Side-effects of Faith

Originally posted by googlefudge
Rationality has two components.

First is to try to have as accurate and reliable view of reality as possible.

Second is to use logic and reason to devise the best way of achieving your goals.


The part we are interested in here is the first.
This is where the tools of science and skepticism are used to build as accurate a view of reality as po ...[text shortened]... ent lack of evidence for god and so while the argument might be logical it can't be rational)

As there is presently absolutely no evidence available for the existence of any god or gods or any supernatural
whatsoever, And indeed in many cases much counter evidence that goes against the existence of any god or gods
or the supernatural, It MUST be considered irrational to believe in a god or gods because rationality demands only
believing in things for which there is enough evidence to justify that belief.

As I pointed out to humy, logical positivism is self-refuting. It is the claim that only that which can be scientifically verified is meaningful. The problem is, of course, that there is no way to scientifically verify the claim that only that which is scientifically verifiable is meaningful. In other words, you are positing a bogus gold standard for rationality. In fact, as I also pointed out to humy, your assertion that naturalism is true (i.e., that the physical universe is all there is) cannot itself be verified by the scientific method, and therefore must be taken on faith. How embarrassing for you. So why should anyone accept the standard for rationality you've presented here, considering what an irrational, self-refuting standard it is in itself?

Thus being rational in the face of the current evidence (or lack thereof) requires non-belief in god or gods.
This is the definition of atheism.
So to be rational requires being an atheist.

Actually, the definition of atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the theistic God. Certain polytheistic religions are also considered atheistic, for instance. But I'm just nitpicking.

Given that naturalism and verificationism are self-refuting (above), to be rational requires neither atheism or theism. In truth, both atheism and theism can be rationally justified.

not it might be possible to create a 'logical' argument for belief in that given the right set
of premises you could create a logically sound argument that leads to belief in god however those premises must be flawed
and/or unjustifiable given the current lack of evidence for god and so while the argument might be logical it can't be rational)

Here you expose yourself as an ardent verificationist: if it cannot be verified via the scientific method, then it cannot be rational. Again, there's absolutely no reason to accept verificationism, since it has been shown to be self-refuting (and therefore, irrational). Thus, it is indeed possible, as you admitted, to form a logically sound argument which leads to belief in God, provided verificationism is self-refuting.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No the problem here with your counter argument is that we know and observe that people get hit by lightning.
Particularly when playing golf.

So if someone claims to have been struck by lightning or to have known someone who has been killed by lightning
it is not unreasonable to have a degree of trust in that person that they are telling the truth. ...[text shortened]... ple to get hit by lightning every so often.
We do not expect people to come back from the dead.

Again, you are assuming that science proves naturalism, which it does not. Further, you are assuming there is no rational reason to believe that God exists, which is false. You've also ignored the point altogether that the episode in question, Christ's resurrection, is not that Christ rose naturally from the dead, but that Christ was raised by God supernatually from the dead. Thus, your assertion that people don't come back from the dead by themselves is irrelevant, since the claim is a supernatural resurrection. As such, one's background knowledge, which may include God's existence, ought to be taken into consideration when determining the probability of a supernatural event like a resurrection occurring. As I've discussed earlier, the explanatory power of the evidence, provided the event occurred, weighed against the explanatory power of the evidence, provided the event did not occur, must also be considered when determining the rationality of believing the NT testimony regarding the resurrection. Humy himself proffered an understanding of probability that undermines the Humean in principle argument, and yet you continue to assert the in principle argument against miracles as if it were somehow still relevant.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind.

Fair enough.

actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind. I am trying to explain how one absurd immoral act to be justified?

As you can see, your arguments leave much to be desired.[/b]

“...Whether or not faith in God is irrational strikes at the core of your assertion of how faith in God leads to other irrational beliefs. If faith in God is found to be rational, your conclusion that faith in God is immoral falls apart. So, whether you set out to prove that faith in God is irrational or not, it is nevertheless a vital part of your overall argument. Without it your argument fails. Why should we accept your conclusion if your premises are faulty? ...”

your question is irrelevant because it is clearly self-evident that my premise is not faulty: faith that there is X ( whether X is a 'god' or anything else ) is by implied definition of the word “faith” irrational because it is not evidence/reason based. If it WAS evidence/reason based then it wouldn't be correct to call it “faith”. There is EVIDENCE that the Earth is round so it is NOT faith to believe the Earth is round BUT it would be faith if, hypothetically, we had no evidence nor rational reason to believe the Earth is round just as it is faith to believe that there is an invisible supernatural teacup orbiting Mars.


