Nagirrac Dialogue: "belief in god" is rational.

rozeboosje

In this thread I would like to branch out from www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057236078 to have a very specific dialogue with Nagirrac about a very narrowly focused topic, allowing both the original thread to return to its original topic, and this one to focus exclusively to the discussion at hand.

Now then, first of all I would like to invite anybody else to allow Nagirrac and myself to develop this discussion first, before butting in with their own ideas. I have a very clear "roadplan" for this dialogue to which I would like to stick if at all possible. I know this is a BIG ask of anybody, especially on a forum as public as this, but let's see if we can do this, shall we?

Ok, here goes.

This discussion started by Nagirrac making the assertion that "belief in god" is "rational". The following are the relevant posts to get this going:


rozeboosje:
This is going to get interesting. Let's start RIGHT from the beginning. You say that "believing in god" is rational, right?

Let's first establish that that is really what you are saying.

And to make absolutely sure that we understand each other: that is the CONCLUSION you are hoping to reach. You are telling me that you think that, from premises that both YOU and I can accept, we can both, by a process of valid reasoning, conclude that "a belief in god" is rational, correct?

Nagirrac:
Correct, even if I may not hold out much hope to convince you .

Additional comment by rozeboosje:
I'm quite willing to explore all sorts of various "philosophies", but ultimately in order to have an effective dialogue people do need to speak the same "language", or at least languages that are mutually understood, and in order for one person to accept the other person's conclusions it must be possible for that person to follow the other person's line of reasoning.

rozeboosje response to Nagirrac's "Correct" comment:
Your aim is to convince us, or at least ME, that "belief in god" is rational.

As I already said - and you confirmed this, see above - this is the conclusion you want us to reach. But let's make sure we all understand what this conclusion actually entails. In order to do that, you need to explain a few things.

1) What is a "god"?
2) What do you actually mean when you use the word "belief"?
3) And to make sure we ABSOLUTELY understand each other, after answering questions 1) and 2), then, what does the term "belief in god" actually MEAN?

Blimey. We haven't even started looking at the PREMISES we need to agree on, yet.

Nagirrac also posted a long-winded comment in which (s)he name-dropped various philosophers and scientists. rozeboosje response to that:
Oh, by the way, I don't care what Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Comte, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein thought, and I won't thank you for obscure references to their ideas. I don't care much for the other fellows, either. In fact you can keep ALL your filerserfers at home. I want to know how YOU arrived at this momentous conclusion. But like I said, let's explore first of all what your conclusion actually IS.

[Referring to various 3rd parties and their ideas] [would allow you] to obfuscate what [you] really mean. That's why I insist [you leave] everybody else and everybody else's ideas out of the picture. If [YOU] think that "belief in god" is "rational" then I want to see [YOUR] rationale for that position.


Game on

Cabaal

I've not read what you posted too much,

But surely if you look at the history of the human race you would actually come to the conclusion that belief in "gods" is even more rational then belief in one god...like Christians do.

As a human race our species have believed in many gods for far longer then one god, many gods also better explains then good/bad stuff that goes on better then "its gods will"

rozeboosje

Cabaal wrote: »

I've not read what you posted too much,

But surely if you look at the history of the human race you would actually come to the conclusion that belief in "gods" is even more rational then belief in one god...like Christians do.

As a human race our species have believed in many gods for far longer then one god, many gods also better explains then good/bad stuff that goes on better then "its gods will"

Teehee. :P But please do read paragraph 2 of the OP

Standman

Why not take it to PM, if you just want it between the two of ye? Just a suggestion

rozeboosje

Standman wrote: »

Why not take it to PM, if you just want it between the two of ye? Just a suggestion

Because I wouldn't mind people adding their two cent at a later stage.

