Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Peter_Plato]

I like Pre-Raphaelite art, which is chock full of symbolism, so I full-well understand allegory and metaphor.

I gave an example earlier - 'suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind’. Sure, you can interpret it as analogy or symbolism if you’re skeptical that Elijah really existed or really went to heaven in a whirlwind, but what then of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection? Where do you stop?

The Resurrection and Virgin Birth relate clearly to physical reality: the resurrection of a human body; the birth of a live, physically endowed human. Elijah going up to Heaven is not about a destiny somewhere above the clouds on Mt. Olympus or above the stratosphere on some planet up yonder. It was never intended to signify that kind of “up.” You stop when it ceases to make consistent theological sense.

God never claimed - in Judeo-Christian tradition - to live on some planet or in some physical space “up there.” There is something about Heaven being his “throne” and Earth his “footstool,” meaning, I suppose, that the entire material universe beyond the planet Earth is nothing like the “place” where God abides, but only a small part of it in his living room, so to speak.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

x := y as y := x.

In other words, morality is commutative.

I hope this is not how we are going to start teaching the Golden Rule to the great unwashed.

 

[ChainBreaker]

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

Hello Phil, I’m a bit late in the game, but here is what I think.

First things first. It is an article of the Catholic “faith” that God’s “existence” can be known by the things he has made. I agree with this statement only because I have found it to be true that God’s existence can be known through reason. I do not hold it to be true merely by faith. If you can agree, like I do, that a blind faith in what some stranger has written or what a religion has announced to the world is not in itself a rational reason to believe something, then you can agree that the dignity of rational animals is undermined whenever it is demanded of them to believe in something without good rational reasons, regardless of what religion is making those demands. In fact the bible itself, if I’m not mistaken, asks all believers to be ready to give good reason for what they believe.

Faith without evidence is fine if we are speaking merely of a personal/private faith, because it does not follow that faith without evidence means that the object of ones faith does not exist. You can believe in something which just so happens to be objectively real even though you have no epistemological reason to believe it.

However; Catholic’s according to their faith make real life moral demands of human beings and at least some of them make it their business to publicly claim (whether it be consistent with their faith or not) that those who do not believe and live according to their faith are going to hell to suffer for all eternity.

The problem with this is as soon as you make your belief’s public and claim to an audience that what you believe is the indisputable “truth” then it is only fair that somebody asks you to put forward some kind of convincing evidence in defence of such a claim, because otherwise your faith (whether it happens to be true or not) amounts to not much more than slight of hand emotional blackmail in the disguise of good news, which in turn undermines the value of that belief. In other-words do not be surprised if somebody is offended. Anybody, Christian or otherwise, can make demands and make emotionally stirring threats so much so that it compels somebody to believe and change their lifestyle even though it could false. That’s how people end up in dangerous religions and cults that are false which I am sure you would not want any of your children to be a part of for the mere value of “faith”. There are so many religions, cults, and falsehoods in the world that it is simply not good enough for a Christian to proclaim religious infallibility and publicly charge people with the crime of sin without rationally justifying why somebody should agree or live according to a Christian standard of morality. And neither is anybody guilty for not believing until such claims are shown to stand up in light of what can be rationally understood without the need for emotional baiting.

As for your question, yes I do believe God can be proven (in a sense) to exist. As for atheism, I think some kind conditional-agnosticism is a reasonable position to hold if you do not believe in God. I tend to find that atheism is the result of a cultural as well as emotional response to the existence of strong religious claims rather than a well thought out argument against the existence of God.

to be continued…

 

[RGCheek]

It is rational to believe in a rational model of God.

It is not rational to believe in an irrational model of God.

The model for God has been rational ever since the Platonists used reason to define the Creator, and a matter of faith since Judaism had the Creator revealed to them by Moses.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As for atheism, I think some kind conditional-agnosticism is a reasonable position to hold if you do not believe in God.

Just curious, what is “conditional agnosticism” and why is it a reasonable position?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Just curious, what is “conditional agnosticism” and why is it a reasonable position?

Its not a real term. I just don’t like the way some people practice agnosticism like a religion.

Some people have this kind of metaphysical agnosticism in the sense that they believe there is no rational possibility of knowing if God exists and therefore they have no rational responsibility regarding that question. What i mean is that you can be agnostic and open to being persuaded otherwise while actively seeking the truth. I just find that some peoples agnosticism is just a veil disguising the fact that they really don’t care to know.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I just find that some peoples agnosticism is just a veil disguising the fact that they really don’t care to know.

In any case, fence sitters all … they think.

But Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.”

 

[Tomdstone]

But Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.”

