Is belief in the supernatural, by definition, not rational?

[John Larsen]

I think this question is best answered by reversing it. What supernatural belief is rational? I can't think of any.

[Jaybear]

That is correct.

If that is true, then it would still be rational were I to substitute angel with:

Tooth Fairy, Santa, a leprechaun, space alien, time traveler, or a witch.

Your definition of the phrase ... rational explanation ... would render the word rational entirely superfluous.

Not that the analogy is substantively relevant, I think it a rationally valid explanation, though not one I would be inclinded to believe.

The relevance is obvious. Demons do not exist in the natural world. I take in discussing supernatural explanations, you prefer to stay with examples of supernatural explanations you personally find plausible.

One of the advantages of being an athiest, is that I can reject all supernatural explanations as implausible. You have to bob and weave between your supernatural believes, and others.

Do you understand the difference between rational and believable?

So soon with the condescension, Wade?

But, I am not the one making the assertion that belief in the supernatural is, by definition, not rational. You are. It then falls to YOU to evinced the supposed general "definition" which allegedly negates the rationality of supernatural beliefs, and make YOUR case. Good luck with that.

What more needs to be said.

A rational person can believe in angels, but that belief is derived by faith, tradition, culture and perhaps superstition, but most certainly not through reason.

You are welcome to disagree. I would expect nothing less from you.

[Daniel Peterson]

I noticed that little throw-away line from Jaybear, and intended to comment on it.

There are lots and lots of significant thinkers -- ancient, medieval, and modern; pagan, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and otherwise -- who would disagree with Jaybear on this point.

Just for the record.

[William Schryver]

I think this question is best answered by reversing it. What supernatural belief is rational? I can't think of any.

What is a "supernatural belief"? I have never heard of such a thing, nor can I conceive of how a belief might qualify as "supernatural." Could you give us an example of a supernatural belief in order that we might better respond to your query?

And while you're at it, perhaps you could provide us with a definition of the term "supernatural" as you understand it. I've found that an accepted definition of terms is essential to a discussion such as this, so I hope you can oblige me in this respect.

[John Larsen]

What is a "supernatural belief"? I have never heard of such a thing, nor can I conceive of how a belief might qualify as "supernatural." Could you give us an example of a supernatural belief in order that we might better respond to your query?

And while you're at it, perhaps you could provide us with a definition of the term "supernatural" as you understand it. I've found that an accepted definition of terms is essential to a discussion such as this, so I hope you can oblige me in this respect.

I was just using the language from the OP. Maybe you can ask him.

[Jaybear]

I noticed that little throw-away line from Jaybear, and intended to comment on it.

There are lots and lots of significant thinkers -- ancient, medieval, and modern; pagan, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and otherwise -- who would disagree with Jaybear on this point.

Just for the record.

Once again, Dr. Peterson, we find ourselves in complete agreement. In fact, perhaps the best known thinker who disagrees with Jaybear on this point would be Sir Thomas Aquinas, as articulated in Summa Theologica.

Nonetheless, despite these brilliant people who disagree with me, I subscribe to a philosophy of rationalism that demands that all beliefs be supported by logic and/or material evidence. By contrast, I define faith as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Thus, for semantic purposes a belief that faith based is not by this narrow definition, rational.

Wade obviously subscribes to a much broader definition of the term "rational."

[jadams_4242]

On another thread one of our favorite critics exclaimed:

Before challenging the assertion that belief in the supernatural is not by definition rational, I think it only fair to allow Jaybear the chance to make his argument, if he is able.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is only one whom can and in time will makes perfect sense to all these discussions and ideas, he allready has to myself and millions of others, and eventually he will manifest it unto all; the sad thing is, many will still refuse. {dead brain cells i beleive}.

[Jerubaal]

My interest was to see whether there were preconceptions involved in our "obvious" example that made belief in a round earth the "simplest" answer, but not necessarily the "only" answer. One assumption in all light-based measurements and visual perceptions of the "roundness" of the earth is the assumption of light traveling in a straight line. But of course, it doesn't always, and if that assumption is wrong, then what happens to the "obvious".

In any case, we make assumptions about a lot of things, and it is only natural that we do so, but I think we need to recognize our own predilections to interpret in a particular way and color what is "obvious" to us.

- SlackTime

A recent article in the FARMS Review (20:2) makes an interesting point very similar to your own:

One more element of the role of authority in scientific practice is worth mentioning. It is best illustrated by Thomas Kuhn, the immensely influential historian of science. In his course at MIT on the nature of scientific knowledge, Kuhn routinely posed the following question to students early in the term: "What reasons do you have for believing in the Copernican view of the solar system rather than the Ptolemaic? All of you accept the Copernican system, of course. The question is, Why?"

The question, of course, seems too easy because everyone knows that the Copernican view of planetary motion

[William Schryver]

I was just using the language from the OP.

I don't think so.

Wade referred to "belief in the supernatural." You, on the other hand, made mention of "supernatural belief." The one is clearly distinct from the other, hence my request for a definition of terms. I, for example, hold beliefs in what might well be termed "the supernatural," but I am not conscious of ever having held a "supernatural belief."

[Jerubaal]

By contrast, I define faith as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Well, all I can say is that's a nice way of forcing faith faith into a corner where you can beat the daylights out of it.

What about faith that is logically sound, and that has evidence, but is not based on either of those?

Thus, for semantic purposes a belief that [is?] faith based is not by this narrow definition, rational.

See above.

[Daniel Peterson]

Once again, Dr. Peterson, we find ourselves in complete agreement. In fact, perhaps the best known thinker who disagrees with Jaybear on this point would be Sir [sic] Thomas Aquinas, as articulated in Summa Theologica.

Nonetheless, despite these brilliant people who disagree with me, I subscribe to a philosophy of rationalism that demands that all beliefs be supported by logic and/or material evidence. By contrast, I define faith as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

You don't understand St. Thomas -- to say nothing of the many others who would disagree with you -- if you imagine that he would accept your suggestion that belief in theism/Christianity is unsupported by logic and/or material evidence.

[mfbukowski]

In my view, belief in the supernatural can be rational -- meaning that a reasonable person can hold supernatural beliefs. However, I would never go far as to say that proof of God exists etc... And, when I pronounce my theism I do so with the full understanding that my beliefs are non-demonstrable.

To me, it seems far more likely that this universe of ours began with a driving force. Yet, I can understand the views of atheists who chalk it all up to chance. The chance argument, to me at least, is not very persuasive -- but I can see the rationale behind it.

I know you have a view of subjective experience- I forget the terminology you use-- but how does subjective experience fit into this in your view?

[mfbukowski]

I think this question is best answered by reversing it. What supernatural belief is rational? I can't think of any.

The entire question depends on definitions which have not been made.

The words at this point can mean anything you want them to.

[mfbukowski]

Once again, Dr. Peterson, we find ourselves in complete agreement. In fact, perhaps the best known thinker who disagrees with Jaybear on this point would be Sir Thomas Aquinas, as articulated in Summa Theologica.

Nonetheless, despite these brilliant people who disagree with me, I subscribe to a philosophy of rationalism that demands that all beliefs be supported by logic and/or material evidence. By contrast, I define faith as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Thus, for semantic purposes a belief that faith based is not by this narrow definition, rational.

Wade obviously subscribes to a much broader definition of the term "rational."

How do you know if you are in love? Or who you should marry?

[John Larsen]

I don't think so.

Wade referred to "belief in the supernatural." You, on the other hand, made mention of "supernatural belief." The one is clearly distinct from the other, hence my request for a definition of terms. I, for example, hold beliefs in what might well be termed "the supernatural," but I am not conscious of ever having held a "supernatural belief."

Oh brother. You are reaching.

I ascribe to the common definition of the word.

[Nofear]

Now, I admit that I'm not in general a fan of some of Ostler's theological interpretations. But, I did enjoy his article Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment. There is a great deal there that is relevant and generally destroys all this spiritual belief is inherently non-rational silliness.

While far from the most relevant portion of his article to this thread, as I strict materialist/naturalist myself I found this comment interesting. I encourage the interlocutors here to read the article.