Dan_Solo

Standman wrote: »

Why not take it to PM, if you just want it between the two of ye? Just a suggestion

Just on the "format" of this debate... I think it's a reasonable idea. We all know that the more posters involved in a thread the more likely it is to go off topic.
Which is how this thread started in the first place.

smacl

Standman wrote: »

Why not take it to PM, if you just want it between the two of ye? Just a suggestion

Yep. By trying to limit the debate to attacking the views of one poster, you could be seen as attacking the poster through their views, and that the entire debate is essentially an ad hominem construct.

nagirrac

I don't have much time on my hands until later in the day, so this will be brief. If I would ask that you change the tile of the thread to "Is belief in God rational?", as I see no need to personalize a thread in this fashion.

On the issue of listing philosophers, this was for one reason only. Another poster, I think Dan Solo, mentioned that philosophy can lead one to atheism, which it certainly can. There many thinkers/philosophers who regarded belief in God as irrational, or a psychological crutch (Marx, Freud), but there are also many, many philosophers who argued why belief in God is rational and indeed were theist or deists themselves. In the same way there are a variety of philosophical positions on the nature of reality, and while reductionist materialism nay be the most favored by far at present, there are several other positions that can be argued rationally.

As for nobody caring about deists, I would argue that many theists who actually think about their beliefs are deists, regardless of the specific religion they associate with, if any. Claiming that nobody cares about deists is similar to claiming nobody cares about atheists in Ireland because they are a small minority, when clearly atheist voices have as much right to be heard as anyone.

I agree the first thing to get out of the way is definitions. Concepts can be pesky things to nail down (as smacl will attest to ), as depending on the strength of one's beliefs, there is a tendency to narrow down language to best match the belief. We have seen this over and over on this forum, even discussion the definition of atheism, which one would have thought easy enough to define .

I would argue that to be to be rational, in the context of a discussion regarding belief in God, is to have valid justification for one's beliefs. We are after all not discussing whether God exists or not, we are discussing whether it is rational to believe in God.

As for a definition of belief, I would go with "an idea or principle that we judge to be true".

That's all I have time for until later.

rozeboosje

You haven't answered the questions.

Question 1: What is a "god"?
Question 2: What do you actually mean when you use the word "belief"?

Now you may think that you have answered question 2, but you haven't. Maybe I could try and translate it into something a bit more like an answer to the actual question:

A belief is: "judging a premise to be true"

Even if you are happy with that "translation", I'm afraid you still haven't answered the question completely. In that case I need to ask you, what do you mean by "true"?

Question 3 remains outstanding: "what does the term "belief in god" actually MEAN?"

rozeboosje

You may think I'm nitpicking, but I'm not. I'm simply trying to remove any possible ambiguity from what you're saying so that I can be certain that I understand you correctly.

Cabaal

This just seems like personal conversation between two people disguised as a thread,

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

This just seems like personal conversation between two people disguised as a thread,

Well it's not really personal since we can all see it.

rozeboosje

Exactly. Not only that, but at a later stage I would like the observers to comment on this, too :-)

Cabaal

rozeboosje wrote: »

Exactly. Not only that, but at a later stage I would like the observers to comment on this, too :-)

Ok, well in the mean time
The bigger and more important question here is, Jaffa Cake...cake or biscuit?

rozeboosje

Jaffa Cakes are ambiguous

Piliger

OP - My mother once said to me when I was small
"Be careful what you wish for ... "

rozeboosje

I'm taking this nice and steady....

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

You haven't answered the questions.

First things first. I have asked that you rename the thread "Is belief in God rational?", as I see no need to personalize a thread. In addition, if others want to comment they are free to do so, this is a public forum and you don't get to make up the rules.

I thought we would start by defining rationalism as it applies to the question "is belief in God rational". Like a lot of words, rational has different meanings depending on the context, philosophical rationalism, psychological rationalism, etc. The question of God is a metaphysical one, and whether one's position is rational or not depends on how reasoned the approach to the question is, so I would say belief in God could be rational or irrational, depending on the reasoned approach.

Is dual aspect monism a rational position to hold, panpsychism or neutral monism? These are alternatives to material monism (physicalism) and dualism, and very compatible with some concepts of God.

rozeboosje wrote: »

Question 1: What is a "god"?

