Rationality & Christianity: Mutually Exclusive?

[Idaho]

Taking one's religion seriously is rather the antithesis of British values.

Such nonsense! And bizzare coming from you. This has been a very devout christian country, and a radical and revolutionary religious country.

The move to secular humanism has been dramatic in the last 100 years - but that's something that you have always been against.

I suppose, as a religious man, you shouldn't be expected to be rational.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Such nonsense! And bizzare coming from you. This has been a very devout christian country, and a radical and revolutionary religious country.

Religion hasn't really been taken seriously in the UK since the ascension of Queen Victoria. It was taken seriously by people in the colonies, to be sure, but that's why those people went out to the colonies.

The move to secular humanism has been dramatic in the last 100 years - but that's something that you have always been against.

Secular Humanism is an invention of the last few decades, but Humanists have always tended to be secular. Christian and Islamic Humanists frequently had more in common with each other than with the tradionalists and fundamentalists in their own camp.

I suppose, as a religious man, you shouldn't be expected to be rational.

That's rather like me say that, as an atheist, you shouldn't be expected to be kind.

Isn't it?

[Idaho]

That's rather like me say that, as an atheist, you shouldn't be expected to be kind.

Isn't it?

No, because it isn't an essential feature of atheism to not be kind. But you can't be a christian unless you embrace the irrational.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, because it isn't an essential feature of atheism to not be kind. But you can't be a christian unless you embrace the irrational.

You claim is baseless and can be easily disproved, it depends on all Christians being a certain type, which they are not.

Again, it's like me saying all love and kindness comes from God - and because Atheists reject God they are neither loving nor kind. Now, to be clear, this statement would apply only to atheists.

[Idaho]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

[Pannonian]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

It's possible to be rational with values derived from Christianity though. The best of the British left is descended from movements relating to or derived from the UK's various Christian denominations. Probably the most dominant of all philosophical feelings though is a dislike of evangelism of any kind, whether religious or otherwise. Atheist evangelism is just as bad as Christian evangelism. As long as one does not impose one's values on others, it doesn't matter much what kind of rational or nutcase being one is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

At the end of the day everybody's metaphysics and cosmology are "irrational" because we all start from a point where where there is no evidence.

Atheists believe the universe spontaneously came into existence, Christians believe the universe was created by God.

Atheists believe the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory), Christians believe that the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory and Divine Intervention).

Once one accepts the existence of an omniscient being then things like virgin conception and walking on water are trivial and the existence/non-existence of God is a neutrally weighted question because there's no evidence one way or the other.

As regards Jesus specifically, most Christians accept that he violated the laws of Physics (although he was born after nine months, not one) and therefore they don't try to explain his miracles using Cod science, they simply say that Jesus "cheated" by being outside the rules that govern the universe. If you think that's a lot to accept, given that he was INSIDE the universe whilst also being OUTSIDE it and was able to pick and choose then you really should look at some of the modern theorems in Physics because they sound just as odd.

This viewpoint is fundamentally different to people who say the universe is 6,000 years old despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Papewaio]

Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...

If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...

I don't think I am - The Uncertainty Principle was what I was referring to - the equation can have any one number of solutions and we don't know which.

If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.

Firstly -

The Universe is infinitely complex, therefore the likelihood of the universe spontaneously coming into being via "emergence" is infinitely unlikely due to the infinite number of alternative outcomes.

Secondly -

All evidence point towards God being simple, not complex. God is neither one thing nor another, is not divisible, has no dimension of space or time and no discernible qualities other than existence.

Thirdly -

The atheist position is that an infinitely complex system came into being spontaneously. The theist position is that an infinitely simple being created an infinitely complex universe. The two positions both involve infinity and therefore you cannot apply Ockham's Razor because both propositions are equally likely because whilst the theist position initially appears more complex in reality infinity multiplied by infinity, or divided by infinity, is still infinity.

Fourthly -

The suggestion that God himself requires a "cause" i.e. parents would imply that the universe requires a cause - and if we accept that then we accept the existence of God. One could, if one wishes, argue infinite regress but in reality both the atheist and theist positions deny it. The difference is that the theist position posits an extra-universal cause for the creation of the universe. Now, an extra-universal cause may or may not be subject to the problem of infinite regress of creation - it is impossible to know.

In summation -

Atheists and theists have been having the same arguments fore at least 2.5 millenia and neither has ever found a single jot of evidence to support their position. Whilst the argument has become more nuanced over time the reality is that for each point made there has always been an equally valid counter-point because, ultimately, both sides are making a fundamentally unprovable claim.

