Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Belief in God is a rational postulate required by practical reason

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rational agents can coherently will ends they believe may be unrealizable, treating moral action as unconditionally obligatory regardless of cosmic outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's own categorical imperative grounds moral duty in rational consistency alone, not in any empirical or metaphysical guarantee of success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the postulate of God smuggles a consequentialist condition into a deontological framework, undermining the autonomy of morality Kant himself defends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The disjunction between moral virtue and happiness in the world is an empirical fact that a finite rational agent has no power to overcome through belief alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Postulating God's existence to bridge this gap commits the wishful-thinking fallacy: deriving metaphysical conclusions from practical desiderata rather than evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Schopenhauer and later Freud argued that such postulates reveal the psychological need for consolation, not any genuine rational necessity grounding theistic belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A rational, moral being must necessarily will 'the highest good' — a world in which people are both morally good and happy, and in which moral virtue is the condition for happiness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A person cannot rationally will an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve that end
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Achieving the highest good requires that the causal structure of nature is conducive to moral means
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.