An old man with a beard sitting on a cloud obviously

At least that's what one would think some atheists believe from reading threads on this forum. At least the strong atheists, you know the ones that think agnostics atheists are cowards.

On a serious note, it is very difficult to describe God without the description getting anthropomorphic. God is a mystery, the ground of all being and the ultimate source of all creative processes in the universe. I realize this is a pantheistic definition, but it is my opinion that all religion has a pantheistic root, before the concept of a personal God with human attributes came about.

Czarcasm

Well, this thread is off to a great start!

nagirrac wrote: »

First things first. I have asked that you rename the thread "Is belief in God rational?", as I see no need to personalize a thread. In addition, if others want to comment they are free to do so, this is a public forum and you don't get to make up the rules.

It's got irony.

Question 1: What is a "god"?

An old man with a beard sitting on a cloud obviously

At least that's what one would think some atheists believe from reading threads on this forum.

It's got misdirection - when asked a direct question, give an answer that you can claim is an opinion that belongs to someone else, without giving your own opinion.

(No atheist actually believes in supernatural beings; it is their absence of belief that defines their atheism, and they're only making light of religious beliefs, in the same fashion as you're making light of redefining atheism)

At least the strong atheists, you know the ones that think agnostics atheists are cowards.

When only one poster made such a claim in the thread this one refers to, one might be forgiven for thinking you were personalising this thread.

rozeboosje wrote: »

1) What is a "god"?

A supernatural being which represents the idea of an entity more powerful than humanity.

2) What do you actually mean when you use the word "belief"?

Whether or not something actually exists, and whether someone believes it exists or not (the basis of faith is a belief that something exists, despite any evidence quantifiable, measurable or otherwise to support such a belief).

3) And to make sure we ABSOLUTELY understand each other, after answering questions 1) and 2), then, what does the term "belief in god" actually MEAN?

The idea that a supernatural being actually exists.

Referring to various 3rd parties and their ideas] [would allow you] to obfuscate what [you] really mean. That's why I insist [you leave] everybody else and everybody else's ideas out of the picture. If [YOU] think that "belief in god" is "rational" then I want to see [YOUR] rationale for that position.


Game on

From an outside perspective, a belief in God can appear to be a completely irrational, illogical, and quite frankly batshìt crazy idea to a person who does not share their opinion as it doesn't fit with their world view.

BUT, to the person themselves who bases their belief on faith, such a belief is completely rational and logical in their opinion, because it fits with their world view.

The difference between the two, really comes down to the individual's perspective of what IS actually rational or logical, and that's where the fun begins -

Do you keep your opinions to yourself, or do you impose them on people whom you find don't share your opinion, and then the question becomes - how far are you willing to go to impose your world view on another person who doesn't share your world view?

nagirrac

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's got misdirection - when asked a direct question, give an answer that you can claim is an opinion that belongs to someone else, without giving your own opinion.

It's called frustration:). I had some glitch that ate three lengthy posts and rushed something to actually "believe" I could post. It's something I have experienced on boards before, although I'm logged in I get kicked out when I click the "submit replay" button. I have edited the post you referenced to actually give my own opinion.

Czarcasm wrote: »

When only one poster made such a claim in the thread this one refers to, one might be forgiven for thinking you were personalising this thread.

There's more than one strong atheist about

Czarcasm wrote: »

A supernatural being which represents the idea of an entity more powerful than humanity.

That is one concept of God, which I personally reject. I see nothing supernatural in the pantheistic concept of God, just an incomplete understanding on our behalf of nature.

Czarcasm wrote: »

From an outside perspective, a belief in God can appear to be a completely irrational, illogical, and quite frankly batshìt crazy idea to a person who does not share their opinion as it doesn't fit with their world view.

BUT, to the person themselves who bases their belief on faith, such a belief is completely rational and logical in their opinion, because it fits with their world view.

The difference between the two, really comes down to the individual's perspective of what IS actually rational or logical, and that's where the fun begins.