Is this metaphorical or literal? Many Buddhists are really not against Jesus at all. And there is a Hindhu religion, where they put a few pictures or paintings of various enlightened persons up for view on the front altar of their church. One of the pictures is of Jesus, indicating that they are not against Him.

 

[Aloysium]

Is this metaphorical or literal? . . . .

Please enlighten us as to your various meanings of “He who is not with me is against me.”

Let me try to explain my view:
Jesus is the Son of God.
God is Love, infinite beauty, truth and life.
If you are not for what is love, what is good (as judged by God); if you are not for the truth, not for life, then you are against Him.

This is simple.

What do Buddhism and Hinduism have to do with this? As you say, some Hindus may have a picture of Jesus. Even self-proclaimed atheists are really not against Christ. We all seek Him in our own way. We actually should be called Homo religious rather than sapiens.

 

[Tomdstone]

What do Buddhism and Hinduism have to do with this?

They are partly with Jesus, but not completely. So, even though they are not completely with Jesus, they are not completely against Him either.

 

[tonyrey]

Its not a real term. I just don’t like the way some people practice agnosticism like a religion.

Some people have this kind of metaphysical agnosticism in the sense that they believe there is no rational possibility of knowing if God exists and therefore they have no rational responsibility regarding that question. What i mean is that you can be agnostic and open to being persuaded otherwise while actively seeking the truth. I just find that some peoples agnosticism is just a veil disguising the fact that they really don’t care to know.

Sartre pointed out that it’s impossible to be uncommitted. A true agnostic would pray in case God exists!

 

[inocente]

First, you tell me what you think I’m claiming and then I’ll tell you whether that IS what I am claiming.

There is a reason why there are “doctors” of the Church and why bodies of knowledge, such as physics, biology, medicine, and even theology exist. Knowledge can be obtuse and difficult to grasp - that is the nature of reality.

Knowing what is necessary to be saved and why is a different matter than being saved.

It is possible to know all the ins and outs of theology and still not meet what is necessary to be saved because knowing is not necessarily doing.

You appear to be claiming that for ordinary people, relating to God can be “obtuse and difficult to grasp”, which imho would be a slap in the eye both for ordinary people and for God.

*The hearers are the ones who listen and either get it or don’t, but the doers are the ones who follow through, whether they fully grasp the intricacies or not.

That, however, does not preclude someone from fully understanding the historical, theological or philosophical concepts behind salvation from being saved. It is not necessary to be a simpleton to be saved, although being saved is within the means of the most simple, largely because what is required is a gift from God. As long as your intelligence does not get in the way of grace being effectual, there is NO reason for even Mensa types NOT to be saved.

Again, what is your point?*

My point here would be that you seem to have gone off at a tangent as I never said anything about intelligence, it was self-elected intellectual elites that I was rattling on about.

*By the way, I am not sure what “usual” or “obvious” means relative to words in the Bible. Many words in the Bible are charged with meaning at many levels and those words create powerful expectations and obligations on the part of readers. For this reason, those “obvious” and “usual” meanings are twisted in hundreds of different ways, otherwise known as “interpretation.”

Are you denying this occurs?*

As I said earlier, it’s not revelation unless you allow it to reveal, and trying to impose 13th or 21st century philosophies on scripture is not letting it reveal.

Witness the tens of thousands of different denominations extant, each with their own subtle “take” on those "usual’ and “obvious” meanings. Your own “spin” on Paul’s words is an example of this.

Not sure what you’re referring to, if you’re switching threads then have a look at the stickies, it’s a sin bro.

Why would you want to insist that everyone ought to live as water striders, barely touching the meniscus of knowledge of God? Perhaps you are afraid of finding something that “disagrees” with you, your ways or your thoughts?

I don’t know why anyone would want to insist on that. I’ll stick with the uncomplicated idea that the bible writers are, for the most part, good communicators. But they had a very different idea of history and of physics, and we should read them as they are, not as we would like them to be.

You love to quote Paul, well…

*"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age?"*

 

[inocente]

Depending on how tiny an elect you are talking about, I may qualify as having a magnificent intellect;
and, since I am being spoken about, I feel compelled to respond.
I suppose it serves as evidence against my claim, but I couldn’t find what link you were referring to.

It was linked in post #734, and as you have such a magnificent intellect, please give a short summary in your own words. Or if you have an even more magnificent intellect, you may decide not to bother.

*Seriously though, I wanted to throw in my two cents:
God speaks through scripture. He speaks through people and events, but in scripture we see the Word’s presence in history preparing for His coming as one of us.
That is the key to the code, the password to get past the encryption is “Jesus”.
It doesn’t take any more intellect to know Him through the teachings of the Church than it takes to read.
Being smart is probably a draw-back actually, giving the person too much confidence in their own opinion.

