Is belief in the existence of God irrational?

[DanielGarneau]

"Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature?" This quote is the following Web site: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html. How do you demonstrate that Christianity is rational?

 

[epostle1]

"Is disbelief in the existence of God irrational?"

Yes, it's like cutting the limb off a tree you are sitting on.

Atheism:

Science and Religion: Different Domains

Those who claim that the lack of scientific validation for the truth claims of religion fail to understand the nature of scientific inquiry. Rather, they are imposing a philosophical point of view which pretends to be "science." These people are not scientific, but "scientistic." They transform a procedural methodology, material reductionism, into a metaphysics, that of materialist reductionism.

The scientific methodologcal procedure proceeds from the notion that we gain understanding of the material realm by breaking down its components into their smallest aggregate parts to understand how they function. The philosophy of reductionism tries to reduce everything to the material realm. The philosophical reductionist says that because we know that material effects occur due to material causes, there must be nothing but material causes. Anything that is not explained by a material cause is automatically excluded from reality. In this way they assume that miracles cannot accrue, and that God must not exist, because after all, there can be nothing beyond material cause and effect. Science is not the enemy of religious belief. In fact many modern greats in science are Christians...

...The scientific fraternity conducted a poll and found that on any given Sunday 46% of Ph.D. holders in science can be found in church. That compares with 47% for the general population
(in Alan Lightman Origins: The Lives and World of Modern Cosmologists (Harvard University press, 19990).

more Christian scientists listed here.

 

[OzSpen]

"Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature?" This quote is the following Web site: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html. How do you demonstrate that Christianity is rational?

Daniel,

How can it be irrational when there is a stack of evidence around us. Let's start with where Paul told us to begin in Romans 1:18-32 (ESV):

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practise such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practise them.

On the basis of the evidence around us in creation, those who reject this knowledge are the irrational ones. One of the reasons we have people who live all kinds of unrighteous lives is because they reject this evidence.

Have you listened to any of the YouTube interviews, etc. with leading scientist and professor of mathematics at Oxford University, Prof John Lennox? Only last night I was viewing his debate with leading atheist/agnostic Prof Richard Dawkins, also of Oxford University. Let's see if we can pick up one of the discussions with Prof John Lennox.

See this Aussie, Greg Clark's, interview with Prof John Lennox on 'God's Undertaker: Has science buried God?'. This is based on Lennox's book.

That should get us started.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[DanielGarneau]

Hello Kepha and OzSpen,

I just read with great interest both your articles just now. I appreciate what Professor John Lennox says on the short 10 minute video OzSpen points to in the above post. For example, (1) the Christian World View provided the logical background for the rise of science; (2) science answers the why questions of the material world but cannot answer the questions related to intentions of what exists; (3) science now admits that there was a beginning to all things, this they do since the 1960s through what they call the big bang theory, which is a way of naming a mystery; (4) the discovery that the DNA in the structure of life, involving extremely long DNA words, which from a mathematical perspective is hard to explain apart from some intelligence behind it; (5) new atheism's purpose of destroying all religion consider that the best way to do it is through the science culture present in every part of the world; (6) there are rational alternatives to atheism, especially since atheism is not what it might seem to be at first sight.

God bless!

 

[brokentuningfork]

God has blessed you with the gift of patience and longsuffering Daniel :lol:

 

[bbyrd009]

God has blessed you with the gift of patience and longsuffering Daniel :lol:

yes

 

[epostle1]

Over a century ago, the proud materialist-secularists of the day taunted the great Christian apologist, G. K. Chesterton, declaring to him that Christianity was built upon fairy stories. Chesterton's response was an even more proud, "Yes indeed!"

What sounds like blasphemy on Chesterton's part is actually common sense, for as he said in his Orthodoxy, "Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense" – a truth obscured to us because our minds have been captured by the materialist creed.

What is the materialist creed? Modern materialism denies that we have a soul and reduces us to a mere body. In doing so, it assumes that all our actions are determined by physical forces, and therefore denies that we have free will. It therefore declares to be unreal our everyday experience of freely choosing this or that action, and in doing so, removes the possibility of moral action. It reduces love and hate, courage and cowardice to chemistry, and makes of human adventure and human history predetermined paths marked out from the beginning by the laws of nature. And finally, based upon the notion that the universe is a great self-winding, law-driven machine, materialism declares that miracles are impossible and God does not exist.

Fairy stories don't allow such nonsense. They are built upon the everyday experience that we do, in fact, make free choices, and it is the common-sense recognition of the reality of free choice that shatters the entire materialist myth. Unlike the dread, dark materialist story, fairy stories assume the freedom on our part to take this road or that one, to kiss or not to kiss a frog, to uncork a genie's bottle or not, to search for the magic castle or abandon our quest in despair. In short, the fairy tale assumes that life can be an adventure, one that is determined in large part by how and what we choose, rather than predetermined by chemical reactions in our brain or DNA. Fairy stories, unlike materialism, allow for morality, and that's what makes them far greater bearers of truth.

