you have a point but either you haven't fully developed it yet or you are just not saying it succintly.














Uh...no it's not. It is the only thing relevent to this discussion. We are talking about why my belief is rational or not...we are not talking about what other people may or may not believe. I have no idea what other people may or may not believe.






Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Selsaral,

I think I see what you are saying here. From your perspective..,people of different religions seem to have evidence for what they believe in. I also assume from the tone of your comments that you assume that these religions must be mutually exclusive. While I fully understand your adherence of this position...I don't necessarily feel this way. As I've mentioned to K, even God claims there are other gods. In other words I see Biblical support for other gods. So my interpretation of the above seems to be a bit different than yours. I see it as further support of the Judeo-Christian theology.

This may be a bit off topic but I'll just throw it in anyway. One could just as easily interpret the situation above (many people believing different religions) as evidence that there is something about mankinds existence that transcends the mere physical world. The fact that most people believe this suggests (not proves) that this is the case. Of course you can't rational interpret the situation this way if you assume a priori that God (or gods) can't exist.


This leads me to a question: In your interpretation of the fact that many people believe in the supernatural...do you first assume the supernatural can't exist?






Well I don't think I would classify myself as one the above Christians. I personally believe because I see evidence. However, this doesn't mean I feel the above viewpoint is invalid. Let me explain.

You are flying over the jungle when your plane crashes. You are pulled from the wreckage by an aborignal tribe and taken to their village to recover. Your asthma starts acting up and you realize your inhaler was destroyed. A medicine man comes in to try to heal you. You tell him about your inhaler but he doesn't believe you. He sees no evidence for an 'inhaler'. After many desperate attempts to show him that you need the inhaler...you die from suffication.

Now here's the point: in many (most?) cases...need actually implies existence of something. If you can't survive without water...it implies then that water exists. If you can't live without food...it implies that food exists. That is...it is very difficult to imagine a completely fabricated 'need'. What does this have to do with the type of belief above? I see the above as people who truly need God and are frank, open and honest about this need. Now while need doesn't always imply existence...I think it does (at least) suggest the existence of something.

I would also like to point out again that while I don't disagree with this type of belief...I do not adhere to it. I don't really need a god. I was a content atheist before I became a Christian. I don't fear existence in absence of a god. In fact, I would enjoy the freedom atheism provides. This doesn't mean I personally hold atheism as true however.



Well I think you see this type of progression in any endeavor man undertakes...since man's culture is continually changing. When you look back you can see a progression in all areas of mankinds interests...language, science, religion, politics, etc. I don't think this progression invalidates the axioms of these fields...I simply think that mankinds thoughts and culture of an era are reflected in these.




I actually felt this way for quite awhile until I was playing around with a probability problem one day.

Try this experiment: Take 4 paper cups and label them 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. Now have a friend secretly place a penny beneath one of the cups. The cup with the penny underneath is analogous to which one of the 'big 4' religions is correct. Now have one (or both) of your parents pick a cup and give it to you. This is analogous to you adopting the religion your parents grew up with. There are actually two important things we can say about your cup.

1-The choice of the particular cup your parents gave you does not imply anything about whether or not a penny is underneath it. That is the issue of 'which cup your parent gives you' is completely orthogonal (has no implication one way or the other) to the issue of 'which cup has a penny underneath it'.

2-The probability that the cup you were given has the penny...is 0.25...regardless that you 'inherited' this cup from you parents. This is saying that the adoption of your parents cup (religion) does not change the probability of that cup (religion) being correct (or incorrect).


The short of it Selseral, is that there are no truth or probabilistic implications whatsoever in adopting your parents religion.


I think you are correct here. If I felt every religion was correct then everybody would be right. However, I don't really feel this way. I only believe what I have evidence for...and since I don't have evidence for anything but God...this is what I believe.
I am not saying that other gods don't exist or other peoples beliefs are irrational...I simply don't know. I guess I am agnostic towards all the things I know I have no evidence of.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

The very definitions of your Gods are incompatible. If your God is the prime mover, then it is fundamentally incompatible with Allah, Brahma, and all the other prime mover Gods. Are you not claiming that the very definition of your God includes being the creator of the universe?

No, my objection was about gods (and other beliefs) that are incompatible with your God. Do you really think that your God is fully compatible with a different God who is the one and only god? That would be a strange compatibility.

