Now I think you might be mixing up "rational" with "socially acceptable".

Nobody's exempt. We're all people, and we all have that interest in power and control in varying degrees. But people who make positive theological assertions are attempting to invoke magic to acheive that goal.

looks like the page cut off part of my posting

    Early or original theological writers did want you  to believe has they believed, from gods to the rituals in praise of the god, otherwise why did they write of such things; That is power mongering.  Athiest also monger, but I am not aware of any church or cathedral buildt by an athiest sect. 

   Did I mention Mother Teresa's personal writings, letters diarys etc. have been published in the past year. The results surprised a lot of people. My favorite quote is  "I don't know why I go down to pray when I know there is nothing there to hear it"  Those are the sentiments of an athiest.  She was not a commen nun who could easily leave her convent and return to the real world.  She was world famous,  prestigious a founder of and Mother Superior to her own convent, she didn't know how to come out of the closet and said so meny times in her letters.

Just sayin...

Well no post from Gottheflu, so I assume the argument to be settled. I look forward to hearing some new arguments from you Gottheflu.

The difficulty here is that feeling cold is universal. Even dogs can be seen shivering when it's cold outside and they've been out too long. It's fair to say that barring some rare neurological condition, "feeling cold" is something many warm-blooded creatures experience. The God feeling seems to be limited to certain demographics and geographics. What's with that?

As would my signature's "funkstification" (which Hamby deserves credit for). "Wife, I funkstify you" is fine. If I were to say "Godness" every time I meant "love", that's just switching up words. "I Godness you", therefore, would be simple transposition. The fact is, however, that "God" does not mean "love". "God" means a character mentioned in the Bible.

Absolutely. Both your feelings and your wife are real. (Presumably your wife is real, and you have feelings.) Can't argue with that. The object in the case of God, though, is questionable.

Actually, Zeus, the reason for the delays in even coming back to the sight could be:

A- Your arguments are so overwhelmingly brilliant and compelling that I've spent the whole day considering converting to Zeus worship.

B- I actually have a life and had to go to two Memorial Day BBQs and have coffee with a friend in from college.

C- I actually have a job (actually a few) and had to work.

D- All of the above.

E- None of the above.

Gottheflu...fail. Now you are using an "appealing to authority" logical fallacy by asking Will if they are compelling. Obviously your inability to logically refute any of my arguments means they are pretty compelling. Seriously, its called compartmentalization and pride, you don't want to admit that your position could be wrong(pride), and put the things(God) that contradict reality as you know it, into a separate part of your brain, so that you can make sense of the two incompatible beliefs.

Something can be both rational and socially acceptable at the same time.  And sometimes something can be rational largely because it is socially acceptable (though based on deception or falsity). It is both rational and socially acceptable to open the door for the snotty old man I can't stand.  Doing so would be insincere, or you could even say based on decepton, nevertheless it'd be both rational and socially acceptable.

Believing in unicorns in some place and time has been both rational, socially acceptable, and based on false (though warranted) beliefs all at the same time.  To do so today in our own place and time would rarely be rational, rarely socially acceptable, and, of course, also based on falsity.  We prove it false today based on evidence that folks were not priveleged to have at another place and time.

Believing in God today is rational largely (though not totally) because of the social element behind it.  The social dynamic that has created the overwhelming depository of testimony for theism (as opposed to the comparatively small depository testifying for atheism) makes theism socially acceptable, and allows warrant for one to think his theistic belief rational (though not necessarily true).  With this in mind, I think there are cases where ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM is okay.  The appeal isn't just to the crowd . . . it also has a lot to do with who the crowd is and whether the crowd is proven to be significantly trustworthy.

Will,

The point is that "I am feeling cold" is a warranted belief that one could be having at a particular time.  That BELIEF can be (and usually is) rational, warranted, justified, and evidentially indefensible (despite the weather, thermostadt, or any other physical state of affairs).  My main argument is that "I am perceiving God-ness" is an analogous warranted belief that is equally indefensible yet requires no proof to presumptuous skeptics.

Other such warranted, though evidentially indefensible beliefs might include:

-- I believe that I am feeling angry.

-- I believe that I am not a brain in a mad scientist's vat.

-- I believe that all of my life's memories are real and were not downloaded into my head five minutes ago.

