Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Charlemagne_III]

So, the two of you need to realize you are saying much the same things as each other but in differing ways. Or to put it another way, you’re beating around the same bush.

Glenda

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I thought you would have said that it was the other way around.

Actually, I think I said it the right way. The reasoning I use is an attempt to make reason all inclusive of the other ways of knowing: faith, instinct, imagination, intuition, etc. So I think it is more rational to include all these exercises of the soul along with the cognitive.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’m never presumptuous about atheists. But I don’t see how atheists (since I was one) can escape being logical positivists. Which is why I shared my thoughts with you, that proved to be unwelcome. Sorry about that.

As I’ve said countless times, the only criterion for atheism is lacking a belief in gods. Yes, I know that some definitions require one to assert the non-existence of gods. Words tend to have multiple definitions. Such is life. But I am only using “atheist” in the sense of “one who lacks belief in gods”. If you prefer, we can call them “non-theists” or something.

That being said, non-theism doesn’t determine any other philosophical commitments a person may have. I know non-theists who believe in ghosts and fortune telling, for example. A logical positivist would scoff at such things.

So if you are not a victim of scientism, it would be interesting to know on what grounds you would reject religion as unproven. You seem to require proof. Am I wrong in this? Do you not require proof?

My personal views of what constitutes proof aren’t relevant here, at least not yet. Before we compare our methods of proof, I’m more interested in figuring out whether what you’re advancing here is really internally consistent.

I would be willing to grant, for the sake of argument, any criterion for truth that you want to put forward. But here’s the catch: You must apply the criterion consistently to every conceivable claim. So if, for example, you argued that revelation is sufficient evidence for your religion, you must be willing to grant any other religion’s claim to the same thing. Indeed, if this method of proof is all it’s cracked up to be, it should at the very least be able to cope with any religion I invent off the top of my head.

How does the balance of evidence in your mind weigh so heavily against God as opposed to in favor of God?

I wouldn’t say that I have evidence against God, anymore than I have evidence against ghosts or fortune telling. I simply don’t believe in those things because I don’t see evidence in their favor.

I just don’t get it. How can you be so absolutely sure there is no God when you have not, and logically cannot have, one ounce of evidence to make that case.

As I’ve told you in multiple threads, I do not claim certainty against God’s existence. I have explained at least twice to you now what an agnostic atheist is, haven’t I?

We can’t just say we are all born atheists as kids (which is false, by the way) and if nature had her way we would stay atheist. The truth of the matter is that religions are more prevalent than atheism among adults, so wouldn’t that be another and better argument in favor of nature’s way?

Well, besides the fact that children are born atheist in the sense of being “non-theist”, I think you missed my point. I’m not arguing for “nature’s way”. I’m saying that, since everyone begins without a belief in god, and can only come to believe in a god by employing some reasoning (in addition to other possible considerations), then one cannot argue that reasoning cannot be trusted without a belief in god.

Perhaps even more to the point, how many people die as atheists, compared to how many atheists reach out to God at the end, realizing after all that they have been wrong all the time and at last, when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, reach for the everlasting stars?

“People agree with me when they have nothing to lose” isn’t very reassuring.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“People agree with me when they have nothing to lose” isn’t very reassuring.

Not exactly what I said. But whatever construction you want to put on it is fine with me.

If there is a God, it stands to reason that God would put the desire to know Him in each of us. We can suppress that desire at will. Chances are, the desire will peek through now and then, as when atheists come to Catholic Answers looking for some answers. And even if they persist in not agreeing with the answers Catholics have to offer, that, as Paul Harvey used to say, is not the end of the story. The end of the story generally has a twist to it, as when the man on his deathbed gets one last call from God, one last opportunity to open his heart to his Creator. And so very often that does happen. I’ve seen it happen over and over in my lifetime, as I had a few atheist relatives who relented near the end and asked me for my prayers.

I probably will not be here to assure you of my prayers when your time comes, so I offer them in advance and hope you’ll accept them kindly now, even if you don’t believe in them.

 

[glendab]

I’m never presumptuous about atheists. But I don’t see how atheists (since I was one) can escape being logical positivists. Which is why I shared my thoughts with you, that proved to be unwelcome. Sorry about that.

