tweakabelle
Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eihwaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If a proposition of the type "X is true" is tested, there are only 3 possible outcomes. These are:
a) the proposition is proved. Therefore X is true;
b) the proposition is disproved. Therefore X is untrue; and
c) the proposition is neither proved nor disproved.
If the proposition fails to be be proven true (option a) then all other possible outcomes are covered by options b & c. There are no other possible outcomes.
Actually (and in universal practice, including everyday life, law, and science), there are at least two more:
d) based on the preponderance of evidence, X is probably true.
e) based on the preponderance of evidence, X is probably not true
There are also:
f) based on the evidence I have at present, I assume X true for now
g) based on the evidence I have at present, I assume X false for now (my italics)
Without getting too pedantic about it, all the options you presented above are in fact covered by option c – the proposition is neither proved nor disproved. All ‘probable’ outcomes, or conclusions based on the “preponderance of evidence” arise only if the proposition is neither proved nor disproved. A proposition of the importance of "A God exists" requires the highest standard of proof. 'Probable' conclusions and assumptions just don't make the grade. Therefore, religious belief remains unproven and consequently irrational.
Far more interesting questions for me are: why is it that believers feel such a need to claim rationality as a justification for their belief? Why do they engage in such a self-defeating exercise? Why don’t they build their arguments around potentially more fruitful positions? Why does it appear so difficult for some to accept that faith is the notion that bridges the gap between the evidence/argument and their belief?
Most importantly, isn't the real issue here the power that flows from holding a monopoly on truth, from being in a position to dictate what counts as truth in the public sphere? Isn't this a contest for power between two competing truth-production discourses/systems?
I feel you have offered some promising answers to some of these questions further on in your post.
quote:
eihwaz
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Until the proposition "A God exists" is proven true it will remain irrational to believe in it. There may exist other, possibly excellent, grounds for believing in the proposition. Who knows? I certainly don't! But whatever those grounds may be, they will not be rational grounds.
I usually detest being categorical about anything, but I really don't see any other way of dealing with this issue rationally.
Personally, I don't believe the existence of God can be conclusively proved or disproved either logically or scientifically. In these knowledge domains, the question of the existence of God is either an undecidable or doesn't even make sense. The conflict between religion and science is political and cultural, not epistemological.
Rather than irrational, I prefer either non-rational or a-rational. Paintings, jokes, music, love, joy, and poems are examples of artifacts and experiences which can be true but not susceptible to rational or scientific proof.
Yes I feel your points here signal the real issue. It’s not about the accuracy or veracity of religious belief at all – it’s about social and political power that flows from being in a position to pronounce Truth, to control the discourses and knowledges circulating in the public sphere. The extent of this power is enormous IMHO, its potential vastly under-appreciated.
Please let me emphasise that the argument I present denies and eliminates only the possibility of justifying religious belief rationally, and that there may be, as we have both suggested, many other adequate valid or even excellent bases on which to construct a religious belief. I’m perfectly happy to consider such notions.
At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s really fair to religious belief to evaluate it on rational/logical/scientific/empirical grounds alone. However, in the public domain, rationality has proved to be one of the best methods to resolve disputes and arrive at sensible decisions that humans have invented or developed.
Nonetheless, we seem to be agreeing that rationality isn’t a valid basis on which to mount an argument for religious belief, which is/was the issue being contested here. Thanks for sharing such valuable insights.
< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/7/2011 1:40:33 AM >
_____________________________
|
RE: Evolution vs. Religion - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread