Christianity is irrational, but is being a Christian?

[Der_Trihs]

@raindog

Throughout the last several thousand years of recorded human history reasoned, rational arguments have been made for the existence of [a] God.

Not at all. There’s been plenty of frantic handwaving, but no “rational reasoned” arguments for your god because there aren’t any. Nor is Christianity or its occasional fetish for pretending to be rational “several thousand” years old. It’s about 2 thousand years, and the desire to fake rationality younger than that. Your particular religion is not some human constant that’s been around for thousands and thousands of years.

@raindog

And while we have made mind numbing progress (particularly in the last few hundred years) almost none of that gain has begun to substantively approach the central question as to how we got here.

Nonsense. Cosmology, the theory of evolution and archaeology have all made huge strides. While religion has done nothing, intellectually stagnant thing that it is.

@raindog

And so even today a lot of really intelligent people continue to advance publicly, or privately through their own life and faith, a rational, reasoned belief in some “higher power.”

No one does that; that position doesn’t exist.

[raindog]

Lobohan
I’m sorry to have to break up with you so publicly. You seem to have missed the true nature of my point----which didn’t require me to be a theist. I can see a reasoned, rational basis for atheism, although I don’t find it compelling. (Anemic, actually) But you’re part of the board atheists that don’t want to do anything but ply you’re faith. Believe me, I’m a man of faith too, and so I respect that.

I’m aware that compelling and rational mean the same to you, and you use evidence and *proof *as interchangeable words. I mean, that doesn’t make one bit of sense to me, but I recognize it may be me; I just don’t have the strength of your convictions.

But I need more from a relationship, you know? I mean, I look at all these threads and it looks like the Groundhog Day version of Bad Girls Club. It’s all these over-the-top proclamations and taunts and it’s (to quote Taylor Swift) exhausting.

While it was not my point to argue for Christianity, I would have. But invariably would have us taken into the SDMB Abbott & Costello Atheism. and I hate the way it makes me feel.

I hope we can still be friends.

Don’t call though.

[Cheshire_Human]

@razncain

Other polls don’t show that Americans take the bible as literally as this ABC poll with some as low as one-third, others around half, and even if it is of the lowest poll figures, it is still too dam high.

In other words, you can come up with a single poll [count them, one], that supports your 60 percent contention, of dubious value, so you point to all those other polls (which show “one-third, others around half”, by your own statement, in other words, which support my contention that it’s not more than ~40 per cent), To prove I’m wrong, calling you on that 60% claim. Oooookay, you win…

[Lobohan]

@raindog

Lobohan
I’m sorry to have to break up with you so publicly. You seem to have missed the true nature of my point----which didn’t require me to be a theist. I can see a reasoned, rational basis for atheism, although I don’t find it compelling. (Anemic, actually) But you’re part of the board atheists that don’t want to do anything but ply you’re faith. Believe me, I’m a man of faith too, and so I respect that.

I’m aware that compelling and rational mean the same to you, and you use evidence and *proof *as interchangeable words. I mean, that doesn’t make one bit of sense to me, but I recognize it may be me; I just don’t have the strength of your convictions.

But I need more from a relationship, you know? I mean, I look at all these threads and it looks like the Groundhog Day version of Bad Girls Club. It’s all these over-the-top proclamations and taunts and it’s (to quote Taylor Swift) exhausting.

While it was not my point to argue for Christianity, I would have. But invariably would have us taken into the SDMB Abbott & Costello Atheism. and I hate the way it makes me feel.

I hope we can still be friends.

Don’t call though.

I will note that you still refuse to post this rational argument for God.

And you’re wrong about atheism being based on faith. I understand if you want to run away instead of defending your bald assertions. But you should know, pretending to be above debate doesn’t make you right, it just shows that you don’t care to put your beliefs to a rational test.

Now run along, people with intelligent arguments are here to debate.

[iiandyiiii]

I (an atheist) believe it can be rational to believe ridiculous things in certain situations. For example, if one is raised in a cult, and never has access to outside information, then it’s certainly rational to believe what you are told. In cases like these, though, there’s no real decisions being made by the believer- there is nothing else available for them to believe. I think this is probably similar, but to a much lesser extent, for believers of many different religions- based on the information one receives, one may only have one choice on what to believe. And this is true especially when one is not taught critical thinking skills- separating strong claims from weak claims is a skill that can be taught and learned, and many people simply don’t have those skills, and therefore can’t pass them on to their kids.

