Is God a rational belief?

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

I don't believe in Woody Woodpecker, Ookla the Mok, or the Captain Caveman..And I don't think I could ever be convinced that these fictional beings actually exist and interact with humanity in this reality. For me, believing in any of the aforementioned is absolutely irrational, however, if someone else, Lets call him Professor Neihl Jackson, a man of impeccable character, and good standing within the academic community, under oath and during a polygraph examination declared that a meeting occured between himself and Ookla the Mok, (which was also attended briefly by Thundar the Barbarian), wherein he received strict instructions via Ookla from Princess Ariel which warned of an approaching doom for all Earthlings who refused to remove their eyebrows and replace them with stitched on denim infused with aluminum foil. For this meeting he was transported to the future and spent 30 days in the world of Thundar and Ookla..he was even bitten by a strange Rat-lizard hybrid animal which left a very distinctive scar on his shoulder which remained after his return to his own time...

After a thorough medical examination it was determined that Dr. jackson was perfectly fit, and seemed to be in his right mind. The memory was real for him..of course his eyebrows were shave and he had the unusual denim/aluminum foil thing going on..

Would it be rational for him to believe? Would it be rational for others who knew of his impeccable character and good mind to become believers? Would it be rational for others who expereinced the same thing?


Whirling Moat

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Not rational in any sense. Rational doesn't mean 'believable', and simply the fact that other, equally reputable, people have claimed to have made up all the characters removes it from the realm of possibility. If the President of the United States, or any country, for that matter, claimed to have experienced this and undertook all the aforementioned tests, even if Richard Dawkins himself backed up the President's story, this is still firmly in the realm of the impossible.

As unlikely as them both being sociopathic liers is, it would still be more unlikely that this event occured.

[Faith No More]

For him it would be considered rational to believe. After all, all we can determine about the cosmos is based on what we perceive. For others to believe in another man's delusions is cerainly not rational.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's definitely not rational to believe in a being that you have to rely on faith to keep believing in. It's also not rational to believe in a god when it's fairly obvious that all gods worshiped throughout history were apparently made up by man.

[Minimalist]

No.




,,,,,,,

[tavarish]

Peace...

I don't believe in Woody Woodpecker, Ookla the Mok, or the Captain Caveman..And I don't think I could ever be convinced that these fictional beings actually exist and interact with humanity in this reality. For me, believing in any of the aforementioned is absolutely irrational, however, if someone else, Lets call him Professor Neihl Jackson, a man of impeccable character, and good standing within the academic community, under oath and during a polygraph examination declared that a meeting occured between himself and Ookla the Mok, (which was also attended briefly by Thundar the Barbarian), wherein he received strict instructions via Ookla from Princess Ariel which warned of an approaching doom for all Earthlings who refused to remove their eyebrows and replace them with stitched on denim infused with aluminum foil. For this meeting he was transported to the future and spent 30 days in the world of Thundar and Ookla..he was even bitten by a strange Rat-lizard hybrid animal which left a very distinctive scar on his shoulder which remained after his return to his own time...

After a thorough medical examination it was determined that Dr. jackson was perfectly fit, and seemed to be in his right mind. The memory was real for him..of course his eyebrows were shave and he had the unusual denim/aluminum foil thing going on..

Would it be rational for him to believe? Would it be rational for others who knew of his impeccable character and good mind to become believers? Would it be rational for others who expereinced the same thing?


Whirling Moat

Polygraphs don't determine what actually happened, they determine if the person is lying about an experience, not to mention they can be beaten and aren't all that accurate to begin with. Determining that he is mentally fit still doesn't mean he couldn't have had a lapse in judgment and imagined this all. What you're essentially asking is: "Is it rational to believe a person's outlandish claim just because they believe in it themselves?"

The answer is no. If he can't bring back anything verifiable (not just his subjective experiences), then there's no rational reason to believe him.

[theVOID]

Welcome to the forums Interesting problem, thanks for posting it, I love these sorts of epistemic problems.

Firstly, lets set some minor details aside:

1. His character is not relevant unless he is predisposed to delusion (which downshifts the probability that his experience was real), he could be Prof Jackson or Janitor Jackson it makes no difference - We can assert in a hypothetical that he is not lying about his experience and he is not predisposed to delusion - He has generally normally functioning cognitive facilities and actually had an experience of some nature, be it an externally caused experience or an internally generated phenomenon such as a delusion, drug use etc.

2. Polygraphs are bullshit and being under oath is no more likely to make someone tell the truth, but that aside, If he genuinely had an experience we need not care about either because we will assert that he is telling the truth about experiencing something.

Let's also assume that Jackson believes that the experience took place in objective reality and not entirely within the confines of his mind, he is not questioning the nature of the experience and feels rational in believing that it is true.

The basic outline is as follows:

Jackson(S) Experienced(E1) that he "he was sent 30 years into the future to meet Ookla and receive information about the fate of the earth"(P) and he has some other evidence consistent with these events in the form of a bite mark(E2) and alloy in his eyebrows(E3). - Shortened; S believes that P and S has E1+E2+E3 towards P.

We should also assume that S had no prior knowledge of or has not been raised in a house that believes in time travel, Ookla, Thunar, Alloy Eyebrows or phophesy of the earth's destruction - Notice that it makes it a significantly different situation from the one you are trying to throw analogy to, your belief in Theism.

Your two questions then basically take the form:

1. Is it rational for S to believe that P if S has E1+E2+E3 towards P?
2. Is it rational for ~S to believe that P if S testifies (E4) that P and presents E2+E3 towards P?

Notice that ~S does not have E1 towards P, ~S did not experience P, he has E4 towards P, that being the testimonial (second hand account) of S.

S would only be rational in believing that P if he could determine that E1+E2+E3 are more likely given P than ~P - In other words, is it more likely that E1+E2+E3 were caused by P or by ~P?.

Again, P = S was taken into the future and met Oolak, Thunar and recieved prophesy of the destruction of the earth. ~P = Psychotic episode (and possibly other circumstances, such as evil scientist implanted memories, but they add no value to the analysis).

We have no evidence of Time travel, Oolak, Thunar or Alloy stitched eyebrows having any significance in saving any person from any harmful event.
We have plenty of evidence of psychotic breaks and delusions in which people harm/mutilate themselves, even amongst credible and well respected people.

Therefore, It is not rational for S to believe that P given E1+E2+E3 because it is much more likely that it was caused by ~P.
It is even less rational for ~S to believe that P given E2+E3+E4 because E1 (direct experience) is a higher standard of evidence than E4.

If S is a rational person he would believe that his experience is more likely given that ~P.

Sorry if you aren't familiar with the symbols, I use them because they help me dissolve problems and see them more clearly. If you need anything clarified feel free to ask.

---

The answer is no. If he can't bring back anything verifiable (not just his subjective experiences), then there's no rational reason to believe him.

Not quite, He has a bite mark(E2) and alloy in his eyebrows(E3) that were part of his experience that P.

---

For him it would be considered rational to believe. After all, all we can determine about the cosmos is based on what we perceive. For others to believe in another man's delusions is cerainly not rational.

No it wouldn't, His experience is much more likely given ~P.

[fr0d0]

The guy is convinced of something because of false memories he has. Everything else (reality) he must rationalise to fit in with those memories. The dissonance between the two would break rationality.

[Autumnlicious]

His experience only would matter if he had something other than his story to tell as evidence.

As such, the bite marks and other physical trauma may be evidence, but even then there is a degree of uncertainty involved.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

Not rational in any sense. Rational doesn't mean 'believable', and simply the fact that other, equally reputable, people have claimed to have made up all the characters removes it from the realm of possibility. If the President of the United States, or any country, for that matter, claimed to have experienced this and undertook all the aforementioned tests, even if Richard Dawkins himself backed up the President's story, this is still firmly in the realm of the impossible.

As unlikely as them both being sociopathic liers is, it would still be more unlikely that this event occured.

I understand your point as it relates to the exterior view of the plausability of the account. As theVOID has indicated there are other readily available explanations which may provide a better and more palatable explanation for such an experience..However this is suitable from an external view. In other words, If Prof. Jackson was satisfied from a pragmatic point of view that the experience satisfied his own empirical tests would it not be reasonable for him to believe?

A delusion is a psychotic break of sorts. We expect that there will be accompanying explanations for the episodes such as inducement by drugs, disease, physical or emotional trauma, et al. In the absence of evidence of any of the aforementioned causes, is it reasonable for others to offer delusion as a likely explanation of a higher order than the explanation provided within the story?

For the record, my position is that it is reasonable for the one with the experience to believe if during the experience adequate tests were performed to validate the experience. I would also go as far as saying that credibilty does have a direct relationship with the believabilty of any claim. Credibilty would mean more than trustworthiness, it would also speak to the process a person undertakes before making certain kinds of claims. If the person is known for rigorously examining events before making judgements...I would say that such testimony should be regarded highly and should be weighty for anyone.


Whirling Moat

---

Peace...

It's definitely not rational to believe in a being that you have to rely on faith to keep believing in. It's also not rational to believe in a god when it's fairly obvious that all gods worshiped throughout history were apparently made up by man.

How about the belief system of the ancient Egyptians who held that ascended man is God? That is close to my belief, from this view the fact that the scriptures are man made is not problematic.



Whirling Moat

---

Peace...

Welcome to the forums Interesting problem, thanks for posting it, I love these sorts of epistemic problems.

I sort through my beliefs better by creating such problems..

His character is not relevant unless he is predisposed to delusion (which downshifts the probability that his experience was real), he could be Prof Jackson or Janitor Jackson it makes no difference - We can assert in a hypothetical that he is not lying about his experience and he is not predisposed to delusion - He has generally normally functioning cognitive facilities and actually had an experience of some nature, be it an externally caused experience or an internally generated phenomenon such as a delusion, drug use etc.

Well I intended to add his collegiate pedigree to buttress a certain aspect of the story. I wanted it to be relatively clear that his beliefs would be based on subjective experience and some real analysis of the situation..A trained scientist will probably consider that he may be experiencing a delusion..If he is satisfied after analysis that the event is real it would probable result from careful study.

Let's also assume that Jackson believes that the experience took place in objective reality and not entirely within the confines of his mind, he is not questioning the nature of the experience and feels rational in believing that it is true.

Exactly, except let us say that at some point he did consider the angle that the experience was subjective only and by some method became satisfied that the experience did in fact occur outside of himself..

Therefore, It is not rational for S to believe that P given E1+E2+E3 because it is much more likely that it was caused by ~P.
It is even less rational for ~S to believe that P given E2+E3+E4 because E1 (direct experience) is a higher standard of evidence than E4.

If S is a rational person he would believe that his experience is more likely given that ~P.

I guess my question would be is it possible to reduce the probabilty of ~P from an interior (subjective) standpoint, or should the rule be that any conclusion reached which cannot be corrobotated by others is subject to exponentially higher scrutiny and should be treated with skepticism when the claim is extraordinary even if the claim is verified by atleast one person of sound mind. Further, if the person conducting the test is the claimant, any results form the test other than ~P should be discarded?


Whirling Moat