The reasonable belief in God
Offline First let us distinguish the separate definitions of reason. There is a scientific reason (often called empirical knowledge), there is ethical reasoning (what makes you happy? What is the greatest good for the greatest number?), and there is logical and mathematical reasoning (absolute or tautological knowledge). The former two use the tools of the latter in order to function coherently and provide the best answers that we, as humans can come up with.
So, here is the question: why would it be reasonable for you to believe in a God? Obviously there is no empirical reason to do so, and this is what Atheists first point to when they discuss religion. God is not observed with our senses, he does not speak to you (or at least most of you), there is no evidence for him, and therefore no scientific reason to believe in him. Therefore there is no reason (either scientific, ethical, or logical) to believe that God took a direct hand in the things which science can explain. There is no reason (of any kind), with the evidence that we have now, to believe such ridiculous notions as "God made the world in six days," or that the earth is six thousand years old. There is no reason to believe in the absolute truth of the Bible.
Now, skipping the second form of reason for now, there is also no true tautological reason for the existence of God. Many philosophers have tried to prove God through "pure reason," and I will not go into a long discussion of their attempts or arguments here--because I simply don't buy them. There simply is no way that I know of to prove the existence of God.
However, when we discuss the ethical reason for believing in God, we are faced with a much different question. We are not asking whether there is empirical evidence for the existence of God. We are not asking whether or not it can be proved absolutely--but we are asking the bold question of whether or not it is best for our lives and our personal happiness. Now I am not talking about any of the bullshit spouted about that "believing in God will make you a better person" or that "taking Christ as your lord and savior will help you to lead a better life." This is utter nonsense. It is not religion which gives you a better life, but your ability to critically analyze what is right and wrong. Religion is not the proper guide to either science, math, or your personal ethics, and in fact it has been used frequently to misguide large groups of people into doing very horrific things. To put it bluntly, priests are the worst guarders of morality. At best they can enforce it, at worst they horribly corrupt it.
However, when you ask the question: "what happens after I die" the evidence in this world suddenly becomes worthless. We know that our bodies rot away into dust, but this does not bring us any comfort. In fact, it is this fact, and this fact alone, which can potentially make us fear death--fear it with such an inward pain that it can ruin our life. But wait! If our life is to be ruined by this fear of death, if we are to be afraid of what happens in the shade beyond--is that not reason to believe in a God? Is that not then reason to believe in an afterlife? There may be no evidence for a God, but there is evidence of death--is death not reason enough to put your belief in something, so that you might live this life without fear?
When you honestly ask yourself this question, I think you will find that it is the fundamental one. It was Voltaire who wrote that "if God did not exist then it would be necessary to invent him." The reason why we would want to invent him would be so that we can live this life to its fullest--to use reason to analyze the world around us and ardently find answers to our deepest questions, while still believing that when we die, we could continue to live on. To know that there was no reason to fear death, and to instead just enjoy life.
~Deist
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:I don't see Pascal's wager in here. Am I missing it?
Second to last paragraph, he makes the claim that fear of death provides a 'reason' to believe in an afterlife. Incidentally, he also equivocates between 'reason,' as in motive, and 'reason' as in logical justification.
Edit: It's Pascal's Wager for belief in belief.
the motive is happiness, not reason.
- Login to post comments
Offline the motive is happiness, not reason.
I think you did a pretty good job of highlighting your own irrationality in thost last two posts.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't know if it's just me, but I suspect you'll find a lot of members here who feel the same way I do. I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable knowing that I will rot in the ground when I die and no part of me will live on but my memory. That memory will last for a couple of generations, more if I become famous, but eventually it will die too, and there will be essentially no signs that I ever have lived. I have no problem with losing consciousness at the end of my life and never regaining it in any sense. Death isn't scary if you have truly lived.
if you truely mean this, then I can understand your Agnosticim/Atheism perfectly, and say hi, how's it goin! And become friends with you.
However, I am not the same way.
Also, some other members are really on top of it with the basic logical fallacies with your post. Wanting to believe something is not in itself a good reason to believe that thing.
you say this, but I don't think you really gave it much thought. We believe things all the time in order to get on with life. For instance, you believe that you are not going to get inot a car accident this morning, so you drive your car like you normally would. You believe that a meteor is not going to hit your office building, so you go to work. There are many things that we "believe" to make ourselves happier, despite the fact that there is no evidence for our beliefs--but that does not make the reason why we believe tham any less rational. It is reasonable to live this life to its fullest extent! Should we not try and believe things so that we may when the gaps need to be filled?