[huck]

@iiandyiiii

I (an atheist) believe it can be rational to believe ridiculous things in certain situations. For example, if one is raised in a cult, and never has access to outside information, then it’s certainly rational to believe what you are told. In cases like these, though, there’s no real decisions being made by the believer- there is nothing else available for them to believe. I think this is probably similar, but to a much lesser extent, for believers of many different religions- based on the information one receives, one may only have one choice on what to believe. And this is true especially when one is not taught critical thinking skills- separating strong claims from weak claims is a skill that can be taught and learned, and many people simply don’t have those skills, and therefore can’t pass them on to their kids.

Do you mean that those of us who believe in God/Christianity are necessarily either ignorant or weak-minded?

I may be both of course, but people with very fine intellects and great learning have been believers. Do you mean, for example, that Thomas Jefferson had no access to outside information aand/or was incapable of critical thinking?

[Lobohan]

@huck

Do you mean that those of us who believe in God/Christianity are necessarily either ignorant or weak-minded?

Christians can be very intelligent. But it’s easier shed religion if you’re smart. It’s not automatic though. An ignorant and weak minded person is unlikely to question the religion he or she is brought up in, so I’d expect they’d be more likely to stay religious.

I may be both of course, but people with very fine intellects and great learning have been believers. Do you mean, for example, that Thomas Jefferson had no access to outside information aand/or was incapable of critical thinking?

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t all that religious. Religious views of Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia

And he didn’t have the advantage of the science we do.

[iiandyiiii]

@huck

Do you mean that those of us who believe in God/Christianity are necessarily either ignorant or weak-minded?

No, I actually believe that pretty much everyone actually has good reasons (to themselves) to believe what they believe. I just don’t think all of those reasons are necessarily rational.

I may be both of course, but people with very fine intellects and great learning have been believers. Do you mean, for example, that Thomas Jefferson had no access to outside information aand/or was incapable of critical thinking?

I do believe that TJ had a lot less access to information then we have available now about the world around us. More importantly, I believe that TJ (while brilliant and innovative) was also highly hypocritical and irrational about many things, the most obvious one being slavery.

[huck]

I couldn’t agree more that faith is not a matter of reasoning (though the decision to be a person of faith, and to follow the teachings of that faith may be entirely so).

And Thomas Jefferson was at best a hypocrite about slavery. I’m not so sure that his ability to overlook his own immorality in that area was irrational, though. It was his livelihood, and given who many of his friends and supporters were a matter of political surival for him.

Jefferson certainly had the ability to recognize that slavery was wrong and completely at odds with his philosophy and moral beliefs. In fact, he said so a few times, early in his career. He just chose as a matter of expediency to let it slide, and to continue to live off of enslaved people’s labors.

But I digress…sorry for hijack

[Razncain]

@Cheshire_Human

In other words, you can come up with a single poll [count them, one], that supports your 60 percent contention, of dubious value, so you point to all those other polls (which show “one-third, others around half”, by your own statement, in other words, which support my contention that it’s not more than ~40 per cent), To prove I’m wrong, calling you on that 60% claim. Oooookay, you win…

There are plenty that show it to be over 40%. If this sort of thing is going to keep you up at night, too bad. What exactly are you disputing? You asked for a cite, please explain what is dubious about the ABC values? Also, in the same link which I doubt you read any of it, you’ll find the Harris poll listed which it says:

A Harris poll of 2,201 adults charting “Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003” found last year that 93 percent of the nation’s Christians believe in miracles, 95 percent in heaven, 93 percent in the virgin birth of Christ and 96 percent in Christ’s resurrection.

With those high of numbers, I doubt the Harris poll will be that far off from the ABC poll of those that believe in Noah and the global flood.

Here’s a CBS poll which shows 55% believe literally in Genesis. Other polls also shown taken between 2006-2010. This one shows 54% from a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. And the latest gallop poll shows 46% of American’s are creationists that was released in 2012.