You can no longer merely dismiss the evidence I have witnessed because your base objection that 'it is incompatible that others see evidence for other gods' is faulty. Given this...how would you address what I have witnessed?

No, my base objection is that evidence exactly like the evidence you presented is used to support many irrational beliefs (you seem to be forgetting astrology, Heaven's Gate, and prehistoric dolphin channeling). Therefore, it can not be considered a solid foundation for a rational belief.

Uh, no kidding, that is what I've been trying to tell you for these many pages.

So if personal evidence is enough to make a belief rational, then your belief is rational even though I haven't seen your evidence. And, by the same token, if personal evidence is enough to make a belief rational, then a prehistoric dolphin channelers belief is rational even though you haven't seen the evidence.

Is that point finally clear?

OK, for the 7th (at least time). I am using the term 'personal evidence' as shorthand in this discussion so that I don't have to keep typing out.

Accomplishing something, having several "answered" prayers, and a feeling of peace and joy.

You've already agreed to this shorthand notation. Why are you trying to change that now? OK, so you don't get confused again and so I won't have to keep typing it out, I won't refer to 'Accomplishing something, having several "answered" prayers, and a feeling of peace and joy' as "personal evidence" anymore. Instead I'll calll 'Accomplishing something, having several "answered" prayers, and a feeling of peace and joy' "AS-AP-FPJ". How would that be?

No, the only way their points would undermine my positions would be if they had indicated that AS-AP-FPJ either was a sufficient foundation for rational belief or that it actually suggested that God exists. I don't recall either of them saying anything remotely similar to that.

[/QUOTE]On the flip side...you are claiming 'answer prayer' is inadmissable as evidence. Hopefully, your position on this has changed given the above clarification. [/QUOTE]

No, I'm not saying that your evidence is inadmissable. I'm saying it is not sufficient as a foundation for a rational belief in God. If you look a little closer, you'll see that they are saying something very similar.

Again, your confusion here is because you forgot that 'personal evidence' was a substitue for AS-AP-FPJ. It's convenient how you keep forgetting this when backed into a corner.

Or, you keep changing positions, changing definitions, and forgetting what I've clearly and unambiguously stated I was using the phrase 'personal evidence' to mean.

Wow! another flip-flop. This time it was in the same post. You want me to call your belief rational even though I haven't experienced your AS-AP-FPJ but you can't say anything about the rationality of others' beliefs because you haven't experienced their AS-AP-FPJ.

Now what is it? Is it possible to say whether someone elses belief based on AS-AP-FPJ is rational without experiencing their AS-AP-FPJ? If not, why are you asking me to do that with respect to your belief?



I'm still very much interested in hearing how you show that the belief 5 is the only odd number is irrational without using any other evidence except that 5 is not evenly divisible by 2. Should I assume that you think this is rational. It certainly is by the definition of rational that you've provided.

K

SOMMS:

Maybe we can wrap this up more quickly. Here are my contentions.

1. If AS-AP-FPJ is a sufficient basis to make your belief rational, then any belief based on AS-AP-FPJ is also rational. Anything else would be special pleading.

2. There are beliefs based on AS-AP-FPJ that are clearly irrational (beliefs like Scientology, astrology, Heaven's Gate-ism, and prehistoric dolphin channeling).

3. Since there are irrational beliefs which are based on AS-AP-FPJ, it is clear that AS-AP-FPJ is not a sufficient basis to make a belief rational.

Please tell me which statement you disagree with.

Selsaral

Great discussion SOMMS, you have a lot of good things to say here. I'll of course argue against most of them, but that's the point eh?



Well yes I am fundamentally skeptical as a start. I don't think that equals a full out assumption that the supernatural can't exist, but I am definitely leaning that way. And I think my skepticism arises from this argument, not precedes it.

