Is Atheism considered be an irrational thought or a rational thought?
An atheist has a seeming advantage over a believer in God. In the realm of the intellect, an atheist appears to be in a position to project himself/herself as a thinker or a very analytical person. An atheist is supposed to be someone who cannot be easily swayed by superstition. Unlike a believer in God who at some point must admit complete relegation of his or her belief on faith, an atheist can claim, or so he thinks, that he is a totally rational person and nothing that is outside of the bounds of reason can be the object of his or her belief.
I think this typecasting of the atheist is the one that seems to give credibility and some kind of prestige to atheism. It is the thing that somewhat attracts some intellectual types to adopt it as their worldview. It is not uncommon for atheists to feel a sense of pride that by being atheists, they feel they can claim to be the more intelligent types compared to believers who they think are mere blind followers of their religious convictions.
But this typecasting is erroneous. The theists or believers in God should proactively object to this typecasting because the typecasting has the corresponding implication that the theists or believers are the unthinking mass who can be easily swayed by irrational beliefs that degrade their native intelligence.
I hold that in the ultimate analysis, atheism is more irrational than theism. It is not only irrational - it promotes ignorance by its simple denial that anything outside of reason is supposed to be something that cannot exist. Here are some pointers along that line:
We now know, and it is supported by modern psychology, that there is such a thing as intuitive knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is non-rational. It affirms the existence of some form of knowing that is not arrived at through the process of reasoning. This has been validated in laboratory experiments, e.g., the experiments that have conclusively identified the existence of ESP.
We also know, through the development of new perspectives in physics, that the behavior of the physical world does not necessarily follow a rational pattern. In fact at subatomic levels, rational patterns break down and the existence of matter basically becomes at any point in time, a mere probability derived from the interaction of subatomic particles within the atom.
The theory of evolution, which has been the favorite playing ground of atheist to support their view of the absence of a creator, is in fact very much wanting in terms of supporting a world view that denies an intelligent creator. The theory of evolution is anchored on the belief that life forms evolved from the simplest to the complex diversity in flora and fauna we witness today based on the principle of survival of the fittest. Life evolved to preserve itself - at each stage or level of evolution, it develops characteristics that better equips it for survival. But this perspective cannot explain aesthetics we find in nature. I can, for example, subscribe to the idea that the rose plant developed thorns to protect itself from predating herbivores. But how can you explain the variety of colors of the rose flower? I don't think flamingos are colored pink to evade predators. In fact they become easy target because of enhanced visibility. There appears to be no evolutionary purpose for the diversity of colors in nature except to postulate the existence of an artist who is interested in embodying beauty in nature.
Finally, atheists should realize that reason is self-limiting. There is absolutely nothing in this world that you can do based solely on reason. Even in decision making there is a management principle called "bounded rationality" which says that no matter how well thought of a decision might be, there will be, there will always be a point when you have to give up any further logical process. You will have to give way to the uncertainty principle. Beyond that point you have to subscribe to some kind of faith that you made the right decision.
And so will reason alone be insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God. To insist otherwise, like what atheists do, is a form of superstition.
@GC,
You misunderstood the stages in the book.
Stage One is the "teenage" mentality.
Stage Two is all about being tolerant and most religious folks like myself are this. Well, the rational ones.
Stage Three is scientific skepticism and questioning.
Stage Four is when you make a final decision and get a clear understanding of what you believe. Most scientist who are christian are like this.
If you read "The Road Less Traveled" by M Scott Peck, which was a best seller, this acclaimed psychiatrist puts forward a view that atheism/agnosticism is stage two on a three stage journey. I happen to agree with that view. Not all of course complete the journey. But then, even more never move from Stage 1, the religion you were born into. The only thing that will keep you learning, is humility. Getting too puffed up with where you are, and what you are, will keep you exactly there.
Atheist are just like everybody. You can't stereotype everybody. They're some Atheist that can keep quiet when strangers preach on the bus and there religious people who just can't stand it.