Now I'm going to make a suggestion. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, even our most rigorous reasoning rests, at bottom, upon human intuition. For reasoning, including formal logic and mathematics, cannot proceed without at least some basic axioms and assumptions: derivation procedures, formation transference rules, and rules of inference that cannot be proven by the same rigorous reasoning. These facets of reasoning can be justified only as basic givens which have the property of just seeming right or that lead to explanation and consistency of a range of experience and data.

A number of neurophysiologists such as Antonio Damasio and Oliver Sacks, based upon both laboratory and clinical studies, argue that persons lacking properly functioning emotions are incapable of the ability to fully cognize and are incapable of making rational decisions in cases involving their own welfare. Such decision making, in this view, is the result of a number of complex interactions among a number of neural subsystems and rational behavior, especially in practical decision making, is dependent on neural subsystems associated with emotional processing. Among the components involved with emotion are the amygdala and parts of the limbic system. What emerges in these studies is that certain sorts of rationality cannot function in the absence of emotions and feelings at a very basic level, even a subconscious level. Without a properly functioning emotional capacity, the "decision-making-landscape" is flat and there is always less than sufficient reason to prefer one set of goals or decision over any another. Now, various structures in the brain, such as tonically active neuron sites in the caudate, directly integrate reasoning inputs from the prefrontal cortex (where we do all of our reasoning) with an emotional input from the amygdala.

So what I suggest to the naturalist is that the view that began with Plato's Republic chapter X, that emotions and feelings are at war with reason, just isn't true. Reason presupposes and requires emotion, feeling, and affect. In fact, anybody who studies the brain will see that we can't reason at all without it. Studies show that decisions of any kind cannot be made without the evaluative abilities of emotions as a necessary condition to decide what matters to us. So to them I say, "Come and see. Trust your emotion because you can't trust your reason unless you do so."

[wenglund]

I think this question is best answered by reversing it. What supernatural belief is rational? I can't think of any.

Of course you can't. Seeing the obvious rationale of supernatural beliefs requires looking beyond the narrow confines of your closed mind.

But, nice try in attempting to shift the burden.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

You don't understand St. Thomas -- to say nothing of the many others who would disagree with you -- if you imagine that he would accept your suggestion that belief in theism/Christianity is unsupported by logic and/or material evidence.

Strange. I never said, implied or suggested that he would agree with me. In fact, just the opposite. I expressly said he and others would disagree with me.

I think you must be confusing me for someone who believes that presenting names of smart people who share your opinion means that your opinion is correct. Sorry, but I don't see that as a constructive argument.

[Jason]

Jason:

The ancient Greeks proved it and they we're not astronauts. They used simple geometry, and that is available to everyone.

Have you worked out your own geometric proof that the world is round?

If not, then my original assumption that you are merely trusting the word of others seems correct. You do not in fact know the world is round except from "second-hand" sources.

[wenglund]

If that is true, then it would still be rational were I to substitute angel with:

Tooth Fairy, Santa, a leprechaun, space alien, time traveler, or a witch.

And, it would still be rational were I to substitute angel with: Porter Rockwell, Sydney Rigdon, Davey Crocket, Jay Cooke, Cornelius Vanderbuilt, William Clark, Governor Boggs.

Your definition of the phrase ... rational explanation ... would render the word rational entirely superfluous.

This answers my question whether you grasp the important distinction between rational and believable. Clearly, you don't.

The relevance is obvious. Demons do not exist in the natural world. I take in discussing supernatural explanations, you prefer to stay with examples of supernatural explanations you personally find plausible.

Again, you evince that you don't really understand the distinction between rational and believable.

One of the advantages of being an athiest, is that I can reject all supernatural explanations as implausible. You have to bob and weave between your supernatural believes, and others.

One of your disadvantages is that you don't understand the difference between what is rational (logical) and believable.

And, I don't view as advantageous the categorical rejection of elevating beliefs in the supernatural.

A rational person can believe in angels, but that belief is derived by faith, tradition, culture and perhaps superstition, but most certainly not through reason.

You are welcome to disagree. I would expect nothing less from you.

