"Is Belief in God Irrational?" Chris Hallquist Loses This Debate to Randal Rauser Who Wins a Pyrrhic Victory
I wouldn't want to debate a professional Christian philosopher on the topic of this debate. But Chris Hallquist did. He made some good arguments against Christianity but in terms of the question itself, debate judges would unanimously proclaim Rauser the winner, by a landslide. For Rauser it is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory though. He won the battle but suffered serious loses in doing so. I judge Chris to be out of his league here, but he did manage to raise some issues Rauser didn't have good answers for, so Kudos to him. The problem of evil was his best argument. Rauser hammered Hallquist on the word "irrational" and won the debate because of it. However, unbelievably, given someone's ignorance about science then a Flat Earther would be considered rational too. Big crapping deal. What we want to know is if one's belief in God is true and Plantinga, Rauser's guru, never addresses that question. Hallquist did, but we all hold some conclusions that are false and we're not irrational in doing so.
If I were to debate Rauser on this question I would focus on the word "belief." Belief is always irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities when it comes to the nature of the universe and it's workings. Hallquist didn't even do this. He thought if he could just show that believing in God was improbable then this is all he had to do. For anyone who continues believing despite Hallquist's arguments is irrational. Yet based on this standard of Hallquist's it is only irrational to continue believing in God once someone grants the arguments to God's existence fail, and these types of judgments are person related. Rauser thinks Hallquist's arguments fail instead. So until Rauser thinks those arguments succeed and continues believing anyway, his belief in God is not irrational. Check the debate out and see for yourselves.
Hallquist's position is just too extreme to be taken seriously. He thinks the arguments against the existence of God are so devastating that when it comes to William Lane Craig, and some other Christian apologists, they are intellectually dishonest. What Hallquist simply fails to understand is that there are many cognitive biases that keep honest people believing despite the strongest evidence to the contrary. There are many Christian apologists who think the opposite, that the arguments for God's existence are so strong that non-believers are being intellectually dishonest. If I were a Christian apologist I would hold up Hallquist as exhibit "A" in showing non-believers are intellectually dishonest, for surely he isn't ignorant about the effects of these cognitive biases. So they could conclude he is being intellectually dishonest when claiming William Lane Craig and others are intellectually dishonest. Because of this I must distance myself from him, even though I wish him well.
If I were to debate Rauser on this question I would focus on the word "belief." Belief is always irrational. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities when it comes to the nature of the universe and it's workings. Hallquist didn't even do this. He thought if he could just show that believing in God was improbable then this is all he had to do. For anyone who continues believing despite Hallquist's arguments is irrational. Yet based on this standard of Hallquist's it is only irrational to continue believing in God once someone grants the arguments to God's existence fail, and these types of judgments are person related. Rauser thinks Hallquist's arguments fail instead. So until Rauser thinks those arguments succeed and continues believing anyway, his belief in God is not irrational. Check the debate out and see for yourselves.
Hallquist's position is just too extreme to be taken seriously. He thinks the arguments against the existence of God are so devastating that when it comes to William Lane Craig, and some other Christian apologists, they are intellectually dishonest. What Hallquist simply fails to understand is that there are many cognitive biases that keep honest people believing despite the strongest evidence to the contrary. There are many Christian apologists who think the opposite, that the arguments for God's existence are so strong that non-believers are being intellectually dishonest. If I were a Christian apologist I would hold up Hallquist as exhibit "A" in showing non-believers are intellectually dishonest, for surely he isn't ignorant about the effects of these cognitive biases. So they could conclude he is being intellectually dishonest when claiming William Lane Craig and others are intellectually dishonest. Because of this I must distance myself from him, even though I wish him well.