“...only statements that can be FALSIFIED by the scientific method can be deemed meaningful. IN OTHER WORDS, if you can't PROVE it scientifically, it is to be rejected outright. This is the basis on which you reject faith in God, is it not? ...” (my emphasis)

firstly, I can tell from your above words “IN OTHER WORDS” that you have completely confused something being falsifiable with something being unprovable ; one does not equate with the other. The hypothesis that all crows are black cannot be 'proven' if we have no practical means to observe all crows and thus check they are all indeed black even if they ARE all black -but that would still leave the hypothesis falsifiable because there is the potential of spotting one that is not black if the hypothesis is false. So you can have one without the other.

Secondly, this means the answer to your question “This is the basis on which you reject faith in God, is it not? “ is “NO” because my basis for rejecting the hypothesis that there is a god is not so much because it cannot be proven but because it cannot be falsified if it is false ( which are two DIFFERENT things ) although I would still say that simply the absence of evidence ( not necessarily evidence that proves it but could be evidence that at least indicates it to be probable ) is the real premise.

“...The problem with logical positivism is that it is self-refuting. ...”

no it isn't.

“...Try proving scientifically that only statements that can be falsified by the scientific method are meaningful. ...”

what do you mean by “ meaningful” in the above? If you mean that they don't self-contradict and makes grammatical sense then scientific method is not required to prove that they don't self-contradict but rather DEDUCTIVE LOGIC proves that as well just checking that it makes grammatical sense. If on the other hand what you mean by “ meaningful” in the above is “scientifically meaningful” then that is true by definition of “scientifically meaningful” and so is not a matter of “proof” but of DEFINITION for it is argued by many that only hypotheses that are falsifiability can be said to be scientifically “meaningful” because only they can be disproven by scientific method -again, no “proof” demanded.

“...Wait, it gets worse. How would you respond to this claim: philosophical naturalism (the view that the natural world is all that there is) is based on faith. Can you PROVE, via the scientific method, ...” (my emphasis)

again, you are missing the point. It isn't whether I can PROVE that there is no supernatural that is the problem but the fact that the belief in the supernatural is not falsifiable -those two things are two different things.

“...
the operative words here are “LESS” and “HARDER” so I clearly am not implying here “evil people wouldn't have ANY reason to do evil things” if they had no faith although they clearly will find it harder to find a ( generally irrational ) reason to do evil. (my comment)

So, people without faith find it harder to find a reason to be immoral, because ALL of the irrational reasons for being immoral are somehow off limits to them? ...” (my emphasis)

“ALL”? no. The operative words “LESS” and “HARDER” apply here yet again. There would be LESS instances of them finding an irrational excuse to be immoral.

“...IN OTHER WORDS, an atheist will commit only rationally justified immoral acts. ..” (my emphsis)

the premise for saying that I am saying that is false; The operative words “LESS” and “HARDER” apply here yet again. Stop putting words in my mouth.

“...And then there is the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a rationally justified immoral act. After all, an immoral act is by definition unjustified. A man who steals a drug from a pharmacy in order to save his wife, although committing a crime, is nevertheless acting morally, provided his intentions aren't self-seeking. ...”

yes that is correct. The answer to your implied question “ is there such a thing as a rationally justified immoral act” is, in my opinion, “yes, but not in most circumstances and cases. But, on the other hand, if you are irrational, you can irrationally justify an immoral act in just about ANY circumstances! “


“...So what would it mean for an immoral act to be justified? ...”

when you say “justified” in the above, do you mean “morally justified” or “rationally justified”?

Originally posted by humy
“...Whether or not faith in God is irrational strikes at the core of your assertion of how faith in God leads to other irrational beliefs. If faith in God is found to be rational, your conclusion that faith in God is immoral falls apart. So, whether you set out to prove that faith in God is irrational or not, it is nevertheless a vital part of your overall argu “justified” in the above, do you mean “morally justified” or “rationally justified”?

If it WAS evidence/reason based then it wouldn't be correct to call it “faith”.

Now you're just equivocating. On the one hand you want "faith" to be something that has no basis in evidence or reason, and on the other hand you want "faith" to be synonymous with religious faith, which does have a rational basis. To which, then, does your argument refer? If it refers to the faith which lacks reason and evidence, then you cannot make conclusions about religious faith based on that definition.

firstly, I can tell from your above words “IN OTHER WORDS” that you have completely confused something being [b]falsifiable with something being unprovable[/b]

Not so. Both can be used to show that logical positivism is self-refuting. Is the statement, "only that which can be falsified via the scientific method can be the subject of knowledge," itself falsifiable? No, so where does this leave your assertion that belief in God is intrinsically irrational simply due to its not being falsifiable? No doubt in the same situation we find naturalism to be in, which is also not falsifiable.

what do you mean by “ meaningful” in the above?

Anything that cannot be falsified cannot be properly part of knowledge; the only statements that can be considered knowledge are those which can be falsified. Thus, whatever cannot be falsified is meaningless. For example, God's existence cannot be falsified, therefore God's existence is meaningless, on logical positivism.

There would be LESS instances of them finding an irrational excuse to be immoral.

As I showed, there is nothing to suggest this is even remotely true.

Originally posted by epiphinehas


As I pointed out to humy, logical positivism is self-refuting. It is the claim that only that which can be scientifically verified is meaningful. The problem is, of course, that there is no way to scientifically verify the claim that only that which is scientifically verifiable is meaningful. In other words, you are positing a bogus gold standard ...[text shortened]... ou've presented here, considering what an irrational, self-refuting standard it is in itself?

I am going to come back to this when I am not about to go to bed and thus have more time.
But I wanted to quickly say that you are taking some time and effort to attack a straw man
(intentional or otherwise) of my position.
You are putting words in my mouth and stating I mean things I didn't say and more importantly
don't believe.

This 'bogus gold standard for rationality' is of your invention not mine.
So your augment fails as a straw man fallacy because you are knocking down a position I don't
actually hold.


I will get back to you with details of what I do actually believe and think when I get the time.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind.

Fair enough.

actually, I was not exactly “ setting out to prove” that ( although I obviously know faith that there is a god IS irrational! ) but never mind. I am trying to explain how one absurd ...[text shortened]... immoral act to be justified?

As you can see, your arguments leave much to be desired.

To Humy, I think, you say: "The problem with logical positivism is that it is self-refuting. "

I may have missed it, but I have not seen anyone claim that the central statement of logical positive IS a truth claim. Being a truth claim would make it, as you say, subject to inspection to see if it is verifiable, and if not verifiable, then it would be declared meaningless by application of itself to itself.

But as a principle of thought to be accepted as a convention, a rule, in order to define a discipline of study, it is not a truth claim. It merely defines a rule that in turn, combined with other rules, can define a discipline, which might be called by some, science. It is almost an exhortation.

Of course, it is possible that Humy or others think that the central statement of logical positivism is a truth claim. Then they too, should think again.

Originally posted by JS357
To Humy, I think, you say: "The problem with logical positivism is that it is self-refuting. "

I may have missed it, but I have not seen anyone claim that the central statement of logical positive IS a truth claim. Being a truth claim would make it, as you say, subject to inspection to see if it is verifiable, and if not verifiable, then it would be declare ...[text shortened]... central statement of logical positivism is a truth claim. Then they too, should think again.

“...But as a principle of thought to be accepted as a convention, a rule, in order to define a discipline of study, it is not a truth claim. It merely defines a rule that in turn, combined with other rules, can define a discipline, which might be called by some, science. ...”

