Claim: The very fact of the existence of science precludes any belief in the existence of god for being rational. In other words, methodological naturalism should not work in a world where god exists. But it clearly does. Even if a particular scientific theory is incorrect, its very plausibility as a competing thought to the religious notion of god the causative agent discounts any certainty for a deity. In the absence of certainty in regard to god, then any belief in god is irrational because it ignores any contrary evidence or reason.

I don't think there is enough information in the term 'god' to draw a general conclusion. You would need to know more, specifically, about the degree of universal autonomy that a particular conception of the term permits. If, for example, the conception is of a deistic god then the degree of autonomy would make the world virtually indistinguishable from a metaphysically natural one. It could also be the case that a person conceives of a pantheistic god, or another, similar type of god for whom that which we consider to be natural is merely the preferred and consistent method for working.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Claim: The very fact of the existence of science precludes any belief in the existence of god for being rational. In other words, methodological naturalism should not work in a world where god exists. But it clearly does. Even if a particular scientific theory is incorrect, its very plausibility as a competing thought to the religious notion of god the causative agent discounts any certainty for a deity. In the absence of certainty in regard to god, then any belief in god is irrational because it ignores any contrary evidence or reason.

Science seems to satisfy our epistemic itches very well but it's not and never will be a complete view of nature (imagine a scientist just after the Big Bang documenting the then extant periodic table).

Our curiosity in science is driven by how we form hypothesis and how we test these. Whilst science assigns certain hypothesised gods to the trashheap of failure there will always be room for one more god hypothesis .

So belief in a specific god is irrational if you ignore contrary evidence but a more modern believer in god adapts their definition of god to avoid this threat of failure.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Even if a particular scientific theory is incorrect, its very plausibility as a competing thought to the religious notion of god the causative agent discounts any certainty for a deity. In the absence of certainty in regard to god, then any belief in god is irrational because it ignores any contrary evidence or reason.

If that is so, then the opposite is also true: because god exists as an alternative to scientific theories, belief in those scientific theories is irrational.

This makes all belief irrational. We cant be certain about most or even all things, for example that other people exist.

pl0bs wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Even if a particular scientific theory is incorrect, its very plausibility as a competing thought to the religious notion of god the causative agent discounts any certainty for a deity. In the absence of certainty in regard to god, then any belief in god is irrational because it ignores any contrary evidence or reason.

If that is so, then the opposite is also true: because god exists as an alternative to scientific theories, belief in those scientific theories is irrational.

But god doesn't exist as an alternative to scientific theories. At best we can say that science has not yet discovered god just as science at one point had not yet discovered aluminium.

If we view god in the same way that we view turning base metals into gold then what we do discover makes god less and less likely just as what we discover about metallurgy makes alchemy obsolete.

This makes all belief irrational. We cant be certain about most or even all things, for example that other people exist.

Ah, solipsism.

byofrcs wrote:But god doesn't exist as an alternative to scientific theories. At best we can say that science has not yet discovered god just as science at one point had not yet discovered aluminium.

If we view god in the same way that we view turning base metals into gold then what we do discover makes god less and less likely just as what we discover about metallurgy makes alchemy obsolete.

Even creationism is an alternative to evolution, and we cannot be absolutely certain it is false or that evolution is true. By the opening post standards, that makes belief in evolution irrational.

pl0bs wrote:

byofrcs wrote:But god doesn't exist as an alternative to scientific theories. At best we can say that science has not yet discovered god just as science at one point had not yet discovered aluminium.

If we view god in the same way that we view turning base metals into gold then what we do discover makes god less and less likely just as what we discover about metallurgy makes alchemy obsolete.

Even creationism is an alternative to evolution, and we cannot be absolutely certain it is false or that evolution is true. By the opening post standards, that makes belief in evolution irrational.

No, science at best says that evolution is probable - I don't know if anyone says it is "true". Creationism is thus less probable and every new discovery by science makes all the creation myths (and there are many of them) even less probable.

