What is the most rational?

Question

I'll make this easy on you all. Is the most rational:

A) Accepting God/Goddess at face value, absolutely and without question.

B) Accepting the proof that God/Goddess exists, but suspending full belief until a time that it's made apparent to you through personal experience.

C) Demanding proof that God/Goddess exists, due to the enormous number of personal accounts that exist, before allowing others to talk to you about a God/Goddess in any detail about being "real".

D) Denying that God/Goddess exists, because no amount of proof in the world could ever make a superstition real.

There is a CORRECT answer to this, though there aren't any wrong answers. If you come up with another idea, I may consider it, but the best reasoning as to why your answer is correct will win the 10 points.

Answer 1

B) Doesn't make sense to me. For a start there is no proof that God exists to accept, and if there was wouldn't you accept it fully because you either accept that something exists or you don't?

You may never have personally experienced an armadillo but you still accept the proof that armadillos exist.

Answer 2

B. If it's proof you kind of should accept it, but personal experience would close the deal!

Do you have some sort of proof or personal experience?

Answer 3

B is the only one that makes sense to me.   I don't really care what proof someone else has as long as I have my own.

Answer 4

None of the choices you provided are rational, so I will go with

E) Accepting there is as yet no evidence of any gods, or any particular reason to assume on faith he/she/they it exist in absence of concrete evidence.  This is the default position.

(FYI   This answer works equally well if you substitute god with ghosts, space aliens or bigfoot.)

I am atheist as far as a personal god who answers prayer like Christians and Muslims believe, but I am agnostic about the idea/concept of gods in general.  I am also agnostic about the idea that we are all just somebody's dream, or in a Matrix like computer program.

Answer 5

A)  Not good. Blind acceptance of anything and everything leaves no room for rational thought.

B) I'm not clear on this. The question presupposes that "proof" exists for a God. Assuming it does for the sake of argument, then proof is proof and therefore it's rational to accept it. But I don't understand the distinction you're making between having a proof and "full belief". Wouldn't the acceptance of a proof logically lead to full belief? Also, obtaining proof of a God, in a scientific sense, is an impossibility. Philosophical arguments may be more compelling to certain believers but they certainly aren't going to amount to a proof. Based on the practical and logical problems noted here, I don't think B is rational either.

C) This seems closest to what I would call rational, but again it suffers from that which was already pointed out in (B), that proof is unattainable. Rather, one could ask for a preponderance of evidence to consider instead, and also it's good to have discussions without having already made up your mind. Also, you'd have to be careful about accepting "an enormous number of personal accounts" as evidence.  Such personal accounts exist for many competing religions, yet these competing religions allow little room for the others to be true. This is a contradiction.

D) No, because lack of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of lack. One could make an argument for the non-existence of gods through more philosophical reasoning but it's outside the realm of natural investigation (i.e., science) to make such a claim.

So if I had to pick one of the answers provided, I'd pick (C) but only with the caveats I described. But I'd much rather pick (E), where the existence of gods is not accepted due to the extraordinary nature of the claims and lack of evidence, but neither is it outright denied. This leaves it open for discussion.

Answer 6

It'll be a combination of B and C for me =/.

Consider a scientific theory. It holds true all the time until it becomes a law. Many scientist proved it right so those who believe it is true are those that experienced having it applied and yield the expected result. Accepting a belief by having a lot of proofs of existence and having a proof of your own is the most rational of all the four statements.

Answer 7

I'm at the point in my life where all I can say is.."All I know is 'I don't know'." I just know that if I ever think I've had a personal experience with God...I'd want to go into the desert where there are no humans and hopefully no animals etc....so I'd KNOW ...if I was REALLY hearing from God...or picking up on other people's thoughts etc. Of course this doesn't account for a lot of other incredible things that happened to me during the time I believed it was God. Still ...that doesn't mean it was God doing those things.I just hoped He knew about it and would protect me and not let me be deceived.  This probably doesn't answer your question....so I won't expect BA.

Answer 8

Check your email.

Answer 9

Hi

The answers A,C and D are not rational choices to survive in any society.

Here is why...

If you follow A then you stand to be punished or ridiculed by an opposing party in some societies.

If you settle solely on C you are closing your mind to other rational possibilities and closing the door to learning more about your belief.

