Irrational Theists

[Mad_Gerbil]

Claims of Irrationality Are Unsupported

 

INTRODUCTION

Before I dive into this nonsense let me point out a couple of things that can frequently side track a conversation.

 

1: I do not believe that skeptics are irrational. I believe in most instances they are quite rational.

2: I do not believe that skeptics are stupid. I believe in most instances they are quite intelligent.

3: I do not assert that any part of this post proves any truth claim made by theism.

4: I do not assert that any part of this post rebuts any truth claim made by atheism.

 

In short, you can relax a little bit because the only thing I'm going to be addressing in this post is the assumption made by those who feel the need to label a theist as irrational. I'd maintain that the rationalist cannot know whether or not a theist is rational without first making an unsupportable assumption.

 

THE ILLUSTRATION

For most of us here a rainbow on the horizon is a common experience. Very likely nobody in our number doubts they exist because we've all experienced rainbows. However, for a man blind from birth a rainbow cannot be empirically verified. In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

 

A blind man, using pefectly rational thought and the tools of observation available to him could very easily come to the conclusion that rainbows are nothing but a sighted person's fantasy. The perfect application of the blind man's abilities and logic could lead him to the wrong conclusion.

Interestingly enough, this wrong conclusion would only be evidence of a failing on his part. It says nothing about the existence of rainbows or the suitability of the evidence.

 

Again, the perfect application of logic and evidence would still lead the blind man to the wrong conclusion because of a defect on his part.

 

THE APPLICATION

Now lets place the blind man in the role of the rainbow skeptic and the rest of us in the seat of the rainbow believer and see how absolutely ridiculous his sterling arguments look to those of us who have experienced rainbows.

 

Blind Man: "All I'm asking for is the smallest bit of evidence that there is a rainbow."

 

Mad_Gerbil: "Well, it's right there on the horizon right now. The majority of people around you can see it plain as day."

 

Blind Man: "Oh yeah, you've got this sight thing going on and I guess I'm just too big of a loser to have that. Incidently, I noticed your logical error - an appeal to the majority isn't gonna fly here bub."

 

Mad_Gerbil: "I've got pictures, but I guess that doesn't do any good."

 

Blind Man: "Nope."

 

Mad_Gerbil: "I could build a machine that detects the different wave-lengths of light and beeps when a rainbow is present."

 

Blind Man: "I'm sure you could but I'd have no way of knowing if it was detecting a rainbow or dragons. I have an idea, while you're working on your machine I'll make one that beeps when it detects ghosts. It will only cost you $25.00 per use."

 

Mad_Gerbil: "Admittedly, I'm stumped. Given your blindness I've no ability to prove to you with any level of certianty that rainbows exist."

 

Blind Man: "The problem here is that rainbow believers are mind numbed robots taught to believe in rainbows since birth. Rainbows appear in children's books and so forth so the brain washing begins at an early age. If you lived in a culture that didn't believe in rainbows you wouldn't believe in them either. You are just a product of your culture."

 

Mad_Gerbil: "So you assert that if you cannot detect something then those who claim to be capable of detecting it are somehow irrational?"

 

SUMMARY

The main problem with the skeptic's claim that the theist is irrational is that it doesn't allow for the possibility that the believer may very well be detecting something that the unbeliever cannot detect. The unbeliever has no way of knowing for sure if the lack of empirical evidence is truly a lack of evidence or if it is proof of his own inability to sense the evidence.

 

In short, skeptics may present proof but have no way of knowing what is being proven.

 

This realization causes me to regard the skeptic as entirely rational and likely acting on all the evidence he is capable of detecting. That being said, his claim that I'm irrational is based entirely on the unspoken assertion that he has all of his faculties - an assertion that cannot be proven either way.

 

In short, if both the skeptic and the believer could both be responding to the evidence they see in pefectly rational ways.

[RankStranger]

A couple of semesters of physics would provide all the empirical evidence the rainbow skeptic could want. I've never seen a neutron star, but I have reason enough to believe in them.

