(August 30, 2019 at 9:28 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 30, 2019 at 8:15 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Very few people hold beliefs they believe to be irrational. You can perhaps view the brain as a reason-seeking organ; if it does anything it is because it has conceived, computed, or confabulated a reason to do so. Beliefs, therefore, will always be rational to the person that holds them, and perhaps irrational to the one that does not.

What you describe is internal whims asserted to be rationality.   But that is not rationality.   Rationality is the subordination, not free expression, of internal whims.   This is why real rationality follows a set of external rules validated in a manner that controls and eliminates as appropriate the effect of internal whims.

This sort of rationality sounds like a ghost in the machine, like an ethereal supervisor double checking how our brains draw it’s conclusion, replacing faulty workers if need be, insuring they’re following some set of rules, rather than their natural travel through our neuro-pathways.

---

(August 30, 2019 at 11:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 30, 2019 at 11:02 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think that theism is rational insofar as one has himself had a direct experience of "something divine." 

I don't think mystics make very sound truth claims. But I think that the mystic's claim of God (or whatever) is--at minimum-- a possibly valid one. The "believer" or "doctrinal adherent's" claim is (conversely) unfounded/irrational or at the very least, lacking any rational basis whatsoever.

Hmm would you say then that rationality is not transferable? That if a belief is rational for you because of experience, it cannot be rational for me if I believe you?

I would think it would be like a witness, if you think the conclusion drawn by the witness is reasonable, it seems like it would be reasonable to believe the witness.

This is not to say you should believe the witness, it just doesn’t seem irrational to believe the witness.

(August 30, 2019 at 11:02 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think that theism is rational insofar as one has himself had a direct experience of "something divine." Whatever that is zen, Krishna, Buddhahood, wonder at the universe as understood through science, Eudaimonia, Christ etc. it does not matter. If something is genuinely experienced (even perhaps with so-called a mystical experiences) it is rational to accept that experience as possibly real. Experience is the only evidence of a reality. However. Systems of thought which impose such revelations upon others (religions) are not basing truth claims on experiences (like mystics do). Rather, religion (often) bases it's truth claims on a tradition or authority. This is not rational. At least not in the way that mysticism perhaps is.

I don't think mystics make very sound truth claims. But I think that the mystic's claim of God (or whatever) is--at minimum-- a possibly valid one. The "believer" or "doctrinal adherent's" claim is (conversely) unfounded/irrational or at the very least, lacking any rational basis whatsoever.

I consider myself a friendly atheist because of this. I have had no experience leading me to believe in God or religion, but I think that God belief can be rational. But I also think that rational God belief is atypical. God belief is usually rooted in social pressure to accept a mutual delusion.

Yes, that is an example I'd thought of too. Of course, using that as itself evidence for God's existence (or other gods, mystical realities etc.) is problematic at best. I do understand how compelling such an experience must be for the person who has it though (I've met some who claim to have had them). Such visions in general though are to me dubious, given that they conflict and can be induced artificially.

(August 30, 2019 at 11:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 30, 2019 at 11:02 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think that theism is rational insofar as one has himself had a direct experience of "something divine." 

I don't think mystics make very sound truth claims. But I think that the mystic's claim of God (or whatever) is--at minimum-- a possibly valid one. The "believer" or "doctrinal adherent's" claim is (conversely) unfounded/irrational or at the very least, lacking any rational basis whatsoever.

Hmm would you say then that rationality is not transferable? That if a belief is rational for you because of experience, it cannot be rational for me if I believe you?

I think that rationality is "transferable." But empirical claims rely on experience. If I want to make the claim that objects of higher weight fall at the same rate as objects of lower weight, I can conduct an experiment or make an observation of nature wherein objects of different weight fall. Either way, both claims rely upon an assumption that sensually experienced events can be a foundation for truth claims. If experience is to be a foundation for truth claims, what separates mystical experiences from ordinary ones?

---

(August 30, 2019 at 11:22 pm)mcc1789 Wrote: Yes, that is an example I'd thought of too. Of course, using that as itself evidence for God's existence (or other gods, mystical realities etc.) is problematic at best.

I didn't know we were talking about evidence for a god's existence. I thought we were considering the question: "Can god belief be rational?" Are mystical experiences evidence for God? No. But is an experience of God justification for believing in God? Possibly.

Quote:I do understand how compelling such an experience must be for the person who has it though (I've met some who claim to have had them). Such visions in general though are to me dubious, given that they conflict and can be induced artificially.

Theoretically, the mundane experiences of our everyday life could be produced artificially. Does that invalidate them?

---

And as far as this relates to "friendly atheism"...

James Wrote:The freedom to 'believe what we will' you apply to the case of some patent superstition; and the faith you think of is the faith defined by the schoolboy when he said, "Faith is when you believe something that you know ain't true." I can only repeat that this is misapprehension. In concreto, the freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider. When I look at the religious question as it really puts itself to concrete men, and when I think of all the possibilities which both practically and theoretically it involves, then this command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, instincts, and courage, and wait—acting of course meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true[4]—till {30} doomsday, or till such time as our intellect and senses working together may have raked in evidence enough,—this command, I say, seems to me the queerest idol ever manufactured in the philosophic cave. Were we scholastic absolutists, there might be more excuse. If we had an infallible intellect with its objective certitudes, we might feel ourselves disloyal to such a perfect organ of knowledge in not trusting to it exclusively, in not waiting for its releasing word. But if we are empiricists, if we believe that no bell in us tolls to let us know for certain when truth is in our grasp, then it seems a piece of idle fantasticality to preach so solemnly our duty of waiting for the bell. Indeed we may wait if we will,—I hope you do not think that I am denying that,—but if we do so, we do so at our peril as much as if we believed. In either case we act, taking our life in our hands. No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another's mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism's glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/266...6659-h.htm

(August 31, 2019 at 12:54 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 30, 2019 at 11:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Hmm would you say then that rationality is not transferable? That if a belief is rational for you because of experience, it cannot be rational for me if I believe you?

