An Angel of Rationality: a non‑supernatural thought experiment

Debate Room
1

Hi all.
Aluneth here, I’m a theist, but this isn’t a conversion post, and I’m not trolling. I had an idea I wanted to sketch out and see how it lands here.

I came up with an angel in my mind. Her name is Aletheia, the Angel of Rationality.

Appearance: To me she shows up as a calm, focused woman in practical clothes, sweater, reading glasses, notebook, coffee. No halo; if there is one, it’s just the desk lamp behind her. Wings optional, and if she had wings she’d want to test their lift‑to‑drag ratio.

Believers can encounter her in their mind’s eye through deliberate visualization, or she may even appear in dreams.

Personality: Patient, curious, allergic to motivated reasoning. She doesn’t mind you being wrong, but she minds you staying wrong on purpose. She loves questions, updated beliefs, admitting “I don’t know,” statistics, study designs, and people changing their minds when evidence changes. She dislikes arguments that go from “I feel it deeply” to “therefore it is true.”

How she works: Aletheia does not believe in the supernatural. She’s a personification, not a spirit. She works through natural causes. Her followers please her by learning the scientific method, studying cognitive biases, and trying to be less wrong. She also likes faith, but only faith in yourself, and faith in her as a psychological tool, because confidence, expectation, and placebo effects are real. Believing in her or taking her seriously may make her more effective, in the same way a runner benefits from a coach or a mantra. She’d want you to know that’s the mechanism, not magic.

What she is: She isn’t material, and she isn’t immaterial ghost‑stuff either. Her only substance is the sound waves I use to talk about her, the pixels of this post, and the neural patterns in your brain, which are real as stone. She herself is not a being in the usual sense. She’s more like a thought‑experiment given legs, a way of externalizing the critical voice without appealing to anything outside nature. Think of her as a cognitive scaffold: not real in the way a tree is real, but real in the way a method or a practice can be.

The question: Suppose an atheist who fully rejects the supernatural decided to “believe in” Aletheia in this exact self‑aware, non‑supernatural way: imagine her, talk to her, ask questions, use her as a cognitive coach. They know she isn’t real in the literal sense, but they act as if she is because it helps.

Would that be rational? Is it just a psychological technique with a friendly face? Is it any different from a sounding board, an archetype, or a personal mantra? Can you benefit from a placebo you know is a placebo? I suspect many people would find themselves thinking more clearly with a device like this: it externalizes the critical voice, makes it easier to consult, and adds a bit of friction against your own lazy intuitions.

What do you think? Could an atheist use a non‑existent angel of rationality without compromising their atheism or their rationality?

2

My hyperactive imagination invented an angel. She has a sweater and reading glasses. Says more about me than rationality, I know…

3

Not rational. Your “angel” is no less imaginary than a non-existent god. What’s really going on here is a rational thinking mind, not some “angel” that’s not a part from your existence. You need to separate fact from fantasy. For me, I need more of a dose of actual reality. Your notion is cute, but you don’t need it. Just content yourself that you have a beautiful mind without unnecessary baggage. You’re a whole, complete and wonderful person as you are and that’s a compliment by the way!

1 Like
4

A discussion that only happens in my mind is uninteresting. I would rather discuss with an actual rational person of some intelligence. Not a person that agrees with me in everything, but someone that can give me opposition on interesting stuff, and with knowledge and experience that partly overlaps with mine, so that the difference is not off-putting. I might learn something from that.

1 Like
5

You don’t find discussions with dream characters to be fascinating?

6

No. It’s just me imagining shit.

3 Likes
7

I can confidently say that I could use a non‑existent angel of rationality without compromising my atheism or my rationality if I were perhaps writing a story of fantasy fiction with angels in it.

I do incidentally wonder, though, what evidence there is for existent angels.

8

I think you described Amazon’s Alexa.

2 Likes
9

Discussions about rationality don’t require imaginary angels. Ideas either adhere to the principles of logic, or they do not.

A belief is rational when it rests on solid evidence, adheres to logic, and adjusts to new facts when necessary. It means your thoughts match the real world instead of just your wishes or fears.

1 Like
10

In Thomas Aquinas’ time, such an angel would have been just fine. I feel, in the 21st century, such an angel would disappear in a puff of logic.

The only occasion where an atheist might engage her in conversation would revolve around them being seriously over-served…

11

What’s the difference between that and imagining/writing the characters in whatever novel you’re writing? I do it all the time but then I’m an author, I’ve even got emotional reading some of my own stuff back to myself so…

UK Atheist

p.s. I didn’t say a good one!!

12

No need to imagine things, we already have a method for achieving rationality, it’s called logic. Occam’s razor.

No, since it contains a glaring contradiction.

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it does not address other imaginary things, rationality has nothing directly to do with atheism. It merely means in accordance with reason and logic.

we have a method of reasoning to achieve rationality, it’s called logic, and adheres to strict principles of validation - in short it works, we don’t need to imagine anything extra.

13

Your reply doesn’t actually engage with the thought experiment. Aletheia isn’t being proposed as a rival to logic. She’s proposed as a cognitive tool for applying logic, catching bias, and making the critical voice easier to consult. That’s a category error, not a rebuttal. Occam’s razor is also misapplied here. Aletheia isn’t being added as an entity to explain the universe. She’s a technique. The usefulness of a technique is tested by whether it helps, not by shaving it away with a slogan.

You say acting as if she exists while knowing she doesn’t is a “glaring contradiction.” It isn’t. It’s an as-if practice. We use known fictions instrumentally all the time: practicing a difficult conversation by imagining the other person, writing a letter you never send, or pretending to explain something to a friend to understand it better. If you think all of those are irrational, you need to argue that. If you don’t, then the alleged contradiction isn’t doing any work.