 

The rainbow skeptic would have to be dull or willfully ignorant.

[Ouroboros]

My only reason why I claim theists are irrational is because it makes them so pissed.

[white_raven23]

In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

 

You sure?

 

He can hear cars. He can touch a car all over. That would give him enough info for him to know there is a critical ability he does not possess that enables a majority of people to operate cars.

 

Denial isn't going to get him a drivers license.

 

Vision is a primary info gathering tool for most of us. Just because it doesn't exist for a blind person doesn't mean they don't know about it based on the evidence of their other senses.

[Mad_Gerbil]

My only reason why I claim theists are irrational is because it makes them so pissed.

 

You've managed to produce a rational reason to make an irrational claim.

I guess we can ignore this thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sorry MG, I just couldn't help it!

[Mad_Gerbil]

In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

 

You sure?

 

He can hear cars. He can touch a car all over. That would give him enough info for him to know there is a critical ability he does not possess that enables a majority of people to operate cars.

 

Denial isn't going to get him a drivers license.

 

Vision is a primary info gathering tool for most of us. Just because it doesn't exist for a blind person doesn't mean they don't know about it based on the evidence of their other senses.

 

You'll have to demonstrate for me how the ability to hear proves to a blind man that sight exists.

[Mad_Gerbil]

A couple of semesters of physics would provide all the empirical evidence the rainbow skeptic could want. I've never seen a neutron star, but I have reason enough to believe in them.

 

The rainbow skeptic would have to be dull or willfully ignorant.

 

Again, I'd like to see you back this up.

I don't see how the use of his other senses can prove that sight exists.

Please provide an example of this.

[Legion]

Mad Gerbil I generally don’t use the words irrational and rational.

 

I just finished reading a short essay by a psychiatrist. One of the things that he pointed out was that abused children will often blame themselves. Why? Are they irrational? He suggests that they do this because it gives them a better sense of control. If it is the child’s fault then there might be something that they can do to fix things.

 

Let me say it aloud so I can get the feel of it… “Those who believe in God are irrational.†No, I don’t really feel it. I think the belief serves some function. It fulfills some need. Belonging, purpose, security? I don’t know.

 

All I know is that I don’t feel the need for a belief in God. It serves no function for me.

[white_raven23]

In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

 

You sure?

 

He can hear cars. He can touch a car all over. That would give him enough info for him to know there is a critical ability he does not possess that enables a majority of people to operate cars.

 

Denial isn't going to get him a drivers license.

 

Vision is a primary info gathering tool for most of us. Just because it doesn't exist for a blind person doesn't mean they don't know about it based on the evidence of their other senses.

 

You'll have to demonstrate for me how the ability to hear proves to a blind man that sight exists.

 

 

You have got to be kidding.

 

He can hear the car move. He doesn't have to be run over by the damn thing to know it moves. The mechanics of a car can be demonstrated to him by a sighted person. He can touch those mechanicals. If absolutely necessary, he can even drive the freaking car (a friend of mine has done this in a residential area with his dad who is blind) with verbal cues from a sighted person (a very calm sighted person!). The blind person better damn well be able to know they cannot drive without a sighted person with them.

 

Going away from the car....a blind person can hear how fast people around him move. He cannot move that fast without increased risk of injury. Other people do not have the same level of risk (He doesn't hear them bump into as many walls as he would). To move at nearly the same speed, he needs either a stick or a dog. He knows other people do not have these sticks or guidance animals (no incessant tapping sound, or the panting tongues of a dog per person). The evidence for a sense that he himself does not possess is evident.

 

There is your evidence...which was obvious and totally unnecessary for me to spell out. Just because you come up with a hypothetical scenario, doesn't mean the principal characters you come up with get to have unrealistic limitations. You cannot even say your blind guy was raised in a sensory deprivation tank! He would not be remotely fuctional or capable of communication even if he survived.

[Mankey]

In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

 

You sure?

 

He can hear cars. He can touch a car all over. That would give him enough info for him to know there is a critical ability he does not possess that enables a majority of people to operate cars.

