To put this debate in a boxing analogy, I think Semck came out swinging wildly but then quickly cornered Eden in a defensive position without much room to move. From then on Eden did a very good job of infighting--defending his corner. No knockout, but a win on points for Semck.

Thucy, thanks for posting.

I'd have to dig and find my original analysis, but I remember being impressed with both sides' debates. It was question two I could never finish because, honestly, obi couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. He can't stay focused, reverts to ad hominems in his very opening statement and generally should reconsider his career path if he views himself as a writer.

Something can be rational for many reasons. For example, the belief in God might make you happier, more honest, charitable, etc. All reflecting a positive effect back to you from your environment. Thus it would be perfectly rational to belief in God.

Is it rational to belief in something which has no quantifiable evidence to support it's existence, to a certain extent it might be. Because for all science might know, it is estimated that there is a hell of a lot they do not know. Combine this with the fact that proof as it is qualified by science might not be the only rational way of researching things in order to get a better understanding. You might cling to other parameters of proof and thus other proof that does in fact argue for the existence of a God. Again I'd see this as rational.

The question should probably be "Is it rational to have faith in God?" rather than "Is belief in God rational". Some may take the question to literally like Just Eric. On the other hand, like Lopt says, it may very well be rational to believe in something with no quantifiable evidence other than a bunch of unanswered questions. If science had an answer to every single question the human mind could imagine, then I would agree that faith in God would be irrational. But as long as there are questions that cannot be answered or fully comprehended by the human mind it will make absolute sense to have faith in the existence of God. For what is God, if not the answer to what we cannot understand?

On a separate note, most of science's acceptable theories like The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution do not actually clash with religious beliefs, contrary to popular belief. Only if the Bible is studied literally does it clash, but everyone is well aware that the Bible is filled with metaphors and hardly ever should be interpreted by its literal meaning. Likewise, after so many translations, some part of the original meaning may have been lost in translation, making it even more senseless to stick to the actual words used on the Bible. So, another argument could be made that as long as science (which by definition represents rationality) and belief in God do not actually clash, it is indeed rational to believe in God.

'On a separate note, most of science's acceptable theories like The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution do not actually clash with religious beliefs, contrary to popular belief.'

That depends on several things. Like the detail which your religious dogma goes into regarding the origin of the universe. BUT at the time when western civilisation 'discovered' the big bang theory it was new and different, a revolution, which went against religious dogma - though Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhist (at least) considered this to be a vindication of their view that the Universe was created.

The previous scientific theory was supported by various Christian Churches, that God had created the universe intact in it's current form, and nothing changed much since then. Obviously other religions would claim this as a victory if they could, (when for decades and centuries western civilisation was promoting itself as the best, most powerful with the most advanced theology)

spyman,

I'm really busy today, so I can't explain in a lot of detail. But the weak version is quite close, I'd say. Except I'd say that the position is irrational just because of the first part of what you say -- there is no reason, so no way of knowing anything; the denial of God's existence is then just one of thousands of claimed knowns that cannot actually be known.

Another change I'd make is, in place of "cannot be sure," I'd say, "can't know with any probability at all" (though I'd phrase that more carefully if talking with great precision -- something I lack time for this morning).

This post is not to start a big discussion, but to respond to spyman's question. I intend to post a nice summary of my thoughts on the debate, as PE did, later. Sorry for the scheduling hassles.

"It was question two I could never finish because, honestly, obi couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. He can't stay focused, reverts to ad hominems in his very opening statement and generally should reconsider his career path if he views himself as a writer."

Did you not read the OP?

I would like to debate Putin in our next great debate.

Putin - That *was* focused on the argument used in the debate. Obi's argument was a rambling and incoherent mess filled with ad hominem from the opening statement. So his argument failed and therefore failed to convince.

No it wasn't. It was a personal attack - "should reconsider his career path" - has nothing to do with the debate.

It's not neat, but it certainly pertains to how debates go. Usually a debate is not about coming to a general conclusion, but about winning from your opponent. God knows we have seen some morons get elected just because people thought he had won the debate, without even listening to what he was really saying.

@Putin - Then it was both. And I apologize for the end of the statement. But the beginning 2/3rds still applies. His argument failed prima facia because it couldn't be followed and relied on logical fallacies and attacking his opponent, not his opponent's position, instead of defending his own position (or attacking his opponent's position) from the onset.

I tend to agree with Putin's assessment, for my own part. It struck me that the two sides were sidestepping each other. Each presented a generally cogent argument about why their belief was the rational one, but neither demonstrated very well what made the opposing view irrational.