-- I believe that people ought to do good and ought not do evil.

-- I believe that when I see the sunlight hit the clouds in a certain way I will always perceive beauty.

Magic, Will?  Was T. Aquinas a magician?  Augustine?  Even the hardest skeptics must think of them as (mistaken?) logicians long before they accuse them of believing in magic.  And magic, supernaturalism, metaphysics, and mythology, etc. must be understood with their own distinctions (and similarities).

Yes, certainly.

Okay, here is (I think) our miscommunication. I would say that the belief in something which likely does not exist (like unicorns) is not rational (or at least was not arrived at via rational means). What I'm saying by that is that one would not go through a process like:

"Hmm, I found this horse-like skeleton, except it has a single horn protruding from its skull. How odd."

No, I think your assertion is that circumstance directs public belief (that is, the beliefs that people will publicly espouse to be "reasonable" given their historical context). In that, we agree. I simply wouldn't call it rational. Let's not confuse "rational" with "superawesome" as seems to be done occasionally on this site. "Rationality" is just the end result of a rational process, not some kind of perfection.

In this kind of sparring, you've left a rather large opening: more information makes more and more fantasy creatures less likely. Keep your hands up. You can't be giving me that one.

I like where you're going with this, since you're aware of that it's ad populum. Daring is better than boring, in my humble opinion. I agree that you have an argument for a common psychological (or sociological) mechanism, and that the populus has a depository of testimony for theism. But again, I think we're just dealing with a simple miscommunication. Whereas my definition of rational stems from a coldly thought out process, you seem to be using the word as a kind of colloquial "reasonable", like "be reasonable". It certainly is, in that usage, "reasonable", it's just not rationally warranted.  

It certainly identifies the market bias. But as you say above, "not necessarily true".

I definitely understand what you mean. The only problem here is one of precision. You don't have to believe you feel cold. You can just feel cold. You can believe you are cold, etc, but that's not a rational belief. That's a feeling. Please note again that feelings are not rational. That doesn't mean they're not valid, they're just not rational. Maybe you're thinking of "valid" when you say "rational". Or "okay" or a simple positive "reasonable behaviour".

Except that unlike cold, or even the cluster of symptoms brought on by love, there's nothing to compare your feeling with. "Is it cold in here? I feel cold." Is valid, in the sense that there's no reason to argue the statement, but it's not rational. That is, it wasn't rationally constructed. Someone reading a thermometer and telling you it's 10 degrees out could give you an idea of how perceptive you are, but it wouldn't make the feeling rational. Further, such comparisons aren't available for supernatural entities like God. Why would that be?

Here, you've given "believe" a few different meanings, so while I know what you're driving at, you're not necessarily arguing for it. The second and third points, where you disbelieve a couple of ideas of your universe, is the the closest to the kind of belief we're discussing, so let's stick to that.

Thankfully, we have ways of separating fact from fantasy! I know you'll groan, but the scientific method is great at this. The brain in a mad scientist's vat one isn't so difficult. There's little (if any) evidence for that one, I imagine. At least, I've never heard of such a thing. Animated brains and all. It seems unlikely is what I'm saying. Equally unlikely is the third point. If that were possible, I'd know kung fu, I guess. Actually I wouldn't, but Keanu Reeves would, for sure. It's just unlikely.

But I see where you're going with it. To me, however, it matters if what I believe is true. It matters to me quite a lot. So much so that I think in terms of probability. Is there a Santa Claus? Unlikely. Kind of like that.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Deluded.

You say that, for most people, belief in God is not properly basic.  Upon what data is this interpreted? The same for "most people" with theistic belief giving it doxastic justification and basing it on objective reality?  Is your statement based on data or a hunch?  Your critique of theistic believers seems to be based largely on your intuitive reaction to weak deductions by theists, and less on your own analytical reasoning (even though I would not accuse you of being a poor analytic or logician.)  As you can probably tell by my arguments from Reformed epistemology, I'm not often concerned about narrow and specious theological evidences in most foundational arguments given.  So I'll say you're building a straw man.  And there's a significant difference between a believer's basic perception of God and how he (rightly or wrongly) accounts for it.  What initially caused me to believe "I perceive God-ness" as a child is very different from how I sometimes (rightly or wrongly) offer evidences today.