 

Denial isn't going to get him a drivers license.

 

Vision is a primary info gathering tool for most of us. Just because it doesn't exist for a blind person doesn't mean they don't know about it based on the evidence of their other senses.

 

You'll have to demonstrate for me how the ability to hear proves to a blind man that sight exists.

A blind man can feel around for our seeing eye dog, or cane and find none there. Then the blind man can ask why we dont need them. Then the blind man can have a reasonable confidence in the seeing mans explainations.......explainations that are consistent. And when it comes to axioms...think retortion you silly rat.

[Mike D]

I think if the blind man accepts the scientific method as our best means of obtaining knowledge, he'll be more inclined to believe that rainbows exist even though he cannot empirically verify the phenomena himself. People do this every day when scientists make claims that we personally cannot empirically verify ourselves, whether we're blind or not.

 

The problem with this scenario is that there's evidence of rainbows, whereas there's no evidence of an invisible man flying around in the sky who zaps things in and out of existence using nothing but his magical powers. In fact, I don't doubt that some god-believers reject the scentific method which states that rainbows are caused by sunlight refraction in raindrops, preferring to believe that "god" magically whips up all these rainbows himself each and every time (and what a coincidence he only does it when there's rain in the area, go figure!). What is rational about this?

 

P.S. As every rational person knows from reading the Babble, "god" sends us rainbows as a reminder of his promise to never drown babies, children and animals ever again when he gets pissed off!

[ShackledNoMore]

We don't necessarily need to see something to amass evidence of it.

 

We can't see light in the ultraviolet and infrared regions of the spectrum, but we can measure it. We would see ultraviolet and infrared portions of a rainbow if those wavelengths were in our range of detection. You know how much of the electromagnetic spectrum that no person on earth can detect with their senses, yet we know full well about? Our blind friend may not have reason to believe your machine beeps when it detects a rainbow if you just say, "here ya go," but if he studies optics and electronics, he can amass evidence of a rainbow, and have a basis to be satisfied with a rainbow detecting machine without taking everybody else's word, even though he can't see it, just like a scientist can study dark matter even if he can't see it.

 

Learning methods of detecting things we can't see, coming up with theories, testing them, building upon them if they hold up, and rejecting them if they don't: there's a world of difference between this and blind acceptance of something we do NOT find supporting evidence for.

 

I have no problem believing that bees can see ultraviolet light even if I can't. And I should say the evidence to a blind person that most people can see visible light should be overwhelming.

[RankStranger]

A couple of semesters of physics would provide all the empirical evidence the rainbow skeptic could want. I've never seen a neutron star, but I have reason enough to believe in them.

 

The rainbow skeptic would have to be dull or willfully ignorant.

 

Again, I'd like to see you back this up.

I don't see how the use of his other senses can prove that sight exists.

Please provide an example of this.

 

Ok. You're blind to X-rays, ultraviolet light, gamma rays, and infrared radiation. Yet these things can be "sensed"... you (and I) simply lack said "sense". You can't see this stuff, but there's plenty of readily available empirical evidence out there to support it. Would it be 'rational' for you (blind to these forms of radiation) to deny that any of these exist? You'd have to be dull, willfully ignorant.

 

Or maybe just obtuse.

 

Edit: I see that SNM stole my thunder.

[Mankey]

obtuse

[Antlerman]

SUMMARY

The main problem with the skeptic's claim that the theist is irrational is that it doesn't allow for the possibility that the believer may very well be detecting something that the unbeliever cannot detect. The unbeliever has no way of knowing for sure if the lack of empirical evidence is truly a lack of evidence or if it is proof of his own inability to sense the evidence.

 

In short, skeptics may present proof but have no way of knowing what is being proven.

 

This realization causes me to regard the skeptic as entirely rational and likely acting on all the evidence he is capable of detecting. That being said, his claim that I'm irrational is based entirely on the unspoken assertion that he has all of his faculties - an assertion that cannot be proven either way.