But I see most of these profound supserstitious/religious beliefs having been factually debunked. Scientology is a scam, plain and simple. Believing the world would end in biblical apocalypse on january 1st 2000 was false. Believing thunder was caused by Zeus riding in his chariot was false. Believing diseases were curses from the gods was false. Claiming the world was created as-is 6000 years ago is false. Claiming you can fortell the future by poisoning a chicken is false. John Edwards does not talk to your dead relatives; he is running an age-old scam, but notice how many people he suckers with it? How about christianity? It claims, quite directly from the bible, that the world was created in a particular way. But the evidence conclusively debunks that account. Which leads to aplogetics: it's supposed to be allegory, or you're not interpreting it right. If there weren't fossils, or sedimentary rocks, or archaeological evidence dating back millions of years, it wouldn't be so bad, but these are hardcore facts that cannot be reconciled with the religion. I could go on and on. Basically the trend shows most of the superstitious beliefs to be verifiably false, and never once has conclusive evidence ever been put forth to support them. From this angle I am near convinced that these supserstitious beliefs have no basis in reality. Therefore I can't accept that the fact human beings are innately superstitious is indicating the existence of the supernatural. It is an emotional and ignorant (lacking the facts) attempt at describing the world.

A part of our discussion that has blended with your discussion with K is the 'multiple gods existing' thing. I have to agree with K, at least in the case of all the gods who created the world, they are necessarily exclusive. The christian god and allah cannot both exist, they are both the creators of everything. You either have to edit them all to your personal liking to make them fit, (which is quite cheesy and frankly dishonest), or accept they are exclusive.




I don't think a desire to live forever, punishing all your enemies, absolute morality, power over the world etc is a 'fabricated need'. These are things human beings desire in a harsh and unforviging world that we don't understand. It makes good sense to think conscious, feeling, thinking humans would desire these things, whether they exist or not.

If the innate need for god was real, then why doesn't everyone gravitate towards the christian god (or whichever god is real) ? Suspiciously, they don't. They often don't gravitate towards any god at all, because many religions don't even include a god, many feature ancestor worship, shamanism, spirituality etc. In fact they suspiciously often lead to the dominate religion that the person was raised in. This indicates it is a cultural phenomena including cultural indoctrination, not a supernatural guidance.

I accept that you personally don't 'need' the emotional comfort your religion gives you, but you must admit, living forever in paradise is quite the carrot, isn't it?



But in the case of monotheism, religion is supposed to be this thing imposed upon us by a supernatural god who lays out universal truth and absolute laws. Why then do all religions show obvious signs of evolution and influence by surrounding forces and the physical environment in which the culture developed? This is analogous to biological evolution. If god created everything as-is, why is there astonishing evidence that everything developed slowly, by natural processes, over vast time scales?



I feel your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Cultural indoctrination is not a physical thing handed to you by your elders. It is not something anyone 'chooses'. It is a mostly subconscious process by which you learn how to function in your society. Cultural indoctrination has absolutely nothing to do with which religion is 'correct', it is simply the method by which you become a member of your culture.

I don't see how you can claim there are no probabalistic implications in adopting your parents religion. Is not the entire middle east dominated by Islam? Is not Europe dominated by Christianity? Is not India dominated by Hinduism? If there were no correlations between your parents religion and your own, this would not be the case, religions would be evenly distributed.

These are the only answers to this point I can make, because I feel your argument on this particular issue has very little bearing on the situation, and frankly, very little merit (no insult intended). Please correct me if I didn't get it.

OK, I hear ya. But I personally can't help trying to reconcile what I observe in other people and what I observe in myself. After seeing thousands of years of 'thunder is Zeus in his chariot' type beliefs all over the world being accepted with total seriousness, I was forced into this conclusion. Cynically and rather predictably, I suggest your agnosticism and apathy towards these other religions is in some ways a shield to protect you from the conclusions you would be forced to make if you examined them. You've shown a serious reluctance to include the profound evidence that the human condition demonstrates. (No insult even vaguely intended here, I'm just being honest about what I believe).

By the way I'm glad our discussion has gotten meaty. Before we just weren't clicking, but it's going well now. Thanks.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

This is an excellent outline of your position.
Agreed...with a slight clarification: I don't hold AS-AP-FPJ specifically as sufficient basis for belief. Rather I hold that personally witnessed evidence (let's call this PWE for now) is sufficient for rational belief. I claim that PWE is a class of knowledge upon which a rational belief can be built. One can have specific instances of PWE for many hypothesis...(like mentioned before) physical laws, mathematical constructs, even objective truths. PWE does not necessarily imply truth, but suggests it. For me...AS-AP-FPJ is a specific instance (or set) of PWE.