So if you are not a victim of scientism, it would be interesting to know on what grounds you would reject religion as unproven. You seem to require proof. Am I wrong in this? Do you not require proof? But then you know that proof of the kind you would require is not the kind of proof God necessarily has to provide you. How about some faith, imagination, intuition, and instincts along with the cognitive indications of a Creator God? How does the balance of evidence in your mind weigh so heavily against God as opposed to in favor of God? I just don’t get it. How can you be so absolutely sure there is no God when you have not, and logically cannot have, one ounce of evidence to make that case.

We can’t just say we are all born atheists as kids (which is false, by the way) and if nature had her way we would stay atheist. The truth of the matter is that religions are more prevalent than atheism among adults, so wouldn’t that be another and better argument in favor of nature’s way? Perhaps even more to the point, how many people die as atheists, compared to how many atheists reach out to God at the end, realizing after all that they have been wrong all the time and at last, when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, reach for the everlasting stars?

Science and scientism isn’t the only route to denying God nor is it the only error that leads one to Atheism. Buddhists are essentially atheists.

Glenda

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science and scientism isn’t the only route to denying God nor is it the only error that leads one to Atheism. Buddhists are essentially atheists.

Glenda

It is not science so much as scientism that may lead to atheism.

A dedication to hedonism is another route, to the extent that the hedonist lets nothing and no one, including God, get in the way of his pleasure.

Narcissism is another route, to the extent that people cannot stand the thought of an Ego bigger than their own.

Some people even claim the problem of evil has made them despair of finding God.

Then there are materialistic monism and psychological determinism that erode the intuition of our spiritual natures.

There are as many paths to atheism as there are paths to God.

Even the behavior of certain Christians has made people doubt their religion.

 

[Bradski]

So if you are not a victim of scientism, it would be interesting to know on what grounds you would reject religion as unproven. You seem to require proof. Am I wrong in this? Do you not require proof?

It starts off at an early age. Well, in my case it did. I generally went along with what my parents believed without, as children do, putting too much thought into it. As an Anglican, when you get to about 13 or 14, you are confirmed which means that you get to take communion. Before you do, you attend a series of classes, generally with the local priest (or vicar in this case).

It’s then that you are given the understanding that you are meant to take it all seriously. You are meant to think about what it means to be a Christian. You are meant to make a conscious decision to offer yourself to Christ. Which came as a complete shock to me. I had always understood the church to be a kind of social club (I won’t list every church associated organisation that we all belonged to – but it was a lot). Now I had someone telling me that what was written in the bible was fact. That people actually believed in miracles and that God answered their prayers and that Jesus did walk on water and that we were drinking his blood at the alter rail.

I didn’t believe any of it at all. Or rather, I couldn’t believe that anyone would simply accept this just as a given without asking a lot of very serious questions. And nobody was. Nobody at all. There was no-one who felt there needed to be some justification for this. There were no arguments being made. There were no discussions questioning the veracity of what we were being told. Everyone just accepted it as a given. And being a Natural Born Sceptic, that had alarm bells going off constantly.

And over the years, I have asked questions and had discussions and watched and listened and read and pondered and I have heard nothing whatsoever to convince me in any way whatsoever that my initial scepticism was nothing other than well justified.

And so very often that does happen. I’ve seen it happen over and over in my lifetime, as I had a few atheist relatives who relented near the end and asked me for my prayers.

Three or four years back my wife and I were involved in an incident where we both thought that our allotted time was up. The situation went on just for a few seconds, but long enough for me to realise that I wasn’t going to see my children again. I wondered who was going to tell them, would they be OK without us. I actually wondered if dying was going to hurt.

But later, standing around with my wife, feeling very lucky indeed (two other people were killed) I realised that while it was happening, I hadn’t made any pact with God. There was no: ‘Get me out of this and I swear I will…do whatever is required’. If you’d have asked me before then, I might have said that people will automatically grasp at any straw in a situation like that and become an instant believer. But it didn’t happen with me and it gave me some comfort to think that what I thought I believed stood up when it came to the crunch.

