No, you absolutely do NOT have to suspend scientific reasoning to believe in religion.



Here's the question we seem to be asking: Is it rational to believe in God

So, you're bringing up unsubstantiated "miracles" as evidence AGAINST religion? Let's think about this.

Either 1) jesus DID walk on water, in which case, how does the TRUTH of that event require suspension of rational thought? If he did it, he did it. Right? What's irrational about that? Nothing.

or, 2) jesus DID NOT walk on water, and it's just a fable, and what requires the suspension of rational thought? Still believing that he walked on water? Well, of course: if he did NOT walk on water, believing that he did is irrational.

HOWEVER!!! If it's unsubstantiated in EITHER direction, then what requires the suspension of rational thought? If it's not proven that he did NOT walk on water, then it's like believing that I had bagels for breakfast, because I said so - but you have NO proof that I did, nor do you have proof that I didn't. Nothing irrational in that belief of yours (I hope you have this belief, because I DID have bagels).

BUT WAIT! You will certainly respond that "it's easy for me to believe that you had bagels for breakfast, because that's a regular occurrence in the world; walking on water is hardly a regular occurrence, so it's a MUCH bigger stretch to believe (in the absence of proof either way) that jesus walked on water than you having bagels for breakfast this morning". Granted, but just because it SEEMS unlikely doesn't mean that it's irrational. The point of it being called a 'miracle' is that it's exactly NOT a regular occurrence in the world: it's a supernatural intervention! So, what you're trying to say is that believing in something that, IF there is supernatural powers capable (and willing) to perform such interventions, THEN it's irrational to believe in such an event based on testimony? No, you surely can't be claiming that.

SO, maybe you're instead saying that it's irrational to believe in the supernatural in the first place...presumably because there's no evidence that such supernatural exists. But, I think we're using the working assumption that we have no deciding evidence in EITHER direction - the decision is completely "underdetermined" (in technical terms). In underdetermined questions, it's rational to believe in any of the possibilities.

So, if we're asking whether it's rational to believe in God (viz. the supernatural), then such an argument would be begging the question.

N.B. (Begging the question is a technical logic term for a type of circular argument - it's a fallacy: on a side note, generally when people say "it begs the question", they mean that something makes the asking of a follow-up question necessary, but that's a misuse of the phrase (it's been in logic since at least Aristotle).

Your #1 makes no sense to me. If he did then everything that we trust and believe in science is a waste of time. I am not discussing rationality in the sense you are. No scientist can believe that anyone has ever walked on water unless shown with proof. It goes against the scientific process. You are talking about someone saying that they walked on water and me trusting that they are telling the truth. You say it is perfectly rational in that regard if you trust them (belief i guess?) This is wacko religious thinking.

Here are my steps in the thought process.

1. Jesus had to walk on water for the literal bible to be true.
2. For the religion to carry any weight beyond philosphical ideas (like the golden rule) then these things must be real.
2. Walking on water is not physically (like gravity, velocity, physics etc.) possible.
3. Therefore the bible is no more than an idea to live you life by. Like Buddhism. Which is fine.
4. The end.

Am I missing something. I think you are thinking about this from an emotional philosphical arguement. Act like Einstein for a sec and try and deal with the miraculous claims of the bible.

Living a good christian lifestyle is commendable in a basic way. You know saying thanks and opening doors and giving charitably and yada yada yada. But believing in all of goofy stuff of miracles is just irrational.

Everything is more than the sum of its parts.

That postt ^^^ was supposed to go after the tl;dr from MK...this whole thread is tl;dr btw.

[quote="black_knight6"]From what I understand about Einstein's sensibilities, I think he'd be the other way...he'd be more willing to think that we're not qualified to dismiss them out of hand.[quote]

Yes but secretly he would have been laughing. Also I am now thoroughly confused after your last post as to what they hell I am trying to convey.

We'll pick this up tomorrow.

Northview, how are you not an atheist?

a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I'm agnostic because I recognise that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a Creator is unattainable.

I believe this can be attributed to atheists as well.