The Narrow Path Ministries

Of late the "New Atheists" Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc... have been of one mind on this particular point - that theism is irrational. My question for any lurking atheists - how do you define rational? Is there an objective standard for rationally?

My question for any lurking atheists - how do you define rational? Is there an objective standard for rationally?

I'm not an atheist, lurking or otherwise. However, I think I can answer this question.
In formal logic, an argument is said to be "rational", if it is logically valid.

For example, here are two valid arguments (rational arguments):

Premise 1: All cats are mammals.
Premise 2: All mammals are animals.
Conclusion: Therefore all cats are animals.

Premise 1: All dogs are cats.
Premise 2: All cats are chickens.
Conclusion: Therefore all dogs are chickens.

An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion logically follows from its premises. A valid argument says nothing about the truth value of the premises, that is, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. However, the premises may be false, as in the second example.

What follows is an invalid (irrational) argument:

Premise 1: All cats are mammals.
Premise 2: All dogs are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore All cats are dogs.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The premises are true, but the conclusion false. Thus the argument is irrational.

Here is another invalid argument, but it's irrationality is not so obvious as the example above:

Premise : For every thing, there was a time at which it did not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, there was a time at which everything did not exist.

If it is claimed that theism is not rational, then it must be shown that theists employ invalid arguments --- or at least that there is logical inconsistency in the statements of theists.

.

.

.

Yes Paidion, that is a good start. Of course inductive or deductive arguments are only as good as their premises. And many beliefs would be true even if one could not make a inductive or deductive argument for them. Like that my perception of reality actually corresponds to reality. That I'm not a brain in a vat. This can not be proven logically. Most of my memories couldn't be proven logically either. We can't prove that other "minds" exist, and so on.

And many beliefs would be true even if one could not make a inductive or deductive argument for them.

Of course. But that is not the point as I understand it. You said that the "new atheists" claim theism to be irrational. Such a claim cannot be justified by showing that theism cannot be proved logically. In order to justify this claim, it must be shown that theism is inconsistent --- and that has never been done.

I agree Paidion. I have found, the laws of logic aside, that the atheists I have debated have no objective standard for what is or is not "rational." They offer arbitrary definitions. Ones that are often self refuting. Like a strict empiricsim - for something to be true or meaningful it must be able to be seen, tasted, touched, measured, etc... The problem is - that belief can't be seen, tasted, touched, measured, etc. It is self refuting.

As is often pointed out, some of the most educated people don't know how to think. I've read both Hitchens and Dawkins and have seen them debate many, many times. In one particular debate (on the BBC, I think) Dawkins was debating with the host of the show and I thought he got creamed. The man he was debating wasn't even a theologian but you could tell he had thought very carefully about the subjects being discussed. Dawkins fell back to his usual antics of polite name calling.

I've found that the best argument these men have is ridicule. If one is able to see past the dog and pony show and ignore the insults, it's obvious that logic is not on their side. The great irony is that they appeal to the emotions far more than the theologians they debate, yet accuse their opponents of that very thing. It's a bait and switch scheme. They'll say, "Come see our wonderful atheistic logic" and as the crowds approach, they see nothing. "Where is this logic you were going to show us?" To this the showmen reply, "Our logic is that our opponents are stupid."

Amen Jason...