Interesting argument. I would say that atheists and theists are irrational to the same extent. To believe firmly that something does or does not exist without any proof whatsoever is irrational. By the way, the colors in nature can, in fact, be explained by evolution. The bright colors of flowers are meant to catch the eye of, and attract animals to either eat the plants fruit and therefore spread its seeds or attract an insect, such as a bee, to pollinate it or spread its own pollen. Flamingos are pink, not because it is advantageous, but because of what they eat. The algae and crustaceans that they eat contain pigments called carotids which cause the orange and pink color you see on a flamingo. I think a better argument to make would have been the large, decorative tails of the male peacock which makes them much slower and therefore easier for predators to catch. The only explanation for their large tails is that it is used to attract mates and that males with bigger tails must be stronger and better at flying because they have all that extra weight. You have to remember that evolution isn't who survives, its who can survive long enough to mate. The only truly rational religious view is that of the agnostic, which is I don't know if god exists and you don't either.
ESP has NOT been conclusively proved in a lab. You fail.
Intuition is merely the process at arriving at a conclusion from partial and incomplete information. Neural networks are shown to converge to a solution using 'fuzzy logic'; there is nothing new here.
Bringing up the theory of evolution is not used to disprove a god, only to disprove that of a god who would have acted a mere 6000 (or whatever) years ago.
Flamingos are pink because they get the pigment from what they eat. They can afford to be that color because they do not have predators that can sneak on them while they wade in shallow water. In their case, however, their vibrant color is a display of health and proper access to food.
Wild roses have a variety of color that depends on the area they are native from, and the insect that pollinate them; the most vibrant colors are the result of hybridization and cultivate selection done by humans.
Disproving god, from a secular humanist perspective, is done by showing the attributes of an all-mighty and omniscient god who intend to punish the wicked to be mutually incompatible with the presence of free will. If you want to battle atheists, do it from a perspective that concentrates on a single point, instead of bringing unrelated aspects. Your long diatribe is not coherent and cannot lead to enlightenment; it seems like it is more intended for yourself, to reassure yourself of your own beliefs, rather than openly allow them to be evaluated logically.
"We now know, and it is supported by modern psychology, that there is such a thing as intuitive knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is non-rational. It affirms the existence of some form of knowing that is not arrived at through the process of reasoning. This has been validated in laboratory experiments, e.g., the experiments that have conclusively identified the existence of ESP." Superstitious supernatural bull c**p.
"The theory of evolution, which has been the favorite playing ground of atheist to support their view of the absence of a creator, is in fact very much wanting in terms of supporting a world view that denies an intelligent creator. The theory of evolution is anchored on the belief that life forms evolved from the simplest to the complex diversity in flora and fauna we witness today based on the principle of survival of the fittest." Again, bull c**p! Evolution isn't the survival of the fittest, it is the survival of the good enough to get by.
"There appears to be no evolutionary purpose for the diversity of colors in nature except to postulate the existence of an artist who is interested in embodying beauty in nature." Triple bull c**p! While you certainly write eloquently, far beyond the quality of the typical Y/A user, what you are writing is unfounded gibberish. The purpose of colors in nature to support reproduction is well documented. I suggest actually learning something about evolutionary theory before criticizing it.
"...reason alone be insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God..." Quite correct, which is why atheists would like to see some sort of evidence supporting the existence of a deity before making the leap and claiming a belief in one. Unfortunately, for some five thousand years now, no religious faith has managed to provide the smallest shred of proof that a deity or deities exists.
First I will address your closing statement, as it is self refuting.
You assert "...reason alone be insufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God. To insist otherwise, like what atheists do, is a form of superstition."
Never mind that this is a false dichotomy fallacy, I want to address the basic contradiction in this argumentation.
That being that you attempt to use a reasoned argument (albeit fallacious one) to conclude that reason is insufficient to establish justified belief in something (and never mind the NO DUH moment here, as it is the case that most theistic dogmatic claims require faith for they fail under logical scrutiny).
So in short you have attempted to undermine reason, by using....reasoning????
Sorry but that is self refuting absurd ism not a sound and valid case for "faith" in god or religious dogmatic claims.
In psychology
psychological rationalization is not to be considered synonymous with rational discourse, and while there may be examples of seemingly irrational insights into the natures of things, thus far such examples (upon closer study) can be described rationally or remain unexplained mysteries
In physics
You are simply wrong, there are "rational patterns" in physics, else the purely symbolic logic of math would fail to describe nature at any level, sorry you were misinformed.