Moreover, a fairy story allows for magic, for wonders that are beyond human reckoning, and happy endings that stretch beyond all notions of human happiness. At any time, at any place, some greater power wielded by some greater Being can burst into our adventure and make everything far more adventurous. Fairy stories, unlike materialism, allow for the miraculous, and that's what makes them far more accurate stories about reality.

Now we have discovered the weak link in the materialist's argument, one that is rooted in its secular desire to rid the world of religion. He has so constructed his view of the universe that in order to get rid of God he must destroy man. He removes God by declaring that the universe is a great machine governed, not by God, but by the iron laws of nature. These iron laws of nature both make God unnecessary and make the miraculous impossible. That is why the secular spirit loves these laws, even worships them as gods.

But these same laws, so cleverly designed to eliminate God and His miracles, also make the most ordinary free human action impossible and reduce human beings to chemically-determined automatons. For a hide-bound materialist, my decision to have wheat rather than white toast is every bit as miraculous as Jesus Christ raising Lazarus from the dead.

That is the weak link in his argument, because the materialist spell (much like the evil spell in fairy stories) is broken simply by the act of choosing. If we can choose, and the alleged chains of the "laws of nature," then so can God. Both the moral and the miraculous can happen. If we can truly act, then so can God.

What, then, is to prevent God from bursting into our human adventure, at a very particular time, and a very particular place, and making everything far more adventurous? What prevents Him from quite unexpectedly introducing wonders beyond human reckoning, and happy endings that stretch beyond all notions of human happiness?

What makes the Gospels the greatest fairy stories ever told is that they both contain and surpass all the wonder, all the adventure of any fairy story ever imagined – and on top of all that, they actually happened. God did become man, the Creator did enter creation. The Great Dramatist burst into His own drama at a quite unexpected place and a quite unexpected time, turning everything upside down by viewing the heavens from His place in a manger.
Is Christmas a Fairy Story?

 

[OzSpen]

What makes the Gospels the greatest fairy stories ever told is that they both contain and surpass all the wonder, all the adventure of any fairy story ever imagined – and on top of all that, they actually happened.

That's an oxymoron. Fairy stories never actually happen. So to say that the Gospels are 'the greatest fairy stories' is baloney! To say that 'they actually happened' is speaking truth.

 

[bbyrd009]

the analogy is a good one, though, with all due respect; except for someone listening/reading too literally, perhaps. If you will accept it, the Gospels--which co-incidentally, do not define what "Gospel" even means, exactly, just like the quarter-million hits on google for "what is the Gospel?" mostly do not; well, the Gospels do define It, but the answer is just too simple for us, i guess, which is why all the hits--are effectively "fairy stories" for us. No one reading this was a witness, and when you seek proof, of "Nazareth" as an actual town, say, during the time of Christ, you can't find it; it mysteriously disappears, during that time at least.

So iow you can insist all those things really happened, if you like, and even find some shreds of proof, but your proof will not satisfy everyone, and the debate on Nazareth, for instance, runs about 50/50--among knowledgeable scholars who care--just like all the other pointless debates about things that don't matter in Scripture. Meaning "facts." If you require facts to have faith in God, see the story about Thomas, iow.

and just for the record, i go back and forth on it, but i guess all that stuff really did prolly happen, even though if you were there you would have used different words to describe what you saw, maybe, even as Pharaoh would surely object to "God hardened his heart." And if you were a witness to some event then, and happened to read a Gospel account later, you might even have some objections, or, let's say you would prolly have a different point of view, would have maybe written a different account, insisting that you saw this, or that, and not that, or this. Which i surely would have, too.

But the point would then be missed by us, maybe, that the writer was writing for a different audience, one for a thousand years from then, who would not understand our descriptions of events at all, most likely. And who debate over whether or not Genesis was mythology, in an age when "mythology" means "myth" now, it means "lies," to us anyway, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what it used to mean, so now "truth" has become "lies." At least until you go look.

So, it might be relevant to see that one man's truth is another's fairy story, and we even have...fairy stories about this phenomenon, two guys standing right next to each other, telling two completely different stories, and disagreeing with each other, while both telling the truth, from their perspective.

In fairy stories, there is no perspective, is another way to put it; there is no argument, no "other side of the story."
Whether they actually happened or not becomes irrelevant, and i mean completely irrelevant, as hard as that is to get comfortable with. And while it might serve you to insist that there was a Nazareth in the time of Christ, thoughtful people, Christian scholars, even, are led to disagree, and would say "To say that 'they actually happened' is speaking lies."

Weird, i know.

 

[epostle1]

That's an oxymoron. Fairy stories never actually happen. So to say that the Gospels are 'the greatest fairy stories' is baloney! To say that 'they actually happened' is speaking truth.

