Capricious, mean-minded, stupid God!

[MajGenl.Meade]

[oldr_n_wsr]

A belief in "God" is an irrational belief though.

How so?

[Gob]

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.

[Lord Jim]

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality.

So irrational is defined as that which is not rational...

Here's another definition to consider:

circular reasoning
noun

a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ!

Gob.
Oh well, if we've switched from discussion to playing definitions....

pave·ment
(pāv′mənt)
n.
1. a. A hard smooth surface, especially of a public area or thoroughfare, that will bear travel. b. The material with which such a surface is made.

2. Chiefly British A sidewalk

.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So how is a belief in a God (or Higher Power as I choose to call it)

an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency.

"reason" cannot explain everything that goes on. There are many things that defy "reason" or that reason cannot explain.

While I agree emotional distress can lead people to believe in a God/Higher Power, theymany do continue that belief when that distress has been removed. And then there are many who come to believe in a God and have no emotional distress at the time of that discovery.

As far as "cognitive defiency" goes, I was very deficient in that category when I was drinking and had zero belief in a Higher Power. Only in moments of cognitive clarity (and now I have many more of those moments thanks to sobriety) did I come to believe in a Higher Power.

P.S.
As far as my beliefs in my life, I have gone from indifferent to agnostic to athiest and done a many a trip through all three of those throughout my life. I am now in the believer category. I could not get sober on my own. No human power could get me sober. NOt my wife, not my family, not my doctor, not the people in AA, not even the thought of death. Only when I asked for help from a Higher Power (and I still don't know what that is, which is fine with me) was the obsession to drink removed from me. And only through a constant connection to that Higher Power do I remain sober. I have first hand experience of what happens when I do not maintain that connection. (check my posts from last July/August in my thread).

ETA
In no way am I trying to convince anyone to believe in a God/Higher Power. Just explaining my view on the matter and the "rationale" that has led to my belief.

[MajGenl.Meade]

"reason" cannot explain everything that goes on. There are many things that defy "reason" or that reason cannot explain.

That's not a good argument, oldr. It's called "God of the gaps". If there is something that cannot be explained at the time (e.g. an eclipse of the moon in 10,000 BC), it is insufficient to say "Oh well, that means God did it". Because I am unable to explain something, it is not valid for me to invoke God for lack of a better idea.

Besides - what do you have in mind that defies reason or that reason cannot explain - example? (Usually the explanation is "shit happens"). If it's something like, 'Fred had incurable brain cancer and it just vanished' then the rational explanation is that sometimes incurable brain cancers just vanish, which we know is true because one just did). It's a confusion of 'reason=why' with 'reason=rational'

Rational arguments for God (and against God) are made all the time. Gob is suggesting that rational arguments can only be made in the latter instance. It is a false notion (and he knows it)

[Scooter]

"reason" cannot explain everything that goes on. There are many things that defy "reason" or that reason cannot explain.

Which by definition would make them irrational. Not that there's anything wrong with that; it simply is. In A Man for All Seasons, Margaret More cries out to her father in frustration, "But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God could reasonably want?" to which More replies,"Well...finally...it isn't a matter of reason; finally, it's a matter of love."

Any belief system worthy of the name must have a rational, logical, consistency to it. But getting there first requires that irrational leap we call faith. Which by definition must transcend reason, or else it wouldn't be faith, would it?

[Big RR]

Because I am unable to explain something, it is not valid for me to invoke God for lack of a better idea.

I guess that depends on how you define god Meade; if you legitimately believe that everything happens because god wills it to happen, then I can't see that as "not valid". Lazy, perhaps, if we believe that investigation can make us understand more how god accomplishes something, but still valid within the definition of god. I think, for example, that many people get comfort in believing a loved one died because god "called them home"; we can easily know how that person died (I recall a discussion between Leonard and his mother on the Big Bang Theory where she told him his uncle died and when he asked "why" she said "his heart stopped beating"), but we really don't know "why". Just like saying "god called him home" might give us a hint at "why" but tell us nothing of "how".

IMHO, this is the difference between science and theology--science is concerned with the "how", theology (and philosophy, for that matter) with the "why".

[MajGenl.Meade]

I guess that depends on how you define god Meade; if you legitimately believe that everything happens because god wills it to happen, then I can't see that as "not valid"

(a) I don't define God. God defines God (in the Bible)

(2) If one legitimately believes that everything happens because God wills it to happen, then to say "God did it" is without useful explanatory meaning since it is a given and no circumstance is without that meaning... even if we know the hows and whys of the particular event.