Generally agree with this, belief in God can be entirely rational from a psychological perspective. It becomes irrational imo only when it is in direct conflict with objective evidence, such as creationism / ID.

rozeboosje

Question 1:

nagirrac wrote: »

It is very difficult to describe God without the description getting anthropomorphic. God is a mystery, the ground of all being and the ultimate source of all creative processes in the universe. I realize this is a pantheistic definition, but it is my opinion that all religion has a pantheistic root, before the concept of a personal God with human attributes came about.

You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid. Let me explain what my problems are with this attempt at a definition.

"God is a mystery"
That's just filler, it contains no information whatsoever.

"the ground of all being"
What do you mean with "all being"? What makes you think that "all being" is hierarchical in the sense that there is a "bottom" or "ground" level to it?

"the ultimate source of all creative processes"
What do you mean by "all creative processes"? What makes you think that "all creative processes" require a source at all, let alone an "ultimate" one? When you use the phrase "in the universe" are you acknowledging that the universe is the ultimate transcendence, and as such it transcends even this "god" thing, whatever it is? If a "god" is transcended by "the universe", what's its use, and doesn't that make "the universe" all those things you mentioned before?

Like I said, you need to do better than that.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

but there are also many, many philosophers who argued why belief in God is rational and indeed were theist or deists themselves.

So instead of name dropping please adumbrate their reasoning on the matter as you understand it. Since you have been consistently unable to offer us your own.... perhaps you will have more success in adumbrating that of others.

nagirrac wrote: »

there are several other positions that can be argued rationally.

Then do so. Your MO around here is to keep saying positions CAN be defended or argued. All the while refusing to even attempt to actually DO so.

nagirrac wrote: »

the definition of atheism, which one would have thought easy enough to define

It is. Very easy. Alas people like you keep coming in trotting out misrepresentations of not just the word, but the people too. You describe positions over and over again which atheists simply do not hold. Such as your comments about placebo.

nagirrac wrote: »

I would argue that to be to be rational, in the context of a discussion regarding belief in God, is to have valid justification for one's beliefs.

Something you have refused to offer with unerring consistency.

nagirrac wrote: »

We are after all not discussing whether God exists or not, we are discussing whether it is rational to believe in God.

We are arguing both actually because if you have not just little but ABSOLUTELY NO reason to think there is a god.... then believing there is one is not a rational position.

nagirrac wrote: »

I thought we would start by defining rationalism

So rather than define the terms you were asked to define.... you have chosen to simply entirely ignore the request and go off and define something ELSE instead. Dodge, dive, and change the subject as per the usual MO huh?

nagirrac wrote: »

An old man with a beard sitting on a cloud obviously At least that's what one would think some atheists believe from reading threads on this forum.

Wow I was only JUST typing in this very post about your penchant to misrepresent and straw man atheists and atheism in order to smoke screen your own MO of dodging direct questions and challanges.

If there is one good thing and one good thing only that I can say about you (and there really is only one) it is that you are at least consistent. Very.

nagirrac wrote: »

On a serious note, it is very difficult to describe God without the description getting anthropomorphic. God is a mystery, the ground of all being and the ultimate source of all creative processes in the universe.

So you are happy to tell us god exists but are entirely unable to even define what it is you are talking about. So at the end of the day the word "god" is just something you append to the fact that "You know things exist but you are not entirely sure what any of them are" for no other reason than you have a personal fetishism for the word "god" itself?

nagirrac wrote: »

It's called frustration

No it is called misdirection. It is called misrepresentation. It is called Straw Man. It is called dodging and ducking. It is called many things other than what you are calling it.

nagirrac wrote: »

I had some glitch

Some off topic advice then. Do what I do. Write your replies in MS Word and only bring them into boards.ie when they are ready to paste, proof read, preview, check and submit.

rozeboosje

Czarcasm, thanks for your comments. I will take note of the fact that you presented a few of your own answers to my questions and once I'm ready to expand this thread beyond a 1 to 1 with nagirrac I will address those.

