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

[Jaybear]

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

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

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

If you actually understood what really is rational, and how to reason, you would have known this.

Wade,

Your obsession with belittling and insulting the intelligence of those you disagree with you makes conversing with you very unpleasant experience. I am going to take a pass. Enjoy your holidays.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

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.

So?

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).

If by "world" you mean "natural world", then Mr. Larsen's point may be somewhat salient. However, if by "world" you include the presumed "spiritual" aspects thereof, and the presumed mutually impactive relationship between the "spiritual/eternal" and the "natural/temporal" (as I believe), then it is not at all salient, but myopic.

I say "somewhat salient" because even when speaking just in terms of the "natural world", then if there is a mutually impactive relationship between the "spiritual/eternal" and the "natural/temporal" (as I believe there is), then our (or at least my) understanding of the "natural world" may very well be advanced by "supernaturalistic" explanations.

And, if one's ultimate objective includes more than just "understanding", and also entails striving to become our very best selves, in character, and joy, and loving relationships, then regardless of what "world" one may have in mind, Mr. Larsen's point is far from salient, but quite blind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade,

Your obsession with belittling and insulting the intelligence of those you disagree with you makes conversing with you very unpleasant experience. I am going to take a pass. Enjoy your holidays.

You evidently have forgotten that this whole discussion started with your belittling and insulting assertion that religious beliefs are not rational. It continued with your belittling and insulting comparisons of religious beliefs with things like "Santa Claus". And, ended with the belittling and insulting implication that your way of thinking is more advantageous than mine. So, if you find presumed belittling and insults very unpleasant, then the Golden Rule may wisely suggest that you take a pass on engaging in such things to begin with.

Either way, have a very Merry Christmas.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

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).

Doesn't our current western culture of scientific inquiry rely on Christian roots, such as the university system?

[Euthyphro]

Nofear, I liked your post since it furthers the discussion. However I disagree with some of what the writer says:

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.

If I add two and two and get four my feeling about the result may indeed "just [seem] right", however that's because I can test it. An abacus, a mechanical calculator, and a Turing machine will all compute four as well yet these machines lack human intuition and reason.

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.

I have no hard data supporting this, so I must ask reasonable people to judge for themselves, but I can confidently say that as far as I have observed an absence of emotions and feelings is not typically an attribute of people who have a hard time setting goals or making decisions. Quite the opposite actually. There is something obviously wrong with the writer's conclusions, unless Damasio and Sacks are studying people with rare kinds of brain damage; people you're not likely to meet in your life to mark their apathetic ambivalence.

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.

This I agree with, however the writer really goes off the trolley after that:

So to them I say, "Come and see. Trust your emotion because you can't trust your reason unless you do so."

It's one thing to accept how we feel, and quite another to suppose that these feelings imply something truthful about the world and can therefore be trusted. The only trustworthy information we can take from our emotions is the knowledge of how we feel. Such knowledge is useful in helping us to understand who we are, in finding our place, in refining our empathy with others, or to serve as a starting point to learn why we feel the way we do.

Often in debating something, the subtext of the discussion is that the one with superior reasoning skills must surely also have superior understanding of the world as it is. However, if we accept that what motivates our reasoning is emotion, and that emotion can stem from some misapprehension of the world, one's need to avoid suffering, or to pursue happiness, we must reject this idea.

Because I believe this, what is more interesting to me is why and how peoples' feelings about something change.

[John Larsen]

Doesn't our current western culture of scientific inquiry rely on Christian roots, such as the university system?

In what way does scientific inquiry and skepticism rely on Christian roots? Please clarify? While you at it, please explain how the Greeks stumbled upon it 400 years before Christianity got started.

[Jason]

In what way does scientific inquiry and skepticism rely on Christian roots? Please clarify? While you at it, please explain how the Greeks stumbled upon it 400 years before Christianity got started.

I did say current.

Note also that we would not have any account of those ancient Greek scientists without the devout Christians (and Muslims) who worked to preserve their writings.

[wenglund]

It's one thing to accept how we feel, and quite another to suppose that these feelings imply something truthful about the world and can therefore be trusted. The only trustworthy information we can take from our emotions is the knowledge of how we feel. Such knowledge is useful in helping us to understand who we are, in finding our place, in refining our empathy with others, or to serve as a starting point to learn why we feel the way we do.

I agree.

Feelings and emotions are also useful in establishing what is meaningful, important, and of value, and provides a way of prioritizing, and engenders edifying passion and motivation.

As I see it, the body is best served when both the heart and the mind are engaged and working together, and not where either is functioning at the exclusion of the other. Paul got it right in 1 Cor. 12.

Often in debating something, the subtext of the discussion is that the one with superior reasoning skills must surely also have superior understanding of the world as it is. However, if we accept that what motivates our reasoning is emotion, and that emotion can stem from some misapprehension of the world, one's need to avoid suffering, or to pursue happiness, we must reject this idea.

Because I believe this, what is more interesting to me is why and how peoples' feelings about something change.

Wonderfully said.

What interests me, too, is whether the change in feelings is for the better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh well, I guess then that maybe belief in a flat earth is not as irrational as I thought. If you aren't prepared to defend such an "obvious" irrationality, then maybe disbelief in the supernatural is not nearly as "rational" as we are led to believe.

- SlackTime

nice

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

You were using language without any idea of what the language intended to convey? Why?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

What's that Humpty Dumpty quote that Dr. Peterson is so fond of?

[3ToedSloth]

So?

So, what you are trying to do is modus tollens-ing out counter evidence by sneaking in propositions uncontested via claims about nomenclature. You did this below...

If by "world" you mean "natural world", then Mr. Larsen's point may be somewhat salient. However, if by "world" you include the presumed "spiritual" aspects thereof, and the presumed mutually impactive relationship between the "spiritual/eternal" and the "natural/temporal" (as I believe), then it is not at all salient, but myopic.

This dual world between the natural and supernatural you propose is going to have to be expounded upon. I have never seen, felt or smelled the spiritual world and I remain unconvinced by a priori arguments that there is a strong chance that it exists. Before this proposition can be considered, we'd need to see some kind of justification for it. Thats the strength behind John Larsen's comment, there is a lot we agree about in the natural world. We are epistemic peers in the natural world, but in the spiritual one, you have the upperhand becuase John (I presume) and I don't have that experince.

I say "somewhat salient" because even when speaking just in terms of the "natural world", then if there is a mutually impactive relationship between the "spiritual/eternal" and the "natural/temporal" (as I believe there is), then our (or at least my) understanding of the "natural world" may very well be advanced by "supernaturalistic" explanations.

I completetly agree, nothing stated so far would rule out a supernatural explanation, but the weight of induction is against you here.

Doesn't our current western culture of scientific inquiry rely on Christian roots, such as the university system?

Whats your point Jason?

[Jason]

Whats your point Jason?

That human knowledge has indeed been advanced by what some call supernatural beliefs.

[Luigi]

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.

Good points.

[3ToedSloth]

I've been reading this speech given by Blake Ostler

Now I want to pass now and address a different audience, maybe not this audience at all; but this is the most vivid challenge to Mormonism, in my view. It is the "Secular Materialist Challenge" to religious belief. Korihor summed it up well, "it's all the effect of a frenzied mind." Now the argument is simple: relying on spiritual experiences is simply irrational. The reason for that is that only publicly available evidence that is replicable based on the scientific method is trustworthy as a basis for knowledge. I guarantee you that every secular materialist will trump the vast superiority of scientific knowledge over the subjective and "whimsical" knowledge that we claim through spiritual experiences, and you've all heard it and so have I.

This is a mighty poor representation of the various streams of Metaphysical Naturalism that exist today. What he has done is just describe a crude physicalism and it is not at all charitable, but I understand that this was a talk he was giving and he was pressed for time and wanted to quickly describe the most common type of objections that Mormons are likely to encounter.

I want to give a counterexample: I had a thought about buying a hamburger three minutes ago. That's not unusual for me. It would be irrational for me to doubt that I had this thought, and yet this thought is not available as public evidence, it's not replicable, but I would be insane to doubt that I actually had this thought (and it was a rather good thought!).Now, if it is rational to rely on the presentation of our senses, then to that extent, what we experience spiritually is like having an extra sense. In fact, look at the way the scriptures present this experience, it "tastes good," it involves "feelings." Whenever the scriptures talk about this type of experience, as a matter of fact, they talk about an extra sense that's been given to us by God. I'm going to focus on something, as a matter of fact, in Deuteronomy 30. It talks about something that God has planted in our hearts. This is what it says, "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart." If you want to know what circumcision was about, the entire law of circumcision was about having a soft heart--open to God. In fact, if you think about what circumcision is, it's taking the most vulnerable, private part of a body, and cutting it open to be exposed. That's what circumcision is.

And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live... For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Now, when Paul reflects upon this scripture, it becomes the very center of confession of Christ because the word, the commandment, the dvar, that gets placed in the heart, Paul sees as being Christ who gets planted in the heart. Romans 10:5:

For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

You see, what Paul is saying is that the very basis of this religious knowledge is something that is being implanted into us by God. In fact, the scriptural basis of the human heart as a faculty, or sense, is clear. Why is it that for the Hebrews the heart is the place where thinking occurs, it's the place where human decisions are made, and for us it's all up here in the head? It's because they were in touch with something that we've lost in our culture.

This sounds exactly like some sort of sensus divinitatis. If what Mr.Ostler says here is true, than I think a very interesting atheological argument could be made...

1- If God exists, he has endowed humans with the special cognitive ability to detect and communicate with him.

2- If humans have no special cognitive ability to detect and communicate with God, then God's existance becomes improbable unless background evidence for God existance is high.

3- Background evidence for God is not high.

4- Humans have no special cognitive ability to detect and communicate with God.

5- Therefore, God probably does not exist.

As for (1) I think Mr.Ostler would agree. I think (2) will require a bit more rigor to establish so, lets say E = God exists and C = Humans have a special cognitive ability to detect and communicate with God:

p(C/E) is very high, say, .99, then p(-C/E) = .01 that would imply p(-C/-E) is 1. Being the good Bayesian that I am

p(-C/E) X p(E)

p(E/-C) =

p(-C/E) X p(E) + p(-C/-E) X p (-E)

Now if p(-C/E) is .01 and p(-C/-E) is 1, that leaves p(E/-C) to be very low unless p(E), the background evidence for God's existance, to be very high. Being very generous, lets say the background evidence for God's existance to be .8 ( 80%!!!!) we are left with:

.01 X .8

p(E/-C) = .038

(.01 X . + (1 X .2)

(3) would be hard for Mormons to argue, given that the number one method advanced by all Mormons is to take up Moroni's promise of praying and receiving and not philosophical argumentation. That leaves us with (4) and I think that would be most hotly contested. I think I'll stop myself here and see what others think

[3ToedSloth]

That human knowledge has indeed been advanced by what some call supernatural beliefs.

Such as?

[Jason]

Such as?

The aforementioned current culture of scientific inquiry, university system, and preservation of ancient scientific texts.

[3ToedSloth]

The aforementioned current culture of scientific inquiry, university system, and preservation of ancient scientific texts.

I think there is a difference between intent and explanationary power. My point was, there has never been a suprernatural cause for any event confirmed in the physical sciences. One could posit that gnomes make seeds grow or that spirits help turn sunlight into plant food, but those ideas will quickly be replaced by naturalistic answers. This doesn't show that supernatural events can't happen or don't, it's just that if people want to start throwing around induction, they need to understand it stacks the deck against them.

Even still, if we could somehow show that supernaturalism doesn't exist, it would not effect God much at all. This is where Spinoza comes into play...

. . . the universal laws of nature are decrees of God following from the necessity and perfection of the Divine nature. Hence, any event happening in nature which contravened nature's universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or if anyone asserted that God acted in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature -- an evident absurdity.

Further, as nothing happens in nature which does not follow from her laws, and as her laws embrace everything conceived by the Divine intellect, and lastly, as nature preserves a fixed and immutable order; it most clearly follows that miracles are only intelligible as in relation to human opinions, and merely mean events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence, either by us, or at any rate, by the writer and narrator of the miracle.

tr. Elwes, Dover, p. 83 and 84

So on and so forth.

[Jason]

I think there is a difference between intent and explanationary power. My point was, there has never been a suprernatural cause for any event confirmed in the physical sciences. One could posit that gnomes make seeds grow or that spirits help turn sunlight into plant food, but those ideas will quickly be replaced by naturalistic answers.

This would, again, depend on your definition of "supernatural".

[3ToedSloth]

This would, again, depend on your definition of "supernatural".

Does your definition not line up with this?

Pronunciation: \?s

[Luigi]

I think that belief in the supernatural is not empirical (and in fact by definition the supernatural is not empirical as the supernatural is by definition unobservable). However I can see the argument that belief in the supernatural is rational, particularly if one uses the economic definition of rationality. That is no indication it is true, of course, just rational;).

[mfbukowski]

This dual world between the natural and supernatural you propose is going to have to be expounded upon. I have never seen, felt or smelled the spiritual world and I remain unconvinced by a priori arguments that there is a strong chance that it exists. Before this proposition can be considered, we'd need to see some kind of justification for it. Thats the strength behind John Larsen's comment, there is a lot we agree about in the natural world. We are epistemic peers in the natural world, but in the spiritual one, you have the upperhand becuase John (I presume) and I don't have that experince.

No dualism here, we simply have first person statements and descriptive statements which are second or third person.

No one knows that anyone's quale for red is like anyone else's - every experience is ultimately first person until we start speaking about it.

When we talk about spiritual experience, we are talking about a statement which has the same potential truth value as "I love you". It is reflecting an internal state, that's all. It can be true or false etc., it is just about an internal state.

But really all we can know is the pool of "human experience"; some of it is private and some is not, that's all!

Suppose someone could see radio waves. What would the "natural world" look like to him? What kind of arguments would we have with him about what was "real"?

[mfbukowski]

I think that belief in the supernatural is not empirical (and in fact by definition the supernatural is not empirical as the supernatural is by definition unobservable). However I can see the argument that belief in the supernatural is rational, particularly if one uses the economic definition of rationality. That is no indication it is true, of course, just rational;).

But if it has a truth value, then you admit it could be "true", whatever that means, right? As you say at least pragmatically?

The belief that we should follow a commandment of God which says "Thou shalt not kill", I think you would agree, has value to society and holding such a value could be true or false based on how it works in society?

[Jason]

Does your definition not line up with this?

This definition seems to preclude the possibility of science ever proving a supernatural event, as once the cause of the event is visible it is no longer considered supernatural, or to ever have been truly supernatural.

Luigi's definition has the same problem, with the idea that the supernatural is by definition unobservable.

[John Larsen]

I did say current.

Note also that we would not have any account of those ancient Greek scientists without the devout Christians (and Muslims) who worked to preserve their writings.

OK. In what way does current scientific inquiry and skepticism rely on Christian roots?