Even the behavior of certain Christians has made people doubt their religion.

Amen to that.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

The eye, for example, evolving without some sort of intelligent design or guidance would be impossible. There are other things like in animals and the world that that hint at intelligent design. Google it.

This is not true. It has been shown that eyes can easily evolve through natural selection with small adaptations over time. However the biochemistry of sight is much more complex than the physical structure of the eye. At this point in time the biochemical pathways that make sight possible seem irreducibly complex. Meaning that they couldn’t have evolved over time through a series of small modifications which the Theory of Evolution requires through natural selection.

Outside of this I would say that the belief in the God of the Catholic Church–that is a God who is absolutely simple and pure act and who is the ground for all Being–is the only the only rational position. All the other metaphysical worldviews require some irrational beliefs such as matter being both contingent and non-contingent at the same time. Something outside of material reality which itself is not composite nor continent is necessary to explain the material universe in a rational way. Period, people who reject this do so for other reasons then rational belief. Generally speaking even highly educated people are susceptible to rationalizing the intellectual beliefs that they desire to posses for emotional or other irrational reasons.

Although not as self obviously necessary–but certainly now that it has been revealed, it seems that such a “God” would necessary also have a Triune nature.

So to summarize not only is it rational, but it is the only rational thing to believe.

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

The eye, for example, evolving without some sort of intelligent design or guidance would be impossible. There are other things like in animals and the world that that hint at intelligent design. Google it.

This is not true. It has been shown that eyes can easily evolve through natural selection with small adaptations over time. However the biochemistry of sight is much more complex than the physical structure of the eye. At this point in time the biochemical pathways that make sight possible seem irreducibly complex. Meaning that they couldn’t have evolved over time through a series of small modifications which the Theory of Evolution requires through natural selection.

Outside of this I would say that the belief in the God of the Catholic Church–that is a God who is absolutely simple, pure act and who is the ground for all Being–is the only rational position. All the other metaphysical worldviews require some sort of irrational belief, such as matter can be both contingent and non contingent at the same time. Something outside of material reality which itself is not composite nor continent is necessary to explain the material universe in a rational way. People who reject this do so for other reasons then rational belief. Generally speaking even highly educated people are susceptible to rationalizing beliefs that they desire to posses for emotional or other irrational reasons.

Although not as self obviously necessary–but certainly now that it has been revealed, it seems that such a “God” would necessary also have a Triune nature.

So to summarize not only is it rational, but it is at this point the only rational thing to believe.

 

[codesmith]

I wouldn’t say that I have evidence against God, anymore than I have evidence against ghosts or fortune telling. I simply don’t believe in those things because I don’t see evidence in their favor.

I know how you feel. I was there for most of my life. I was a cradle Catholic. Lost my faith in college (at Marquette University, a Jesuit Roman Catholic college, no less) while a double major in Chemistry and Physics. I lived and breathed the scientific method.

Sooner or later you must ask yourself from both your mind and your heart if empirical observation (the evidence you seek) alone is the single path to truth. That is not easy for many people these days. I once thought I had reverted to Catholicism but was actually in what some call a dark night for 20 years. I could not get over my skepticism. Everything was a problem – Marian apparitions, Eucharistic miracles, the problem of evil, how the brain works (by the way, I love reading Oliver Sacks).

Truth. What a concept. How to define it? How to reach it when your mind itself – no matter if you believe in evolution or not, BTW, I do – is a product/creation of something else: either blind chance or the monotheistic God?

csicop.org/si/show/multiverses_and_blackberries/

Pontius Pilate asked, “What is Truth?” I absolutely love how Mel Gibson treated that entire question in “The Passion of the Christ”. In that movie, Pilate is seen sitting down, hunched over, deep in thought, in frustration and mental anguish. Pilate too is portrayed, by Gibson as a truth seeker. But he cannot find it. Too many other cares. Too much skepticism. Too many of his own problems weighing him down. I can SO relate to that scene. Finally his wife Claudia says to him, “If you will not hear the truth, no one can tell you.”

If you have the DVD, find the scene. Watch it. For me anyway, the best part of the entire film.

