Obviously, this study doesn’t prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?
I suspect many or even most believers would not claim their belief to be perfectly rational.
I think both LW-ers and many Christians could agree with that sentiment, although meaning different things by it.
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” — James 2:14-17
On the particular theological branch that bites the sovereignty-of-god bullet, I’ve heard this explained as an acausal relationship between faith and works (although, not it those words) - god chooses the people he wants to save and they turn out to have faith and do good works. So good works are evidence of saving faith, but have no causal influence on salvation.
I think the person who made that statement is simply making a confusion of terms: “rational” as in “reasonable” as in “legitimate/acceptable/sound”, and “rational” as in “resulting from properly applied deliberative thinking”. Le’s rephrase it:
If believing in God is perfectly legitimate, then why is it that when people actually stop and think carefully, they tend to find it that they don’t believe in God as much?
Most people don’t have correct intuitions about lots of things: probability theory, complex numbers, etc. Why should “big topics” like God be any different? It’s weak evidence either way.
The person in question was not talking about rationality, but “right and wrong,” hence the paraphrase.
I suspect many or even most believers would not claim their belief to be perfectly rational.
To paraphrase someone on Futurama, “perfectly rational” is just a word, what matters is what you do.
I think both LW-ers and many Christians could agree with that sentiment, although meaning different things by it.
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” — James 2:14-17
Whatever happened to Protestantism and “being saved by Faith alone”?
On the particular theological branch that bites the sovereignty-of-god bullet, I’ve heard this explained as an acausal relationship between faith and works (although, not it those words) - god chooses the people he wants to save and they turn out to have faith and do good works. So good works are evidence of saving faith, but have no causal influence on salvation.
I think the person who made that statement is simply making a confusion of terms: “rational” as in “reasonable” as in “legitimate/acceptable/sound”, and “rational” as in “resulting from properly applied deliberative thinking”. Le’s rephrase it:
Most people don’t have correct intuitions about lots of things: probability theory, complex numbers, etc. Why should “big topics” like God be any different? It’s weak evidence either way.
The person in question was not talking about rationality, but “right and wrong,” hence the paraphrase.