I respectfully ask you to defend the assumption that, given a tabula rasa (with no influences of dogmatic mothers and no holy books lying around), the default pristine state of one's beliefs would be non-theistic.

I assert that the ancient Grecian was within his epistemic rights to believe in Zeus (falsely) UNTIL he perceived sufficient evidence that would demand that he reevaluate and change course ("repent&quot, whatever that "sufficient evidence" might consist of.  Whether he should believe in Zeus and sacrifice children to him is another story; my argument deals with theism proper for now.  The same holds for children whose parents/Bible/church raised them with Christian dogma.  They are within their epistemic rights to believe in God.  Whether the same kids should believe in God and slay all the Philistines, again, is a different story.  These kids, of course, should re-evaluate the legitimacy of theistic belief proper as they grow and encounter evidence that there is no God.  The real issue for yourself, though, is that for THIS kid (myself), your depository of evidences, though worthy of consideration, is insufficient at this time.  However, whether you are on the way to convincing "most people" is an area I fear to tread.  This being said, in response to your last paragraph, I didn't intend necessarily to use the first two statements as premises and the last a conclusion.  I do intend to make the first two analogous to the third.

For clarity, I think that the last statement could be "Plantinga-fied" and I'd be satisfied:  My theistic belief is warranted, because my belief comes from my cognitive faculties operating in an epistemic environment for which they were created.  Well, of course, such re-statement can bring anything BUT clarity and opens up many more cans of worms.  Nevertheless, it's rational (although perhaps correctable).  And, to avoid any future fallacy of equivocation, this is a kind of rationalism that you don't seem to take into account when you try to "fix" theists within the confines of mere evidentialism.

Okay, clearly you haven't taken criticism of your beliefs that much if you think I am being mean to you. I have attacked your ideas, and when you have been dishonest, I have pointed it out. Calling a spade a spade, is not mean, it is being bluntly honest. As for saying "I am annoying" and that is a self evident truth, rather than being a personal opinion, is like using your straw man representation of my "cold" argument. I am thinking you can't logically refute my claims, so instead you call me mean, and dismiss my claims as not worth refuting. Your responses to Will and DG are using regurgitated arguments that have been refuted before. Although, I will concede that Will's patience for such tactics exceeds my own. Good night.

I may be confused, but it seems as if you are equating one aspect of "rationality" with "socially expedient." That is, it seems you suggest that believing in non-existent entities is not only acceptable, but rational. The form of the entity may be determined by society, which is a function of time and location, but the belief in these socially-accepted myths is rational.

As a survival mechanism, I certainly won't quibble. It's much easier being a Christian in today's US society than it would be to be an atheist, for instance.

Hypothetical question: in a thousand years, will people look back on the Christian God as you look back on Zeus, or unicorns? You said the Greeks believed in Zeus "falsely." Is your belief in the Christian God substantially different from their belief in Zeus?

What is an "epistemic right?" How is it different from a standard-issue liberty? Do you mean simply that the belief is drawn from the socially-accepted ontology -- that it is part of the culture? Or am I misunderstanding?

Finally, what is your epistemology?

Sorry for so many questions all at once. They are all part-and-parcel of a central thought, though, which is one of the foundations of rationality. I'm just seeking a bit of clarity on your own position before I dive in too far.

One thing I should say, though, to give you a clearer picture of my position: I am a logical positivist. To me, rationality can be founded only on a verified and coherent ontology, one that is congruent with observed reality. As I see it, there is only one epistemology that has been 100% successful at building such an ontology -- the scientific method.

From what I understand of the discussion so far, you are basing your rationality on an ontology built from a theistic epistemology, and many of the others here are basing their rationality on the current scientific ontology. I think you touched on the problem in your last paragraph:

"My theistic belief is warranted, because my belief comes from my cognitive faculties operating in an epistemic environment for which they were created.  Well, of course, such re-statement can bring anything BUT clarity and opens up many more cans of worms.  Nevertheless, it's rational . . ."

This leaves me, at least, at a disadvantage, as I don't know your epistemology, nor the salient parts the resulting ontology. This makes your use of the words "rational" and "rationality" ambiguous, and certainly non-congruent with my use of them. So, though I hate to tip over one of those cans of worms you opened up, I think I'm gonna have to, before I can understand your position.