I've started this thread as a repeated claim made by atheists on this forum is that religion is irrational, false or deluded because there is no proof or objective empirical evidence for the existence of God. It's time to reconsider this outdated view.
At a minimum, a rational belief is one that is reasonable for you to hold, given what else you know or believe, i.e., it coheres with your other beliefs and with observation.
At a maximum, a rational belief requires solid evidence (or “proof”) in its favour.
This maximal view - that it is irrational to believe something without evidence - has been given the label “evidentialism” and was proposed first by Locke. Unfortunately, there is no solid “evidence” that supports evidentialism. It is not a self-evident axiom, and neither is it based on other self-evident beliefs.
Evidence for a belief is always based on other beliefs in a regression until you get to a belief that is “properly basic” (foundationalism), for which very few beliefs qualify. Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief
• In classical foundationalism, beliefs are held to be properly basic if they are either self-evident axiom, or evident to the senses (empiricism).
• In modern foundationalism, beliefs are held to be properly basic if they were either self-evident axiom or incorrigible. One such axiom is Rene Descartes's axiom, Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). Incorrigible (lit. uncorrectable) beliefs are those which one can believe without possibly being wrong. Notably, faith in the senses is NOT seen as properly basic, because, Descartes argued, all our sensory experience could be an illusion.
• In reformed epistemology, beliefs are held to be properly basic if we are naturally inclined to believe them. Examples include faith in our senses, faith in our memory, and belief in God.
A strong argument against evidentialism is that we commonly hold many beliefs quite rationally that we cannot “prove” or provide incorrigible evidence for e.g. that other people are conscious, that we dreamed of the Invisible Pink Unicorn last night, that we have a headache or that a certain picture is beautiful. Evidentialism based on foundationalism is therefore self-referentially incoherent i.e. by it’s own terms it is either false or an irrational belief.
So, what alternatives are there? “Reformed epistemology” is a development which rejects evidentialism based on foundationalism, arguing (as above) that many of our beliefs (including religious beliefs) are rational even if we cannot offer objective evidence for them. Only beliefs that are internally incoherent or which contradict the evidence are rejected as irrational. It therefore takes a more realistic “innocent until proven guilty” approach, and escapes the self-referential incoherence of evidentialism.
Another, skeptical approach that has been promoted by Rorty, Putnam and others is Pragmatism. This was a philosophy that came out of the American Civil War, where both sides considered they were fighting for “true” values. It was conceived by James, Dewey and Pearce. Pragmatism argues that a belief (e.g. a scientific theory) is only as “true” as it is useful (e.g. in explaining observed phenomena and in making predictions). All beliefs are judged on their usefulness in building a coherent working picture of the world. For example, creationism is not that useful in making correct predictions, whereas evolution has proved much more useful in this respect e.g. predicting animals such as the Tiktaalik.
Thus for a pragmatist it is possible to believe in the IPU or the FSM, but most people will reject this as not being a useful belief. Contrast this with a coherent belief in God which can provide a moral framework, a life purpose, a community, and a fulfilment of spiritual needs and which seems to result in greater happiness and longevity. For Pragmatists therefore, a healthy religion, whether you consider it “true” or not, provides a coherent and useful function both to the individual and to society, and therefore is quite rational to adopt.
At a minimum, a rational belief is one that is reasonable for you to hold, given what else you know or believe, i.e., it coheres with your other beliefs and with observation.
At a maximum, a rational belief requires solid evidence (or “proof”) in its favour.
This maximal view - that it is irrational to believe something without evidence - has been given the label “evidentialism” and was proposed first by Locke. Unfortunately, there is no solid “evidence” that supports evidentialism. It is not a self-evident axiom, and neither is it based on other self-evident beliefs.
Evidence for a belief is always based on other beliefs in a regression until you get to a belief that is “properly basic” (foundationalism), for which very few beliefs qualify. Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief
• In classical foundationalism, beliefs are held to be properly basic if they are either self-evident axiom, or evident to the senses (empiricism).
• In modern foundationalism, beliefs are held to be properly basic if they were either self-evident axiom or incorrigible. One such axiom is Rene Descartes's axiom, Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"). Incorrigible (lit. uncorrectable) beliefs are those which one can believe without possibly being wrong. Notably, faith in the senses is NOT seen as properly basic, because, Descartes argued, all our sensory experience could be an illusion.
• In reformed epistemology, beliefs are held to be properly basic if we are naturally inclined to believe them. Examples include faith in our senses, faith in our memory, and belief in God.
A strong argument against evidentialism is that we commonly hold many beliefs quite rationally that we cannot “prove” or provide incorrigible evidence for e.g. that other people are conscious, that we dreamed of the Invisible Pink Unicorn last night, that we have a headache or that a certain picture is beautiful. Evidentialism based on foundationalism is therefore self-referentially incoherent i.e. by it’s own terms it is either false or an irrational belief.
So, what alternatives are there? “Reformed epistemology” is a development which rejects evidentialism based on foundationalism, arguing (as above) that many of our beliefs (including religious beliefs) are rational even if we cannot offer objective evidence for them. Only beliefs that are internally incoherent or which contradict the evidence are rejected as irrational. It therefore takes a more realistic “innocent until proven guilty” approach, and escapes the self-referential incoherence of evidentialism.
Another, skeptical approach that has been promoted by Rorty, Putnam and others is Pragmatism. This was a philosophy that came out of the American Civil War, where both sides considered they were fighting for “true” values. It was conceived by James, Dewey and Pearce. Pragmatism argues that a belief (e.g. a scientific theory) is only as “true” as it is useful (e.g. in explaining observed phenomena and in making predictions). All beliefs are judged on their usefulness in building a coherent working picture of the world. For example, creationism is not that useful in making correct predictions, whereas evolution has proved much more useful in this respect e.g. predicting animals such as the Tiktaalik.
Thus for a pragmatist it is possible to believe in the IPU or the FSM, but most people will reject this as not being a useful belief. Contrast this with a coherent belief in God which can provide a moral framework, a life purpose, a community, and a fulfilment of spiritual needs and which seems to result in greater happiness and longevity. For Pragmatists therefore, a healthy religion, whether you consider it “true” or not, provides a coherent and useful function both to the individual and to society, and therefore is quite rational to adopt.