Chesterson is not saying the Gospels are "the greatest fairy stories'', absent of context. He repeatedly explains what he means, and I can't give you reading lessons in a forum.

 

[bbyrd009]

The comparisons of Literalists (Fundamentalists) to Atheists should be considered here, as they have been observed to have the same faith. Which thank God i didn't make that up, it is just a thing, already, that might be seen to upset both sides, either side, when you mention it.

The beauty of having faith in fairy stories is that you no longer have a position to defend, and Love believes all things can resolve for you. I know it seems like your faith might be destroyed, in this, but faith comes by hearing. Fairy stories such as we have today, the Hobbit or whatever, that relate no truth, fade as quickly as they are written; your kids' kids will chuckle, at the Hobbit, not understanding. No one chuckles at mythology, Dao stories, say, like that; not even "Atheists." One might chuckle, understanding, yes.

 

[OzSpen]

Chesterson is not saying the Gospels are "the greatest fairy stories'', absent of context. He repeatedly explains what he means, and I can't give you reading lessons in a forum.

And I'm not giving you lessons on this forum on figures of speech!

 

[bbyrd009]

Hate your life is hardly rational, imo.

 

[epostle1]

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism”​

​

It’s currently fashionable for atheists to deny that a universe without God is caused by “pure chance” or “randomly colliding atoms,” as their earlier forebears might have boldly and proudly described it.
Yet natural “laws” somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes).
Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist / materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.
The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.
Indeed, this is a faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.
Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism.
The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

read more here

The argumentation above (reductio ad absurdum), is satirical humor, not meant to be taken in the hyper-literal sense.

 

[bbyrd009]

Indeed, this is a faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.

well, "Christians" is a very broad term, as is "atheists," actually, and it may be seen that the physical, atheist pov breaks down at the double-slit--and the Big Bang, for that matter, iow they have to start talking like spiritually, in order to make any sense at all--as does the pov of those "gurgling and cooing," who have to start talking in absolutes, to make any sense, and the similarities of atheists and fundies has been marked before, it is literally a "thing."

 

[bbyrd009]

Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

this strikes me as a mischaracterization of atheists, imo, who would claim that that is exactly what they eschew, religiousity, while claiming to pursue the actual mechanism that causes crops to flourish, and abandoning any concept that does not, literally, produce fruit. And the fact that this leads to better living through chemistry, and not healthier food for everyone, now that might be the evidence of the futility of that path, because while it sounds good, the neds may end up being, "hey, if there is no God, then Profit is where it's at," or it also might mean "I seek the most, nourishing, holistic way," even by an atheist, wherein we see that it is hating yourself to go the latter way, because profit will suffer, so what does "atheist" even mean, then. It is a bell-curve, just like everything else that we assum is an absolute, and an Atheist might also be a First Son.

which, i like your post, ok, i'm just playing DA now.

 

[bbyrd009]

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”


nice, lol.

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism.

nice. while the view is simultaneously shattered by Einstein, wherein we have already gotten a peek at the fluid nature of time, and the time among "beings of light" or photons, practically does not exist as we understand it, nonetheless an atheist is not too comfortable with this, and avoids the message here for reasons you have described. This may be compared to a True Believer who holds that life will start in some Tomorrow, the other end of the spectrum, so to speak.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

they do at least--however reluctantly--have a system, the "scientific method," whereby one may be compelled to recognize a new doctrine, simply because it fits the facts better. And while they might be a "holdout," and disavow any new doctrine, regardless, the truth, seen by the weight of the evidence, will either vindicate them, or relegate them to obscurity. And the path to change for Established Religion follows a remarkably similar trajectory, wherein false gods are established, to be worshipped, so that one may essentially have their cake and eat it, too, so that way i can be both a Christian, and be approved of by men, say, or also be financially successful, or also have power, or control, or also a Patriot, or Gay, or Pentecostal, or anything that i might desire to put in front of "Christian," even if it appears to be behind it.

 

[biotheist]

"Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature?" This quote is the following Web site: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html. How do you demonstrate that Christianity is rational?

Doesn't the bible say that Christianity is foolishness to the outside observer.

How then do I demonstrate that it's rational to the those who's rationale tells them it is foolishness.

 

[bbyrd009]

lots of ways. by making it socially acceptable, perhaps. Or by having the biggest army. Starving perceived infidels is also a time-honored way, we are getting a lot of Muslim "converts" to...well, i hate to even call it "Christianity;" "Jesusness" might be a better characterization. See how Jesusness is totally rational, because you also get to be prosperous, you get to eat, and you don't get your weddings drone bombed, and you can of course still become "successful," maybe, maybe even rich.

Christianity is becoming more rational by the day, it seems to me.

 

[DoveSpirit05]

is it irrational 2 think dat the universe came from nothing!!