 

In short, if both the skeptic and the believer could both be responding to the evidence they see in pefectly rational ways.

I'm glad you've been reading my posts. I'm also happy that you are defensive enough about faith being called an act of irrationality to post this above. To my response:

 

I'm the first one to talk about the limits of perception in understanding reality. However, the first and most obvious error is your assumptions of a sensor organ that is super-human. There is no evidence anywhere that any such "spiritual" sight mechanism exists. There is however more than ample empirical data to confirm eye balls exist, turning to your analogy and answering it sufficiently. The "sensing" of believers is easily, and far more consistently, explained as a psychological and social interpretation of emotional responses using the language of myth.

 

You, nor anyone else, has an extra sensory device somewhere in your biological body that your brain lives in. "Spirit", "Soul", and other such descriptive words are constructs to give a language to the abstract conceptions about ourselves in the flesh bags we call "me". These primitive constructs are passed down in the language of cultures (despite have been 100% speculation of thought in origin), and you take these pure assumptions as fact and create entire logic arguments surrounding them, such as you argument above. Really quite amusing in this light, actually.

 

You need to first establish there are no other reasonable explanations for this "sense" you speak of (which I myself can attest to having experienced with all sincerity). Then you need to establish the basis for the idea of a spirit realm with something other than a personal interpretation of an emotion with the adopted language of your culture.

 

In short, my answer is that you have adopted the language of myth and culture to talk about your experiences of wonder and sense of awe at your own existence and the marvel of the universe. I know this experience too, and can assure you the language of myth is merely poetic and not literal. Does it need to be literal for you?

[mwc]

Hmmm...I rather like the part of this scenario that basically states that there's plenty of evidence for, oh let's just call it "something" but some of us are simply "blind" to it. If only those of you who are able to "see" this "something" could provide us poor "blind" folk with a device or some other evidence for this "something" too but, alas, it is not to be. Woe is us. The "blind."

 

This is really an extremely condescending little scenario if I do say so myself.

 

mwc

[Legion]

This is really an extremely condescending little scenario if I do say so myself.

I agree MWC. I can only guess that we are supposed to be the blind ones here.

[mwc]

I agree MWC. I can only guess that we are supposed to be the blind ones here.

But of course we are. The funny part is, like so many others, our gerbil pal makes one fatal assumption. That we're blind from birth. I grew up with his version of "sight." I've seen my share of his "rainbows" and they weren't anything more than an hallucination. The truth is that I saw what someone told me to see. No church. No book. NO GOD (er, "rainbow")! I've now seen real rainbows and are they fantastic by comparison (and fully reproducible by anyone, even with a garden hose, unlike his version).

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

 

You sure?

 

He can hear cars. He can touch a car all over. That would give him enough info for him to know there is a critical ability he does not possess that enables a majority of people to operate cars.

 

Denial isn't going to get him a drivers license.

 

Vision is a primary info gathering tool for most of us. Just because it doesn't exist for a blind person doesn't mean they don't know about it based on the evidence of their other senses.

 

You'll have to demonstrate for me how the ability to hear proves to a blind man that sight exists.

 

 

A couple of semesters of physics would provide all the empirical evidence the rainbow skeptic could want. I've never seen a neutron star, but I have reason enough to believe in them.

 

The rainbow skeptic would have to be dull or willfully ignorant.

 

Again, I'd like to see you back this up.

I don't see how the use of his other senses can prove that sight exists.

Please provide an example of this.

 

 

These two posts prove your irrationality, Mad Gerbil. Or your total lack of imagination. I've lived all my life with low vision. I don't doubt the things my well-sighted fellow humans talk about. In fact, I depend on their good vision all the time. For example, I can see there's buses down at the corner but I can't see if they have pulled out and have started moving toward my stop. If they're still parked I have time to run back into the school building for something. If they have pulled out and started moving I don't. In either case, there's no time to waste.

 

There's a cluster of students talking right next to me. I don't know them but I assume they can see, so I say to them, "Excuse me, I can't see. Are those buses down there still parked or are they coming?" One of them looks at the buses and tells me, "They're still parked." I go into the building, do my thing, and arrive at the stop before the bus.

