The Student Room Group

Can you be rational and believe in God?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by PTMalewski
It doesn't.

As long as the input data is wrong, you can even believe in invisible pink goats storming the Proxima Centauri with BFGs 9000 from Doom, and technically be rational.

If I saw such a thing I would believe it were more rational to think I was hallucinating. Surely that's the rational position. Input data has to be made coherent with the rest of our understanding of the world gained in past experiences.
Original post by Joe312
If I saw such a thing I would believe it were more rational to think I was hallucinating. Surely that's the rational position. Input data has to be made coherent with the rest of our understanding of the world gained in past experiences.


But if whole input data is wrong, or a large part is wrong, while too much of the correct data incomplete, you can believe in nonsense and stay rational.
If you take a closer look into history of science, or at how some people were trying to rationalise religion a couple of centuries ago, it turnes out that they could be perfectly rational, just because some input data was wrong, and a large portion of information about the world was incomplete.

Science can now be more rational, because we have much more extensive knowledge and better tools, but back in time, some great discoveries were made because the discoverers were acting irrationally.
A hundred years ago it was rational to think that stars and galaxies should be getting closer to each other because of the gravity effect. It turns out that they're actually increasing distances between each other. Since that time, it has become rational to think there is some sort of energy, effect, or substance that causes the behaviour being opposite to the predicted one, yet, before that we had never registered anything that would explain why the increase of distances takes place.
(edited 4 years ago)
Perhaps irrationality is a necessary part of our nature. Because we make an irrational decision doesn't mean that we have necessarily made a poor decision. If you take for example of the problem put forward by Buridan's Ass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass if you kept to purely rational decision making - you may well die of thirst as there is no rational reason why you would choose one choice over the other. Yet a choice must be made. But which? Making one choice over the other might be viewed as an irrational, as no decision is better than the other - but an choice of one over the other must be made even so.

You might say, in that case its rational to choose one over the other because you will die otherwise, but in the end you are still left with the choice of which to choose, with no rational reason to choose one over the other.
Original post by Joe312
Surely believing something irrational has something to do with the rationality of the individual?

No. There are examples of people including scientists who have strong religious views and they believe in God- they’re still rational but they’re choosing to believe in God, having faith which goes beyond logic and reason to some people.
Reply 24
Original post by PTMalewski
But if whole input data is wrong, or a large part is wrong, while too much of the correct data incomplete, you can believe in nonsense and stay rational.
If you take a closer look into history of science, or at how some people were trying to rationalise religion a couple of centuries ago, it turnes out that they could be perfectly rational, just because some input data was wrong, and a large portion of information about the world was incomplete.

Science can now be more rational, because we have much more extensive knowledge and better tools, but back in time, some great discoveries were made because the discoverers were acting irrationally.
A hundred years ago it was rational to think that stars and galaxies should be getting closer to each other because of the gravity effect. It turns out that they're actually increasing distances between each other. Since that time, it has become rational to think there is some sort of energy, effect, or substance that causes the behaviour being opposite to the predicted one, yet, before that we had never registered anything that would explain why the increase of distances takes place.

I agree regarding science, but religious knowledge is surely different to scientific knowledge. Empirical scientific knowledge gained by unlucky data which gave a false appearance is one thing, but religious faith is not even based on any such empirical data. It's surely more analogous to those scientific views which were equally unempirical like belief in 'bad blood' to be removed with leeches etc.
(edited 4 years ago)
Reply 25
Original post by Freda123
No. There are examples of people including scientists who have strong religious views and they believe in God- they’re still rational but they’re choosing to believe in God, having faith which goes beyond logic and reason to some people.

They are rational regarding their scientific research but irrational regarding their belief in God no?
Original post by Joe312
I agree regarding science, but religious knowledge is surely different to scientific knowledge. Empirical scientific knowledge gained by unlucky data which gave a false appearance is one thing, but religious faith is not even based on any such empirical data. It's surely more analogous to those scientific views which were equally unempirical like belief in 'bad blood' to be removed with leeches etc.

Today religion is not rational.

But let me put the problem with the following example:

Data 1: Zeus exists.
Data 2: Data 1 is trustworthy because it has been spoken by trustworthy and wise men.
Data 3: Zeus has an ability to throw thunders.
Data 4: Data 3 is thrustworthy because it has been spoken by trustworthy and wise men.
Data 5: Thunders appear over the mountain of Olympus with remarkable frequency.
Conclusion: Zeus is present at the mountain of Olympus more often than in other places.

