Is rational theistic belief possible?

[LetThereBe]

I expect that we are in general agreement that the belief of most theists is placed irrationally.

I wish to investigate if rational belief of the supernatural is even theoretically possible.

Some of the more common arguments religious put forward include personal experience, and insufficiencies of science to explain natural phenomena, and I will deal primarily with these two examples.

For most I have encountered “personal experience” with God means nothing more than a feeling of affinity for some unseen being during worship. We can agree that human emotions are far too easily swayed for this to be valid evidence for the supernatural.
However, what of those whose experience has been greater? If one had been a first hand witness of a resurrection, or a man walking on water?
What if one had visions and dreams which predicted future events?

It is possible our hypothetical witness was hallucinating when he or she saw the “miracle”, but is it always rational to reject our perception just because the conclusion drawn from it seems unlikely? At what point can we say trusting our intuition is more logical than trusting our senses?

Also, since direct observation of the supernatural is impossible, all such points will be arguments from ignorance… but can an argument from ignorance ever be valid?
It is entirely possible that a dream predicting future events would occur, but it seems grossly unlikely. Is it valid to attribute such a happenstance to a god when discovering a natural cause does not look probable?

It is similar when science cannot offer explanations. Currently we do not sufficiently understand abiogenesis, how certain organisms could evolve, or ultimate causality. However, most would agree that is not valid reason to assume an explanation is of supernatural origin. My question is it ever right to assume so?


To answer the question if a rational belief in God is even theoretically possible, I shall offer three examples. (Note, I am not interested in if these events either did happen or ever will happen: only the rationality of belief IF they did or do happen)

Example 1:

You are Paul from the Bible. You are on the road to Damascus when a bright light and the voice of Jesus confront you. The voice calls you by name, and gives you directions. You are then blinded. Those with you saw the bright light, but heard no voice.
A man comes to the house where you are staying and prays in the name of Jesus. At his words your blindness is cured.
You begin to preach in the name of Jesus, and when you command the sick to be healed they instantly get well, the injured instantly are healed, and the blind instantly see. On at least one instance a dead man raises upon your command.
Technically, every one of these events could occur by random coincidence. There also could possibly be a naturalistic explanation you do not understand.
As Paul, is your belief in God rational?

Example 2:

A world leader rises to power and begins forcing everyone to get a big “666” tattooed on their forehead or hand. There is a great earthquake, the moon turns blood red, a third of the stars in the sky vanish, a third of the boats in the sea sink, etc.
A woman is even seen on the moon in labor, as a dragon chills near by.
In other words, the events predicted by Revelation come true in the most absurdly literal way imaginable.
It is technically possible that every one of these events could occur by random coincidence. There could also exist a series of perfectly sensible national explanations that we just have no clue about.
Would it be valid to believe in the supernatural if these events took place?

Example 3:

You sarcastically challenge God, saying that if He exists, He would cause the lights to shut off... and they instantly do. You challenge again, saying that if God exists you will get a phone call from a particular friend you have not spoken with in years... and you receive the call. You make a third challenge, saying that if God exists it will snow, despite the fact that it is summer... and it does.


If you find that belief would be rational in any of the examples, at which point would you draw the line between superstitious faith and sound reason?

[Kamehameha34]

Are you talking about traditional gods as professed in literature, or god in the literal sense, meaning "creator of the universe"?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Are you talking about traditional gods as professed in literature, or god in the literal sense, meaning "creator of the universe"?

I will say any potent supernatural entity would work for the purpose of this discussion.
By supernatural I mean by its very nature beyond human observation.

[sdbest]

All arguments--even the most sophisticated--in favour of the existence of a god or gods inevitably devolve to the notion of faith. Faith, by definition, is not rational. If rational thinking could prove the existence of gods, faith would not be necessary nor need to be championed by religions.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe I will say any potent supernatural entity would work for the purpose of this discussion. By supernatural I mean by its very nature beyond human observation.

How are you defining "potent"?

Usage of that word is subjective.


Also, does a being that could have and did create the universe have to be beyond human observation? That's asking posters to accept strong agnosticism.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: sdbest All arguments--even the most sophisticated--in favour of the existence of a god or gods inevitably devolve to the notion of faith. Faith, by definition, is not rational. If rational thinking could prove the existence of gods, faith would not be necessary nor need to be championed by religions. Regards S.

Indeed. So you would say belief in the supernatural in all three of those examples would be irrational?
Regardless, would you find such events convincing?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How are you defining "potent"? Usage of that word is subjective. Also, does a being that could have and did create the universe have to be beyond human observation? That's asking posters to accept strong agnosticism.

I will define potent as able to exercise any amount of influence in the observable world. We do not need to call it omnipotent, to avoid any logical impossibilities (making a rock so big it can't lift it).

Again, I am saying in all of these instances the ultimate cause is of supernatural origin. Therefore the ultimate cause can never be observed, seen, or measured for scientific purposes.

[Jack]

So you would say belief in the supernatural in all three of those examples would be irrational? Regardless, would you find such events convincing?

I agree with sdbest's statement, and my answer to your second question would have to be "no". The situations you mention could all have a perfect natural, rational explanation. While someone might be tempted to credit gods immediately, further investigation would show that no gods were required for those situations to occur.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: LetThereBe I will define potent as able to exercise any amount of influence in the observable world. We do not need to call it omnipotent, to avoid any logical impossibilities (making a rock so big it can't lift it).

I can practice any amount of influence in the observable world. By your definition, I'm a god.

Again, I am saying in all of these instances the ultimate cause is of supernatural origin. Therefore the ultimate cause can never be observed, seen, or measured for scientific purposes.

Why?

[sdbest]

Quote by: LetThereBe Indeed. So you would say belief in the supernatural in all three of those examples would be irrational? Regardless, would you find such events convincing?

Personally, I would not find the events convincing because the patterns would have to be reproducible every time. For example, if I screamed out "Thor, give me a parking space!" and a car pulled out of a lot and a parking space appeared, does that prove the existence of Thor? I think not.

The fallacy in LetThereBe's questions is that they hypothetically and arbitrarily restrict the debate in order to force a desired answer. For example, answer "yes" or "no." Have you stopped beating your mother?

Regards
S.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I can practice any amount of influence in the observable world. By your definition, I'm a god.

No, by my definition you are potent. I defined this "god" as being both potent and supernatural. You are quite natural.

Why?

Because that is how the vast majority of theistic belief operates. They assign ultimate causality of some event or series of events to something that is by its very nature beyond observation.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: sdbest Personally, I would not find the events convincing because the patterns would have to be reproducible every time. For example, if I screamed out "Thor, give me a parking space!" and a car pulled out of a lot and a parking space appeared, does that prove the existence of Thor? I think not.

How many times would it take before you were convinced of Thor's existence?

The fallacy in LetThereBe's questions is that they hypothetically and arbitrarily restrict the debate in order to force a desired answer. For example, answer "yes" or "no."

I have no desired answer. Personally I agree that it is impossible to rationally beleive in anything which is by nature beyond evidence.
However... in all honesty I will admit that I would probably attach supernatural cause in all three examples presented, despite the irrationality.
I wish to see if any can contest that view, and provide rational justification for theistic belief... even given these extreme "best case" scenarios.

Have you stopped beating your mother?

I'm trying to cut back...

[sdbest]

Quote by: LetThereBe How many times would it take before you were convinced of Thor's existence?

If it happened every time, I'd move to Norway and dine on pickled herring. If I could rely on prayer to produce the things I needed or wanted at a level that was greater than chance, I'd say there was some reproducible evidence supporting the notion of gods and the supernatural.

In the mean time, if I'm in need of help there will be more forthcoming from wife or friends than Thor or any other god. And conversely, I am a more reliable supporter of my family and friends than Zeus or God.

I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to maliciously force an answer. I apologize if I left that impression. My quibble was that by establishing a set of rigid and arbitrary parameters, an answer was inevitably forced, which in my view is a less than satisfactory form of inquiry. By way of example, if I were to stipulate that the number 4 did not exist, then wouldn't it be true that 2x2=5?

No doubt your mother appreciates your restraint.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

No, by my definition you are potent. I defined this "god" as being both potent and supernatural. You are quite natural.

So any unobservable being that has influence is a god?

I feel that's too broad of a definition.

Because that is how the vast majority of theistic belief operates. They assign ultimate causality of some event or series of events to something that is by its very nature beyond observation.

No - why is it beyond observation?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: sdbest If it happened every time, I'd move to Norway and dine on pickled herring. If I could rely on prayer to produce the things I needed or wanted at a level that was greater than chance, I'd say there was some reproducible evidence supporting the notion of gods and the supernatural.

Ah, but here is where we disagree.

Any "evidence" of the supernatural will always be from ignorance.

The scenarios presented were obscenely unlikely (though technically possible) and/or beyond all current powers of explanation.
Likelihood or lack of current knowledge does not mean no natural explanation exists.
How can attaching final causality to any entity that you cannot possibly receive direct data about ever be rational?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So any unobservable being that has influence is a god? I feel that's too broad of a definition.

I intentionally left it broad. This way it fits every God known to man, and also includes many potential supernatural entities that might not quite meet common "God" status.
Ghosts, gods, the human soul, demons.... many things would fall under my definition.
I would like to know if belief in ANY of them can possibly be logically sound and rationally based.

No - why is it beyond observation?

Unimportant. Ask a Christian why God can be "inside you" without leaving any physical or measurable trace.
If you wish, we can say these entities are not constrained to our three spatial dimensions, so are able to exist entirely outside of our realm of interaction.

[sdbest]

Quote by: LetThereBe How can attaching final causality to any entity that you cannot possibly receive direct data about ever be rational?

LetThereBe, you've completely lost me. Perhaps you could rephrase your argument so that this poor brain of mine could understand your point.

Regards
S.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: sdbest LetThereBe, you've completely lost me. Perhaps you could rephrase your argument so that this poor brain of mine could understand your point.

You say that every time you ask Thor to provide a free parking space, a free space appears.
You say that this repeatable evidence is evidence of Thor's existence.

However, you have evidence of something purely natural (saying specific words has a correlation to a specific natural event). That does not speak to ultimate cause.
You have no direct evidence of the existence of Thor.

It is possible that the events occured from pure luck. It is possible that some natural, unexplained (though in principle understandable) law causes parking spaces to appear when you say those words.
To say that some being whom you cannot possibly ever directly see, touch, smell, feel, hear, taste, or in any way analyze or measure caused it is without evidence.
It seems to me, even given that extreme "parking spaces" example, that belief in the supernatural being, Thor, would still be irrationally placed.

[Zhavric]

Kierkegaard (sp?) had some interesting things to say about the three examples listed in the op. He'd say the only thing we can conclude is that our senses are registering something supernatural. That's all. We cannot make any more statements because there's no way to test the supernatural.

*big lights and booming voice* "I'm god."

"Really? Prove it. How do I know you're THE god? You could be Loki, the norse god of trickery. I see lots of lights and hear a booming voice so I could be hallucinating. All I can say for sure is that you're a loud voice claiming to be god. That's ALL."

From here, if the voice forces you to KNOW he's god, then you've lost your free will... which is another can of worms.

Short of that, you'd have no way of knowing because there's no direct evidence.

Furthermore, whenever a supernatural event allegedly happens there's no indirect evidence. The burning bush didn't leave behind tell tale scorch marks. There's no silt markings to suggest the Red Sea parted. No Egyptian record ever talks about the plagues Pharoh allegedly suffered.

It is only rational to believe in things which are supported. The supernatural CANNOT be directly supported and no credible indirect support has ever been presented. Thus, it is not rational to believe in the supernatural. As Kierkegaard points out, it's only possible to rationally believe that we may have experienced something supernatural.

[Zhavric]

For those of you who maintain it's rational to believe in the supernatural without evidence, let me challenge you with this anecdote.

I'm 29 years old. At the age of 16, I was hanging out with some friends. My friend Bill told a really funny joke that I didn't laugh at because I realized that I was looking directly at Bill, but couldn't see his mouth. It just wasn't there. As I looked around, I realized I had a blind spot in my field of vision.

It grew... and eventually turned into sparkling lights which hung in front of me where ever I looked. Ever rub your eyes really hard until you see sparkles? That's what they looked like only I hadn't rubbed my eyes and they weren't going away.

They lasted for a half hour and then I was fine... for about 15 minutes when mind numbing pain set in that caused sensitivity to light, sound and vomitting.

I've had attacks like that every 10 to 30 days. For 13 years.*

Now, for those of you who maintain the supernatural is rational, please explain how any explanation other than 'migraine headaches' is rational.







*They're better now. About 4 years ago, I found a drug combination that works. I've managed to avoid the vomitting and the lion share of the pain... but I still get the sparkles every 10 to 30 days.