I disagree that "reason" in the sense used at the outset of this particular trail was anything to do with "why". (I doubt you speak of the infant "why?" to each and every answer - yes but why, yes but why and so on). You may be right that science is how and theology why (altho' that's a bit simplistic) but.... what is at issue is whether or not rational arguments exist for belief in God.

Scooter's statement that "Any belief system worthy of the name must have a rational, logical, consistency to it. But getting there first requires that irrational leap we call faith. Which by definition must transcend reason, or else it wouldn't be faith, would it?" is helpful but, I think, deficient. One does not have to agree with a conclusion to concede that it is rational in the sphere of belief systems. Or does one? (Is a rational explanation always correct?)

Thus I can understand a decent argument from Gob on behalf of atheism (not that he can actually be bothered to make one). I could probably put up a reasoned argument for atheism myself but I wouldn't have to have faith in it.

I'd like to know what oldr had in mind

[Big RR]

I get your point Meade, and yet I think if we (or the bible) define god as supernatural (i.e. unbound by natural laws and therefore not verifiable by any scientific means), then it would be impossible to provide a rational argument for the existence (or nonexistence for that matter) of god. Indeed, I think that's the "irrational" leap of faith Scooter is describing; if we accept that a god exists, there is a logical/rational consistency to most, if not all, religions. I think this is also what oldr was referring to; even though it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so, we must embrace the irrational/supernatural or we are at the mercy of a stochastic system where the dice are thrown so "shit happens".

Indeed, I think this thought was behind Einstein's statement that god doesn't throw dice. we want to attribute meaning to otherwise incomprehensible events, and so we make that leap of faith and irrationally believe that something more exists. Indeed, as jesus told Thomas--you believe because you have seen [the truth]; blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. That's the essence of faith IMHO.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes. Still, is it not equally irrational (or rational) to believe either that everything came from nothing or that material x has always existed? The big bang is certainly something we've not seen and yet people believe it. The process is one of arguing backward from observed reality to ultimate cause. At some point one reaches an irrational leap of faith, even in purely secular terms.

I'm not sure that all religions have logical/rational consistency vs. the actual world. Internally they may.

[BoSoxGal]

oldr, I think it's great that you look to a higher power to travel the path of sobriety - I also look to a higher power to get through tough times. I think of Desiderata - where it says, have faith in God, whatever you perceive him to be. It doesn't have to be any dogmatic definition, just what works for you!

[Lord Jim]

what works for you

That's really the bottom line...

When one looks at the grand sweep of time, individual human life (even if one has a very long life in human terms, say 100 years) is short and fleeting...

Whatever helps a person come up with a reason to get out of bed and put one foot in front of the other every morning, is something that I'm not going to dispute...

(Unless of course the motivation is something like, "What gets me out of bed in the morning, is having to feed the teenaged girls I have chained up in the dungeon I've built underneath my house...)

[BoSoxGal]

Actually, I prefer 20-something boy toys.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whatever helps a person come up with a reason to get out of bed and put one foot in front of the other every morning, is something that I'm not going to dispute...

Me either. Unless it's killing other people. Or perhaps theft. Or child abuse. Maybe there's some exclusions?

If the Bible is correct, the above is absolute crap. If the above isn't absolute crap, the Bible is not correct. Life would be so much easier if I could believe that "god" is meaningless pablum

[BoSoxGal]

I don't believe in the Bible, because of the historical record of how it was written and redacted.

But I do believe in God as I believe God to be.

[Lord Jim]

Me either. Unless it's killing other people. Or perhaps theft. Or child abuse. Maybe there's some exclusions?

(Unless of course the motivation is something like, "What gets me out of bed in the morning, is having to feed the teenaged girls I have chained up in the dungeon I've built underneath my house...)

Next time try reading the entire post before you comment on it, Meadebato...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah that bit wasn't quite right. I was rushing off to bed and got careless. Now after one hour of sleep I feel much better (not). Sorry. But the second clause stands. If one is a Christian, then it's inadequate to believe that "whatever" is OK. If one is not a Christian, then it's no problem. (Meadebato? You sure know how to hurt a guy)

[oldr_n_wsr]

I'd like to know what oldr had in mind

I have no idea.
If having faith is irrational, then I am irrational. But I like to think I reasoned my way to that conclusion. Might be false thinking but so be it.