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

[wenglund]

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...

I am quite certain you are wrong about the modus tollens, but I will let you attempt to demonstrate your criticism by compassionately reconstructing my argument. Good luck with that.

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

What is a priori for you (and perhaps John) is a posteriori for me, and this because of the divergent portions of our epistemologies/paradigms. And, because of the divergence in epistemologies/paradigms, it is unlikely that I can provide the justification in a way suitable to your's and John's epistemologies/paradigms. This does not mean that "supernatural" beliefs aren't rational, as John asserted, it just means that they tend to resist being evinced and persuasive within purely naturalistic epistemologies/paradigms. In other words, as I intimated, to the purely naturalistic thinker, John's point may be salient, but to those with "supernaturalistic" beliefs, his point is myopic and even blind.

In short, this is essentially a paradigm clash. To each their own.

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

Again, the weight of induction is dependant upon the respective epistemologies/paradigms. To believers it is weighted for me, whereas to non-believers it is weighted against me. Obviously.

Now, if you are open to a paradigm shift, we can begin to discuss how that may possibly happen, though preferrably on another thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

In science one of the first things you do is review the literature. Of necessity that includes the writings of ancient Greek, Muslim, and Christians. Plus even some modern day ones.

[wenglund]

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

As intimated to Jaybear, perceptions of what is "insulting" is in the eye of the beholder. The intent wasn't to insult, but to state what I have observed of your epistemology/paradigm--which, unavoidably, is more narrow than mine, and by nature, relatively closed. (see my comments above to 3ToedSloth)

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.

Actually, there is a third option: rejection of some "supernatural" beliefs constitutes relatively less narrow and closed mindedness than rejection of all "supernatural" beliefs.

As for the criteria for rejection, that is a function of the respective epistemologies/paradigms.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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

I have no problem granting the premise.

(3) would be hard for Mormons to argue...

But, Mormon's aren't the one's making the "interesting atheological" argument above. You are. The burden, then, rests with you to substantiate #3. Good luck with that (speaking of hotly contested).

...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 it is the "number one method" used by missionaries, is not to suggest that there isn't other methods (including philosophical) for obtaining "background evidence"--see Alma 30 (particularly verse 44) and Alma 32 .

Besides, Moroni's promise isn't so much a method for obtaining "background evidence", but rather utilization of the "special cognitive ability to detect and communicate" with God.

That leaves us with (4) and I think that would be most hotly contested.

That premise would most certainly be hotly contested by believing LDS, if not also most all religionists. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Hume]

Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles

[jozov]

It is not irrational for me to believe in magical unicorns.

It is irrational for me to claim I "know" magical unicorns exist when I have not seen them.

[thesometimesaint]

jozov:

No that is not irrational. It is only unprovable.

For the sake of argument lets stipulate that there is no God. There is just this life then the abyss.

I live my life how I want. Do some actual good in this world, and don't break the laws of where I live.

What business it of yours what I believe?

[mfbukowski]

It is not irrational for me to believe in magical unicorns.

It is irrational for me to claim I "know" magical unicorns exist when I have not seen them.

What is a unicorn?

Why can you define it if it doesn't exist? Unicorns do exist because we can talk about them. Theoretically a war could be waged over them.

If it's an idea, it exists.

Unless of course you want to say ideas don't exist. What a strange world that would be!

[wenglund]

Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles

Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I knew you, of all people would appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Droopy]

I take it then that you believe that JS's claim that an angel took the golden plates to heaven, is a perfectly rational explanation as to why the plates are not available for inspection.

If angels exist, then angels can take things, as you have already admitted.

How about this one. Two prisoners are locked in a cell. When the guard approaches the cell in the morning, he finds one of the prisoner strangled to death with his own shoelace. The other prison says it wasn't me, a demon appeared out of the ether, strangled his cell mate, and then disappeared.

Do you consider the cell mate's explanation a perfectly "rational" explanation of what happened?

No, but then the prisoner in question is not making ontological and epistemological claims about the ultimate nature of the universe or the meaning of existence. Indeed, it is likely that all that is going on there is an attempted insanity defense.

Poor analogy, at the very best.

[Droopy]

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.

What is the conceptual relation between the concept of "God" as normally understood (in very broad outline), and the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, witches, space aliens, Mothman, or other similar entities?

The relevance is obvious. Demons do not exist in the natural world.

1. How do you know this?

2. Define "natural world".

One of the advantages of being an athiest, is that I can reject all supernatural explanations as implausible.

I would say that this is not an advantage of being an atheist, but simply its logical consequence. What, after all, else could follow from the fundamental premise?

You have to bob and weave between your supernatural believes, and others.

This statement is clearly representative of yet another one of those advantages.

[Droopy]

I subscribe to a philosophy of rationalism that demands that all beliefs be supported by logic and/or material evidence.

Can the proposition "All beliefs whatever must be supported by logic and material evidence" be supported by logic and material evidence?

What is the evidence that requires "all" beliefs to be so supported to be considered legitimate?

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

Faith is not belief. Faith, cogently understood, is both an intellectual and experiential reliance on and trust in something that actually produces effects through action.

A farmer's faith that planted seeds will sprout, grow, and mature is both logical and material as to its evidential relation to his planting.

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

I think you've just demonstrated that, for semantic purposes, your understanding of the term "faith" is fairly limited.

Wade obviously subscribes to a much broader definition of the term

"rational."

And well he should, as the full dimensions of its semantic possibilities may not be apparant to you precisely because of the "rationalist" philosophy to which you subscribed which attempts to pin "rationality" to the rationalist donkey's tail.

[Droopy]

Deleted double post.

[Droopy]

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.

Did you not see the plethora of a priori assumptions this statement contains before you posted?

Upon what basis do you claim to know where any particular religious metaphysical belief originates?

[selek]

The entire conversation is a waste of time.

The premise that faith or belief in the supernatural is, by definition, irrational- exists only to stack the metaphorical deck and engage in a bit of well-poisoning. It is not- and cannot be- otherwise.

The give away is that the term "supernatural" is never adequately defined, and indeed is only referenced in extremes and hyperbolic examples. The premise posits- and indeed, several of its more extreme adherents insist on an all-or-nothing dichotomy. Such arguments are the hallmark of fools and demagogues- and not people interested in exchanging views or understanding.

These adherents are more interested in forcing their views and definitions upon other in order to win a specific argument.

It is not discourse in good faith.

In point of fact, the premise is simply the old "If you don't agree with me, then you're stupid" argument in a new dress, a lot of rouge, too much lipstick and too much mascara.

The idea may look attractive enough at range, but even a cursory glance from less than fifty feet reveals the sags, the crow's feet, and blisters.

The premise is intellectually dishonest on its face, and is a bit of bigotry and pseudo-intellectual snobbery masquerading as reason.

[mfbukowski]

I knew you, of all people would appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Best laugh I think I have had in a while!

[wenglund]

The entire conversation is a waste of time.

The premise that faith or belief in the supernatural is, by definition, irrational- exists only to stack the metaphorical deck and engage in a bit of well-poisoning. It is not- and cannot be- otherwise.

The give away is that the term "supernatural" is never adequately defined, and indeed is only referenced in extremes and hyperbolic examples. The premise posits- and indeed, several of its more extreme adherents insist on an all-or-nothing dichotomy. Such arguments are the hallmark of fools and demagogues- and not people interested in exchanging views or understanding.

These adherents are more interested in forcing their views and definitions upon other in order to win a specific argument.

It is not discourse in good faith.

In point of fact, the premise is simply the old "If you don't agree with me, then you're stupid" argument in a new dress, a lot of rouge, too much lipstick and too much mascara.

The idea may look attractive enough at range, but even a cursory glance from less than fifty feet reveals the sags, the crow's feet, and blisters.

The premise is intellectually dishonest on its face, and is a bit of bigotry and pseudo-intellectual snobbery masquerading as reason.

While I pretty much agree with your over-all assessment (although the charitable spirit of the season inclines me to think them not so much intellectually dishonest and bigotted as perhaps solipsistic or myopic in their world view), I do believe there is some value in such discussions, if nothiing more than it chances exposing these good souls to a differning, and perhaps preferrable point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

These adherents are more interested in forcing their views and definitions upon other in order to win a specific argument.

It is not discourse in good faith.

Not true.

