Question. How can a rational person be theistic and not believe in fairies?

[ChocolateMoose123]

People aren't rational beings. I think assuming we are is the first error. Then, everything else makes sense.

 

[KDude]

People aren't rational beings. I think assuming we are is the first error.

I assumed she was asking me, specifically... a rational being.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Why do you believe in an immaterial nonphysical God-being, which can't be observed through scientific investigation, but you dismiss the idea of (mostly) immaterial, (mostly) nonphysical nature spirits called fairies which can't be observed through scientific investigation?

Kind of a rhetorical question, but if there's some logical justification in your mind please state it.

If I say I believe in fairies can you prove me wrong? Can I employ those same methods to prove you wrong?

All suppositions that lack scientific proof are not equal. Just because you believe one thing that hasn't been proven doesn't mean you have to believe everything that hasn't been proven. Do you think everyone that believes in ghosts should have to also believe in leprechauns? Should everyone that believes in clairvoyance also have to believe in the Loch Ness Monster?

You're correct that I can't prove you wrong, but that isn't the same thing as believing it myself. Maybe I don't understand your question, because this seems obvious to me.

 

[RaptorWizard]

You're correct that I can't prove you wrong, but that isn't the same thing as believing it myself. Maybe I don't understand your question, because this seems obvious to me.

Of course, if you can't prove it wrong, there is always the argument that there was nothing to disprove in the first place, therefore rendering it impossible to prove wrong!

 

[JAVO]

"How can a rational person be theistic and not believe in fairies?" says the fairy.

Experiencing a bit of existential angst, are we?

 

[ptgatsby]

Depends on how you define mythical creatures. If you mean mythical as being created in human minds as part of myth, then many would argue that God fits that description. It's kind of begging the question. But you might be on to something depending on how you frame it. I'd be interested in further explanation. I'm familiar with Descartes's ontological argument. Although I'm still not sure this holds because someone could conceivably attribute all those properties to fairies.

Good, getting closer.

Edit: Interesting fact- for the early Irish many gods were fairies.

If you define God to have the same properties as Fairies, then they are equivalent regardless of the qualities being described. For instance, if you say that God created all and say that Fairies did as well, then they are equivalent in nature. However, I read your argument as a knowledge argument; believing on faith, which results in all beliefs that derive themselves from the same rules as equal (/equally valid/likely).

First Cause, or the cosmological argument, is a foundation for believing in something in which the belief is deduced, making it different than believing in mythical constructs in a social sense (taught belief, supernatural). That is, if someone believes in God as defined by the cosmological argument, their view is not equal to a belief in Fairies that has no logical induction. Of course, this isn't grounds to say that the cosmological argument is correct, only that the fallacies and structure of the argument are very different.

Let me put forth an example that is more modern. I'm a creationist; I believe in the simulated reality theory. The nature of the belief, the foundation of knowledge, make my conversation with a young earth creationist virtually impossible. They are not equal beliefs, even if ultimately they have a common bond.

You ask why people can believe in one thing but not another. People may be inconsistent, but there is also multiple ways to deduce a position. The outcome does not state the probability of truth (truth being true/false; certainty being variable).

 

[greenfairy]

No. Like I said, we apply within the universe, the laws of science which we know to govern it internally.

However these laws by definition cannot explain the existence itself of the universe, as shown by quantum physics.

I don't understand.

I hope you are making a point for atheism rather than actually arguing the existence of fairies, lol.

Why not? If you honestly think theism is less silly than belief in fairies help me understand this. For the record I'm atheist and polytheist at the same time, and I justify my belief in fairies and nature spirits the same way as deities, because I think they are the same sorts of beings.

"How can a rational person be theistic and not believe in fairies?" says the fairy.

Experiencing a bit of existential angst, are we?

 

[Randomnity]

People aren't rational beings.

All suppositions that lack scientific proof are not equal.

+1

 

[sprinkles]

Define faeries.


Anyway...

You're asking people to justify beliefs? How about if they brandished an axe and stated "Because I said so." That's the best option.

There's no way to justify a belief. All anyone can do here is talk about motivations. Not justification. If there was a way to prove it, then it wouldn't be a belief.

'Truth' is a justified belief.

If there's a way to prove something then it is a justified belief. Would it make any sense to say "This is true, but I don't believe it."

No.

 

[greenfairy]

People aren't rational beings.

Well I think I'm a rational creature. If you don't want to be that's fine with me. I use reason consistently in my life and include religious matters. I don't see why they are some special exception. I may have mystical beliefs, but they don't contradict the use of reason. I guess I'm more of a rational than the NT's in this thread.

Unless you want to provide your reasoning for the existence of God, and how it is different than possible arguments in favor of the existence of fairies.

What most of you are saying is that an unscientifically justifiable belief is fine with you if it makes you feel good.

 

[sprinkles]

All suppositions that lack scientific proof are not equal. Just because you believe one thing that hasn't been proven doesn't mean you have to believe everything that hasn't been proven. Do you think everyone that believes in ghosts should have to also believe in leprechauns? Should everyone that believes in clairvoyance also have to believe in the Loch Ness Monster?

You're correct that I can't prove you wrong, but that isn't the same thing as believing it myself. Maybe I don't understand your question, because this seems obvious to me.

That has more to do with the framing of the supposition than its veracity.

Not all are equal but some are more equal than others. If we ascribed god powers to faeries for example, making them responsible for creation and the workings of nature - I'd say that would be enough to put faeries on equal footing since we can have no veracity of details anyway (such as the idea that God created the earth in 6 days or spoke through a burning bush)

 

[greenfairy]

And I will go a step farther: you might ask (as well you should) "Greenfairy, if you believe in fairies, do you believe in God, and if not why?"