“We already have logic” is true but insufficient. Logic tells you what follows from premises. It doesn’t tell you when you’re rationalizing, when emotion is driving your reasoning, or when you should stop and look for disconfirming evidence. A psychological scaffold can help with that. You can say this particular scaffold doesn’t work, but that’s an empirical claim, and you haven’t made it.

Finally, you yourself concede that atheism only concerns deities, not imaginary things. So using Aletheia doesn’t compromise atheism. The only remaining question is whether it compromises rationality, and you haven’t shown that it does.

If you can formalize the contradiction, I’ll take it seriously. But “logic exists” is not an argument against a cognitive tool.

14

As I explained, that’s because it is pointless, since we already have a method that validates arguments as rational, it’s called logic.

Entirely redundant, and thus pointless. Since we can already apply logic, ironically you are the one who is failing to apply logic, and as a result your arguments are relentlessly irrational.

No it is not being misapplied, since what you’ve imagined is entirely unevidenced and unnecessary, if one wishes to be rational, then obeying the principles of logic will best achieve this. Something you demonstrably refuse to do, reeling off common logical fallacies over and over, and refusing to ever address them when they are explained.

Except it’s an unevidenced assumption that it helps, it’s just a) a bare claim you’ve made, and b) obviously redundant, as has been explained, since we already have logic, and anyone can apply that method without using fantasies like this.

It clearly is contradictory.

That’s a straw man, since that’s not what I claimed, ironically this is of course irrational. the problem is you haven’t a clue what logic is or what it does. I don’t think you know what rational means, but nothing can be asserted as rational, if it violates any principle of logic, like using a known common logical fallacy.

There is nothing alleged, you stated it plainly:

There it is for anyone to see.

The sheer hilarity of that unevidenced rationalisation is too ironic. The unevidenced claim that logic requires the addition of a fantasy to make it more effective, is equally hilarious.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: now that’s funny.

It’s being rejected because it is pointless and unevidenced, atheism has nothing to do with it. We already have a method for thinking rationally, and that is logic, adding fantasies is obviously not needed, nor have you offered any evidence it is helpful, just the bare claim.

It is a pointless fantasy, that adds nothing to the method of logic. You have offered no evidence it achieves anything, let alone that it can make logic more efficacious.

I could care less how you take it, it is there for anyone to see. Even were it not, your bare claim remains an unevidenced fantasy you’ve created. The efficacy of logic is not in question, and is manifest in it’s results.

Straw man fallacy again, as that is not what I have said, try using the quote function, and avoid trying to paraphrase my posts.

1 Like
15

You keep saying there’s a glaring contradiction. Then show it plainly.

P =
Not-P =
Quote where I said both.

If you can’t do that, you aren’t using logic. You’re just repeating the word logic.

You also said I used straw man and other fallacies. Name one. Show the exact sentence you think I got wrong and what I claimed you said. If you won’t, the accusation is empty.

Finally, you said it doesn’t help and is pointless. That’s an empirical claim. My post was a question, not a proof that it works. Support your claim or drop it.

No more slogans and no more laughter emojis. Answer those three things. If you reply with mockery instead, I’ll take that as you being unable to answer.

16

It’s above, I quoted it twice. You have denied it without actually quoting it, or even acknowledging it, I can’t simply keep repeating it in the face of that dishonesty.

Again quoted and explained above, I used the quote function, it linked those fallacies to your post for anyone to see.

You’re like a child hiding it’s face and thinking it can’t be seen, but your fallacies can be seen above, and elsewhere and they are quoted and linked to your posts. That you have ignored these, and are now lying they don’t exist, won’t change this fact. Every quote has an arrow in the top RH, and that links directly to the post it is quoted from. Anyone can navigate back through the discourse using these links to verify claims.

I already explained why more than once, as anyone can see above. You also made a claime that imagining a fictional angel is real, would improve the application of logic. Here is that exact quote:

That also contains the contradiction that violates a principle of logic, that I offered twice above and you now demand a third time, well there it is. And you don’t get to tell anyone to drop anything sunshine. Now, are you honest enough to retract your lie, and apologise for it, and address what was actually posted with something approaching honest debate.

That’s rich, I have answered every claim you made, yet you are relentlessly evasive and dishonest. Now again anyone can see I have addressed your three claims yet again, any chance you will honestly address mine?

I think by now we know the answer to that.

17

In order to be rational, it must be in accordance with logic, that is what the word means, and logic is a method demonstrated to achieve this, so adding an unevidenced delusion, the pretence an angel exists, adds nothing, since that method of logic already achieves this purpose without that unevidenced delusion, since claiming this delusion helps achieve this is a) unevidenced, and b) violates Occam’s razor, since it is an unevidenced assumption that is not need to achieve rationality, it also a rational contradiction to both acknowledge something doesn’t exist, and then pretend that it does exist. Thus violating one of the three laws of logic, the law of non contradiction.

It’s also woo woo nonsense to boot, of course.

18

Something cannot be both real and imaginary, not only does this violate the law of non contradiction, it likely violates the law of identity as well, since P = P, ipso facto real cannot also be not real / imagainary.

19

I was more fascinated by your use of the proper noun “Angel”.

20

Demanded an answer and an explanation I’d already offered twice, lied it hadn’t been offered, and have run away from the 3rd offer, rank cowardly dishonesty…

Time to stop indulging your cowardly mendacity….If you lie again, I’ll link posts you’ve made since this demand, after running away from the answers here you lied hadn’t been given, and demanded a 3rd time.

Never mind the fallacious arguments you’ve littered this place with, and have failed to even acknowledge.

Show some integrity, and offer some respect, and it will be reciprocated, it’s up to you, I didn’t seek you out to preach at you after all…