I won't even touch your rant about evolution, you clearly are not interested in the epistemological methodology of science...well unless perhaps it would serve to fulfill your agenda in the propagation of your particular accepted religions dogmatic and often fallacious myths and fables.
So let me point out what I did here,
I "insisted otherwise" but stayed away from superstition and simply used logical analysis and also corrected one of your straw men arguments (your rant about physics) and pointed your misconceptions about logical reasoning (both inductive and deductive)...remember just because a conclusion is not supported any premises does not mean that it can not be formulated logically.
And you either have not heard yet, or simply chose to ignore the FACTS that support evolution, I mean you realize that you are going to have totally eradicate genetic science to even have a chance of tearing this theory down, you know that right?
Anyway,
there are plenty of intriguing arguments for the existence of god, you have used none of them.
But the major problems with those arguments are...
They can not be said to support one religion more than any other
The term "god" is ambiguously defined
They do not actually prove god exists empirically
None of the them prove any religious claims about god, or what god expects of humans
They do not prove the existence of any supernatural phenomena
They do not prove any religious dogma about afterlife (heaven hell etc)
My advice would to would be to actually learn a bit about logic (formal reasoning)
study some philosophy (the subject of god has actually been explored in depth and intellectually in philosophy)
and maybe then come to a philosophy section engage in an intellectual dialog about the subject.
You seems to be using the word, 'rational' to include all types of knowledge. This was the case a few hundred years ago. In modern philosophy 'rational' split into two distinct fields of knowledge. Roughly speaking metaphysics and science. Metaphysical is an appeal to reason as a source of knowledge. This 'knowing' is not scientific but intellectual( supplied by the mind) and involves deducing truths.This is generally what modern philosophers understand by the term 'rational' Metaphysical truths cannot be tested by observation unlike scientific truths. In metaphysical terms metaphysical truths are self -evidently true.
What makes an atheist and atheist is their rejection of metaphysics as a source of knowledge. Knowledge of God is a metaphysical truth. Atheists argue that metaphysical knowledge is an illusion and metaphysical arguments prove nothing. Most atheists accept science as a source of knowledge because it can be demonstrated as true. In other words, it can be observed.
An atheist is someone who only accepts one source of knowledge as opposed to two possible sources of knowledge. I am sure most theologians would argue that reason is the only way to prove the existence of God
Is Atheism considered be an irrational thought or a rational thought?
~~~ 'Belief-thought'; religion, need not be rational. Not all 'thoughts are rational, yet all thoughts that are perceived, are real features of Reality/Truth which is ALL INCLUSIVE!
Different knowledge, but all that is perceived, including 'thoughts' is 'knowledge;'!
'Belief' is one type of perceived 'thought', 'analytical' is another, 'memory', 'critical thought' (philosophy), 'feelings', etc... are all 'thoughts' that we perceive!
All Perspectives are real and true features of the totality of Reality!
No Perspective can be 'discounted/discarded'!
Everything is Real! All inclusive!
Everything is True! All inclusive!
Look up 'Charon-synclastic incunabulum'!
Stage One is the "teenage" mentality.
Stage Two is all about being tolerant and most religious folks like myself are this. Well, the rational ones.
Stage Three is scientific skepticism and questioning.
Stage Four is when you make a final decision and get a clear understanding of what you believe. Most scientist who are christian are like this
~~~ This is a rather immature and arbitrary hierarchy, but that's what 'believers' do. They need not be rational, all they need do is 'believe'.
There is no 'belief' in science. Where the scientist is a believer, he is not a scientist or a philosopher, he is in 'religion-land'!
'Critical thought' and 'belief thought' are diametrically oppositional! The more of one, the less of the other! And vice verse!
A fundamentalist 'true-believer' has no ability to critically examine his own (to which he epically attaches) strong 'beliefs'. Where there is clear and effective 'critical thought', there can be no 'belief'!
That is one reason that 'true believers' get their buttocks kicked in a philosophical discussion! Eventually running away... It is an error for the believer to seek validation from the 'philosophy' crowd! Apples and oranges.
Is Atheism considered be an irrational thought or a rational thought?