From what I have gone through, I don’t expect any of this to convert you. I know where you are at. At best it might be a small chink in the armor in a long road ahead. Hope you find peace.

Finally, some quotes…

“Everything in physical science is a lot of protons, neutrons and electrons, while in daily life, we talk about men and history or beauty and hope. Which is nearer to God - beauty and hope or the fundamental laws? To stand at either end and to walk off that end of the pier only, hoping that out in that direction is a complete understanding, is a mistake.”
– Richard Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law

“As a result of the crisis of rationalism, what has appeared finally is nihilism. As a philosophy of nothingness, it has a certain attraction for people of our time. Its adherents claim that the search is an end in itself, without any hope or possibility of ever attaining the goal of truth. In the nihilist interpretation, life is no more than an occasion for sensations and experiences in which the ephemeral has pride of place. Nihilism is at the root of the widespread mentality which claims that a definitive commitment should no longer be made, because everything is fleeting and provisional. In the wake of these cultural shifts, some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.”
– John Paul II, FIDES ET RATIO

 

[madera]

Or would you say it is more rational to believe God doesn’t exist based on lack of sufficient evidence? I understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, given that science uses empirical evidence within the observable universe to reach conclusions. God, being supernatural by nature, could never be proven by empirical means. However, I still believe that one could possibly come to the conclusion that God exists using reason. That being said, I still wonder what is more reasonable: believing that God exists, or not believing. Both take faith. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be much appreciated.

-Phil[/QUOTES]

I see you believe you can find GOd intellectually. No you cannot.
in order to find GOd you need to find HIm with the need that cannot be satisfied .in this world.
are you in pain? Are you an angry person and dont to be that way?
Just cry out to Him and if you are sincere, He will find you.
Simple.

 

[Oreoracle]

If there is a God, it stands to reason that God would put the desire to know Him in each of us.

It takes nearly a decade of education to qualify someone to psychoanalyze other humans. How much training do you figure one needs to psychoanalyze a god?

We can suppress that desire at will.

Remember when you said you aren’t presumptuous about atheists?

Besides, it makes no sense to say you can suppress something at will. I’m reminded of “ironic process theory”. Try your best not to think about a white bear for, say, five minutes. You’ll see that you can’t consciously suppress thoughts.

Chances are, the desire will peek through now and then, as when atheists come to Catholic Answers looking for some answers.

Honestly, I just come here because I like to argue. Every once in a while it leads to me refining my position slightly, but that’s not really my purpose in doing it. Oftentimes the only refinement is the realization that a particular rebuttal is more effective than others. For example, on the thread about free will, I learned that an argumentum ad absurdum is much more effective than arguing for determinism directly.

And since you have been so kind as to aid me in this process of refinement, I will extend the favor. Sit down and stop throwing paper airplanes, class, because it’s time for your first lesson on how to evangelize atheists (or at least have conversations with them). Oh, and it looks like you have a fellow student joining you today:
"Charlemagne III:

The end of the story generally has a twist to it, as when the man on his deathbed gets one last call from God, one last opportunity to open his heart to his Creator. And so very often that does happen. I’ve seen it happen over and over in my lifetime, as I had a few atheist relatives who relented near the end and asked me for my prayers.

I probably will not be here to assure you of my prayers when your time comes, so I offer them in advance and hope you’ll accept them kindly now, even if you don’t believe in them.

I know how you feel. I was there for most of my life. I was a cradle Catholic. Lost my faith in college (at Marquette University, a Jesuit Roman Catholic college, no less) while a double major in Chemistry and Physics. I lived and breathed the scientific method.

…]

From what I have gone through, I don’t expect any of this to convert you. I know where you are at. At best it might be a small chink in the armor in a long road ahead. Hope you find peace.

You are correct, codesmith, that I find neither of your appeals convincing. But that’s not the issue. No, if I were a bit more suggestible, perhaps I would find these sentiments persuasive. The deeper problem is the delivery of those sentiments. You two are doing it in a way that will turn off any would-be converts.