So - it we could stop calling the religious irrational and the atheists soulless, I think that would be a nice advance in human society - even if it's just on this forum.

[Beskar]

If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.

Clearly you have no understanding of metaphysics, Papewaio. Your hypothesis is fatally flawed as there is nothing complex about the omnipotent omnipresent supernatural being of such divine power doing everything as if causing a vibration on a string to shape the cosmos to their whim. Their power is as such as a lucid dream as they can make anything happen if they desire it, and like most playthroughs of games, the being gets to the point he hands over the nations to the A.I (freewill) just to see what happens for giggles, just intervening now and then when they feel like it. You should turn your back on your heathen ways and accept his noodly appendage into your life.

How complex can it be just to accept and not question?

[Montmorency]

Very quickly you all come to play fast and loose with terminology.

What is "simple"? What is "complex"? What is "likely"? What is "rationality"?

[Gilrandir]

Atheists and theists have been having the same arguments fore at least 2.5 millenia and neither has ever found a single jot of evidence to support their position.

Similar things I notice about philosophy - issues discussed by Plato and Aristotle are still open to debate. Which is why I consider it a pseudoscience.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very quickly you all come to play fast and loose with terminology.

What is "simple"? What is "complex"? What is "likely"? What is "rationality"?

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine. You can have a see-saw and a pully winch. Both can be used to raise a load from one level to another, but one has few qualities (moving parts) and the other has many. Therefore, one is simple and the other complex.

God is posited to have only one quality (existence) whilst the universe is made up of an apparently infinitely regressing series of particles with infinitely multiple interrelationships (ugh).

So God is simple and the universe is complex.

Similar things I notice about philosophy - issues discussed by Plato and Aristotle are still open to debate. Which is why I consider it a pseudoscience.

Well, this is philosophy. If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.

Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility. A Physicist who does not study metaphysics will likely fail to realise that his experience of the world is filtered through a flawed lens. As a result he may conclude he has THE FACTS and therefore can discover THE TRUTH.

This is a dangerous intellectual position - and one which should be avoided at all costs.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...

There is a difference between quantum theory working as a reliable predictive framework of natural phenomena and whether the theory itself makes sense. I am reminded of Feynman saying, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

To be clear, quantum theory is definitely consistent. Just maybe not logical.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, this is philosophy. If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.

Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility. A Physicist who does not study metaphysics will likely fail to realise that his experience of the world is filtered through a flawed lens. As a result he may conclude he has THE FACTS and therefore can discover THE TRUTH.

This is a dangerous intellectual position - and one which should be avoided at all costs.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

As for the bold part, I point to the New Atheists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As for the bold part, I point to the New Atheists.

I miss Christopher Hitchens - a genuinely brilliant man who made absolutely no pretensions to "Goodness" and openly despised God.

He was a man you could respect for his conviction.

[Montmorency]

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine. You can have a see-saw and a pully winch. Both can be used to raise a load from one level to another, but one has few qualities (moving parts) and the other has many. Therefore, one is simple and the other complex.

Are qualities and components the same thing? One could invent an infinite number of qualities to ascribe to any given "thing", or obviate any quality they like by naming it derivative or tangential.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are qualities and components the same thing? One could invent an infinite number of qualities to ascribe to any given "thing", or obviate any quality they like by naming it derivative or tangential.

Well that's the rub, isn't it?

I'll say this - the argument (enumerated by Richard Dawkins and since taken up generally) is that God is complex, however there is no evidence of this - such evidence as their is suggests God is simple with a simple (but infinitely powerful) nature.

In any case, it doesn't actually matter because (as I said) the universe is infinitely complex and therefore its creation is infinitely unlikely. Being as it's already infinitely unlikely it can't be less likely and therefore you can't use the argument that "emergence" is more simple than a "complex God". Ockham's Razor is only applicable when one argument is less complex than the other - but in this case both arguments are infinitely complex.

The "Gomplex God" argument is an attempt by Dawkins specifically to control the bounds of the debate and as an Oxford Don he's good at using his gravitas to persuade other people that he should be allowed to control the bounds of the debate - he shouldn't be.

I'm not trying to argue for God, I'm simply pointing out that Idaho and Pape have made claims that don't stand up to inspection philosophically or metaphysically.

I see belief in God as a choice, or perhaps an inclination, and I think that it's equally possible to support both arguments using logic. I'm a logical person, when I first went to university I met a guy at Officer Training Corps selection who was a Christian, over dinner he told me about his uncle. His uncle was a Bishop, and one day he woke up and realised he just didn't buy it any more. Rather than throw in the towel he dove into philosophy and theology and eventually proved to himself that belief in God was as rational as not believing. This gentleman then recovered his faith once he was satisfied it was rational. At the time I believed, as Idaho does, that belief in God was irrational and therefore rejected Him despite my natural inclinations.

I spent a couple of years in study (whilst taking an English degree) and eventually I too was satisfied that belief in God is rational. It all depends on your metaphysics. Your metaphysics can support belief in God or not but either way they're a set of unprovable assumptions and therefore they're essentially arbitrary articles of faith.

Belief in God is an obviously arbitrary metaphysical belief, but there are others. Belief in a logical universe and linear time are two other essentially arbitrary beliefs. Like belief in God these convictions stem from our experience of the universe, and the point about that is that it is fundamentally limited by our perceptions and therefore flawed.

The only thing you can know for certain is that you know nothing for certain.

[Greyblades]

I miss Christopher Hitchens - a genuinely brilliant man who made absolutely no pretensions to "Goodness" and openly despised God.

He was a man you could respect for his conviction.

I miss him too. Seems these days that too few people are willing to openly criticise religions either out of fear of violent reprisal or pressure to be overly politicaly correct.

A lot of athiest community has gone to shit over the last few years. When the most recent crop of college grown liberals started gaining authority they began stigmatising everyone who had world views they didn't like.

It's got to the point where athiests are being declared pariahs for a lack of idealogical purity. Don't adheire to the unrelated social values of the group leaders and you're out. Now athiesm's become known less for rational debate and more for youtube slap fights.

[Beskar]

The problem with us British is that we are not Americans, so things are skewed. Not sure why, but American culture always whips up a fanatical fury when it comes to religion which is not matched in British culture whatever direction it goes into. So whilst PFH would be a rather conservative Christian by British standards, in the US, he would be a moderate and leaning towards liberal Christian.

[Montmorency]

In any case, it doesn't actually matter because (as I said) the universe is infinitely complex and therefore its creation is infinitely unlikely.

I won't look into the details of Dawkins' specific argument, but your bit here is just weird. Even granting some arbitrary evaluation of complexity (you might be compounding with the infinite nature of ignorance), how do you evaluate the likelihood of creation (i.e. "Creation")? Should such a thing even have the property of likelihood? And in principle, why would "likelihood" be a linear function of "complexity"?

[Gilrandir]

A simple thing has few qualities, a complex thing has many qualities. Imagine it like a machine.

I'm afraid the difference between "few" and "many" is as vague as between "simple" and complex". What is the number which turns "few" into "many"? Like 5 - is it still few or is it already many?

If you study metaphysics you'll see that all sciences regress to a point where we rely on unprovable laws, and there is no pure knowledge.

So it is a pure supposition that 2+2=4? I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

Personally, I think the study of philosophy is important because it promotes self-awareness, particularly of our own infallibility.

Beyond that, I find philosophical intercourse enjoyable.

It seems like one must study philosophy not not discover something about the world, but to excel and to have fun. Are we talking of MTW yet, or is it still that pseudoscience?

Rather than throw in the towel he dove into philosophy and theology and eventually proved to himself that belief in God was as rational as not believing.

Don't take it as an offence or nitpicking - it is just professional interest. Is "dove" past tense of "dive"? And if it is, has this verb become an irregular one in modern English?

[Montmorency]

Both "dove" and "dived" are in use, though by most accounts "dived" is more common. "Dove" has mostly come up in modern English by analogy to the pattern seen in "strive - strove" and "drive - drove".

I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

You're conflating the academy and the questions.

[Idaho]

Atheists believe the universe spontaneously came into existence, Christians believe the universe was created by God.

No they don't. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. There is no specifics under the definition as to what they *do* believe in. You are creating a straw man.

Atheists believe the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory), Christians believe that the universe operates according to logical and consistent laws (except for Quantum Theory and Divine Intervention).

Nope. Straw man again.

Once one accepts the existence of an omniscient being then things like virgin conception and walking on water are trivial and the existence/non-existence of God is a neutrally weighted question because there's no evidence one way or the other.

This is argumentum ad ignorantium. You can't argue that a proposition is true because it has not been declared false.

Your Christianity is interfering with your logic circuits.

[Pannonian]

I miss him too. Seems these days that too few people are willing to openly criticise religions either out of fear of violent reprisal or pressure to be overly politicaly correct.

A lot of athiest community has gone to shit over the last few years. When the most recent crop of college grown liberals started gaining authority they began stigmatising everyone who had world views they didn't like.

It's got to the point where athiests are being declared pariahs for a lack of idealogical purity. Don't adheire to the unrelated social values of the group leaders and you're out. Now athiesm's become known less for rational debate and more for youtube slap fights.

Or maybe Thatcher's Britain has actually resulted in a more tolerant Britain, in that no one cares what others think, as each is concerned only with themselves. Criticising other religions, when those religions don't actively impinge on you, involves caring what those religions say. If people don't care what those religions say, then they don't bother criticising.

[Gilrandir]

Or maybe Thatcher's Britain has actually resulted in a more tolerant Britain, in that no one cares what others think, as each is concerned only with themselves.

Sounds like it is an indifferent Britain, not a tolerant one.

[Pannonian]

Sounds like it is an indifferent Britain, not a tolerant one.

Not much difference at the sharp end.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I won't look into the details of Dawkins' specific argument, but your bit here is just weird. Even granting some arbitrary evaluation of complexity (you might be compounding with the infinite nature of ignorance), how do you evaluate the likelihood of creation (i.e. "Creation")? Should such a thing even have the property of likelihood? And in principle, why would "likelihood" be a linear function of "complexity"?

Yes, it's weird, or possibly Wyrd. The likelihood of anything is a function of the complexity of the outcome. Boil it down to it's most simple - if you roll a six-sided die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6, roll two dice for two sixes and the probability is 1/36.

With me so far?

OK - so Pape referenced the "complex God" argument. The argument, which is fallacious, is that because God is complex he is unlikely and therefore it is less likely that he exists and decided to create the universe than that the universe simple came into being.

The reason the argument is fallacious is that, according to current best estimates in Science the universe is infinitely complex, that means that an infinite number of dice had to roll an infinite number of sixes for the Big Bang to go off and not be just a Little Pop that petered out. That means the likelihood of the universe coming into being as it is is infinitely unlikely, according to our best science.

Therefore the creation by God (complex or simple) is irrelevant to the probability of creation itself - it's already infinitely unlikely, so it can't be less likely.

Now - the caveat.

If Scientists subsequently discover that the universe is less than infinite then the probability of the creation of the universe becomes finite and therefore the above argument collapse. I don't think that's actually going to happen, though. I think the reason we conceived of "infinity" is that it is actually a property of the universe.

I'm afraid the difference between "few" and "many" is as vague as between "simple" and complex". What is the number which turns "few" into "many"? Like 5 - is it still few or is it already many?

They are not finite numbers, they are terms of comparison. A thing with two properties is complex next to a thing with one property but simple next to a thing with ten properties. The the case of the current discussion the quantities are infinite, so the only way to describe them is using terms of comparison like "simple" and "complex".

So it is a pure supposition that 2+2=4? I'd rather say that being itself very opaque/oblique metaphisycs/philosophy wants other sciences to look like that. Just not to feel that singled out.

That is, in fact, a supposition based on observation. Immanuel Kant wrote on this extensively, but the problem was best expressed by Erasmus when he said "Cognito Ergo Sum" which is "I think therefore I Am". The problem, you see, is that it's not possible to actually prove anything other than that you ARE thinking.

That's not to say that we should throw out mathematics and physics, far from it, but we should recognise that they are a theoretical system we use to explain the world rather than a universal truth contained within the world.

It seems like one must study philosophy not not discover something about the world, but to excel and to have fun. Are we talking of MTW yet, or is it still that pseudoscience?

Theoretical philosophy will not feed the hungry or heal the sick, but it has a practical use in restraining behaviour.

To go back to religion for a moment.

Suppose the Pope declared that all Black were inherently evil because God had shown him - non-Catholics would ignore him because they recognise his authority is grounded in the Christian System of thought and is not intrinsic to the universe - or you can't prove it is at any rate. Now suppose a biologist declared that all Black people were evil and presented Scientific evidence that conformed to the science of the day.

There are people today who, because of how they see "Science", might be tempted to accept that evidence but a philosopher understands that "Science" is a theoretical method based on a set of assumptions and that, therefore, there are multiple ways the biologist can be wrong even if his "Science" stands up.

The same can be applied to any proposition because all thought is grounded in metaphysics and therefore you can always kick out the theoretical legs. You don't have to obsess over that (I certainly don't) but you should be aware of it.

Don't take it as an offence or nitpicking - it is just professional interest. Is "dove" past tense of "dive"? And if it is, has this verb become an irregular one in modern English?

Both "dove" and "dived" are in use, though by most accounts "dived" is more common. "Dove" has mostly come up in modern English by analogy to the pattern seen in "strive - strove" and "drive - drove".

I had to sit and think about this. The tense of "dove" is the past or "perfect" sense whilst "dived" is the "plu-perfect". So In this case I said "dove" because that was what he did, he "dove" in. On the other hand I could have said, "after he dived into...". So Dived indicates something that happened and has finished, while Dove indicates something that may be ongoing.

Compare "Hung" and "Hanged". Pictures are "Hung" on the wall but men are "Hanged" and then cut down - but while they're on the gibbet they're being "Hung".

No they don't. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. There is no specifics under the definition as to what they *do* believe in. You are creating a straw man.

Atheists are not simply people "who do not believe in God" they are more correctly "People who believe God does not exist".

Atheism is a belief - it is not a neutral stance - the neutral stance is agnosticism. The confustion comes from historical use of language but it's still not philosophically correct.

Nope. Straw man again.

Demonstrate that the two propositions are not logically balanced - declaring Staw Man is itself a fallacy unless you can demonstrate it. Logic itself is not proven, it is merely presumed.

This is argumentum ad ignorantium. You can't argue that a proposition is true because it has not been declared false.

All scientific arguments are based on the proposition that a hypothesis may be presumed to be true until it is proved false. The scientific method constructs a hypothesis and then attempts to disprove it.

Your Christianity is interfering with your logic circuits.

I have provided arguments using logic, probability, the scientific method, and metaphysics.

My proposition is that the "logical" atheist's world-view is ultimately built on sand as insubstantial as the Christian's. I have gone to great pains to write out my argument as clearly as possible.

Now you either have to disprove it or concede, it's not sufficient for you just to object to my preamble and declare "straw man" because I've already written about two-thousand words supporting my point and addresses your objections before you actually replied. It's clearly not a straw man, it's all based on very well documented and valid philosophical arguments - most originally made by non-Christians.

That's not an appeal to authority, it's a reminder that I didn't imagine all this, I'm drawing on previous arguments between people with my view and people with yours. You can't just dismiss the entire history of a debate unless you can show it was all fallacious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm intrigued as to how you can be a rational christian. I accept that you can be a Christian and be rational in your everyday life. But how about with regard to a magic man who had special powers and was created by God impregnating a woman who gave birth a month later?

Christians do not believe in a magic man or a sky fairy or other such nonsense, nor is belief in a Supreme Being comparable to them.

If you want to use that silly language then by the same token I suppose you believe in a magic explosion, which is a similarly untestable hypothesis since of course we can't recreate the conditions of the Big Bang.

[Montmorency]

Yes, it's weird, or possibly Wyrd. The likelihood of anything is a function of the complexity of the outcome. Boil it down to it's most simple - if you roll a six-sided die the probability of getting a 6 is 1/6, roll two dice for two sixes and the probability is 1/36.

With me so far?

What does any of that have to do with complexity? Is one roll of the dice as complex as one roll of two dice? Is one roll as complex as the next?

according to current best estimates in Science the universe is infinitely complex

Where do you get that?

The problem, you see, is that it's not possible to actually prove anything other than that you ARE thinking.

That would be one of the most difficult things to prove, actually - right up there with the existence of God.

I had to sit and think about this. The tense of "dove" is the past or "perfect" sense whilst "dived" is the "plu-perfect". So In this case I said "dove" because that was what he did, he "dove" in. On the other hand I could have said, "after he dived into...". So Dived indicates something that happened and has finished, while Dove indicates something that may be ongoing.

Actually, either "dived" or "dove" can be used in either of those contexts. I don't know about relative frequency or geographical distribution, but they are pretty much interchangeable for most speakers.

Compare "Hung" and "Hanged". Pictures are "Hung" on the wall but men are "Hanged" and then cut down - but while they're on the gibbet they're being "Hung".

This is a different matter entirely. We are speaking of two distinct verbs that happen to be homophonous except for these participle forms.

For example:

I ringed the fire with rocks; I rang John on the phone.