rozeboosje

By the way, in order for a position to be considered "rational" it won't suffice for the person who holds that position, "ex cathedra" so to speak, to simply declare it to be so. For a position to be considered "rational" it should be possible to successfully communicate a valid rationale for that position to another person. If you fail to successfully communicate a rationale for "belief in god" to me, you are not in a position to declare "belief in god" to be rational, no matter WHAT kind of "rationality" you think you're employing to get to that position.

rozeboosje

And let me point out something else to you... You complain about Boards "eating" your "lengthy posts"? Maybe the fact that your posts are bloating to the point of being unpostable should be telling you something ... why is it so difficult for you to remain concise?

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

And let me point out something else to you... You complain about Boards "eating" your "lengthy posts"? Maybe the fact that your posts are bloating to the point of being unpostable should be telling you something ... why is it so difficult for you to remain concise?

There is absolutely no need for this type of snide comment. The technical issue which I have reported to boards.ie in the past occurs regardless of whether the post is 1 word or 1,000 words.

"Why is it difficult for you to remain concise" is an ad hominem attack, keep it civil or you will be debating yourself. Ironic that one who is claiming to be siding with rationality and logic has already lapsed into a logical fallacy.

rozeboosje

Fair enough. I respectfully ask for you to focus exclusively on the questions I'm asking, rather than anything else I'm doing.

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

By the way, in order for a position to be considered "rational" it won't suffice for the person who holds that position, "ex cathedra" so to speak, to simply declare it to be so. For a position to be considered "rational" it should be possible to successfully communicate a valid rationale for that position to another person. If you fail to successfully communicate a rationale for "belief in god" to me, you are not in a position to declare "belief in god" to be rational, no matter WHAT kind of "rationality" you think you're employing to get to that position.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. For something to be rational, the belief must be justified, either by evidence or a foundational argument. Nothing in philosophy is simple or uncontroversial. Whether I can communicate to you personally or not that belief in God is rational is irrelevant, the only relevance is whether the argument is considered justified.

As an example, sensory beliefs are regarded by many philosophers to be justified. Whether you or I regard this as valid or not is irrelevant, as I said philosophy is not simple.

I would never, nor have never, made the claim that belief in God can be based on scientific evidence. It may be compatible with or incompatible with scientific evidence, but as a foundational belief of one's worldview, I agree it must be justified.

rozeboosje

I never mentioned "scientific evidence". But if you're unable to communicate your rationale to anyone you will only be convincing yourself of your rationality. Like I said, we won't entertain "ex cathedra" pronouncements.

Now are you going to get down to business?

Piliger

Now where's my old Whac A Mole game when I need it .... :rolleyes:

rozeboosje

There is no way to hide behind waffle about there being different "types of philosophy" or various "forms of logic". We're all able to acknowledge that.

If you think there may be a miscommunication happening, by all means feel free to explain the philosophical type of argument you are pursuing, or the particular form of logic you are employing to present your case. But once you do, you must play within the rules of that kind of discourse. There can be no ducking or diving or changing the goalposts half way through. That's not how this works. And you know it.

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

"God is a mystery"
That's just filler, it contains no information whatsoever.

On the contrary, the word mystery conveys a lot of information, as in something that is not understood or beyond understanding. There are many examples in science and mathematics where the evidence leads to a cognitive dissonance for humans. This is more likely imo to be related to our brains than to nature itself, although that depends somewhat on your view of consciousness. I don't think there is much doubt that human sensory perception is fallible, but a broader question is whether consciousness itself is fundamental and the study of consciousness can bring us closer to an understanding of nature than simple sensory based observation. This is a question scientists and philosophers of science have grappled with for over a century with little resolution.

rozeboosje wrote: »

"the ground of all being"
What do you mean with "all being"? What makes you think that "all being" is hierarchical in the sense that there is a "bottom" or "ground" level to it?