This reasoning obviously has a flaw of basing an argument on authority, but it's not irrational. Data 1-4 inform of a thing that causes thunders, and Data 5 informs that thunders hit a certain place more often than other places. Therefore, it is a rational conclusion that the thing that causes a certain phenomenon is present at a certain place.
A belief that Zeus lives at Olympus is only irrational today, because now we know that the Data from 1 to 4 is wrong.
Reply 27
Original post by PTMalewski
Today religion is not rational.

But let me put the problem with the following example:

Data 1: Zeus exists.
Data 2: Data 1 is trustworthy because it has been spoken by trustworthy and wise men.
Data 3: Zeus has an ability to throw thunders.
Data 4: Data 3 is thrustworthy because it has been spoken by trustworthy and wise men.
Data 5: Thunders appear over the mountain of Olympus with remarkable frequency.
Conclusion: Zeus is present at the mountain of Olympus more often than in other places.

This reasoning obviously has a flaw of basing an argument on authority, but it's not irrational. Data 1-4 inform of a thing that causes thunders, and Data 5 informs that thunders hit a certain place more often than other places. Therefore, it is a rational conclusion that the thing that causes a certain phenomenon is present at a certain place.
A belief that Zeus lives at Olympus is only irrational today, because now we know that the Data from 1 to 4 is wrong.

I thought rational was defined as basing your belief on evidence no?
Original post by Iqra_hussain216
We had to discuss this but I was kind of confused as to what to say because a person chooses to believe in God so why should that take away a persons ability to be rational?

You can be rational and suspect a god. I don't believe that you can be and "know" that one exists, or "know" which breakfast cereal they prefer, without indoctrination.
Original post by Joe312
They are rational regarding their scientific research but irrational regarding their belief in God no?


No. My view is that they’re not irrational due to their belief in God. Myself I’m Christian. I’m just saying that for others (atheists etc) a belief in God is irrational as ‘there is no reason or evidence for believing there is a God’. I totally believe that there is a God.
Original post by Freda123
I totally believe that there is a God.

Why? Evidence? Indoctrination? Wishful thinking?
Original post by Joe312
I thought rational was defined as basing your belief on evidence no?

No. That is Empiricism.
Original post by RogerOxon
Why? Evidence? Indoctrination? Wishful thinking?

Wishful thinking- no
Indoctrination- no
According to the Bible “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.”
**Psalms‬ *19:1-3‬ *ESV‬‬. I’ve had a religious experience, fasted and prayed feeling inexpressible joy. Also let’s be real, people are indoctrinated to an extent with ideas and attitudes which shape they think and act accordingly to societal standards whether it’s through education, culture or religious means.
yes of course you can

the rational economic agent does what increases their utility. belief in god makes some people happier therefore, rational
Original post by HoldThisL
yes of course you can

the rational economic agent does what increases their utility. belief in god makes some people happier therefore, rational

is it true in all cases that if it makes you happier then its rational?
Original post by Gent2324
is it true in all cases that if it makes you happier then its rational?

substitute happy for any instance of utility-maximising axioms, such as giving them a purpose, and yes
Original post by Freda123
Wishful thinking- no
Indoctrination- no
According to the Bible “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.”
**Psalms‬ *19:1-3‬ *ESV‬‬. I’ve had a religious experience, fasted and prayed feeling inexpressible joy. Also let’s be real, people are indoctrinated to an extent with ideas and attitudes which shape they think and act accordingly to societal standards whether it’s through education, culture or religious means.

It is irrational to quote the Bible as evidence for its claims. That someone thinks that helpful is a sign of indoctrination.

What about your "religious experience" told you that the Bible describes the correct religion?
(edited 4 years ago)
Reply 37
Original post by PTMalewski
No. That is Empiricism.


I totally get how one could logically come to the view that God exists, as in your example of Zeus. But surely the belief is still based on an irrational ground, such as an appeal to authority of 'wise men' etc, so I can't see how it's rational, even if it's the best that some might be able to do in a situation where knowledge is hard to come by.
Reply 38
Original post by Freda123
No. My view is that they’re not irrational due to their belief in God. Myself I’m Christian. I’m just saying that for others (atheists etc) a belief in God is irrational as ‘there is no reason or evidence for believing there is a God’. I totally believe that there is a God.


Do you believe you have rational grounds for your belief and if so what are they?
Original post by HoldThisL
substitute happy for any instance of utility-maximising axioms, such as giving them a purpose, and yes

so the people who flew planes into the twin towers were rational?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending