The "rational' position?

[traillius]

In the case of no absolute proof, some claim that denial is the rational position. Unless you are willing to entertain the prospect of omniscience being assigned to average humans, the only ‘rational’ position in the face of no absolute proof is agnosticism, meaning that one cannot know. The only way one could say X could not possibly exist would be for that person to possess omniscience, or at least omniscience in the field containing the concept of X. So when people take on the position of rational denial are they :
a) implicitly asserting omniscience, or field specific omniscience
or
b) implicitly asserting predeterminate and willful negative bias, despite the absence of proof either way, or absolute disproof of X

??

 

[Leela]

To be rational is simply to try to have good reasons for your beliefs. Since what we have good reason to believe depends on our historical, cultural, and individual contexts, and since people have different life histories, we may be rationally entitled to believe different things. One person may be justified in believing that God exists and another may have good reason to believe that God does not exist.

 

[Mark77]

**Saying “In the case of no absolute proof, some claim that denial is the rational position” is like saying “Because i do not have absolute proof that i exist, then i must deny that i exist!”

Because we do not understand something absolutely does not mean we are correct in our assumption of denying it’s potential reality.

The misunderstood Perfect Truth of Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior by an imperfect creature, is a far superior position than believing that we are omnipotent, & what we believe must be true.

In almost all circumstances, the fact that we recognize our inability to discern perfection because we are imperfect is a Blessing, not a curse!**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Maranatha]

They usually bring up Occam’s Razor to justify the exclusion of metaphysical realities. I think, what they don’t understand, is that the razor cut both ways. Epically when is comes to the question, why is there something instead of nothing?

 

[tonyrey]

Unless you are willing to entertain the prospect of omniscience being assigned to average humans, the only ‘rational’ position in the face of no absolute proof is agnosticism, meaning that one cannot know.

Agnosticism is theoretically possible but practically impossible because you have to decide to act according to whether God exists or not. We cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. As Sartre pointed out, even doing nothing is a form of commitment. It follows that agnosticism is irrational.

 

[awatkins69]

^ As above, it is “Either/Or”.

I think even if I were an agnostic, I would still pray and go to Mass and such. In the vein of Anthony Kenny, it is not at all unreasonable to cry for help in the middle of the forest, even if we’re not sure somebody is even there to help us.

However, thank God, for His grace by which I have been granted faith.

 

[Leela]

They usually bring up Occam’s Razor to justify the exclusion of metaphysical realities. I think, what they don’t understand, is that the razor cut both ways. Epically when is comes to the question, why is there something instead of nothing?

What does Occam’s Razor say about the question “why is there something instead of nothing?” It seems that either something once came from nothing or something always existed. Both answers sound implausible. I don’t see how Occam helps us to decide.

 

[JohnDamian]

What does Occam’s Razor say about the question “why is there something instead of nothing?” It seems that either something once came from nothing or something always existed. Both answers sound implausible. I don’t see how Occam helps us to decide.

The “razor” alone doesent; but Occam applying the razor to Aristotle and Scotus does – in both his books Quaestiones in lib. I (q.cxxxii-cxxxvi) Physicorum and Quodlibeta I (I). He discusses the issue; arguing that we can only know that God exists if we understand God as “that than which nothing is more noble and more perfect”; which also makes it impossible to conclude that God has a real unicity.

To be fair; I find the conclusion lacking; but it is clear that even a mind such as Occams can come to know God exists using logic; so the default position is that God (of sorts) exists.

 

[awatkins69]

What does Occam’s Razor say about the question “why is there something instead of nothing?” It seems that either something once came from nothing or something always existed. Both answers sound implausible. I don’t see how Occam helps us to decide.

It’s much more plausible to posit the eternal existence of a necessary being that is uncaused than the temporal appearance of a contingent being that is uncaused. It’s quite radical to expect that all existence will end, which is the case if we take the universe to be all that exists. You can’t even imagine that. It’s not going to be a black void. It’s not going to be a white screen. There will be no existence. That’s not even conceivable. Just try to conceive such a thing.

 

[Leela]

It’s much more plausible to posit the eternal existence of a necessary being that is uncaused than the temporal appearance of a contingent being that is uncaused. It’s quite radical to expect that all existence will end, which is the case if we take the universe to be all that exists. You can’t even imagine that. It’s not going to be a black void. It’s not going to be a white screen. There will be no existence. That’s not even conceivable. Just try to conceive such a thing.

I can’t see how wrapping your mind around the concept of God is any easier.

 

[traillius]

here is how occam’s razor applies to the question of universal origin. It falls on the side of God. Occam said always stop at the least possible number of elements. By definition, God is complete in and of himself. So there is only one element in God, which is God himself. Origin without God requires more than one element( its probably nearly infinite elements required ). The only way around this would be to consider the razor flawed. But in that case, one couldn’t disprove God with Occam’s razor. One cannot have it both ways. Either Occam’s razor works ( high probability of God ) or it doesn’t ( low probability of no God ). The specific nature of said God(i.e. which God?) is a separate debate.

 

[traillius]

I can’t see how wrapping your mind around the concept of God is any easier.

Not being able to comprehend something has no bearing on the question of its existence. Ancient people couldn’t explain gravity scientifically, for the most part, but they still knew that something made things fall, rather than just floating around.

 

[fhansen]

I can’t see how wrapping your mind around the concept of God is any easier.

But that’s the point. If it’s hard to wrap our head around that which we know-existence itself-then why should it be any easier to wrap our head around the concept of God, the infinite as opposed to the contingent aspect of existence?

 

[Leela]

Not being able to comprehend something has no bearing on the question of its existence. Ancient people couldn’t explain gravity scientifically, for the most part, but they still knew that something made things fall, rather than just floating around.

I agree. My response was to the suggestion that a universe without a creator is impossible because I can’t wrap my mind around nothingness. I don’t see how Occam’s Razor helps settle whether something once came from nothing or whether something alays existed. I am agnostic on the issue and am not even sure it is a good question.

 

[tonyrey]

To be rational is simply to try to have good reasons for your beliefs. Since what we have good reason to believe depends on our historical, cultural, and individual contexts, and since people have different life histories, we may be rationally entitled to believe different things. One person may be justified in believing that God exists and another may have good reason to believe that God does not exist.

Hi Leela, your post is certainly a timely rebuke to fanatics of every description. I agree we should have good reasons for our beliefs and also respect those of others. But our context and life history need not - and often does not - determine what we believe. It is not for us to criticise or judge those who do not have the time or inclination to question what they have been brought up to believe. Yet if we are reasonable we should examine our beliefs and values because it is unlikely that they will all be true or appropriate for our own circumstances.

 

[traillius]

well, something from something requires at least one element. Something from nothing would be zero elements, by Occam. by the laws of causation, and thermodynamics, zero elements is extremely unlikely.

 

[awatkins69]

I can’t see how wrapping your mind around the concept of God is any easier.

Well, you certainly can’t create any phantasms. However, you can conceive of God in the same way that you can conceive of a perfect triangle, even though you can’t imagine a perfect triangle. On the other hand, I’m not sure that I can conceive of literal non-existence at all!

 

[edwest2]

The word rational has been co-opted by a small group. It is regarded by that group as superior to religious thought where it is assumed beforehand to be inferior to thinking that is not restrained, or so they say.

Let’s look at the basics:

We know we exist.

We know we are in a world we can interact with.

Depending on age and experience, we have a mental library of what will happen if we see, hear or experience X. We also have a mental library of high expectations. “I have a high expectation the sun will rise tomorrow.”

After that, we need to develop skills for interacting with other human beings.

Finally, spirituality. Is there anything beyond ourselves that is intelligent and interactive but not human?

Here, on a Catholic forum, I think it would be appropriate to quote Father Riccardo about who Jesus is:

Lord
Liar. A man who told a lot of stories for free room and board, and inspired others to follow him into death. This would be an evil version of Jesus.
Lunatic. A crazy person who believed he was God. He got away with it for a while but ended up falling afoul of the authorities and was put to death. Hard to explain those miracles though, especially calling people out of a tomb or raising the dead at a funeral procession.

Choose Jesus,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

^ As above, it is “Either/Or”.

I think even if I were an agnostic, I would still pray and go to Mass and such. In the vein of Anthony Kenny, it is not at all unreasonable to cry for help in the middle of the forest, even if we’re not sure somebody is even there to help us.

However, thank God, for His grace by which I have been granted faith.

AW:

The problem I see with that logic is that God expects us to love Him with our whole mind, soul and strength. The problem with your solution is that you would still be agnostic! (I know you aren’t!)

God bless,
jd

 

[awatkins69]

AW:

The problem I see with that logic is that God expects us to love Him with our whole mind, soul and strength. The problem with your solution is that you would still be agnostic! (I know you aren’t!)

God bless,
jd

It’s a very hard question indeed. I suppose what could happen would be divided three ways:

1. I have the gift of faith, and accept some form of philosophical reasoning for God.
2. I have the gift of faith, yet am agnostic towards all the forms of philosophical reasoning for God.
3. God, for one reason or another in His providence, does not give me the gift of (a strong) faith, and I am agnostic towards all forms of philosophical reasoning.

If it came down to 3, I think that I would still go to Mass and still pray, for the reasons I gave earlier.