By "all being" I mean all of reality, both perceptual and actual. As far as we know the natural world is hierarchical, based on all the evidence we have. Start from the limits of our observable universe and work your way down to quarks. Whether there is a "ground" to it as in it is grounded at some fundamental level is debatable. This "ground" (a poor choice of word, maybe a better one is cause), if it exists, could be bottom up or top down.

rozeboosje wrote: »

What do you mean by "all creative processes"? What makes you think that "all creative processes" require a source at all, let alone an "ultimate" one? When you use the phrase "in the universe" are you acknowledging that the universe is the ultimate transcendence, and as such it transcends even this "god" thing, whatever it is? If a "god" is transcended by "the universe", what's its use, and doesn't that make "the universe" all those things you mentioned before?

We don't know what the ultimate transcendence is. Although speculative, it is not unreasonable in my opinion to posit a multiverse, or a many worlds interpretation. In the pantheist view, or at least the version I lean towards, God is the totality of reality.

rozeboosje wrote: »

Like I said, you need to do better than that.

I'll try, apologies for being verbose;).

rozeboosje

nagirrac wrote: »

On the contrary, the word mystery conveys a lot of information, as in something that is not understood or beyond understanding.

I'm not interested in understanding "god", whatever that is. I want to know what a "god" actually IS. If you can't explain what a "god" actually IS, how can you expect anybody to take you seriously when you say that it is rational to believe that such a thing exists?

Back to square one.

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

I never mentioned "scientific evidence". But if you're unable to communicate your rationale to anyone you will only be convincing yourself of your rationality. Like I said, we won't entertain "ex cathedra" pronouncements.

Who is we? I have successfully communicated my rationale to many people, and failed with others. I have never for example got a strong atheist, and I know a few whom I regard as close friends, to accept that belief in God is rational. Hardly unsurprising, given it contradicts their foundational belief.

The question is simply whether belief in God as a foundational belief is rational. Are we agreed on that?

rozeboosje

nagirrac wrote: »

As far as we know

Please speak for yourself

nagirrac wrote: »

the natural world is hierarchical, based on all the evidence we have. Start from the limits of our observable universe and work your way down to quarks.

That is not a "hierarchy" and you know it. That's just a matter of scale. As far as I know, the various scales at which we can observe the Universe are not in a hierarchical relationship with one another.

nagirrac wrote: »

Whether there is a "ground" to it as in it is grounded at some fundamental level is debatable.

If you're not sure whether there is a "ground", then defining "god" as such, and then claiming that "belief in god" is rational is frankly idiotic.

nagirrac wrote: »

We don't know what the ultimate transcendence is [...] God is the totality of reality.

Why insist on calling that "god" when the word "reality" is more than sufficient to convey the same concept, and it doesn't carry any religious baggage?

rozeboosje

Let's put it this way: yes, you can extricate yourself from the dialogue by defining "god" as equivalent to "everything". You have then reduced the existence of "god" to a vacuous truth, you have reduced "belief in god" to a pointless exercise in triviality, and any form of worship of same to an absurdity. Do you really want to go there?

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

I'm not interested in understanding "god", whatever that is. I want to know what a "god" actually IS. If you can't explain what a "god" actually IS, how can you expect anybody to take you seriously when you say that it is rational to believe that such a thing exists?

I can only give you my definition of God, which is not incompatible with the views of those that take this subject very seriously.

I am a pantheist. I regard the whole of reality, both what we perceive (perceptual reality), and all that exists (actual reality) as God. God is not a separate entity thing from reality, God is reality, in it's entirety.

rozeboosje

Like I just said ... :-)

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

Please speak for yourself

ditto.

rozeboosje wrote: »

That is not a "hierarchy" and you know it. That's just a matter of scale. As far as I know, the various scales at which we can observe the Universe are not in a hierarchical relationship with one another.

As far as I know they are.

rozeboosje wrote: »

If you're not sure whether there is a "ground", then defining "god" as such, and then claiming that "belief in god" is rational is frankly idiotic.