If you follow D you are closing your mind to possibilities that could enhance your life .

I chose B because you can choose to accept evidence or proof but that does not mean you have to believe in it fully.

Answer 10

I made up my own religion that suits me, i can change it when i want to accommodate what i do.

Answer 11

The question itself is not well-formed until you delineate what you understand as "rational."  Daniel Dennett in his provocative book "The Intentional Stance" goes to great pains to try to nail down what would count as 'rational,' and ends up with only a set of rather flexible boundaries that somewhat encompass the notion.  He points out that context plays an important role in what can be construed as rational.  Given that framework, three of your four options (excepting only A) could count as being rational, depending on the knowledge-base and circumstances of the agent involved.  (BTW, using 'evidence' instead of 'proof' would make your question a bit better, since proof isn't really in question here.)

Answer 12

A) - least rational, nuff said.

B) - if there is "proof", not just evidence, of the existance of Gods etc doesn't that mean they are just as real as the sun or any other known force in the universe? If there is "proof" of something, not believing in it until it affects you directly doesn't make any sense. Its like saying "west nile is a real virus but I'm not going to believe it exists until I contract it."

C) - the logical fallacies proposed by c are the appeal to the majority and appeal to tradition. Just because a million people see a UFO in the sky doesn't mean the UFO is not from this Earth. Like wise just because people have believed in Gods for eons as part of their culture doesn't make their existance any more real, not without physical proof. Then again, because of the wording for C, I'm not sure I read it right.

D) - makes the fallacy of assumptions because it *assumes* Gods do not exist because they are "superstitions". It immediately concludes that Gods are superstitions regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

While I think none of the answers are particularly rational (in my humble opinion) C is probably the way i would go if I had to pick one. Its not rational in any sort of logistical way. But it could be rational it a sociological perspective. People need to belong to a social order. Therefore, despite the logical fallacies demonstrated by C, it could be the most rational because conformity to a societies norms helps to ensure status, well being and survival.

I think D is probably the most rational, in terms of following logic, because we make assumptions all the time. Seeing as how we have no proof of Gods in all of modern recorded history, we can make the inductive leap (which assumes)  they do not exist based on the fact that there is no evidence of them - at least not in any fashion that conventional science can study or measure.

Answer 13

A is foolish and stubborn belief.

The closest choice to my personal stance is B, but I'm going to offer a slight modification along with my explanation.

C is close-minded because you do not allow for discussion on the issue until you are presented with absolute proof of something that might not be provable.

D is foolish and stubborn belief.

Modified choice:

B)  Accepting that there is evidence that God/Goddess exists, but withholding personal judgement on the issue until you have had a convincing personal experience.

First, I want to say that I don't immediately doubt the statements of other people.  If I meet a bunch of people who relate a similar story to me with similar details, I tend to think that maybe there's something there that is worth closer examination.  Even if I haven't had a personal experience, I would acknowledge that there might be something happening that I know nothing about.  Therefore, I would tend to accept that, if there were evidence presented, some intelligent and thoughtful people might find it convincing.

On the other hand, I'm not going to be fully convinced until I look into the issue myself.  So, I would seek out personal experiences that would help me to make my own decision.  I don't believe I would be fully convinced until I have personal data to evaluate.  (As a substitute, an extremely trustworthy source might be able to present evidence that I would believe, but this would have to be somebody that I trust implicitly.)

So, though I would respect that there are other people who might have evidence that would convince me, I wouldn't be completely convinced until I knew for myself that it was true.  I do think it is important to point out that I would maintain respect for differing opinions and that I would try not to criticize or ridicule other people for their beliefs just because I don't personally hold the same beliefs.  Thanks for the question!

EDIT:  The most rational answer is B because it provides an avenue for exploring all of the possibilities and evidence, but suspending your decision until you have personally been convinced.  The other answers all involve denying evidence or discussion which will obstruct a search for "truth", and if you're searching for the truth, you should rationally consider all of the available evidence before coming to a decision.

Answer 14

E)  Realizing that proving the existence of a supreme being would be very easy for that being, and, in the absence of said proof, assuming everyone else is being deluded or fooling themselves.

EDIT:  According to most religions, their god will punish you forever for not worshiping them.  If they really wanted to be worshiped, wouldn't they prove they were there?