In short for I am claming:

PWE -> rational belief (evidence implies rational belief)
AS-AP-FPJ << PWE (AS-AP-FPJ is a proper subset of PWE)




I think this is where we disagree most K. As explained above...I feel that if one has evidence for X then belief in X is not irrational. That is 'rationality' is orthogonal to 'truth'...it does not necessarily imply truthhood. So technically speaking if you feel that members of the Heaven's Gate cult witnessed evidence for what they believed in...then you must admit that their belief is not irrational. With that being said; I don't feel the members of the Heavens Gate cult had rational beliefs...in that I am not confident that each member had witnessed evidence of 'aliens behind comet', rather I am more confident that the cult members blindly accepted the ramblings of one man (who may or may not have had evidence of 'aliens behind comet'). I regard Scientology in the same manner. That is I feel most adherence to it do not actually experience evidence for it as much as they blindly swallow the drug induced machinations of L. Ron Hubbard. And again just to clarify, if I felt they did witness evidence for such...I would admit that the beliefs of those who did witness evidence are rational (however, not necessarily true).

I hope this clarifies my position.

This is another spot where we disagree. One cannot in a vaccum unilaterally declare a belief irrational (though we may do so personally)...as rationality only pertains to the knowledge one has, what they have witnessed and the particular belief in question. It seems you are a priori defining beliefs 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' as irrational...then working backwards and saying any evidence that supports beliefs 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' as 'invalid'. It really does seem like this is what you are doing...if not then please feel free to clarify your position. However, I am sure upon reflection you would admit that this in itself is irrational. Given the expanse of the universe and our minuscule knowledge of it...we cannot 'from the hip' declare any particular hypothesis 'rational' or 'irrational' (though we may be able to declare it 'true' or 'false').

We can however, assign rationality to beliefs of particular individuals...namely ourselves. If you have no evidence for belief 'X' then your belief in 'X' is irrational. If someone has evidence for belief 'X' then their belief is rational.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K

SOMMS:

Thank you.


[/QUOTE]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by K

1. If AS-AP-FPJ is a sufficient basis to make your belief rational, then any belief based on AS-AP-FPJ is also rational. Anything else would be special pleading.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agreed...with a slight clarification: I don't hold AS-AP-FPJ specifically as sufficient basis for belief. [/QUOTE]

But I have only been arguing that AS-AP-FPJ - the evidence you offered - is insufficient as a basis for rational belief. I was using there phrase 'personal evidence' as shorthand for AS-AP-FPJ.

I would certainly agree that there is other evidence that is sufficient for rational belief.

Any personally witnessed evidence is enough to make a belief rational? This would again mean that we are operating with two different definitions of rational.

While I would agree that there is some PWE that is a sufficient foundation for a rational belief, I would stop far short of saying that it implies that all PWE is a sufficient foundation for a rational belief.

AS-AP-FPJ is a subset of PWE that I claim isn't a sufficient basis for rational belief for the reasons I've stated before.

As another example:

There is no peanut butter sandwich sitting in front of me, evidence that it was stolen by Martians to power their spaceship. This is a subset of PWE, but I would definitely not say that it makes the belief rational.

Then we are using two different definitions of rational. My definition requires coherence. That is much stricter than only requiring some kind of evidence.

I agree that rationality doesn't necessarily imply truth, but I certainly wouldn't say that the two are orthogonal. It's definitely not rational to hold a belief that the believer knows is false.

This is true by your definition of rational. But my definition requires coherence, something definitely lacking in the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult. Therefore, I am still justified in calling their beliefs irrational even if they had AS-AP-FPJ.

But for their belief to be rational, all they needed was AS-AP-FPJ. Correct? These are things that I know were claimed by at least some of the members.

Similar things have been said about your particular faith.

This is precisely a request for special pleading. You would like me to accept your belief as rational because of AS-AP-FPJ while at the same time you reject the AS-AP-FPJ claimed by others.

Why should I accept your AS-AP-FPJ any more than you accept John Travolta's?

I'm certainly not doing it in a vacuum. My requirement that a belief be coherent insists that it is NOT evaluated in a vacuum.

I am also not unilaterally declaring a belief to be irrational. I'm evaluating the belief against the defintion of rational (the definition that requires coherence) and finding to fall short.

If this is true, then the only way we could call someone's belief irrational is if they tell us that their belief is irrational. We couldn't call David Berkowitz' belief irrational and we couldn't call the Heaven's Gate or Scientologist beliefs irrational (as you did above). Each individual would have to tell us that his or her belief was irrational.