Again, we are in the realm of what is known (gnosis) versus what is justifiably believed. Whether you find a belief idiotic says nothing about the justification of a foundational belief.

rozeboosje wrote: »

Why insist on calling that "god" when the word "reality" is more than sufficient to convey the same concept, and it doesn't carry any religious baggage?

The term "religious baggage" does not concern me, so you can park that one.

nagirrac

rozeboosje wrote: »

Like I just said ... :-)

Yeah, sounds like we are done.

smacl

rozeboosje wrote: »

1) What is a "god"?
2) What do you actually mean when you use the word "belief"?
3) And to make sure we ABSOLUTELY understand each other, after answering questions 1) and 2), then, what does the term "belief in god" actually MEAN?

Given your asking these questions of a pantheist, you could do worse than look at a few definitions of pantheism. One of the more common and simple definitions that seems to come up a lot is

Grolier wrote:

Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, that God is not separate from but totally identified with the world, and that God does not possess personality or transcendence.

Not sure if this moves the debate along any, but maybe at least dispenses with the beardy middle eastern bloke flooding the gaff and turning people into salt.

I see pantheism more as a philosophical standpoint than religious belief, and while it is not one I'd subscribe to, I don't consider it more or less rational than so many other philosophical positions that people are wont to take. YMMV.

rozeboosje

nagirrac wrote: »

As far as I know they are.

Good for you, but if YOU want to convince ME that you're rational, you better provide some rationale for this assertion. I, conversely, couldn't give a damn.

nagirrac wrote: »

Again, we are in the realm of what is known (gnosis) versus what is justifiably believed. Whether you find a belief idiotic says nothing about the justification of a foundational belief.

Don't try to pull a fast one here. You said that a) you defined "god" as the "ground" for "all reality". Later you asserted that b) you weren't sure whether there actually WAS a "ground" to "all reality". There is NO variation of "logic" in which it is rational to arrive at a "belief in god" from there.

nagirrac wrote: »

Yeah, sounds like we are done.

Taking the ball home, are you? Ok.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for this type of snide comment.

Sometimes it can be warranted. I am not the most concise poster myself and people are free to judge why this may be. But for many posters verbosity DOES go hand in hand with an MO of obfuscation and smoke screen. And given your past engagements with exactly that, it is not entirely unwarranted to call you on it.

As I suggested however.... write your posts in word before you submit them to boards and your problem is gone instantly. You also benefit from a more powerful spell checker and more this way.

nagirrac wrote: »

Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. For something to be rational, the belief must be justified, either by evidence or a foundational argument.

That is what I have been telling you for MONTHS now. And why I keep asking you to present a SINGLE piece of evidence or foundational argument to support your assertion that there is a god.

Yet you simply _refuse_ _to_ _even_ _try_ _to_ _do_ _this_. Why is that do you think?

nagirrac wrote: »

I would never, nor have never, made the claim that belief in God can be based on scientific evidence.

Which is why I personally have never limited you to that. Instead I use a very contrived and carefully constructed request yet despite my wide net you STILL have offered nothing in response. I will repeat this request for you now. Notice once again how it says nothing about "scientific" in it.

Have you any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning to support the contention that a non human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe?

Simples.

nagirrac wrote: »

On the contrary, the word mystery conveys a lot of information

I agree. For example it conveys very clearly that you openly admit that while claiming there is a god.... you simply have no idea what you are actually saying, claiming or even talking about.

However you did not need to convey this information to anyone. I have been telling everyone this about you for some weeks now.

nagirrac wrote: »

In the pantheist view, or at least the version I lean towards, God is the totality of reality.

This is just linguistic gymnastics though. We have a word for reality. It is "reality". We have a word for all. It is "all".

What you are engaged in here is a tactic that is as transparent as it is common. Which is you are simply taking things that we know exist... that we already have words for..... like reality and universe.... and simply RELABELING them "god".

That's it. That is all you are doing. It is just the misuse of language to feed an agenda.

nagirrac wrote: »

I'll try, apologies for being verbose;).