Unfortunately for you, re-stating your assertion more emphatically does not a case make. If you actually understood what really is rational, and how to reason, you would have known this.

Can I take this as a tacit admission that you can't substantiate you baseless assertion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Larsen]

Of course you can't. Seeing the obvious rationale of supernatural beliefs requires looking beyond the narrow confines of your closed mind.

But, nice try in attempting to shift the burden.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I still hope that one day you will break out of your need to throw out petty insults.

There are two possibilities:

1. You believe the rejection of all supernatural beliefs is a result of narrow confines of a closed mind. In this case, you must not reject any and esteem all supernatural beliefs, like the belief in the Kraken, fairies, astral projection, spoon bending, the god Kali, and zombies are all of equal value and the rejection of any is a sure sign of intellectual prejudice.

2. Or more likely, you believe that only the rejection of some supernatural beliefs constitutes narrow confined closed mindedness while the rejection of other supernatural beliefs is open minded and not subject to narrow confines. If this is the case, you must establish your criteria for rejection one set and not the other.

[mfbukowski]

Now, I admit that I'm not in general a fan of some of Ostler's theological interpretations. But, I did enjoy his article Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment. There is a great deal there that is relevant and generally destroys all this spiritual belief is inherently non-rational silliness.

While far from the most relevant portion of his article to this thread, as I strict materialist/naturalist myself I found this comment interesting. I encourage the interlocutors here to read the article.

Yep.

It's all just modern philosophy, and these ideas have been around at least 100 years.

Read Willam James and John Dewey, and Wittgenstein. Same stuff applied to Mormon theology.

Good stuff

Edit: Ostler is a brilliant brilliant teacher. I wish I had his ability to take complex philosophical problems and explain them for laymen as brilliantly as he does.

We can all learn from him!

Thanks for the link! And I agree that the rest of the thread needs to rest on a discussion of this article. He answers the entire topic.

[3ToedSloth]

Hi Wade,

Of course you can't. Seeing the obvious rationale of supernatural beliefs requires looking beyond the narrow confines of your closed mind.

But, nice try in attempting to shift the burden.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I actually have to agree with John Larsen. I may be mistaken, but your "cumulative case" case approach is more along the lines of to construe an abductive inference to the best explanation, but even to take your posts at face value and construe all the evidence as inductive, you still have to throw all evidence into the pot and come out with a posterior probability.

Mr. Larsen's salient point is, has a supernatural explanation of an event ever advanced human understanding of the world? If not, that is going to count against a supernatural explanation (but not defeat it).

P.S- Yes, a supernatural belief can be rational.

[wenglund]

Once again, Dr. Peterson, we find ourselves in complete agreement. In fact, perhaps the best known thinker who disagrees with Jaybear on this point would be Sir Thomas Aquinas, as articulated in Summa Theologica.

Nonetheless, despite these brilliant people who disagree with me, I subscribe to a philosophy of rationalism that demands that all beliefs be supported by logic and/or material evidence. By contrast, I define faith as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Thus, for semantic purposes a belief that faith based is not by this narrow definition, rational.

Wade obviously subscribes to a much broader definition of the term "rational."

This strikes at the heart of the matter--i.e. semantics. Like with the counterproduct debate with certain Evangelicals about who may or may not be "Christian", your use of the narrow and "rationalism"-specific definition of "rational", while perfectly acceptable among believers in "rationalism", is highly problematic in discussions with people of divergent philosophies and paradigms, as is the case here. Your definition of "rational" has no real bearing outside your paradigm.

If the intent, here, is to expand our understanding, and have meaningful, effective, and paradigm-crossing discussions, it requires avoiding semantic pitfalls like this by using the common venacular--i.e broader, more generally accepted definitions of terms.

But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[3ToedSloth]

When people start talking about "rationalism" I always leap to the conclusion they are talking about epistmology. So when Jaybear says something along the lines of this...

Nonetheless, despite these brilliant people who disagree with me, I subscribe to a philosophy of rationalism that demands that all beliefs be supported by logic and/or material evidence.

My eyes tend to glaze over.