Generally, geographically speaking, and I’m guessing depending probably on what number of Catholics are including in the polling numbers, the numbers go down or up on that, I think. Not totally sure. Catholics are probably at an all time low for taking the stories literally. But within that ABC link among Protestants the numbers are about 75% while the Protestant Evangelicals are around 87%. So, I think 60% figure is more than fair. If you’d ever been to the south, you’ll find that figure is more than fair.

[huck]

@Lobohan

Christians can be very intelligent. But it’s easier shed religion if you’re smart. It’s not automatic though. An ignorant and weak minded person is unlikely to question the religion he or she is brought up in, so I’d expect they’d be more likely to stay religious.

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t all that religious. Religious views of Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia

And he didn’t have the advantage of the science we do.

Jefferson was distrustful of organized religion and adamantly opposed to government involvement with or endorsement of religion. But he believed in God, believed that Christ was the redeemer, and believed he would be with God and with his dead wife, daughter and friends after death.

And while science has advanced a good deal since his time, Jefferson was quite knnowledgeable about science.

[iiandyiiii]

@huck

And while science has advanced a good deal since his time, Jefferson was quite knnowledgeable about science.

“A good deal” is an understatement. Science was, at best, in its infancy in Jefferson’s time. For most of human history, more or less, science didn’t really exist.

[simster]

@huck

Jefferson was distrustful of organized religion and adamantly opposed to government involvement with or endorsement of religion. But he believed in God, believed that Christ was the redeemer, and believed he would be with God and with his dead wife, daughter and friends after death.

And while science has advanced a good deal since his time, Jefferson was quite knnowledgeable about science.

Cite for Jefferson believing Christ was the ‘redeemer’.

Have you read ‘common sense’ ? Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the notion of ‘a God’ - but fully rejected ‘revealed religion’.

One particular Cite for Jefferson actual views

[QUOTE=Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
[/QUOTE]

[April_R]

@raindog

The intellectual distance between what we know and have proven, (or can prove) and what we hope to know, or strive to understand, can only be bridged with subjectivity.

Call that a theory, a conjecture, or an informed inference. Whatever it is, it’s subjective.

As time progresses our understanding of our world increases, and as our objective knowledge increases, that bridge is shorter. I have no doubt that the average atheist is sure that one day—even if it’s 500 years from now—science will reveal the delusion of religion. (in the meantime they’ll witness to us through books) Theists, I’m sure, are convinced that God—in whatever form—will show up and reveal the presumptuousness of atheism. (and in the meantime will preach to us)

Christianity------and all religion-----is an attempt to answer the most fundamental of questions: How did we get here? The debate of Evolution is not germane to finding that answer apparently, because evolution only discusses the method as to how we got here.

I think “it’s well established” that many (most?) Christians accept that evolution and Christianity are compatible; and that [their] God likely used evolution to get us here. So evolution is downstream of that question; so abiogenesis and other theories seeks to answer it. However that bridge-----the bridge of subjectivity between what we know, and what we would like to know about how we got here------is very long indeed.

Which gets to the misuse of the word “rational.”

Now since there is so very little objective scientific **proof ** as how we got here (like, none) is it reasonable that a person could infer that an intelligent being could have been the source of the events that culminated with human life? Could an intelligent person use reason to conclude that there is a God? In other words, must it be the case that a belief in God be without reason as it’s foundation?

Of course, their belief may be the result of reasoning. Their rational conclusions *may be much less than compelling * but that doesn’t make them irrational or without reason. It’s about time that someone will sputter out a post that conflates “compelling” with “rational”, and “evidence” with “proof.” That misuse is always a result of the strongest of faiths; a moral certainty that makes the line between subjectivity and objectivity blur (no matter how long) to the point they are indistinguishable.

By way of example, the most devout theist finds atheism irrational and silly. They are so fully convinced of “the assured expectation of things yet not beheld” that there is no room in their mind for subjectivity. It’s all certain. It’s all objectively true.

They too conflate “evidence” and “proof”, and cannot see how a person could use reason to come to atheism; reason being the foundation of rationality.

While Christianity has picked up some silly traditions, it is, at it’s core, an attempt to understand how we got here. It may be much less than compelling, but that doesn’t make it irrational.

Unless you’re devout.

That was everything I was going to say but much more eloquently. Thanks raindog, that was wonderful.

[iiandyiiii]

@raindog

Now since there is so very little objective scientific **proof ** as how we got here (like, none)

I think this is wrong- there’s tons of evidence of the events leading up to human existence. There’s tons we don’t know too (generally the further back in time we look at, the less data we have), but we have pretty solid notions (with data to back it up) of the how the earth formed, and how the evolution of life on earth progressed from a common ancestor.

is it reasonable that a person could infer that an intelligent being could have been the source of the events that culminated with human life? Could an intelligent person use reason to conclude that there is a God? In other words, must it be the case that a belief in God be without reason as it’s foundation?

I don’t think it’s a reasonable inference, largely because this pretty much tells us nothing- how does adding an intelligent being (God) to the mix answer any questions? In my mind it just makes more questions- how did the being make everything, how did this being come into existence in the first place, etc. I don’t understand how God actually answers the question, never mind the lack of any evidence for his existence.

[April_R]

I am admittedly not a very rational person, so any argument for the rational existence of God just goes over my head, I don’t really care.

But if any of you are interested and have the time and inclination to read these, this guy claims to have devised several rational arguments for the existence of (a) God.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

Rationality is confusing, LOL

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3

[simster]

I made an error in my post above - Jefferson did not write ‘common sense’, that was Thomas Paine - we’ll call it a senior moment - the rest of my post stands as does the request for a cite for Jefferson calling Jesus the ‘redeemer’.

[Lobohan]

@April_R

I am admittedly not a very rational person, so any argument for the rational existence of God just goes over my head, I don’t really care.

If you don’t care that your opinions aren’t based on reason, what are you doing here?

But if any of you are interested and have the time and inclination to read these, this guy claims to have devised several rational arguments for the existence of (a) God.

Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

What you quoted there is rubbish. It’s the watchmaker’s paradox redressed. It falls apart because you assert that everything needs a creator, and that is God. But who then created God? Also, it is not currently thought that the universe is infinite in age. If homeboy isn’t aware of that, there is little need to assume he has some great insight somewhere in the other 19.

Rationality is confusing, LOL

No, it’s a set of skills for looking at the world. The reason you find it hard is that when your mind leads you down a path that undercuts your faith, your faith short circuits the thought.

[huck]

@simster

Cite for Jefferson believing Christ was the ‘redeemer’.

Have you read ‘common sense’ ? Jefferson was a deist, he believed in the notion of ‘a God’ - but fully rejected ‘revealed religion’.

One particular Cite for Jefferson actual views

I have read Common Sense, but Jefferson didn’t write it, that’s Payne.

I used the word “redeemer” advisedly. There is no evidence that Jefferson believed Christ was divine, some that he rejected that idea (although his adherence and the active role he played in the Anglican church belies the latter to some extent). But he certainly believed the new law announced by Jesus to be redemptive, i.e. the way for people to be happy and to be rewarded in the hereafter. He wrote that Jesus’s doctrine was “simple” and amounted to 1) that there is only one God, and he is all perfect; 2) that there is a future state of rewards and punishments; 3) that to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself is the sum of religion." Cogliano, A Companion to Thomas Jefferson, p. 103.

ETA: sorry, did not see your correction before I posted.

[simster]

@huck

I have read Common Sense, but Jefferson didn’t write it, that’s Payne.

I used the word “redeemer” advisedly. There is no evidence that Jefferson believed Christ was divine, some that he rejected that idea (although his adherence and the active role he played in the Anglican church belies the latter to some extent). But he certainly believed the new law announced by Jesus to be redemptive, i.e. the way for people to be happy and to be rewarded in the hereafter. He wrote that Jesus’s doctrine was “simple” and amounted to 1) that there is only one God, and he is all perfect; 2) that there is a future state of rewards and punishments; 3) that to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself is the sum of religion." Cogliano, A Companion to Thomas Jefferson, p. 103.

ETA: sorry, did not see your correction before I posted.

I would not have argued with that summation of “christ the redeemer” - in the context of your original post, I took “redeemer” to a different meaning. He certainly rejected all ‘miracles’ and ‘supernatural’ connotations around Jesus (hence the “Jefferson Bible”)