-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is belief in god rational?
- Thread starter Fluffy
- Start date
Radio Frequency X
World Leader Pretend
Tigress said:
I agree, in a sense. I tried atheism for a while until I realized that it made as much sense to me to believe in all the gods as it did to believe in no gods. Then as time progressed, and finding all the gods to be impersonal, I began to pray to a personal god, who I can no longer find the means to doubt. Does this make my beliefs rational or irrational? I have no idea. I believe in my experience and the rest... I take my best guess.
hanif
Member
belief in god is rational.not believing is illogical.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Related Pages
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Related Pages
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? - Antony Flew Renounces Atheism
- Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
- The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System
- Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
- Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
- Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
- Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
- Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
- Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
- Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
- Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
- Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
- Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
- Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
- Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
- Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
- Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
- Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
- Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
- Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
- Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
- Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
- Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
- Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
- Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
- Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
- McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
- Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
This is a hard one to answer.
On one hand, through personal philosophical study, I have rationally decided upon a panentheistic version of God.
On the other hand, in view of the lack of objective evidence (while I want to add the complexity of the Universe and the existence of Life itself as possible evidences, these are often not accepted), I also see God as an abstraction akin to love. Love is illogical; its experience can be reduced to simple neurological and chemical interactions and not somthing completely objective. But that does not diminish its importance.
After all, the human experience is not always rational.
On one hand, through personal philosophical study, I have rationally decided upon a panentheistic version of God.
On the other hand, in view of the lack of objective evidence (while I want to add the complexity of the Universe and the existence of Life itself as possible evidences, these are often not accepted), I also see God as an abstraction akin to love. Love is illogical; its experience can be reduced to simple neurological and chemical interactions and not somthing completely objective. But that does not diminish its importance.
After all, the human experience is not always rational.
robtex
Veteran Member
MaddLlama said:
to further that point when one says they believe in God irrgardless of how they define God as a being understand what they are saying is:
1) inorganic life exists of the form of energy and independant of dna molecules.
2) God has a personal relationship with them as their creator yet alludes their 5 senses
3) emperical evaluation is an invalid means to determine the validity of God's existance
or better put:
God as an existing entity is an object yet is undetecatable emperically speaking
Many people actually use verbage that states their belief is irrational and than say it is not some examples include:
1) God works in mysterious ways (a personal relationship would not be a mysterious relationship)
2) Evolution, with the mounds of evidence for it is wrong and organic life and dna are not part of the universe
3) Nobody can know the mind of God (yet they have a "personal" relationship with him).
4) God created man organically to prepare him for the afterlife yet excludes most of his creations from that afterlife. It is irrational to think that this is not our "real" life but a substandard version of it used to decide if we get a reasonable "real life."
5) idea that anything, including God can be both omnipresent and omnipotent at the same time. This is impossible and an irrational belief.
Those don't apply to everyone but most of them apply to most theists at a minimum.
To me, from what I have learned from RF and religious debates elsewhere, and what Fluffy is talking about when he says his belief is irrational boils down to the arguement from need which is found here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22446&highlight=arguement
Fluffy
A fool
I suppose it would. If I were to define "god" to mean "sheep" and said "I believe in god" then there would be few people who would find that belief irrational (although they might question why I would choose to make that sort of definition).
However, we all agree that some defitions of "god", such as the one I gave above, are not what people mean when they refer to "god". If a pantheist wished to redefine "god" to mean "the universe" then I would agree that his belief in "god" is rational but I would dispute that the object of his belief is anything other than "the universe".
That indicates that at some point we must draw a line. I would not know where to begin but I would say that for the purposes of this debate, such a line is unnecessary. In the same way as we can easily say that the types of god illustrated above generally would not be what was meant by the term "god, we can also safely categorise most people's gods without needing such a line since they do not approach that line.
KaLi
Member
Right, I believe my post said that....Ðanisty said:But it is no longer irrational to the person who's had that experience.
Unless, of course, it was just some activity of the brain that created the experience.
And I also wonder why there have been people from every religion experience their God. Which is right?
Or, alternatively, when one says one believes in the supernatural, one defines that non-literally, as perhaps a symbol, and not something literally real. The supernatural, in this sense, has nothing to do with the 5 senses, and hence neither does their relationship with it. "Empirical evaluation" would then necessarily be irrelevant to god's existence.robtex said:
Well, 1, 3 and 5 can certainly apply to a non-literal concept of god. 2 and 4 can be adapted to make non-literal sense, where the literal interpretation can make no sense.robtex said:
Interesting. Thanks; I'll read that.robtex said:
In my experience, most all the complaints about god stem from mistaking the non-literal for the literal, or at least having no clear delimiting line separating the two concepts.