First, I didn't say irrational. I said not rational. The former term is pejorative. That was not my intent.

In any event, perhaps the end result of the discussion is to learn that the definition of "rationality" can be narrowly or broadly construed. Based on Droopy's post, so can the definition of "faith."

I was certainly was not attempting to force my view or definitions on anyone. That is patently absurd allegation. I acknowledged early on that many people would disagree(typically, those who believe in God). Such is life

If anything, your typical attempts to impugn the motives, and character of those who disagree with you, as well as Wade typical resort to personal insult, are classic examples of bad faith discourse.

The premise is intellectually dishonest on its face, and is a bit of bigotry and pseudo-intellectual snobbery masquerading as reason.

The premise of the statement I made is that the prefix "super" in the word supernatural, by definition means that something that falls outside of the visible, observable world, and cannot be explained naturally. Ergo any explanation of the supernatural, is not by definition rational.

For example, I presume you believe that JS could locate treasure buried beneath the earth, by looking at a rock in his hat? If so, can you explain how he did that in rational terms.

In point of fact, the premise is simply the old "If you don't agree with me, then you're stupid" argument in a new dress, a lot of rouge, too much lipstick and too much mascara.

The premise implies that one can believe in something for a myriad of reasons including faith, culture, superstition, desire, etc. The only person accusing someone else of being stupid is Wade. I openly acknowlede that smart people can believe in God.

The relationship between faith and rationality has long been a subject of discourse. You and Wade really shouldn't take it so personal.

[mfbukowski]

While I pretty much agree with your over-all assessment (although the charitable spirit of the season inclines me to think them not so much intellectually dishonest and bigotted as perhaps solipsistic or myopic in their world view), I do believe there is some value in such discussions, if nothiing more than it chances exposing these good souls to a differning, and perhaps preferrable point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree with both Selek and you on this one.

Honestly, I think I should just respond to most of these threads telling people to read Wittgenstein. If everyone would read him, these boards would probably collapse since 90% of the "problems" are really just linguistic confusion.

[mfbukowski]

The premise of the statement I made is that the prefix "super" in the word supernatural, by definition means that something that falls outside of the visible, observable world, and cannot be explained naturally. Ergo any explanation of the supernatural, is not by definition rational.

Can't you see how silly this is?

You are talking to yourself. Anytime you say the words "by definition" you have lost the argument.

What you are saying is that you yourself have defined the words so that you cannot be wrong.

Go away. Shooo...

[Jaybear]

Can't you see how silly this is?

You are talking to yourself. Anytime you say the words "by definition" you have lost the argument.

What you are saying is that you yourself have defined the words so that you cannot be wrong.

Lost what argument?

I made a statement. I was asked to defend my statement. I did so by ascribing my understanding to the words I chose to use in my statement.

If you will note, on post 31, I acknowledged and accepted that Wade subscribes to a broader definition of the term "rational" than I, which I presume explains why he disagrees with me. Above, I acknowledged and accepted that Droopy adheres to a different definition of the term "faith" than the one I prefer.

So if you are going to insult me, please elaborate. What exactly is this "argument" that you refer? While you are at it, I am curious why is it that you get to declare who wins or loses the argument?

Go away. Shooo...

???? Why even go there?

[mfbukowski]

If you will note, on post 31, I acknowledged and accepted that Wade subscribes to a broader definition of the term "rational" than I, which I presume explains why he disagrees with me. Above, I acknowledged and accepted that Droopy adheres to a different definition of the term "faith" than the one I prefer.

Good.

So we all agree it all depends on how we define the terms.

Now let's have lunch and go Christmas shopping. Is that better?

[wenglund]

I agree with both Selek and you on this one.

Honestly, I think I should just respond to most of these threads telling people to read Wittgenstein. If everyone would read him, these boards would probably collapse since 90% of the "problems" are really just linguistic confusion.

Not a bad idea.

Unfortunately, though, with good folks like Jaybear, who take themselves and me way way too seriously, there is a high risk that telling them to read Wittgennstein will somehow be interpreted as insulting (i.e. calling them "stupid"), and ironically thought to be somehow motived by you taking things too personally.

[Edit: Too late. I just now saw your exchange with Jaybear, and he has already accused you of insulting him.]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-