- Login to post comments
Offline you say this, but I don't think you really gave it much thought. We believe things all the time in order to get on with life. For instance, you believe that you are not going to get inot a car accident this morning, so you drive your car like you normally would. You believe that a meteor is not going to hit your office building, so you go to work. There are many things that we "believe" to make ourselves happier, despite the fact that there is no evidence for our beliefs--but that does not make the reason why we believe tham any less rational. It is reasonable to live this life to its fullest extent! Should we not try and believe things so that we may when the gaps need to be filled?
These "beliefs" you list here are quite rational. There is a low probability of getting in a car accident. Sure, it might happen, but on any given morning, the chances of it happening aren't overwhelming. Chances of getting hit my a meteor are very, very slim, almost nonexistant. These beliefs make sense based on known evidence. Belief in god just because one wants to does not.
- Login to post comments
Offline It would be so much better to be poor. We would "value" what we have more!
By this reasoning it would be better that we had neither life nor afterlife to covet or fret about. But what does it matter how little you have if you're only concerned with keeping it.
What's good about being poor is not that you value your little bit more, but that you see how little value it has if it's not shared.
If it's not dressed up with love and given away to someone who needs it, what do you get? you get poor people, you get disposable life. It's the poor who know this not the religious.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline However, when you ask the question: "what happens after I die" the evidence in this world suddenly becomes worthless.
Here's the essential logical flaw that makes the rest of the argument come apart.
The empirical evidence indicates that after you die, you cease to exist. The declaration that this evidence "worthless" is only supported by the claim that it "does not give us any comfort." Last time I checked, giving comfort was not a requirement in the measuring the worth of empirical evidence.
Then that initial piece of bad reasoning leads naturally to a false dilemma--either believe, or your life will be ruined by a fear of death. Obviously there are other alternatives.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
- Login to post comments
Offline Like, perhaps, not having a fear of death. RationalDeist has made me feel more stupid for having read this thread. I wonder if he'll stop defending his point of view. There's nothing more rational about believing in god for fear of death (even if it is the deist god) than for any other reason to believe in something that, aside from almost certainly not existing, has no evidence whatsoever atributed to its existence. RationalDeist, you might want to read some of the essays you'll find written on the forum before you post like this again.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
Offline RationalDeist wrote:you say this, but I don't think you really gave it much thought. We believe things all the time in order to get on with life. For instance, you believe that you are not going to get inot a car accident this morning, so you drive your car like you normally would. You believe that a meteor is not going to hit your office building, so you go to work. There are many things that we "believe" to make ourselves happier, despite the fact that there is no evidence for our beliefs--but that does not make the reason why we believe tham any less rational. It is reasonable to live this life to its fullest extent! Should we not try and believe things so that we may when the gaps need to be filled?
These "beliefs" you list here are quite rational. There is a low probability of getting in a car accident. Sure, it might happen, but on any given morning, the chances of it happening aren't overwhelming. Chances of getting hit my a meteor are very, very slim, almost nonexistant. These beliefs make sense based on known evidence. Belief in god just because one wants to does not.
I did not see a reubttle here, I just saw you refuting my point. "I like Peanut Butter and Jelly!" "No you don't!"
- Login to post comments
Offline RationalDeist wrote:However, when you ask the question: "what happens after I die" the evidence in this world suddenly becomes worthless.Here's the essential logical flaw that makes the rest of the argument come apart.
The empirical evidence indicates that after you die, you cease to exist. The declaration that this evidence "worthless" is only supported by the claim that it "does not give us any comfort." Last time I checked, giving comfort was not a requirement in the measuring the worth of empirical evidence.
except that at that point in the argument I am talking about reason seen from the perspective of ethics rather than empiricism. You are quite right that there is no empicle reason to believe in God, I already said this.
Then that initial piece of bad reasoning leads naturally to a false dilemma--either believe, or your life will be ruined by a fear of death. Obviously there are other alternatives.
You might somehow not have a fear of death. If that is the case, then there is no ethical, empiricle, or logical reason for you to believe in a God.
