Discussion moved here from "RRS Defeats Way of the Master" thread 

Tilberian and Scottmax:

Thanks for your replies. We'd probably all agree that the burden of proof is usually on the one pushing a positive claim.  Let me review the exchange so far. Scottmax, along with RRS, make the following claim.

Claim: theists are irrational to the extent that they believe in God.

I pointed out several analytic theist philosophers who believe in God. Now, since the burden of proof usually falls on the one who advances a positive claim, and since Scottmax and RRS made the claim above, I asked that they (1) clarify their claim, and (2) support their claim by pointing out the irrationality of these philosophers’ theistic beliefs.

To be perfectly clear, then, I’ve not come here claiming a la Comfort that I can provide "proof" of God’s existence. My project is modest and reasonable. I’ve merely come here asking you guys to articulate and defend your claim that theism is irrational. (Thus, the issue was never about me or anybody else providing a rational “proof” of theism, contrary to Tilberian’s interpretation of the exchange. Moreover, my purpose in providing those lists of theistic philosophers was not to argue from “here are philosophers who are rational and who believe in God” to “therefore, theism is rational”; I agree with Tilberian that if I had done that, I might have been verging on some sort of appeal to authority. But I’ve not done that. I’ve asked for Scottmax and RRS to support their claim by showing me how those philosophers are irrational. I think at most I've suggested that they're brilliant and that they are respected in the philosophical community as rational thinkers, and certainly that much is true.)

Scottmax is apparently having difficulty locating articles where those philosophers express their belief in theism. Fine, let's spare ourselves some time and make it easy: I believe that God exists. So Scottmax, you think I am irrational as a result. Recall your definition of rationality. As follows: a person's belief in some proposition p is rational if and only if all propositions supporting that belief are non-contradictory and all objections proposed for that belief can likewise be answered without contradiction.

So as I say, I believe in God. In reporting my belief, I have not asserted any formal contradiction.  Nor is it clear that there is some contradiction on which I must rely to hold my belief in God. Nor have I contradicted myself when defending my belief in God against various objections. (This last remark is true simply in virtue of the fact that you've not raised any objections yet.) So far, then, I have satisfied the conditions in your definition. 

Of course, this doesn’t mean God exists. It’s possible for one to be rational in believing some proposition even though the proposition in question is false. I hope the issue is clear now. It’s not about whether God in fact exists, nor have I ever said that I will provide a “proof” of his existence in this thread; it’s about whether one can be rational in believing that God exists. This distinction is uncontroversial. In fact, it is accepted by most philosophers of religion. And epistemologists in general accept the distinction between the truth value of a proposition and one's belief in a proposition.  I’ve merely reported my belief in God. And it appears to conform to Scottmax’s definition of rational belief. Of course, he might have some reasons to think that my belief is actually irrational. I await such reasons.

Cheers,

Gavagai

P.S. Tilberian, attentive readers will notice that I never once claimed (implicitly or explicitly) that the members of this forum are "stupid" and/or "uneducated". You seem to think I have, though. So I apologize if anything I've said has offended you personally.