 

If you had any imagination or rational thought in your head, Mad Gerbil, you would be able to think of this kind of thing without demanding support for the arguments in the above examples. Since you demand support for the arguments you prove your lack of either rationality or imagination or both.

[alanh]

However, for a man blind from birth a rainbow cannot be empirically verified.

Given enough effort and instrumentation a blind man could detect and describe rainbows - a suitable spectrophotometer or colorimeter could produce output in braille. Other blind men along with sighted people could intersubjectively verify the results.

In fact, he doesn't have any means to establish that "sight" exists beyond the testimony of his peers.

He could do experiments (on rats for example,) that would establish that a thing called sight exists.

The main problem with the skeptic's claim that the theist is irrational is that it doesn't allow for the possibility that the believer may very well be detecting something that the unbeliever cannot detect.

What exactly is the believer detecting?

In short, skeptics may present proof but have no way of knowing what is being proven.

Skeptics aren't making extraordinary claims about the existence of a "supernatural" being. Its up to the one making the claim to present evidence.

This realization causes me to regard the skeptic as entirely rational and likely acting on all the evidence he is capable of detecting. That being said, his claim that I'm irrational is based entirely on the unspoken assertion that he has all of his faculties - an assertion that cannot be proven either way.

You would need to establish that a believer has an additional faculty that the skeptic lacks.

[R. S. Martin]

You would need to establish that a believer has an additional faculty that the skeptic lacks.

 

I hope he establishes this. Otherwise he pretty much establishes his irrationality as already proven.

 

These Christians could "save face" so easily if only they did their research BEFORE they started posting. Their evangelizing would be so much more effective if they knew what was in our heads before they started. The problem is, they imagine what is in our heads, then they construct an argument based on their faulty presuppositions, and assume they're going to "catch a few fish."

 

That's like saying, "Fish live in running water. There's a creek out back. Let's go get some fishing gear. God is sure to send us a fish." But it so happens that the creek is dry for the summer months and that no fish ever wander up there. Investing in fishing gear is rather foolish without first doing a bit of research.

 

Likewise, it is utterly foolish trying to convert people with arguments they worked through and demolished long ago. This, then, is one more piece of evidence that theists are irrational. Pity poor foolish little mad gerbil. He worked so hard and had such a clever argument but he never thought to check whether the atheists had thought of these ideas before he did. And they had.

 

The posts are there by the thousand if only he had looked. But he hadn't. He thought he was so smart. Poor foolish little mad gerbil.

[R. S. Martin]

Is the Mad Gerbil going to be another one of those who make a no-show when their arguments are cut to shreds before they got their message across? Maybe he should take a lesson from the Mission Supervisor in To More Effectively Evangelize.

[white_raven23]

Is the Mad Gerbil going to be another one of those who make a no-show when their arguments are cut to shreds before they got their message across? Maybe he should take a lesson from the Mission Supervisor in To More Effectively Evangelize.

 

 

He'll just start a new thread with a new "flawed-in-favor-of-his-point" hypothetical scenario.

 

 

 

*Oops. Did I ruin the "surprise"?*

[Antlerman]

Is the Mad Gerbil going to be another one of those who make a no-show when their arguments are cut to shreds before they got their message across? Maybe he should take a lesson from the Mission Supervisor in To More Effectively Evangelize.

 

 

He'll just start a new thread with a new "flawed-in-favor-of-his-point" hypothetical scenario.

 

I think he's just busy at work:

 

(PROGRAMMING NOTE: There is alot of good material to respond to here but I'll be out the rest of today (Wednesday). I plan to get back here Thursday after work so that I can read through some of this garbage ya'll have posted.)

 

I have full confidence that MG will come back to what he started for our benefit and respond to our posts. I'm certain he will prove himself as a man of integrity and not a post-and-dodge evangelist. I'm greatly looking forward to his response to me here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=307112

 

P.S. “a lot” is two words, not one.