- Login to post comments
Offline DrTerwilliker wrote:belief in a god, without allowing that belief to influence how you see the world, does make sense. It can give you happiness.RationalDeist wrote:you say this, but I don't think you really gave it much thought. We believe things all the time in order to get on with life. For instance, you believe that you are not going to get inot a car accident this morning, so you drive your car like you normally would. You believe that a meteor is not going to hit your office building, so you go to work. There are many things that we "believe" to make ourselves happier, despite the fact that there is no evidence for our beliefs--but that does not make the reason why we believe tham any less rational. It is reasonable to live this life to its fullest extent! Should we not try and believe things so that we may when the gaps need to be filled?
These "beliefs" you list here are quite rational. There is a low probability of getting in a car accident. Sure, it might happen, but on any given morning, the chances of it happening aren't overwhelming. Chances of getting hit my a meteor are very, very slim, almost nonexistant. These beliefs make sense based on known evidence. Belief in god just because one wants to does not.
I did not see a reubttle here, I just saw you refuting my point. "I like Peanut Butter and Jelly!" "No you don't!"
You compared rational beliefs grounded in reality to your belief in god, which you admit is motivated primarily by your wanting to believe it. It was a flawed, ridiculous comparison, and I merely pointed that out. You yourself stated that you have basically no evidence for the existence of a god, but feel that the belief in an afterlife makes life better somehow, so you like to believe in god. This is a point that basically refutes itself.
Fine, belief in God gives you happiness. This can't really be debated, as it is entirely subjective. You offer no real evidence for a higher power, and rather just cite the benefits of belief in one. This is no argument. I find it fun to believe in astrology and the power of tarot cards, and even dabble in both on occasion, but I still don't really believe in them, because the pleasure they bring me is no evidence for their validity!
And one thing I am wondering, and stated above, is why the existence of god to you would indicate there being an afterlife, let alone a positive one, and why you feel that, for an afterlife to exist, a god must?
- Login to post comments
Offline except that at that point in the argument I am talking about reason seen from the perspective of ethics rather than empiricism.
This is an artificial distinction that allows an escape hatch into the bad reasoning.
When I read the first paragraph of the original post, my very first thought was, "why bother making an artificial distinction between different kinds of reasoning?" The distinguishing characteristic of reason is that it is based on evidence. So even the so-called "ethical reasoning" should still be based on evidence in order to be rational.
The only reason for distinguishing between "ethical reason" and other kinds of reason is to build a scaffold that allows non-support to be counted as support. Of course, if you beg the question by defining "ethical reasoning" in such a way that it allows you to count "comfort" as a criterion of validity, then you find--not surprisingly--that comfort becomes a criterion of validity under ethical reasoning.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
- Login to post comments
Offline First let us distinguish the separate definitions of reason. There is a scientific reason (often called empirical knowledge), there is ethical reasoning (what makes you happy? What is the greatest good for the greatest number?), and there is logical and mathematical reasoning (absolute or tautological knowledge). The former two use the tools of the latter in order to function coherently and provide the best answers that we, as humans can come up with.
So, here is the question: why would it be reasonable for you to believe in a God? Obviously there is no empirical reason to do so, and this is what Atheists first point to when they discuss religion. God is not observed with our senses, he does not speak to you (or at least most of you), there is no evidence for him, and therefore no scientific reason to believe in him. Therefore there is no reason (either scientific, ethical, or logical) to believe that God took a direct hand in the things which science can explain. There is no reason (of any kind), with the evidence that we have now, to believe such ridiculous notions as "God made the world in six days," or that the earth is six thousand years old. There is no reason to believe in the absolute truth of the Bible.
Now, skipping the second form of reason for now, there is also no true tautological reason for the existence of God. Many philosophers have tried to prove God through "pure reason," and I will not go into a long discussion of their attempts or arguments here--because I simply don't buy them. There simply is no way that I know of to prove the existence of God.
However, when we discuss the ethical reason for believing in God, we are faced with a much different question. We are not asking whether there is empirical evidence for the existence of God. We are not asking whether or not it can be proved absolutely--but we are asking the bold question of whether or not it is best for our lives and our personal happiness. Now I am not talking about any of the bullshit spouted about that "believing in God will make you a better person" or that "taking Christ as your lord and savior will help you to lead a better life." This is utter nonsense. It is not religion which gives you a better life, but your ability to critically analyze what is right and wrong. Religion is not the proper guide to either science, math, or your personal ethics, and in fact it has been used frequently to misguide large groups of people into doing very horrific things. To put it bluntly, priests are the worst guarders of morality. At best they can enforce it, at worst they horribly corrupt it.
