Thought on a Simple Argument for the Rationality of Belief in a god

In recent years, with the rise of the New-but-just-loudly-and-brashly-rehashing-old-arguments-in-a-less-coherent-and-impressive-way Atheism, it has become fashionable to claim that belief in God is irrational, delusional, and unreasonable, but the fact is that it is trivially easy to show this claim to be false, for there is a simple but eminently rational and reasonable claim for a god’s existence in the fact that the world (biological and otherwise) not only appears orderly and rational but also overwhelming reeks with the appearance of design–as even Richard Dawkins himself admit in The Blind Watchmaker–and so it is by no means unreasonable or irrational to say that the overwhelming appearance of design in the world is a reasonable reason to believe that it actually was designed, and since all our experience tells us that a design needs a designer, then it is equally reasonable to believe in a designer, and the best candidate for such a designer is a god of some sort; now such an argument may not be utterly compelling, and it may be disputable, but it is in no way unreasonable, or insane, or delusional, or any other prejudicial claim that the New Atheists make, and so, in such a simple way, it is readily possible to put to bed the idiotic claim that god belief is somehow only for the irrational and unreasonable.


3 thoughts on “Thought on a Simple Argument for the Rationality of Belief in a god

  1. Actually, it is entirely unreasonable to assume design because it looks like design, without understand why you think something is designed; and then to claim that you know anything about the designer. That’s not rational.
    And, it’s not just the claim of designer; that is not what a religion is. Even if you could bridge the gap between being in awe at the complexity of nature and design and therefore an intelligent designer (which I’ve not seen done), that leaves a wholly new issue of getting from a designer to any other tenet of a religion: objective morality, particular historical events, Heaven and Hell, the Designer being intelligent or person or caring…

    Oddly, you admit the argument isn’t a good one in this post, but you still think accepting it can be defended as rational. I don’t understand how you bridge that gap either.


    • Allalit,

      Your comment is a mix of assertion (para one), irrelevant red herrings (para two), and confusion (para three). Not a promising start.

      Para One – It is entirely rational to assume design at the appearance of design until and unless shown otherwise. Why? Well, think about this from an evolutionary paradigm. If our brains evolvd to give us reliable beliefs, and if we look at something and our brain screams ‘design’ then it is eminently rational to believe in design until and unless shown otherwise.

      Para Two – Completely irrelevant to showing that it is rational to belief in a god.

      Para Three – I never said that the argument was not a good one, I said that it was debatable, but that does not make it a bad argument. Arguments can be debatable, and yet the people that hold them can be rational, and the arguments can be as well.


      • I’ll open by playing the exam same game: no, you’re just making assertions. You’re the one off to a bad start. You’ve essentially asserted that because Dawkins admits to the the appearance of design, that concluding design is rational. But all you’ve done is assert that.

        Lets moderate your claim that all our experience tells us a design needs a designer to most of our experience relating to the question of design suggests a designer, and then examine it shall we.
        First of all, we need to make sure you’re not question begging or committing an equivocation fallacy. That means we need to make sure your not equating two different definitions of design, and that you’re not making the assumption that nature is designed in the actual argument before you then conclude it.

        If we explicitly make changes to try to remove those potential fallacies, we aren’t left with much of an argument: we’re left with man-made things being designed and the rationality of assuming nature is designed simply because it looks that way (to people who don’t know of natural cranes of explanation…) is yet to be established, it’s simply asserted.

        And the rationality of drawing supernatural conclusions because one is in awe of nature is not a rational conclusion. Unless, of course, you’re not claiming a supernatural God, and are instead claiming that whatever the designer is, that is a God. So, physics and biological evolution are God. It’s not a definition of God anyone will likely appreciate. However, it is the only way to make your post ‘rational’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s