There is nothing wrong with verbosity. As you can see I openly admit to suffering from it in spades. But using a lot of words to say precisely nothing is an issue. And saying nothing but using as many words as possible to say it is your basic MO when discussing the existence of a god entity.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am a pantheist. I regard the whole of reality, both what we perceive (perceptual reality), and all that exists (actual reality) as God. God is not a separate entity thing from reality, God is reality, in it's entirety.

So like I just said you are saying nothing. Simply taking something and giving it a new label. Nothing more. Nothing less. That is the 100% sum entirety of your argument for god.

You can not evidence the existence of god with a label machine.

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

I see pantheism more as a philosophical standpoint than religious belief, and while it is not one I'd subscribe to, I don't consider it more or less rational than so many other philosophical positions that people are wont to take. YMMV.

Thanks. Pantheism can be viewed either as a philosophical belief, a religious belief, or both. There are scientific pantheists who have no religious belief, I would put Einstein and Sagan in that camp, and even Hawking at times.

From a philosophical standpoint, it is absolutely justified as a rational belief. From a religious standpoint is a different matter:D To one who is religious it is justified, and to one who is not it is idiotic. There tends to not be much middle ground between theists of any flavor and strong atheists. Sadly imo, as the middle way is the only way.

rozeboosje

smacl wrote: »

(from quote): Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, that God is not separate from but totally identified with the world, and that God does not possess personality or transcendence. (end)

I see pantheism more as a philosophical standpoint than religious belief, and while it is not one I'd subscribe to, I don't consider it more or less rational than so many other philosophical positions that people are wont to take.

Seein' as nagirrac has decided the "exclusive" conversation between the two of us is over, I'm happy to now proceed to discuss this with other participants.

I've already pointed out why I'd dismiss the original pantheistic assertion. Not that I would have any issue with such a definition of "god" (in fact it's the only one I could possibly buy into) but because it's utterly pointless.

But the definition you gave me expands on the utterly trivial. As I've quoted there, it uses the word "divine".

What does that word mean in that context?

Dan_Solo

nagirrac wrote: »

Who is we? I have successfully communicated my rationale to many people, and failed with others. I have never for example got a strong atheist, and I know a few whom I regard as close friends, to accept that belief in God is rational. Hardly unsurprising, given it contradicts their foundational belief.

I would suspect you weren't able to convince any atheist that belief in god was rational because you have (and continue to) provided no rational explanation at all for that belief. Saying they don't agree with you because that's just the way they are isn't an argument at all.

Dan_Solo

nagirrac wrote: »

I can only give you my definition of God, which is not incompatible with the views of those that take this subject very seriously.

What makes you think we don't take this seriously? If we giggled less we would be more likely to agree with you, is that it?

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

Thanks. Pantheism can be viewed either as a philosophical belief, a religious belief, or both.

Can it? From YOUR description of it at least I can not view it as anything but an exercise in linguistic relabeling of things that already have words based on the sole agenda of calling as many things "god" as you can.

You re-laebling all of reality "god" and saying "therefore there is a god" makes quite literally no more sense to me than you labeling the Steak and Apple meat pie in my fridge "god" and saying "therefore there is a god".

Perhaps you can adumbrate what it is I am missing, because thus far this is quite literally ALL I get from your description of your personal brand of -ism.

Dan_Solo

nagirrac wrote: »

From a philosophical standpoint, it is absolutely justified as a rational belief.

Is this where you list some famous people who allegedly agree with you as proof of its rationality?
Or are we back to calling all of the universe a three eyed duck so it's "rational" to be a three eyed duckist?

EDIT: snap.

Dan_Solo

nagirrac wrote: »

There tends to not be much middle ground between theists of any flavor and strong atheists. Sadly imo, as the middle way is the only way.

What's a "strong atheist"? Can we also define all theists as "strong" likewise with no need for clarification?
Again you're just saying theists and atheists don't agree. This is irrelevant to a rational discussion. We know that people who do not agree do not agree, unless we are now to redefine that term too?

rozeboosje

In fairness, a pantheist is no more a theist than an elephant is an ant