However, when you ask the question: "what happens after I die" the evidence in this world suddenly becomes worthless. We know that our bodies rot away into dust, but this does not bring us any comfort. In fact, it is this fact, and this fact alone, which can potentially make us fear death--fear it with such an inward pain that it can ruin our life. But wait! If our life is to be ruined by this fear of death, if we are to be afraid of what happens in the shade beyond--is that not reason to believe in a God? Is that not then reason to believe in an afterlife? There may be no evidence for a God, but there is evidence of death--is death not reason enough to put your belief in something, so that you might live this life without fear?
When you honestly ask yourself this question, I think you will find that it is the fundamental one. It was Voltaire who wrote that "if God did not exist then it would be necessary to invent him." The reason why we would want to invent him would be so that we can live this life to its fullest--to use reason to analyze the world around us and ardently find answers to our deepest questions, while still believing that when we die, we could continue to live on. To know that there was no reason to fear death, and to instead just enjoy life.
~Deist
Hello Deist. Basically you ask this question
Q) why would it be reasonable for you to believe in a God?
You then provide your own answers...
A) Obviously there is no empirical reason to do so.
A) there is also no true tautological reason for the existence of God.
A) We are not asking whether or not it can be proved absolutely--but we are asking the bold question of whether or not it is best for our lives and our personal happiness.....We know that our bodies rot away into dust, but this does not bring us any comfort....is death not reason enough to put your belief in something, so that you might live this life without fear?
I respectfully refer you here...
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoconsequences.html
to wit: "An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true."
Not only do you seem to be happy resting your argument on a blatant and obvious fallacy that renders your argument without any persuasive power whatsover, you seem to suggest that fear is a rational motivator for belief. I reject that premise outright and only agree it to be an appropriate tonic for the mentally challenged, emotionally weak, and intellectually bankrupt.
Thanks anyway.
- Login to post comments
Offline There may be no evidence for a God, but there is evidence of death--is death not reason enough to put your belief in something, so that you might live this life without fear?
1.You assume that without an afterlife, one would be afraid of Death. You have such low views on humanity, as most people of your caliber do.
2.So what if I AM afraid. I'm afraid of comets smashing into Earth and destroying everything in a slow choke, but that won't make a giant "Earth Defender Spaceship" come up out of nothing.
3.Afterlife=/=God
4.Afterlife=/=gods
5.Continuing from for, you make an assumption that your god is the true one
6.From what I can see, Church pumps up the new fears and gives you new ones, and on top of all that, give you minorities to hate.
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry, but I don't choose my beliefs based on emotion. I could believe an infinite numbers of things that would make me feel better, but that doesn't make them rational beliefs. Like gregfl pointed out, your argument is an appeal to consequences.
The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates
- Login to post comments
Offline yes, but disolving into dust doesn't tell us whether or not we have a soul. It doesn't provide any evidence either way.
So what. The default position is not to believe in a soul until such evidence is found. You are the "rational" deist, aren't you?
"each moment is far more precious," like a can of beans is far more precious to a starving person. They will hoard that can of beans, worry about that can of beans, fret over that can of beans, and kill people if they ever suspect anyone of taking thier can of beans.
It would be so much better to be poor. We would "value" what we have more!
Way to try and skirt the issue with a poor analogy (and expertly laced with sarcasm). Let's take a closer look: I take the can of beans to represent this life, in all its comfortless finitude. Yes, the starving person ought to cherish that can of beans, if that's all he has. Not very comforting, but makes far more sense than dreaming of a full-course buffet (corresponding to the afterlife) which will arrive once that can of beans is finished.
You are the "rational" deist, aren't you?
zarathustra wrote:Yet doesn't this enable a far greater fear - that you might spend your afterlife in eternal torment?why would you have to believe in hell? I am not understanding your assumption. Maybe a hell for the worst people, but for people who are ethical, why does there have to be a hell?
I never said you have to believe in hell. I simply said that belief in an afterlife holds open the possibility of things getting worse than they currently are, and not better. Just like we don't know if there's a soul, and don't know if there's an afterlife, we don't know that an afterlife would necessarily improve on this life.
so you know, absolutely, whether there is a human spirit, and whether it transends the body after death?