If someone is aware of the odds but keeps placing bets on one very improbable creation myth then that is irrational.

byofrcs wrote:No, science at best says that evolution is probable - I don't know if anyone says it is "true". Creationism is thus less probable and every new discovery by science makes all the creation myths (and there are many of them) even less probable.

If someone is aware of the odds but keeps placing bets on one very improbable creation myth then that is irrational.

You are missing the point. The OP states that the existence of an alternative, robs the other idea of "certainty" and thereby makes belief in it irrational.

This applies just as much to evolution VS creationism.

pl0bs wrote:

byofrcs wrote:No, science at best says that evolution is probable - I don't know if anyone says it is "true". Creationism is thus less probable and every new discovery by science makes all the creation myths (and there are many of them) even less probable.

If someone is aware of the odds but keeps placing bets on one very improbable creation myth then that is irrational.

You are missing the point. The OP states that the existence of an alternative, robs the other idea of "certainty" and thereby makes belief in it irrational.

This applies just as much to evolution VS creationism.

I think that a multitude of unstated characteristics are hidden behind the use of the simple term of 'alternative', such that not every conceivable alternative is necessarily an alternative for the purposes of this argument.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Claim: The very fact of the existence of science precludes any belief in the existence of god for being rational. In other words, methodological naturalism should not work in a world where god exists.

It shouldn't? Why not?

But it clearly does. Even if a particular scientific theory is incorrect, its very plausibility as a competing thought to the religious notion of god the causative agent discounts any certainty for a deity.

I agree. I am not certain that a God exists. But, I think it's more likely than not that one does.

In the absence of certainty in regard to god, then any belief in god is irrational because it ignores any contrary evidence or reason.

Why do you even think this? I don't ignore any evidence at all. Are you trying to say that a single piece of evidence contra-God would utterly and certainly disprove God? I don't think so at all. Yes, it would lower the probability; however I see absolutely no reason not to believe a God exists at all just because I do not have certainty.

Nocterro wrote:I see absolutely no reason not to believe a God exists at all just because I do not have certainty.

My bold.

I think you may be reversing the procedure of the rational progression to a conclusion, can you disabuse me of this belief by stating in general terms the rational nature of your belief in a god?

byofrcs wrote:No, science at best says that evolution is probable - I don't know if anyone says it is "true".

Can't agree with that. Evolution happens: Fact. Whether the theory of evolution is true in all its detail is another matter.

Creationism is thus less probable and every new discovery by science makes all the creation myths (and there are many of them) even less probable.

Well I would go further and say that specific creation myths have been utterly falsified, especially the ridiculous idea of special creation. It is most definitely untrue that all species were specially created, because speciation events have been observed both in nature and in the lab. That's incontravertible fact.

If someone is aware of the odds but keeps placing bets on one very improbable creation myth then that is irrational.

Definitely.

pl0bs wrote:If that is so, then the opposite is also true: because god exists as an alternative to scientific theories, belief in those scientific theories is irrational.

I agree with the conclusion, but not for the reasons you cite. God doesn't exist as an alternative to scientific theories. It may exist as a part of what those theories describe, although that's doubtful. It can be said, though, that belief in scientific theories is irrational, because scientific theories are not something to be believed. In order to believe a scientific theory, it requires that you don't have the facts. Once you have the hard evidence from reality, belief is irrelevant. If you don't have the hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, belief is useless in this regard.

This makes all belief irrational. We cant be certain about most or even all things, for example that other people exist.

Agreed, although if you think that you yourself exist, even as only a brain in a jar, requires the existence of other things, not least the jar, and by extension an external reality. At this point, the principle of parsimony kicks in, as the assumption of the non-existence of the things that you experience requires more explanation than the existence of those things. Either way, solipsism is a load of self-refuting wankery.

Nocterro wrote:Are you trying to say that a single piece of evidence contra-God would utterly and certainly disprove God? I don't think so at all. Yes, it would lower the probability; however I see absolutely no reason not to believe a God exists at all just because I do not have certainty.