I think that rationality is "transferable." But empirical claims rely on experience. If I want to make the claim that objects of higher weight fall at the same rate as objects of lower weight, I can conduct an experiment or make an observation of nature wherein objects of different weight fall. Either way, both claims rely upon an assumption that sensually experienced events can be a foundation for truth claims. If experience is to be a foundation for truth claims, what separates mystical experiences from ordinary ones?

---

(August 30, 2019 at 11:22 pm)mcc1789 Wrote: Yes, that is an example I'd thought of too. Of course, using that as itself evidence for God's existence (or other gods, mystical realities etc.) is problematic at best.

I didn't know we were talking about evidence for a god's existence. I thought we were considering the question: "Can god belief be rational?" Are mystical experiences evidence for God? No. But is an experience of God justification for believing in God? Possibly.

Quote:I do understand how compelling such an experience must be for the person who has it though (I've met some who claim to have had them). Such visions in general though are to me dubious, given that they conflict and can be induced artificially.

Theoretically, the mundane experiences of our everyday life could be produced artificially. Does that invalidate them?

---

And as far as this relates to "friendly atheism"...

James Wrote:The freedom to 'believe what we will' you apply to the case of some patent superstition; and the faith you think of is the faith defined by the schoolboy when he said, "Faith is when you believe something that you know ain't true." I can only repeat that this is misapprehension. In concreto, the freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider. When I look at the religious question as it really puts itself to concrete men, and when I think of all the possibilities which both practically and theoretically it involves, then this command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, instincts, and courage, and wait—acting of course meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true[4]—till {30} doomsday, or till such time as our intellect and senses working together may have raked in evidence enough,—this command, I say, seems to me the queerest idol ever manufactured in the philosophic cave. Were we scholastic absolutists, there might be more excuse. If we had an infallible intellect with its objective certitudes, we might feel ourselves disloyal to such a perfect organ of knowledge in not trusting to it exclusively, in not waiting for its releasing word. But if we are empiricists, if we believe that no bell in us tolls to let us know for certain when truth is in our grasp, then it seems a piece of idle fantasticality to preach so solemnly our duty of waiting for the bell. Indeed we may wait if we will,—I hope you do not think that I am denying that,—but if we do so, we do so at our peril as much as if we believed. In either case we act, taking our life in our hands. No one of us ought to issue vetoes to the other, nor should we bandy words of abuse. We ought, on the contrary, delicately and profoundly to respect one another's mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism's glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as in practical things.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/266...6659-h.htm

I was just commenting on the fact that such experiences are used that way. As to producing them artificially, I don't know exactly what you mean. A kind of virtual reality? That would not invalidate them no. However my reference was to drug-induced mystical experiences or such things, not just the ordinary things. I'm not sure James' view directly relates to this, but I don't think he's right. You should suspend judgment, assuming there is no way to resolve something. He also seems to think such matters can't be resolved by the intellect, from this quote. I don't agree on that either.

(August 30, 2019 at 7:54 pm)mcc1789 Wrote: Do you agree or disagree that theism is ever rational?

If we're allowed to think of this in relation to other times and other cultures, then I think theism is often rational. 

If you grow up in a society in which all accepted explanations of things are woven into the religious views, and all the sane successful adults hold these things to be true, it would be arbitrary and irrational to reject theism. 

For example, the medieval worldview was an intricately interwoven explanatory system, in which the Ptolemaic universe, and God's influence flowing through that universe, psychology, history, morality -- all these things were of a piece. 

There was also empirical evidence for some of it. Every time a sailor used a Ptolemaic star chart to navigate safely home, or a stargazer used one to predict an eclipse, it served to strengthen credence in the system. 

This is one of the reasons that people resisted new suggestions that the system was wrong -- switching to a heliocentric model was not only unproved speculation in the beginning (until it was proven of course), but was seen to work against far more than astronomy. 

I think that an educated person in Paris in the 13th century would be entirely reasonable to be religious, without question. In the 21st century, it depends more on the metaphysics he has, which are not as self-evidently in sync with everything else in the world.

I have no problem with holding theism to be rational.  But 'rational' doesn't necessarily mean 'right'.  For instance, Adam Sandler films continue to make money, therefore it is 'rational' to keep making them.  Doesn't make it right.

Boru

I'm a friendly atheist, I don't push my beliefs on anybody else. I don't even punch them out when they say "Have a blessed day."

(August 31, 2019 at 7:47 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I'm a friendly atheist, I don't push my beliefs on anybody else. I don't even punch them out when they say "Have a blessed day."

Slacker.

Boru

(August 31, 2019 at 8:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(August 31, 2019 at 7:47 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I'm a friendly atheist, I don't push my beliefs on anybody else. I don't even punch them out when they say "Have a blessed day."

Slacker.

Boru

I used to carry a automatic to defend myself against aggressive religious people, but when I started hitting old bones when I dug a hole in the woods I realized this was too much work.

And, in reality, it's too kind to the religious nuts who think I agree with them because God said so.

Personally, in my entire life I have never met a theist whose religious beliefs I would consider rational.