I know, absolutely, that we presently have no evidence of a human spirit, and whether it transends the body after death.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline You are the "rational" deist, aren't you?
His has not demonstrated that his moniker fits his writing.
His argument is basically, 'it is reasonable to believe in god because it helps us deal with fear".
This is not rational. I have learned that once you point out a fallacious argument to someone, if they still hold onto it, they aren't interested in rationality. He will either prove why his argument isn't fallicious or hold onto it in spite of the refutations. Further discussion with him about it is really moot and repititious.
The next move is his.
- Login to post comments
Offline I agreed with a lot of what you said. No empirical or tautological reason to believe in God etc etc. However, you didn't really give any ethical reasoning for believing in God. God is not essential to ethics, we can have ethics without God and in fact it is easier and freer to reason ethics without God as a basis for it. From Godless ethicists we have arrived at utilitarian, consequentialist and liberal schools of thought, all of which are fairly compatible and all of which rely on reason and not tradition/religion/folk ethics.
As for death. Here I think there may actually be good reason to try and believe in God. The problem is having reasoned as far as there being no empirical, tautological or ethical reason to believe in God it becomes nearly impossible to do so. You may in fact have to undo your previous reasoning on the subject and mentally force yourself to believe something you consider to be absolutely ridiculous.
Not only this but it is in fact possible to reconcile fear of death without adding an afterlife or deity of any kind. One of the problems I had for many years as an atheist was fear of death. It's about the inability to imagine your own absense from the world, and to imagine nothingness, or at least that's how I analysed it (and I went pretty deep into my own psychology to do this) although I do not rule out that other people's fear may come from another cause). The problem as I see it though is that we fear the limits of our own minds. The things we cannot explain or imagine, the same reason why many choose to believe in God in order to fill gaps.
In the 20th and 21st centuries we have science, reason and the capacity to learn and think more freely than ever before. We don't need a God of the gaps and in fact it is recognised as a big logical fallacy. One thing I realised since I started coming on here back in March is that the focus is all wrong, that we needn't pre-occupy ourselves with death, but the fact that we only have one life makes it all the more necessary to live it, to enjoy it. It is absolutely impossible to imagine our own absense from the world, the ending of our period of consciousness but another way of thinking it is that actually we have already been dead, unconscious of anything, thought, and that was for the 14 billion years (at least!! Its probably infinite) before we were born. So now, I cherish my life, I look to enjoy every moment, fill it with meaningful achievements, because at the end of the day its precious. I'm sorry that last sentence sounds like some kind of self-help guru knobhead.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is an artificial distinction that allows an escape hatch into the bad reasoning.
When I read the first paragraph of the original post, my very first thought was, "why bother making an artificial distinction between different kinds of reasoning?" The distinguishing characteristic of reason is that it is based on evidence.
this is blatantly false. Logic is the primary tool of reason, and it is based on tautology, not evidence. You are off by quite a bit.
I was distinusihing between differnt kinds of "reasonableness." Sorry for not making myself clear enough.
So even the so-called "ethical reasoning" should still be based on evidence in order to be rational.The only reason for distinguishing between "ethical reason" and other kinds of reason is to build a scaffold that allows non-support to be counted as support. Of course, if you beg the question by defining "ethical reasoning" in such a way that it allows you to count "comfort" as a criterion of validity, then you find--not surprisingly--that comfort becomes a criterion of validity under ethical reasoning.
- Login to post comments
Offline RationalDeist-
What is the difference between you believing in god because it makes you feel good and a person who kills because it makes him feel good? By your logic (it seems) because it makes him feel good it should reasonable for this person to kill.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hello Deist. Basically you ask this questionQ) why would it be reasonable for you to believe in a God?
You then provide your own answers...
A) Obviously there is no empirical reason to do so.
A) there is also no true tautological reason for the existence of God.
A) We are not asking whether or not it can be proved absolutely--but we are asking the bold question of whether or not it is best for our lives and our personal happiness.....We know that our bodies rot away into dust, but this does not bring us any comfort....is death not reason enough to put your belief in something, so that you might live this life without fear?
I respectfully refer you here...
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoconsequences.html
to wit: "An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true."
you have incorrectly categorized my argument. Allow me to explain by adding what you didn't quote from that site.
"Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence for their conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in God. In the case of the first argument, the positive consequences of belief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. In the case of the second argument, the negative consequences of disbelief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. Neither argument, though, provides any evidence for Santa’s existence. The consequences of a belief are rarely a good guide to its truth. Both arguments are therefore fallacious."
As is most clearly an correctly stated in the quote above, they are fallacious, because they attempt to prove the existence of God. I am simply giving a reason to believe in God, a good reason, and am not trying to prove the existence of him. My argument is this.
1. With a belief in God, I would not fear death. (G --> ~F)
2. If I do not fear death, I will be more happy. (~F --> H)
3. I believe in God.(G)
4. I do not fear death (~F)
5. I am more happy (H)
As you can see, not an appeal to consequence. My argument is different from the one on that site, as I do not prove (or attempt to prove) the existence of God. To look at it as an appeal to consequence is just as fallacious to say that it is illogical to argue we should eat because hunger hurts and can cause death. What we feel, how happy we are in this life are justification enough for what we do. They are the ends--what we do and think are the means for our own happiness. When we abandon reason and do not pursue the wonders of the universe, this can hurt our potential happiness--which is reason enough not to believe in the Bible. But abandoning the notion of God for this reason is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Abandoning God because you cannot observe him, even if your life could be made better by believing in him, is just plain absurd. There is reason to believe in God, not empirical certainly, but reason enough still.
You see, it doesn't matter whether it is false or true. If believing in a Deist God does not affect this life except by making us happier, if it does not strip us of our reason, if it does not harm our ability to think critically, and if it does not cause us to do horrible things--if it has no consequence except to make our life more comfortable and contented--then there is no reason not to believe in God, and every ethical reason to believe in God.
- Login to post comments
Offline I was distinusihing between differnt kinds of "reasonableness." Sorry for not making myself clear enough.
Shifting the goalposts, eh?
Reasonableness is a matter of opinion, entirely different from empiricism. I concede that you've recast your argument in terms in which your claims can be correct, so I withdraw my objections.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
- Login to post comments
Offline zarathustra wrote:You are the "rational" deist, aren't you?
His has not demonstrated that his moniker fits his writing.
His argument is basically, 'it is reasonable to believe in god because it helps us deal with fear".
continuing it: "which makes our lives better. Thins which better our lives without harming our ability to percieve reality or affecting the way we live our life are good, and therefore reasonable"
This is not rational. I have learned that once you point out a fallacious argument to someone, if they still hold onto it, they aren't interested in rationality. He will either prove why his argument isn't fallicious or hold onto it in spite of the refutations. Further discussion with him about it is really moot and repititious.
The next move is his.
I wholeheartedly disagree, it is quite rational to better your own life without consequence. And I resent you baiting such a trap as this, setting people's opinions against me before I even make an argument. I would hope that, being atheists and free-thinkers, you are all clear headed enough to see the crime he has committed here. It is trickery, and what he wrote here has nothing to do with "reason." He is building up public opinion in an attempt to skew what I say.
- Login to post comments
Appeal to consequences/Pascal's Wager. Refuted long ago -- Google it.
Thanks for playing and do come again.
I don't see Pascal's wager in here. Am I missing it?
It has similiarities to Pascal's wager in that it asks "why not?" However, the simililarity ends there. Pascal's wager requires someone to forgoe reasoning and science in place of faith, whereas Deism requres someone to use reason for everything they do, every single day in their life; except that Deists have the comfort of knowing that death is not the end. This is not a wager, as you are not loosing ANYTHING by believing in a God in this way.
So what. The lack of comfort doesn't change the fact that that is precisely what happens.
No. Belief in a better life than this one (or just another life than this one) trivializes the worth of the present life. If you acknowledge this life as the only one you have, each moment is far more precious than if you think there are more moments to come after expire. It is belief in an afterlife which logicizes martyrdom.
Yet doesn't this enable a far greater fear - that you might spend your afterlife in eternal torment?
Just smoke a joint and listen to Blue Oyster Cult. Far more sensible way to calm your fear of death than inventing an alternative existence.
Maybe back in the old days. But times change. The god hypothesis -- and any corollaries on the afterlife-- have long since run any useful purpose.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I see no need for a god to allow your dishonest belief in afterlife to subsist.