That would surely depend on the nature of the claimed god an the nature of the evidence. Particular conceptions of god are, and indeed have been, utterly falsified.

hackenslash wrote:I agree with the conclusion, but not for the reasons you cite. God doesn't exist as an alternative to scientific theories. It may exist as a part of what those theories describe, although that's doubtful. It can be said, though, that belief in scientific theories is irrational, because scientific theories are not something to be believed. In order to believe a scientific theory, it requires that you don't have the facts. Once you have the hard evidence from reality, belief is irrelevant. If you don't have the hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, belief is useless in this regard.

This makes all belief irrational. We cant be certain about most or even all things, for example that other people exist.

Agreed, although if you think that you yourself exist, even as only a brain in a jar, requires the existence of other things, not least the jar, and by extension an external reality. At this point, the principle of parsimony kicks in, as the assumption of the non-existence of the things that you experience requires more explanation than the existence of those things. Either way, solipsism is a load of self-refuting wankery.

Yet you cannot be certain that solipsism is false, thus belief is required, and (by the OP's standards) that's irrational. So you cannot be certain of the "hard evidence" or facts that you speak of. Many, if not most scientific ideas are false btw, just take a look at the tens of thousands of them on arxiv.org.

I don't need to be certain that solipsism is false, I only need to be certain that it's an unparsimonious idea, and still self-refuting wankery until or unless some evidence can be presented.

Oh, and rather thasn asking me to look at examples of false scientific ideas, why don't you desrcibe some of them. Argumentum ad googleityourself is not the way to conduct proper discourse.

hackenslash wrote:I don't need to be certain that solipsism is false,<snip>

According to the OP, you need to be certain or else you have an irrational belief. I dont agree with the OP either, or perhaps in the sense that there is some degree of irrationality to believing any idea to be true.

Oh, and rather thasn asking me to look at examples of false scientific ideas, why don't you desrcibe some of them. Argumentum ad googleityourself is not the way to conduct proper discourse.

Lets not. Feel free to visit the site.

Open access to 602,595 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics
http://arxiv.org/

I'm aware of the site, thanks. I'm waiting for you to provide a supporting example. Simply asserting that they exist and then asking me to go find them is a dishonest and lazy way to conduct discourse. You assert, you support.

Jef wrote:I think you may be reversing the procedure of the rational progression to a conclusion, can you disabuse me of this belief by stating in general terms the rational nature of your belief in a god?

Are you asking why I believe in God? If so, it's because I think I have good arguments for his existence. Whether those arguments actually work, though. is a bit off topic here.

hackenslash wrote:
It can be said, though, that belief in scientific theories is irrational, because scientific theories are not something to be believed. In order to believe a scientific theory, it requires that you don't have the facts. Once you have the hard evidence from reality, belief is irrelevant. If you don't have the hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, belief is useless in this regard.

How are you defining "belief" here?

byofrcs wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Claim: The very fact of the existence of science precludes any belief in the existence of god for being rational. In other words, methodological naturalism should not work in a world where god exists. But it clearly does. Even if a particular scientific theory is incorrect, its very plausibility as a competing thought to the religious notion of god the causative agent discounts any certainty for a deity. In the absence of certainty in regard to god, then any belief in god is irrational because it ignores any contrary evidence or reason.

Science seems to satisfy our epistemic itches very well but it's not and never will be a complete view of nature (imagine a scientist just after the Big Bang documenting the then extant periodic table).

Our curiosity in science is driven by how we form hypothesis and how we test these. Whilst science assigns certain hypothesised gods to the trashheap of failure there will always be room for one more god hypothesis .

So belief in a specific god is irrational if you ignore contrary evidence but a more modern believer in god adapts their definition of god to avoid this threat of failure.

I was not claiming that science was, is, or will be omniscient as regards nature, merely that the presence of even plausible scientific theories should prohibit a rational belief in god. Belief in god [by definition] must preclude the acceptance of evidence against god, or it is not faith in god.