What is more important than the degree of intellect is the grace, the capacity to accept revelation. One embarks on the Road towards God by trusting and acting on His word.

Enter “Jesus”, and what is revealed in scripture from the beginning to the end is that we are meant to be in the same loving filial relationship that exists between the Father and the Son.
That is why and how we are created. Through us the Word enters into His creation, and brings it all into loving communion with our Creator. We failed to accept the original offer, thereby damaging, on our side, that relationship with the Source of truth, beauty, goodness and life. Sin spread throughout mankind, but in Noah, Abraham and Isaac, Moses and the Jewish people, when asked again, we demonstrated our determination to love.

When one is trying to sort out whether the words are idioms, metaphors, or analogies, whether the story is an allegory, clearly at that point, communication, the contact with the speaker has been broken.
If one approaches scripture as merely a historical text, or as science, or as anthropology, or myth, excluding God, one will only understand it as a confused mishmash of contradictory and outlandish stories and beliefs held by primitive irrational people.
If one, as part of His Church I would add (although it may be misunderstood), listens for God’s voice, it is totally, utterly different.

Scripture and other teachings may not play a role in everyone’s journey to God. However, there are billions of people who have come to know and love God this way.*

Agreed, which is unusual and must not be allowed to become a habit.

I would add the reductive or analytic approach of many philosophers to your list of ways not to read scripture. No one would dream of reading Shakespeare as just science or just history or just philosophy, we’re willing to let him weave a narrative and take from it what we can find.

Although now I think about it, some Eng Lit students do argue long into the night about the True Meaning of a couple of words from Hamlet, so perhaps all well-loved texts must have their cognoscenti. But Shakespeare doesn’t suffer the detractors who say his physics is wrong so he must be wrong about everything else too, and so on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:
Agreed, which is unusual and must not be allowed to become a habit.

I would add the reductive or analytic approach of many philosophers to your list of ways not to read scripture. No one would dream of reading Shakespeare as just science or just history or just philosophy, we’re willing to let him weave a narrative and take from it what we can find.

Although now I think about it, some Eng Lit students do argue long into the night about the True Meaning of a couple of words from Hamlet, so perhaps all well-loved texts must have their cognoscenti. But Shakespeare doesn’t suffer the detractors who say his physics is wrong so he must be wrong about everything else too, and so on.

This is a little odd considering that what philosophy is is “the love of wisdom.” In other words, the enterprise of trying to understand reality and our place in it, how to act and interpret meaning from what we see around us. In other words, philosophy is all encompassing.

If Scripture cannot be made sense of in relation to reality and the significance of reality then what you are advocating is a basic disconnect between the significance of Scripture and the significance of reality around us and our making sense of that.

This is profoundly disturbing because what you are advocating is a kind of Sola Scriptura with regard to the entire shebang. That we ought not even attempt to understand reality on its own except from the impression we receive from Scripture.

I am not convinced that Scripture was ever intended to have that kind of reach. It is a record of past events and how individuals then were moved by God to act and what lessons were forthcoming from their relationship with God.

Our relationship with God in the present is a real phenonomenon that is living because it is the interaction between living human beings now and the eternal God. It is that which is primary. Scripture can assist and guide, but it isn’t the source of the living relationship that exists in the present. Wisdom (aka philosophy) is our living response - a making sense of reality - within our present situation.

The fact that some individuals have gone off on tangents with regard to wisdom and made it unnecessarily analytical, mathematical or in some other sense obtuse, does not mean they have some right to limit or define what philosophy is or that your cueing off them to dismiss it ought to be heeded.

Scripture is an important means to understand reality, the nature of existence, God’s will, etc., etc., but it is an error to suppose it was ever intended to be the entire means to coming to God. That is why Jesus instituted the Church - the living Body of believers who are with us to assist, support and guide us - and why he sent the Holy Spirit to instruct us within the depths of our own being. Philosophy, properly understood and used, is also a useful tool, not one eschewed by the Church since it has been a part of the instructional formation of members since the beginning.

 

[inocente]

The Resurrection and Virgin Birth relate clearly to physical reality: the resurrection of a human body; the birth of a live, physically endowed human. Elijah going up to Heaven is not about a destiny somewhere above the clouds on Mt. Olympus or above the stratosphere on some planet up yonder. It was never intended to signify that kind of “up.” You stop when it ceases to make consistent theological sense.