Surely it would be more rational to believe in an afterlife in a way that is less corruptible and does not supplement a chimerical religious outlook.
GAME OVER "Insert coin to continue"
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Second to last paragraph, he makes the claim that fear of death provides a 'reason' to believe in an afterlife. Incidentally, he also equivocates between 'reason,' as in motive, and 'reason' as in logical justification.
Edit: It's Pascal's Wager for belief in belief.
You know no such thing. You may have all the 'reason' (as in impetus) in the world to want an afterlife, but I'd be absolutely shocked if you could provide a step by step account for why there is one, or better yet demonstrate as much.
I don't know if it's just me, but I suspect you'll find a lot of members here who feel the same way I do. I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable knowing that I will rot in the ground when I die and no part of me will live on but my memory. That memory will last for a couple of generations, more if I become famous, but eventually it will die too, and there will be essentially no signs that I ever have lived. I have no problem with losing consciousness at the end of my life and never regaining it in any sense. Death isn't scary if you have truly lived.
Also, some other members are really on top of it with the basic logical fallacies with your post. Wanting to believe something is not in itself a good reason to believe that thing.
The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
- Thomas H. Huxley
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
- Abraham Lincoln
I totally disagree. There are literally heaps of empirical gaps and findings in science which justify a contingent belief in an order of things beyond the classically physical. The ancients called this area of supranatural phenomenon by many names - spirit, brahman, god, heaven, sky - but who cares what they called it, it remains empirically justified to believe in the ultimate influence of things, beyond the solid and physically tangible in ordinary terms, on our existence. If we called it Daddy multiverse instead of daddy god it might make an atheist more comfortable but it won't change the fact that it is an unseen omnipresent parent of our existence revealed in the nature of light.
But that's not even what I mean to say.
Really, I abhor this disingenious absolutism of contemporary thought. 'no' empirical reason? now just stop right there and think again!
What was empirical before the stone age? Rocks are rocks and men are men and rocks don't serve man. No, rocks didn't serve man; rocks didn't wait on us with drinks and hors doeuvres; but they did turn for us from lumps of hard earth into raw materials of the progression of civilisation, because the empirical reality of that time moved from what something was, to what it could be. 'Empirical' advanced from defining state to defining properties and tools were born. Did we get to be what we are now by hitting people intellectually over the head every for every challenge made to popular empiricism. No. And so we shouldn't, no empiricism is empirical for very long in our world, that's who we are as humans, changers of empiricism. We change it, we redefine it, we compile, compare and unify it. It's ours to decide since before a table was an empirical object, since before an internet forum was an empirical experience.
If there is any reason to believe that there is a heaven awaiting man, it's empirical reason. Full stop.
Separate this point from the above and I agree, Otherwise you throw baby out with the bathwater.
As for the 'ethical' reason, I agree with Magilum, Pascals wager.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Why does God existing necessarily mean that there's an afterlife, let alone a positive one? And why does there being some afterlife necessitate a god?
Haha, "RationalDeist" and "FreethinkingTheist" and all that, this place can be a real hoot.
Fear, such as yours of the enevitablility of death, often makes people do irrational things. If you need to believe in someone to be there when you're in that box, on fire, why not make it someone who isn't such a collossal dick?
You should pray to Dr. Cuddlemonkey. He's a cuddling monkey. And also a doctor. And a ninja, why not, whilst we're at it?
And if you're picking belief based on a fear of death, why not pick one where there is no hell at all? One where you just get reincarnated or just get the same afterlife as everyone? Not that these make more sense really, but shouldn't that be more compatable with your own, ahem, "logic"?
yes, but disolving into dust doesn't tell us whether or not we have a soul. It doesn't provide any evidence either way.
"each moment is far more precious," like a can of beans is far more precious to a starving person. They will hoard that can of beans, worry about that can of beans, fret over that can of beans, and kill people if they ever suspect anyone of taking thier can of beans.
It would be so much better to be poor. We would "value" what we have more!
Yet doesn't this enable a far greater fear - that you might spend your afterlife in eternal torment?
Just smoke a joint and listen to Blue Oyster Cult. Far more sensible way to calm your fear of death than inventing an alternative existence.
why would you have to believe in hell? I am not understanding your assumption. Maybe a hell for the worst people, but for people who are ethical, why does there have to be a hell?
Because that is the only way it would run out of "any useful purpose."