I am not sure but I think I may agree with that depending on exactly what you imply from that statement ( particularly what you mean by “ true claim” ) .
I would say that scientific knowledge must always have the property of being falsifiable by definition of the term “scientific knowledge”. In other words, it is true by definition and is just the chosen tautology we choose to use. Therefore, it ( i.e. the definition of “scientific knowledge” ) doesn't require being falsifiable itself.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]If it WAS evidence/reason based then it wouldn't be correct to call it “faith”.

Now you're just equivocating. On the one hand you want "faith" to be something that has no basis in evidence or reason, and on the other hand you want "faith" to be synonymous with religious faith, which does have a rational basis. To which, then, does your argume ...[text shortened]... e immoral.[/b]

As I showed, there is nothing to suggest this is even remotely true.[/b]

“...Now you're just equivocating. On the one hand you WANT "faith" to be something that has no basis in evidence or reason, and on the other hand you WANT "faith" to be synonymous with religious faith, which does have a rational basis. To which, then, does your argument refer? ...” (my emphasis)

BOTH. I made it clear that I meant both by the insertion in brackets “ ... faith that there is X ( whether X is a 'god' OR anything else ) ...” (my comment and emphasis)
-so, no “ equivocating”.

Secondly, what I “WANT” has nothing to do with the definition if faith.

Thirdly, to have rational faith that there is a god ( OR anything else ) is a contradiction. If it was epistemologically rational then there would be no need for 'faith' nor would it BE faith!
So to say that faith that there is a 'God' has a “ rational basis” ( as you just said above ) is a self-contradiction.


“...Not so. Both can be used to show that logical positivism is self-refuting. ...”

so why don't you ever show me this then?. Demonstrate HOW either can be used to show “logical positivism is self-refuting”.....lets see how:


“...Is the statement, "only that which can be falsified via the scientific method can be the subject of knowledge," itself falsifiable? ...”

if we define one of the defining properties of “knowledge” to be the property of being falsifiable the that is true BY DEFINITION and thus that definition of “knowledge” doesn't require to be falsifiable.
ANY tautology ( like that one for example ) that is free of logical self-contradictions is TRUE BY DEFINITION and doesn't require being falsifiable.
Only “knowledge” about the external world ( i.e. the world outside our experiences ) requires being falsifiable by means of empirical evidence -NOT definition or tautologies.

Therefore, your bases of your claim that “logical positivism is self-refuting” is erroneous and debunked.

“...Anything that cannot be falsified cannot be properly part of knowledge; the only statements that can be considered knowledge are those which can be falsified. ...”

-APART from definitions and tautologies, that is correct.

“...Thus, whatever cannot be falsified is meaningless. ...”

“meaningless” as in “scientifically meaningless” or “meaningless” as in “logically or semantically meaningless”? -are you confusing the two meanings here thus equivocating? -lets see:

“...For example, God's existence cannot be falsified, therefore God's existence is meaningless, on logical positivism. ...”

again, “meaningless” as in “scientifically meaningless” or “meaningless” as in “semantically meaningless”?
We are claiming the former i.e. it is a “scientifically meaningless” hypothesis that there is a god ( by definition of “scientifically meaningful” )
but what we are NOT claiming is that it is “semantically meaningless” for obviously it IS semantically meaningful to say “there is a god”.

“...There would be LESS instances of them finding an irrational excuse to be immoral. (my comment )

As I showed, there is nothing to suggest this is even remotely true. ...”

you haven’t showed any such thing. I, on the other hand, have given an ARGUMENT and even some non-essential supporting evidence for my claim.

Originally posted by humy
“...But as a principle of thought to be accepted as a convention, a rule, in order to define a discipline of study, it is not a truth claim. It merely defines a rule that in turn, combined with other rules, can define a discipline, which might be called by some, science. ...”

I am not sure but I think I may agree with that depending on exactly what you imply ...[text shortened]... it ( i.e. the definition of “scientific knowledge” ) doesn't require being falsifiable itself.

Together with verifiability, falsifiability is not a statement that is verifiable or falsifiable, it is, (in my understanding of the philosophy behind it) a principle of inquiry that can be used to define a discipline, and that has been put forth by Popper and others as applying to science.