I think we’ll have to differ on what is and isn’t clearly physical reality, as Elijah being taken up to Heaven in a whirlwind seems quite reasonable (real whirlwinds do pick up things), while the Resurrection and Virgin Birth are a different order of miracle.

God never claimed - in Judeo-Christian tradition - to live on some planet or in some physical space “up there.” There is something about Heaven being his “throne” and Earth his “footstool,” meaning, I suppose, that the entire material universe beyond the planet Earth is nothing like the “place” where God abides, but only a small part of it in his living room, so to speak.

The prevailing Western cosmology from ancient times up to the Middle Ages was the celestial spheres, a concentric set of onion rings, where God dwells in the outermost shell beyond the stars, and the Earth is at the center. The notion developed over a long period, and is based in intuition. God lives beyond the stars where all is perfect, heaven is where God is, and hell is as far from God as possible, in the abode of the dead within the earth.

So what if modern cosmology is not compatible with that? What was intuitive to our ancestors is still intuitive to us, and what difference does it make if someone finds it easier to conceive of heaven as above the starry canopy rather than outside space and time? God isn’t going to get upset, and either way it’s still a mystery.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know why anyone would want to insist on that. I’ll stick with the uncomplicated idea that the bible writers are, for the most part, good communicators. But they had a very different idea of history and of physics, and we should read them as they are, not as we would like them to be.

I used to think like this. But I soon woke up to realize that it’s the Protestants that read the Bible as they would like it to be, not as it is. If they were reading it as it is, they would all see the same truths. But since there are a thousand different interpretations of the Bible among Protestant sects, you can’t really argue that they are all reading it like it is.

Truth is not divided against itself. Protestantism is a house divided.

 

[inocente]

This is a little odd considering that what philosophy is is “the love of wisdom.” In other words, the enterprise of trying to understand reality and our place in it, how to act and interpret meaning from what we see around us. In other words, philosophy is all encompassing.

If Scripture cannot be made sense of in relation to reality and the significance of reality then what you are advocating is a basic disconnect between the significance of Scripture and the significance of reality around us and our making sense of that.

This is profoundly disturbing because what you are advocating is a kind of Sola Scriptura with regard to the entire shebang. That we ought not even attempt to understand reality on its own except from the impression we receive from Scripture.

Not sure what you’re saying there, although I largely agree with what followed.

If philosophy is all encompassing then we must allow all philosophies, including those shunned by analytic Westerners. Poets, artists, peasants, romantics also have a love of wisdom, and no one else can dictate to them what is and isn’t reality, what is and isn’t philosophy.

God is for everyone, the Father’s house has many rooms. In some of those rooms, probably most of them, heaven is a place. It’s a place because it’s a house with many rooms, because that’s what the bible says it is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not sure what you’re saying there, although I largely agree with what followed.

If philosophy is all encompassing then we must allow all philosophies, including those shunned by analytic Westerners. Poets, artists, peasants, romantics also have a love of wisdom, and no one else can dictate to them what is and isn’t reality, what is and isn’t philosophy.

Non sequitur.

If philosophy is love of wisdom, it primarily is love of truth. There is no reason why we MUST “allow all philosophies.” It would be encumbant on anyone seeking truth to not live by the pretense that there is no truth and all “philosophies” have equal merit.

Sorry, this is just confused. If something is false, there is no need to “allow” it in any meaningful sense.

 

[inocente]

I used to think like this. But I soon woke up to realize that it’s the Protestants that read the Bible as they would like it to be, not as it is. If they were reading it as it is, they would all see the same truths. But since there are a thousand different interpretations of the Bible among Protestant sects, you can’t really argue that they are all reading it like it is.

Truth is not divided against itself. Protestantism is a house divided.

What a magical world, where scripture is carved in stone with an unchanging True Meaning.

Only trouble is, if the True Meaning is available to Catholics, it’s available to everyone else simply by dint of www.vatican.va.

Oh, and if scripture only has one True Meaning, it cannot be alive, and God no longer speaks.

Oh, and if that True Meaning has been deciphered for all time, you just put the Church out of a job.

Well done that man.

 

[inocente]

Non sequitur.

If philosophy is love of wisdom, it primarily is love of truth. There is no reason why we MUST “allow all philosophies.” It would be encumbant on anyone seeking truth to not live by the pretense that there is no truth and all “philosophies” have equal merit.

Sorry, this is just confused. If something is false, there is no need to “allow” it in any meaningful sense.

I see. So Michelangelo could not paint truth, since truth can only exist as a logical proof? Bach could not compose truth, since truth can only exist as a reasoned argument?

A sunset contains truth for those with eyes to see. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.