And I would answer: I don't believe in God as an absolute form of all power. I believe in deities as concentrations of energy, created by people as thought forms. Most fairies would fit that description as well. However, I think some probably existed before humans, but they were created as part of nature. Everything is energy, and all things are concentrations of energy. So I have reasoning for my mystical belief. Do you?

 

[sprinkles]

And I will go a step farther: you might ask (as well you should) "Greenfairy, if you believe in fairies, do you believe in God, and if not why?"

And I would answer: I don't believe in God as an absolute form of all power. I believe in deities as concentrations of energy, created by people as thought forms. Most fairies would fit that description as well. However, I think some probably existed before humans, but they were created as part of nature. Everything is energy, and all things are concentrations of energy. So I have reasoning for my mystical belief. Do you?

Are we talking about verity belief or abstract belief here?

There can be a pretty big difference in handling the two. One is based on truth and the other is based on idealistic principle.

Believing that a deity physically exists somewhere is not the same as believing it as some kind of guiding ideal.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

That has more to do with the framing of the supposition than its veracity.

Not all are equal but some are more equal than others. If we ascribed god powers to faeries for example, making them responsible for creation and the workings of nature - I'd say that would be enough to put faeries on equal footing since we can have no veracity of details anyway (such as the idea that God created the earth in 6 days or spoke through a burning bush)

I don't disagree with any of what you said. My point was more that belief in any of these phenomena is based on something other than universally accepted scientific truth, so trying to point out that someone has a logically inconsistent opinion of which phenomena they believe in is a fool's errand. You can't use logic to dismiss a position that wasn't arrived at on the basis of logic.

For instance, the existence of ghosts is not a scientifically proven fact, and neither is the existence of fairies. But if someone sees a ghost and chooses to believe in ghosts but not fairies, I don't see how anyone can take issue with that or call it logically inconsistent.

 

[greenfairy]

If you define God to have the same properties as Fairies, then they are equivalent regardless of the qualities being described. For instance, if you say that God created all and say that Fairies did as well, then they are equivalent in nature. However, I read your argument as a knowledge argument; believing on faith, which results in all beliefs that derive themselves from the same rules as equal (/equally valid/likely).

Yes, my argument was somewhat unclear, and probably intentionally so; but what I was getting at is simply that people's reasons for automatically rejecting belief in fairies could usually be applied to the concept of God. I'm really going for the incongruity of rejecting one belief and holding another by the same standards of dismissal. People often have further arguments for God, but there is an assumption that they are not needed; whereas I may have further arguments for fairies and people assume that there aren't any to have.

First Cause, or the cosmological argument, is a foundation for believing in something in which the belief is deduced, making it different than believing in mythical constructs in a social sense (taught belief, supernatural). That is, if someone believes in God as defined by the cosmological argument, their view is not equal to a belief in Fairies that has no logical induction. Of course, this isn't grounds to say that the cosmological argument is correct, only that the fallacies and structure of the argument are very different.

Let me put forth an example that is more modern. I'm a creationist; I believe in the simulated reality theory. The nature of the belief, the foundation of knowledge, make my conversation with a young earth creationist virtually impossible. They are not equal beliefs, even if ultimately they have a common bond.

You ask why people can believe in one thing but not another. People may be inconsistent, but there is also multiple ways to deduce a position. The outcome does not state the probability of truth (truth being true/false; certainty being variable).

It's a good argument (although I disagree with it). And I suppose the causal argument is in most people's eyes more sensible than fairies. Although if you think of fairies as being on the same level as ghosts, then they are not-entirely-physical or non physical beings. And God is a non physical being. So it's not that silly; disproving the idea of fairies involves things that might disprove God. Like, if there are no nonphysical beings then there is no God unless God is the only exception.

So is God simply a cause and not a being or a mind?

 

[Lexicon]

 

[sprinkles]

I don't disagree with any of what you said. My point was more that belief in any of these phenomena is based on something other than universally accepted scientific truth, so trying to point out that someone has a logically inconsistent opinion of which phenomena they believe in is a fool's errand. You can't use logic to dismiss a position that wasn't arrived at on the basis of logic.

For instance, the existence of ghosts is not a scientifically proven fact, and neither is the existence of fairies. But if someone sees a ghost and chooses to believe in ghosts but not fairies, I don't see how anyone can take issue with that or call it logically inconsistent.

That's why we need to separate verity from ideal. Rarely do these beliefs stop at just saying "Ok, I'm pretty sure I saw that ghost thing there." Nobody just says "This exists" and then goes on about their business. There's an entire worldview that follows behind it.

If one believes x and then proceeds to do y and z because of it, then justification is highly relevant.

 

[greenfairy]

I don't disagree with any of what you said. My point was more that belief in any of these phenomena is based on something other than universally accepted scientific truth, so trying to point out that someone has a logically inconsistent opinion of which phenomena they believe in is a fool's errand. You can't use logic to dismiss a position that wasn't arrived at on the basis of logic.

For instance, the existence of ghosts is not a scientifically proven fact, and neither is the existence of fairies. But if someone sees a ghost and chooses to believe in ghosts but not fairies, I don't see how anyone can take issue with that or call it logically inconsistent.

I suppose not, but that person is not entitled to accuse the other person of being any more irrational. I would call it logically inconsistent if that person refused to acknowledge the possibility of the other things, as opposed to simply not affirming it and leaning toward rejection of it.

 

[greenfairy]

Fairies don't believe in you either!

*Can I do the same thing to God?

 

[Lexicon]

Fairies don't believe in you either!

*Can I do the same thing to God?

Anything's worth a try, right?