My abbreviated two cents on the matter. It was a very tough debate to judge though because of the high quality of both sides.

@MMitchell

Does the link work for you as yet?

I don't have a lot to say about this debate, but I would lean towards a gov win. I think President Eden concedes a lot of ground off the bat, and he doesn't fully recover from there. That's not to say that semck83 was flawless, though.

One thing that did irk me was the discussion on materialism, or, rather, the discussion on what both sides thought was materialism.

Materialism is not the position that ideas don't (or can't) exist. It's the position that ideas (and other non-material things) do not exist without material things to have them. As such, systems of logic can exist within the materialist worldview.

Furthermore, it might be that all materialists are atheists, it is not true that all atheists are materialists. Hegel, an idealist, was charged with atheism.

Because a sizeable portion of semck83's argument rested on this misconception of materialism and its relationship to atheism, I think that his side suffered. However, since President Eden accepted this reasoning, I can't really fault him for it.

What I find intriguing about the debate question is that it pre-supposes that rationality is a good thing, and it shifts the conversation towards human primacy over the spiritual world. I would have liked to see either side of the debate defend irrationality and the control we have over our lives.

"I would have liked to see either side of the debate defend irrationality and the control we have over our lives. "

Interesting topic, but it would have been off-topic though for this debate.

I would have done it differently were I in PE's shoes, that's for sure. Defending the null position is much easier than Semck's task. I definitely would have spent the majority of my time on:

1) not letting Semck get away with challenging the epistemology of logic and induction itself. It seemed to me that PE let semck get off lightly when semck tried to show that the commonly accepted trains of "rational thought" unacceptable in this case. It seemed to me that Semck's argument only holds if we dismiss both the merits of induction and logic as we know them, and make a special exception for God.

2) forcing my opponent into showing why the Christian God is the only rational outcome to the exclusion of all others (not the debate title, but semck opened that door when he started mentioning Christianity specifically).

@spyman
It seems to me that the purpose of this debate was precisely about what control we have over our lives. The questions asks us if belief is rational (and implies that it's important for belief to be rational)--does it make sense to behave this way?

The irrational side that I'm talking about is your subconscious, your inner drives. It's entirely possible that belief can come from something that isn't based in rationality or the conscious part of your mind.

I would have liked to see semck83 say "belief is irrational, but that's a good thing!"

A more interesting discussion would be:
"Is belief in anything rational?"

pangloss I think you're glossing over (yuk yuk) what belief really means. Belief is self-defining - regardless of whether it's rationally or irrationally acquired, belief is merely your personal understanding on a given subject.

Maybe I'm saying the same thing as you, actually, re-reading your words.

+1 YJ ... just for making me spit out my drink ...

Also, the selective quoting of scripture was pretty slick, considering the litany of biblical passages condemning wisdom and intelligence - > Eccl 12:12; Proverbs 3:5-6; Matthew 11:25; Paul's letters 1 Cor 2:1-4; 1:Cor1:26; 1 Cor 2:13-14.

Putin, don't try to interpret scripture. You get it wrong every time.

I though old Putty would be spot on with this one.

I actually don't think so, after reading. Only the first passage seems to say anything overtly anti-intellectual.

The rest just encouragement that God's will/knowledge/power is greater than yours, and you should put your own understanding second to his. I would say that these passages don't condemn wisdom and intelligence, they just put them on a back burner compared to God. Put in other words: "Don't allow thinking to supersede faith - or at least don't let it concern you."

I'm sure you, Putin, will agree that even if that is the case, it has other rather horrifying implications.

@Yellowjacket
The way I understand belief is very similar. Belief is caused by the mind willing something, and thus changing the intellect. Contrast this with knowledge, where it is an external "fact" that changes the intellect.

Now, there are different levels of consciousness, and I'd say belief can come from any of them. But we don't have total control over our subconscious (otherwise it wouldn't be subconscious!). I had hoped that at least part of this debate would be over whether or not this lack of control over a part of our minds is a good or bad thing.

I guess I go with the logician's definition of "truth," "belief" and "knowledge," i these contexts, which is merely to say that on a Venn diagram, knowledge is where belief overlaps truth. Problem being that to the person concerned, it can be rather difficult to know what is a "belief" and what is "knowledge."

Anyways, I think we're in agreement on the sources of belief. I know for a fact I have very recently held irrational beliefs. Like only last year I discovered that the toilets in South America do NOT, contrary to popular belief, flush backwards due to the Coriolis effect. And I'm a physicist, lol.