I'm not sure what "true by definition" means to you but I agree definitions need need not be -- are not -- subject to rules like falsifiability. Definitions are matters of convention, especially when it comes to rules.

A rule of chess is, in chess, there is no castling by a side, after its King has been moved. A truth claim about a given game would be "your king has been moved." So if that truth claim about your king IS true, a truth claim about that game, if it is to meet the convention that allows it to be called a Chess game, is that your king cannot castle. But this does not make the rule about castling, subject to the rules of chess. It IS a rule of chess. That's what I mean.

Science is similar in that the rules about how to "play" science are not "true" or "false" within science. They may have to meet other rules, like being stated in grammatical sentences, otherwise, they are not well-formed rules.

Originally posted by JS357
Together with verifiability, falsifiability is not a statement that is verifiable or falsifiable, it is, (in my understanding of the philosophy behind it) a principle of inquiry that can be used to define a discipline, and that has been put forth by Popper and others as applying to science.

I'm not sure what "true by definition" means to you but I agree def ...[text shortened]... ke being stated in grammatical sentences, otherwise, they are not well-formed rules.

“...A rule of chess is, in chess, there is no castling by a side, after its King has been moved. A truth claim about a given game would be "your king has been moved." So if that truth claim about your king IS true, a truth claim about that game, if it is to meet the convention that allows it to be called a Chess game, is that your king cannot castle. But this does not make the rule about castling, subject to the rules of chess. It IS a rule of chess. That's what I mean. ...”

thanks for that clarification. That's a good analogy and I know what you meant now and I agree with what you are saying here. I was sort of saying the same thing I think but using very different words and terminology. What you referred to as a “rule” I was referring to as a “definition” and was looking at it from the subtly different perspective of it being a definition but I think we may be saying the same thing in disguise.

“...Science is similar in that the rules about how to "play" science are not "true" or "false" within science. They may have to meet other rules, like being stated in grammatical sentences, otherwise, they are not well-formed rules. ...”

Agreed.

Originally posted by humy
“...Now you're just equivocating. On the one hand you WANT "faith" to be something that has no basis in evidence or reason, and on the other hand you WANT "faith" to be synonymous with religious faith, which does have a rational basis. To which, then, does your argument refer? ...” (my emphasis)

BOTH. I made it clear that I meant both by the insertion in br iven an ARGUMENT and even some non-essential supporting evidence for my claim.

sorry, two misprints:


"...Secondly, what I “WANT” has nothing to do with the definition if faith..."

should be:

"...Secondly, what I “WANT” has nothing to do with the definition OF faith..."

And I also made the error of saying:

“...ANY tautology ( like that one for example ) that is free of logical self-contradictions ...”

-but ALL valid tautologies are free of logical self-contradictions thus should have not inserted the “ that is free of logical self-contradictions” part.

One of the great storytellers of the twentieth century, Bertolt Brecht, once wrote a story about a father who wanted to teach his little son a lesson by placing him on top a six feet wall and commanding him to jump.

Jump into my arms! cried the father. I'll catch you.

No, no, the son responded. I'm afraid.

Jump, I said. There's nothing to fear, the father reassured him.

No, no! I can't. I won't. You won't catch me, shrieked the shivering child.

Of course, I'll catch you. What do you think I am, a monster?

You promise? the son sobbed.

I promise.

So, the boy leapt from the wall. The father took a step back, and the child crashed to the ground in pain.

('To Be or Not to Be Eaten: The Survival of Traditional Storytelling'. Jack Zipes)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
One of the great storytellers of the twentieth century, Bertolt Brecht, once wrote a story about a father who wanted to teach his little son a lesson by placing him on top a six feet wall and commanding him to jump.

Jump into my arms! cried the father. I'll catch you.

No, no, the son responded. I'm afraid.

Jump, I said. There's nothing to fear ...[text shortened]... .

('To Be or Not to Be Eaten: The Survival of Traditional Storytelling'. Jack Zipes)

So what is it? Did the boy learn that his father was a monster, a liar and untrustworthy?

Originally posted by josephw
So what is it? Did the boy learn that his father was a monster, a liar and untrustworthy?

I'd say he was all three.
Kelly