I can see why it would look like that.

What I am actually doing is taking beliefs that are supported by AS-AP-FPJ and that I imagine you consider irrational. If I can get you to agree that there are irrational beliefs based on AS-AP-FPJ, then you are forced to concede that AS-AP-FPJ is not sufficient grounds for a rational belief.

I believe that these other beliefs are irrational because they don't meet the coherence and consistency criteria of rational beliefs. They do, however, meet your criteria of AS-AP-FPJ. That is, unless you reject their AS-AP-FPJ as you've stated above. But I maintain that that constitutes special pleading.

We don't need to know everything about the universe to determine if some beliefs are irrational. If the beliefs are incoherent or inconsistent in their application of evidence, then we know they are irrational - whether or not they are true.

This might be where we should agree to disagree. My definition of rational requires more than just some evidence. It requires coherence. It is how I can say that the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult, the Scientologists, et al are irrational without having to deny their claims that they experienced AS-AP-FPJ.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Correct. And I am saying that AS-AP-FPJ is just a subset of PWE...a class of knowledge that cannot be dismissed out of hand. That is...I have no reason to think that this particular subset of PWE is 'invalid' (as you put it). Moreover, all my other beliefs (that you would claim are rational) are based on particular instances of PWE. There is no compelling reason to consider AS-AP-FPJ invalid.




Not if we are using the same dictionary which I belief we are (Merriam-Webster).

For a belief to be irrational it must be 'lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence'. 'Coherence' is defined as 'consistent' or 'compatible'. As long as a belief is compatible with the evidence one has witnessed...that belief is not irrational.

I would like maybe jump one step ahead and say that I think what we are really disagreeing on what 'coherence/compatible' means. I hold that the PWE I have witnessed (AS-AP-FPJ)
is compatible with 'God exists'. Given the above definitions I am not sure whether or not you feel AS-AP-FPJ is compatible with 'God exists'...can you clarify your postion?


You may want to reconsider this statment K...as all we have is PWE.


You've have brought this type of objection up before. However, there is nothing about 'no peanut butter sandwich' that suggests 'Martians stole it to power spaceship'. They are not incompatible however, they are completely orthogonal. One doesn't suggest the other. On the other hand...

'Praying to God then witnessing statistically meaningful amounts of answered prayer'

'Praying to God and hearing God's voice'

'Seeking the tenents of God then witnessing peace, happiness, strength and prosperity in my personal, professional and private life'

...do suggest that God exists. I know you say that these don't suggest that God exists, but you never really seem to say why these particular instances of PWE don't. You usually defer by saying 'these are just like my peanut butter sandwich analogy...which doesn't suggest martians stole it to power their spaceship'. ?


I think I would be willing to hear you out K if you could tell me why these don't suggest God exists without bringing up one of your analogies or a priori assuming 'God exists' is irrational thus any evidence supporting it is invalid.




Not really...for a belief to be rational it just needs some instance of PWE. Moreover, I am not confident that the cult members did witness PWE for 'aliens behind comet'. Indeed, that is a primary definition of 'cult': people who blindly (without PWE) accept what the cult leader tells them to.


However, we aren't talking about my faith (I assume you are using the word faith to mean the Christian religion at large). We are specifically talking about me and my belief. While there are Christians who do blindly accept what people tell them to...I don't exhibit this behavior. Though we are at odds K I'm confident that you would agree with this. In fact that's why I listed the evidence I've seen...because I don't blindly believe.





Well you are correct, I certainly consider the Heavens Gate cult irrational...for me. That is I have absolutely no evidence of 'aliens behind comet'...for me to hold this belief would be irrational. This doesn't (necessarily) mean that members of HG had irrational beliefs. Although I believe they did.



K, it may be time for me to lay out my position as you did: perhaps you can clarify which one you disagree with.


1-Belief is a human behavior. It is this behavior (not the particular hypothesis) that can be called rational or irrational.

2-Ones belief in hypothesis 'X' is rational if they have witnessed evidence for hypothesis 'X'.

3-Evidence for hypothesis 'X' must be compatible with 'X'. (This is where Merriam-Websters stops, however I would add...) Evidence for hypothesis 'X' should suggest 'X'. (This means 'no PB and J' cannot support 'martians stole it to power spaceship')

4-Rational belief in hypothesis 'X' does not necessarily imply X is true or false.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas