I subscribe to four articles of faith:

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

1. There is a God.
2. He is a personal God, who involves Himself in the affairs of His people.
3. The Bible is God's revealed Word.
4. Despite my convictions, I cannot, nor do I seek to force others to my view. I can only show them the way (evangelism), and let God do his work.

This are onviously not the only articles of faith I subscribe to, but they are four. My question is, is it possible, in your opinion to believe in a real, personal God, and be a perfectly rational being?

[patrice]

1. Humans aren't perfectly anything.

Only mostly this or that, at a given moment in time. We have nothing, actually, but Krsna, so we should cease to pretend otherwise.

Hare bo!

[rogerashton]

2. Can your God change in response to the suffering of

the creatures, or is your God impassible?

[LostInAnomie]

3. As long as you are willing to have your faith be challenged.

People who are willing to have their faith challenged and look rationally at scripture as a collection of moralistic stories, proverbs, and aphorisms that are not to be taken literally, can be perfectly rational.

If you are the type of person who is not willing to openly and honestly discuss your faith, and stick your fingers in your ears when your faith is challenged are not rational.

Part of my problem with people who have orthodox, dogmatic beliefs is that for them it is not enough to claim that someone who disagrees is wrong, but they also feel it necessary to claim that something has to be wrong with them.

[saltpoint]

4. What if you tried believing in several gods and goddesses --

-- and several of their innate natures were contrary to each other?

Why limit your thesis question to just one deity? What do you gain from that as opposed to several of conflicting natures?

[saltpoint]

26. There is rational Athena and there is irrational Dionysus.

It might help to be on better terms with folks like this when struggling with questions about abstract beings and "rational" thought.

Ah, the Greeks. They totally rocked.

[Enquiringkitty]

5. Of course it is possible!!!!

The belief in God is world wide. Every religion has a belief in one guiding God. The problem with Christianity is that the fundys want everyone who follows a Christian God to take the Bible as absolute truth not as the writings of the descendent's of the followers of Jesus. They will not even listen if you say it is history, legend, myth, or parable. If one has a belief in God and believes that we were created by God, then one must also believe that he had a plan in mind and that we are all here for a reason. Therefore, being intolerant and accepting of another person is questioning or being against one of God's creations. Christians say that they don't hate the person but hate the action or deed the person engages in. Their actions don't bare that out. The belief in God is a loving, tolerant, helping way of life; extending a hand to those who need it ... any person, not just those who we judge to be acceptable. Who are we to judge anyone. Belief in God means that we accept the fact that we don't know everything and God does. Somethings we just have to leave to the one who know what the plan is and let him be the judge. Belief in God is a secure, calming, loving, knowledge that someone greater than ourselves is in charge and our lives he has given us is to learn and grow to become as close to him as we can while we are here.

[rogerashton]

11. It is not true that "Every Religion

has a belief in one guiding God."

Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism do not.

This "one guiding God" idea is distinctively western.

[Tux]

6. Well

My question is, is it possible, in your opinion to believe in a real, personal God, and be a perfectly rational being?

I don't believe in a personal god nor do I see god in any form other than "is". Why? It's simple. When we make a label like old man in the sky, we create a box. We put god into that box and declare that is what god is. Same with love, justice, peace, war, pizza, or porn. By saying god "is" simply states that god "exists" (another box) yet doesn't limit what god is at all. God simply is.

Let's look at yur 4 core beliefs:
1. There is a God. many would agree and disagree. I disagree with both.
2. He is a personal God, who involves Himself in the affairs of His people. Define his people. I have seen god at work. Prayed for my mom's health to get better and she had another stroke. God's involvement may not always be to our advantage.
3. The Bible is God's revealed Word. This I really disagree with since there is no evidence other than the Bible for this claim. If god was to reveal what it wanted, I'm sure it's be better organized than any religious texts like Pali Canon, Bible, Koran, etc. Besides, are we truely able to understand god anyways with our limited intellect?
4. Despite my convictions, I cannot, nor do I seek to force others to my view. I can only show them the way (evangelism), and let God do his work. As long as your polite and don't slow people down getting to class or work or wake people at 6 am after they went to sleep at 3 am writing a paper, have at it. If they disagree, pray for their well being and go on with your life.

As for being rational, it depends on ration. I can claim to be rational yet my points are all over the place. I seen rational people believe in weird stuff yet people consider them rational (no, UFOs didn't impregnate Mary). If by rational, you think things through (and you shown you do), understand other points of view (which you asked for ours so you do), and evaluate information (point of this thread), so yes, a rational people can be religious (Christian in your case).

Why are Christians asking these questions? Fundies are more vocal and thus get more attention. When they condemn cartoons, they appear irrational. This makes all Christians appear to be irrational as this continues. Best thing to do is to ignore them, work for volunteer programs, and get the word out that Christians aren't all nuts. A local church here is considered weird since they give free oil changes and kid's hair cuts to single moms without them being Christian or even attending that church. They ask if they wanta Bible and if they say no, done deal. Oil gets changed and kid's get hair-cuts anyways. That kind of thing can reverse the current trend of Christians appearing as freaks, idiots, and haters of non-Christian societies.

[eallen]

7. Rational beings don't have articles of faith.

The moment you practice faith, you set reason to the side.

[Enquiringkitty]

8. You are so right!

One must take each day as it is and try to be the person they wish to become. Don't rationalize it, just "be" and let others "be". If we are happy with ourselves, then by our example others will want to be accepting of themselves. I really don't like dogma. It muddies up the whole thing. There have been wars based solely on the differences in dogmas. The reason why there are so many sects within Christianity is because of the little differences in dogma and do those differences really matter to a greater God? Is God a Baptist or a Catholic? Dogma is an attempt to rationalize a belief.

[Selwynn]

10. "Rational beings" accept the fact that every claim is a faith claim.

The moment you fail to appreciate this fact of finite existence is the moment you set reason to the side.

[eallen]

13. I disagree, It is faith only when pretense to knowledge is claimed.

The rational being says: "here are the assumptions behind this line of reasoning," and can treat with other assumptions, and doesn't pretend otherwise. The irrational being says: "here are my articles of faith." The latter involves a pretense to knowledge that the former does not, and reflects a completely different intellectual outlook.

[Selwynn]

14. That doesn't change the fact that it is all beliefs.

Saying "here are the assumptions behind this line of reasoning" does not change the fact that having considered all the factors you are aware of you choose to believe that your conclusions is justified.

This is true of any statement we will ever make.

What you call an "irrational being" is simply an honest one. At least he/she knows that his/her faith claims are rather than stupidly believing he/she doesn't have any. We all have faith in something. The scientist has faith that his/her senses are not being decieved when gathering empirical data. We may not call it faith, but it is a belief. The "knowledge" of science for example, rests on the un-provable (though reasonable) belief that empirical evidence is accurate.

The real question of the rationalist is not "how can I be certain" because absolute certainity is a myth in every case. The real question of the rationalist is "how justified is my faith in this claim? How reasonable is it for me to believe that this is true?"

By the way, I can say that I am persuaded to believe that a god exists, and proceed to tell you "here are all the assumptions beind this line of reasoning," and treat with other assumptions, and not pretent otherwise. Does that mean I have no faith? Of course not.

Religious belief has no necesary connection to irrationality, and lack of religious belief has no necessary connection to rationality or vice versa. And the sooner we get it through our thick heads that this is true the better everyone else will be.

[eallen]

15. Nothing requires you -- or anyone -- to make such a choice.

"Saying 'here are the assumptions behind this line of reasoning' does not change the fact that having considered all the factors you are aware of you choose to believe that your conclusions is justified."

It does, if you are rational. Nothing requires you to commit to those assumptions. The reasoning is what becomes just one more piece of your working store of knowledge. There is no need at all to commit to the conclusion, other than as a consequence, under a certain kind of reasoning, of those set of assumptions.

The scientist doesn't have to believe what you think the scientist must believe. Any time one makes a choice to believe, as a matter of fact, one claim instead of some other claim, one is practicing faith, not reason.

[Selwynn]

16. Every affirmative statement you make is a choice to believe.

That, is the point you are ignoring.

A scientist - or anyone else for that matter - must believe exactly what I think the scientist must believe in order to say anything. While it is possible in some cases to remain "uncommitted" and saying nothing, there is no possible affirmative statement you can choose to make that is not the product of a choice to believe certain assumptions are reasonable and justifiable.

In some cases nothing requires you to commit to assumptions. But there are assumptions we commit to and that doesn't make us "irrational." If you don't believe in God, you could do so by saying "here are the assumptions behind this line of reasoning, and considering all the factors I am aware of I believe my conclusions on this matter or most justified. This conclusion is justified on many unprovable beliefs, such as the believe that the lack of evidence (perhaps in your opinion) for a god as you define it is sufficient justification to doubt god's existence. It's not "certain" that god does not exist - but it is a reasonably justifiable belief. You are certainly not "irrational" for holding such a belief on such grounds.

[eallen]

17. What are the cases that require you to commit to the assumptions?

I disagree with the notion that every affirmative statement requires a choice to believe. For example, in another thread, I explained that hydrogen, as envisioned for powering fuel cells, cars, etc., is a way of transporting energy, but not itself a source of energy. I didn't make a choice to believe that. It follows from everything I have learned about the energy industry. "Ah," I can hear someone asking, "but what about the assumptions behind that?" Well, I don't have to choose to believe those either. They're the convenient ones that are common to that discursive context. Push beyond them, and I may or may not follow you to some other discussion. Do you want to discuss the fallibility of memory? Of the senses? There's a possibility that this entire world -- including its energy issues and what role hydrogen plays in them -- is the fabrication of something like the Matrix, and at some point we will find the red pill that pops us out of it. Does that mean we have to choose to believe otherwise, in order to discuss energy issues? Not at all. We simply bracket off that issue, and take a working set of assumptions -- not necessarily believed! -- as the context for that discussion.

You asserted that "in some cases nothing requires you to commit to assumptions." I would like to know the case where one is required to so commit. I don't know of any. But, then, I don't practice faith.

[Selwynn]

19. You did make a choice to believe.

didn't make a choice to believe that. It follows from everything I have learned about the energy industry.

You make a choice to believe that your conclusion was justifiable, based on everything you know from the industry.


"Ah," I can hear someone asking, "but what about the assumptions behind that?" Well, I don't have to choose to believe those either. They're the convenient ones that are common to that discursive context. Push beyond them, and I may or may not follow you to some other discussion.


I didn't say you had to choose. I said that when you do choose - and everyone does choose at some point in their lives to make an affirmative statement about something - it is based on a belief that your choice is justifiable and reasonable.


Do you want to discuss the fallibility of memory? Of the senses? There's a possibility that this entire world -- including its energy issues and what role hydrogen plays in them -- is the fabrication of something like the Matrix, and at some point we will find the red pill that pops us out of it. Does that mean we have to choose to believe otherwise, in order to discuss energy issues?


Quite the contrary - in fact it is necessary to accept the consequences of the things above in order to make justifiable and reasonable assertions about anything.


Not at all. We simply bracket off that issue, and take a working set of assumptions -- not necessarily believed! -- as the context for that discussion.


You cannot "take a working set of assumptions" unless you believe that they are appropriately reasonable to take. You don't believe the assumptions "are true" - you believe the assumptions are reasonable, in fact most reasonable given all the factors.

This is what is behind any affirmative statement every made, and it is actually mind-boggling to me that you're having such difficulty figuring this out. When I say "the sky looks blue" what I am really saying is that I've taken a working set of assumptions that I believe are reasonably justifiable -- in other words my taking them does not lead to logical contradiction and they are not discredited by counter evidence -- which lead me to conclude that my assertion that the sky looks blue is reasonable. The fact that I cannot prove it true means that by definition it is something that I believe.

The question for rational people is: how justified are all my beliefs? For example, a belief that if I throw something into the air, it is going to drop to the ground is a belief that I feel is extremely justifiable. It is a reasonable belief to have, as opposed to an unreasonable belief.

The problem is not belief itself - everyone holds beliefs, because every single affirmative claim we make or think ("there is a lamp on my desk") is a type of belief, some much more justifiable than others.


You asserted that "in some cases nothing requires you to commit to assumptions." I would like to know the case where one is required to so commit. I don't know of any. But, then, I don't practice faith.


No problem. In order to say "the sky is blue" you've embraced a set of assumptions you believe to be reasonable and appropriate. In order to say, "I am about to walk into a concrete wall" you've embraced a set of assumptions you believe to be reasonable and appropriate. In order to say "I do not believe in the existence of god," you've embraced a set of assumptions you believe to be reasonable and appropriate.

Any time you make any affirmative statement - do you understand what an affirmative statement is? - you've embraced a set of assumptions behind that affirmation that you believe to be reasonable and appropriate. This is in no serious dispute by anyone, in fact it would be considered axiomatic by most. You are apparently "hung up" on the word "belief" which you've apparently exclusively associated with religious faith, which is a mistake and a shame.

Sel

[eallen]

20. "The sky looks blue" is purely a statement about my own experience.

Sometimes it looks blue to me. Sometimes it looks grey. Sometimes it looks other colors. I don't have any choice about believing how it looks. At any time I look skyward, the color(s) that appear are the automatic functioning of my visual system. My trying to make it look blue when it is grey has no effect whatsoever.

Tell me again where choice comes into this?

There are areas where I make choices. I choose how to act. I choose my moral commitments. But I don't choose to make the sky look blue. Nor do I choose to recognize a mathematical proof.

[Selwynn]

21. It is a statement based on assumptions about your own experience.

And yes, you do have a choice in believing whether or not it is appropriate to believe that the sky actually does look blue. You base your statement "the sky looks blue" on your understanding of "blue," "sky," your assumptions about the veracity of experiential and empirical data, your assumptions about the human brain and eye. All of which lead you to the belief that its okay and reasonable for you to state that the sky looks blue.

You have a choice in whether or not your believe your basis for beleiving the sky is blue is justifiable and reasonable. You may not be able to stop seeing "blue" sky even if you came to conclude your basis for believing the sky looked blue was faulty, but that doesn't mean you don't have a choice about whether or not to consider that belief legitimate.

Also whether your like the blue sky "looks" blue example (we could say "the sky is blue" instead and use that as an example) that still leaves plently of other practical examples. Like, in order to say, "I am about to walk into a concrete wall" you've embraced a set of assumptions you believe to be reasonable and appropriate.

There is an optical illusion picture on my collegues wall, even though I know that I'm not justified in believing that little circles are literally magically jumping around on the page, that doesn't mean I stop seeing that when I look at the illusion. I don't have any choice about by brain saying "hey little circles are jumping around on the page!" but I DO HAVE A CHOICE about whether or not I think that belief is reasonable and justifable. And either way - ITS STILL A BELIEF.

You do choose to believe that your perception of a blue sky is a reasonable and justifiable perception. You do choose to believe that your recognition of a mathmatical proof is a reasonable and justifiable recognition - that mathematical formula are in fact sufficient and justifiable criteria by which to call a certain belief about a given equation justified.

There is not a single person living on the earth who escapes belief. The question of rational people is, "are my beliefs justifiable and reaosnable?" or "are the the best or more likely beliefs?"

EDIT - I look back and I notice that my first response to you used the word "faith" instead of "belief" - and no I've been reading AZ's post asking whether there was a difference between faith and belief. Since that first response, I've been using the world belief, and I think I probably should have used that word in the beginning and it might have helped it not feel like I was saying "everyone has religious faith" when I'm not.

[Az]

22. Do you believe that is air you are breathing?

Many forget that the scientific approach is dependent on an initial assumption. Namely that what we are experiencing is reality and not merely some delusion or something. We may be brains in vats for all we know.

From the context of the reality we percieve we may draw reasonable conclusions. However they continue to be dependent on the accuracy of our observations. Further our conclusions are entirely dependent on the depth of our knowledge. We may have what we assume to be enough knowledged to form a rational opinion on a matter but we may be critically unaware of some information.

Our mind forms its own criteria and balances to determine its own beliefs. Most such systems function within a tolerable range of other's positions such that we may communicate and function alongside each other. So even though no two individuals has an entirely identitical set of beliefs and ideas we may percieve each other as reasonable and rational. If not perfectly so.

[Selwynn]

23. Agreed - and a quick addendum

Please don't mistake my point with a rejection of the validity, reasonability or merit of things like science. I strongly believe that a very justifiable and reasonable case can be made for believing in the validity of empirical data. Thank god for science...

...but it is still based on that initial belief, reasonable though it may be. :)

Sel

[eallen]

24. The issue isn't belief, but chosen belief.

"You base your statement 'the sky looks blue' on your understanding of 'blue,' 'sky,' your assumptions about the veracity of experiential and empirical data, your assumptions about the human brain and eye. All of which lead you to the belief that its okay and reasonable for you to state that the sky looks blue.

That's almost all wrong. The meaning I attach to the words 'sky' and 'blue' are the result of my experience with English to date, and regardless, are now part of my own internal mental processes. Assignment of meaning is neither true nor false. I cannot be certain how close my meanings match yours, of course. Despite a lifetime of experience as English speakers, there still will be some uncertainty around the edges. But when I make or speak the statement, it applies the meanings I then practice. Nor does my assertion depend "on the veracity of experiential and empirical data." The statement that "the sky looks blue" is different from the statement that "the sky is blue." The latter bring in a large host of theory that is omitted from the former. Indeed, before I would agree to the latter statement, I would want to narrow down quite a bit how it is to be understood. Similarly, the simpler assertion does not depend on claims about the brain and eye. Conceivably, my understanding of human sight and cognition -- and yours -- is completely wrong. It might turn out that sight is located in skin spots above the nose and between the eyes. And it would still be the case that when I look above me, "the sky looks blue." All I need to assert "the sky looks blue" is what I see and my understanding of what the assertion means. And at the time I see, I don't have a choice regarding either of those. I may choose to look or not, to remark on the sky's blue appearance or not. But looking, I don't have any choice in how it seems to me.

You're right, that everyone has beliefs. (At least, for some understanding of the word "belief.") I'm pressing several points. (a) Not all beliefs are chosen. You likely believe that George Bush is acting as President of the US. (I purposely phrase this to bracket the issue of legitimacy.) I suspect, were it a matter of choice, you would believe something different. I know I would. But I'm compelled to believe that. Modulo my understanding of the context in which it makes sense to talk about anyone acting as POTUS. There are myriad red pill scenarios that put that context to question, and I'm not excluding those. But within that context, much to my regret, I have no choice in believing that. (b) Except in some limited cases, one's choice to believe something or not doesn't determine or even affect the veracity of an assertion. (c) Therefore, choosing to believe that things are one way or another, when such choice does present itself, makes very little sense. You can call it faith. I call it irrationality. If everything I know and experience leaves exclusive alternatives A or B possible, why in the world would I choose to believe one or the other? Isn't it more honest, sane, and rational to recognize that they are both possibilities, rather than pretending to some knowledge one doesn't have?

[Selwynn]

25. It is a choice....... or....? :)

You're right, that everyone has beliefs. (At least, for some understanding of the word "belief.") I'm pressing several points. (a) Not all beliefs are chosen. You likely believe that George Bush is acting as President of the US. (I purposely phrase this to bracket the issue of legitimacy.) I suspect, were it a matter of choice, you would believe something different. I know I would. But I'm compelled to believe that.


You're compelled to believe that because you have concluded that it is the most justifiable, reasonable belief, given what we know. You're compelled to believe that becuase you accept your sense data. There is nothing to suggest that you could not in fact choose what we would (probably rightfully) call "delusion." Many people do.


There are myriad red pill scenarios that put that context to question, and I'm not excluding those. But within that context, much to my regret, I have no choice in believing that.


Yes, I understand what you are saying. For all practical purposes there's no reasonable realistic option other than believing Bush is the President. It is unjustifiable, given the experiences and "information" that we have to try and reason otherwise. Further, our empirical data and observation is such a bedrock functional part of our lives that its hard sometimes to see it as "choice." And on the practical level - I think its prefectly reasonable on pragmatic grounds to simply use the short hand, "bush is the president."

But its still a choice in this one very narrow sense. We have choosen to accept our sense data, and whatever other data my go into this belief. It is not, I don't think, technically the case that we have to do this. Again, I think of "dellusion." However, I'm trying to imagine myself literally trying to reject my sense data...I'm finding that hard to imagine. So it is an interesting, if not highly abstracted discussion, and you may have a point.


(b) Except in some limited cases, one's choice to believe something or not doesn't determine or even affect the veracity of an assertion.


Yeah, I think I agree with that if I'm understanding you right. And I don't think I meant to imply that. I meant something like this:

1. I believe this is true.
2. Why do I believe this is true?
3. Becuase I make these assumptions.
4. Yes, but are those assumptions justifable, but that I mean reasonable to make?
5. Yes they are.
6. So am I reasponably justified in my belief that this is true?
7. Yes I think so.

What I'm not going to say is:

1. I know this is true.

However (and I really hesitate to bring this up) there is this whole other philosophical debate which probably has some merit which suggests that the word "know" should be considered not an "absolute" but rather an "indexical" word. And indexical word would be something like the word "here." I can say "he is here" and mean next to me. I can say "he is here" and mean in the same building I am in. I can say "he is here" and mean that he has arrived in town. The actual meaning of the word is relative to the context in which its used.

So by that line of reasoning. "Know" would never mean "I am absolutely and ultimately certian." It would mean "I am sufficiently justified in BELIEVING I know this, releative to the approrpriate agreed upon criteria for sufficient certainty required for this context."

...and then we just shorten that up to "I know" :)

Anyway, the only Az made much more efficiently is really the only point I ment to emphasis in the beginning. :)

[Az]

9. I don't know that any human is "perfectly rational"

First off you have the problem of how we come to know the universe around us. You think interpretation occurs concerning the bible? We are still trying to fathom the nature of the universe. Its a bit puzzling. I don't know that there is a perfect interpretation of the nature of the universe before us yet.

Then there is the nature of the mind. Rational as you are using the term seems to suggest something devoid of personal feelings and emotions. Sorry to say but even the most dry and skeptical of individuals is still a fountain of emotions and biases that form the very nature of their world view.

Simply put it boils down to this. We only apply reason and other such tools to things we doubt. If you believe a thing as your articles of faith suggest then there is no doubt in your mind (or an insignicant amount of doubt). If such is the case then you will not experience a need to apply the leverage of reason to the positions in your mind.

You can imagine you are applying reason. But in the end if there is no doubt then you have no need for reason.

Now does this mean a believer is a delusional irrational being? Of course not. This is simply how our minds work. Does it mean they are perfect? The only thing perfect any individual is, is a perfect example of themself.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. Belief in the supernatural is not rational

But otherwise rational people can believe in irrational things. I don't think superstitions and supernatural beliefs are in and of themselves a reflection on someone's overall rationality, but the degree to which those beliefs disrupt someone's life is. In otherwords, someone who says a brief prayer over their Happy Meal isn't necessarily irrational overall, but someone who kills doctors to prevent them from performing abortions probabaly is irrational overall.

[aneerkoinos]

18. qualified no

If you give this "real, personal God" of yours the attributes 'omniscient', 'omnipotent' and 'benevolent', you are forced to subscribe to the view "I believe because it is absurd", and so the rationality of your being is less than perfect. :)

[Democrat Dragon]

27. define "rational"

I'm more of an individualist you see, so what may be rational for me isn't rational for you. I don't think in terms of "Oh! That's just crazy" or "That sounds reasonable".