When you’re in a forum like this, the intention is to have people converse as equals. But the tone you guys are using suggests that you already have everything figured out, and you’re really doing those poor atheists a favor by tossing them a bone. You’ve “been there before”, as if we’re teenagers throwing tantrums and you’re giving us a lecture. Unsurprisingly, it comes across as condescending, likely as condescending as you found me addressing you as if you were students in my classroom.

Just imagine if a Christian-turned-atheist claimed to “know where you’re at” and express his desire that you will relinquish your religion someday. The implication that he is ahead of you along some imaginary linear path would be condescending, would it not?

Class dismissed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But later, standing around with my wife, feeling very lucky indeed (two other people were killed) I realised that while it was happening, I hadn’t made any pact with God. There was no: ‘Get me out of this and I swear I will…do whatever is required’. If you’d have asked me before then, I might have said that people will automatically grasp at any straw in a situation like that and become an instant believer. But it didn’t happen with me and it gave me some comfort to think that what I thought I believed stood up when it came to the crunch. Amen to that.

I daresay it did give you some comfort to think you stood up for your convictions. We all like to think we were right all along. Both Christians and atheists like to think they have something to stand up for. Standing up for God is a good deal more important to me than standing up for Nogod.

We might want to keep in mind too that when most people are confronted with the sudden shock of a crisis, the standard shout of recognition is not “Oh my Nogod!” but rather “Oh my God!”

 

[madera]

You sound pretty heavy handed yourself. LOL

 

[Charlemagne_III]

O.K. Oreoracle, since you have gone ballistic angry yet again, I am glad to flee your classroom … yet again. I hope someday you find it in your heart to reason calmly and without hatred for those who disagree with you.

 

[glendab]

Hello Devoted.

This is not true. It has been shown that eyes can easily evolve through natural selection with small adaptations over time. However the biochemistry of sight is much more complex than the physical structure of the eye. At this point in time the biochemical pathways that make sight possible seem irreducibly complex. Meaning that they couldn’t have evolved over time through a series of small modifications which the Theory of Evolution requires through natural selection.

Outside of this I would say that the belief in the God of the Catholic Church–that is a God who is absolutely simple and pure act and who is the ground for all Being–is the only the only rational position. All the other metaphysical worldviews require some irrational beliefs such as matter being both contingent and non-contingent at the same time. Something outside of material reality which itself is not composite nor continent is necessary to explain the material universe in a rational way. Period, people who reject this do so for other reasons then rational belief. Generally speaking even highly educated people are susceptible to rationalizing the intellectual beliefs that they desire to posses for emotional or other irrational reasons.

Although not as self obviously necessary–but certainly now that it has been revealed, it seems that such a “God” would necessary also have a Triune nature.

So to summarize not only is it rational, but it is the only rational thing to believe.

Do some study on the Fibonacchi Sequence. The latest thing it has been found in is Quantum Mechanics at the subatomic scale. Really amazing how this simple sequence returns again and again and again all through created matter. Some were so awed by its frequency and return to have called it the signature of God.

Glenda

 

[codesmith]

Honestly, I just come here because I like to argue.

Clearly.

 

[Thorns]

O.K. Oreoracle, since you have gone ballistic angry yet again, I am glad to flee your classroom … yet again. I hope someday you find it in your heart to reason calmly and without hatred for those who disagree with you.

I didnt sense any anger or hatred in his post. He was giving you a tip and some insight on how not have have others shut their ears on you. You should thank him for his perspective instead.

 

[Oreoracle]

Evidently I made my point. When treated with the same condescension they try to dish out, they take their ball and go home.

But don’t worry, I’ve been there before. I’ll pray for you.

 

[miguel]

…When you’re in a forum like this, the intention is to have people converse as equals. But the tone you guys are using suggests that you already have everything figured out, and you’re really doing those poor atheists a favor by tossing them a bone. You’ve “been there before”, as if we’re teenagers throwing tantrums and you’re giving us a lecture. Unsurprisingly, it comes across as condescending, likely as condescending as you found me addressing you as if you were students in my classroom.

Just imagine if a Christian-turned-atheist claimed to “know where you’re at” and express his desire that you will relinquish your religion someday. The implication that he is ahead of you along some imaginary linear path would be condescending, would it not?

Does anyone remember The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? Is that the kind of attitude we should avoid?