Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Jehanne]

Since when does "suspending judgment" require faith?

Indeed. I promote the connotation of "faith" that is more akin to trust than belief. For example, trust is more closely aligned with the will. Belief is more closely aligned with thought. At the same time I know there are Christians, such as Kierkegaard, who consider the irrational acceptance of some first principles as an inescapable part of the human condition. Hence the assertion of these types of Christians is that being an atheist requires "faith" in different first principles... first principles that do not entail theism, but must be accepted on "faith" nonetheless. My guess, not having read the book would be, the Christian writer finds the first princples of an atheistic philosophy to be lacking, a position the existentialist part of me finds agreeable.

The principles that we, as atheists, accept "on faith" are falsifiable, which means that we do not really accept them on "faith", do we? In mentioning the "atheistic first principles" you, of course, neglected to give any examples of such.

I believe and am convinced that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical individual, but, that he was crazy, a David Koresh or Jim Jones of his day. That's why, I believe, that the Romans crucified him without so much as a historical footnote. In short, they, and no one else mentioned him, because, he was not worth mentioning.

[Simon Moon]

Since when does "suspending judgment" require faith?

Indeed. I promote the connotation of "faith" that is more akin to trust than belief. For example, trust is more closely aligned with the will.

So then, why not just use the word trust?

When I sit in a chair, I would never use the word faith to describe the trust I have that the chair will hold me up.

Belief is more closely aligned with thought. At the same time I know there are Christians, such as Kierkegaard, who consider the irrational acceptance of some first principles as an inescapable part of the human condition. Hence the assertion of these types of Christians is  that being an atheist requires "faith" in different first principles... first principles that do not entail theism, but must be accepted on "faith" nonetheless. My guess, not having read the book would be, the Christian writer finds the first princples of an atheistic philosophy to be lacking, a position the existentialist part of me finds agreeable.

Faith, in the religious sense (not a synonym for trust) is not belief, it is the reason people give for their justification for belief.

The Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith sure doesn't seem like it describing "trust":

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

I sense a bit of an equivocation fallacy here. Claim that faith and trust are the same, until a theist has to justify their belief in an unevidenced claim, then switch to the Hebrews 11.1 definition. I can't remember how many times I've been involved in discussions with theists, where this exact thing happens.

The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence. Also, it is the only world I am presented with, so from pragmatically I have to at least act as if it exists, or I will die within this false world. Until someone shows me a way out of the Matrix, I am stuck here, having to obey the rules, or risk dying within it.

Funny thing is, theists have to accept all of the above, too. You and I both wake up in the morning, coming to the conclusion that the universe exists, and other minds exist. Difference is, you are the one adding a whole bunch of other, unevidenced stuff to it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I agree with you that people do equivocate between the differnent connotations of the word faith. To me that's the kind of natural confusion resulting from an ambiguity in overlapping meanings of the English words, trust and faith.

With respect to first principles, I was thinking specifically about the principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. More generally, I consider the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of reality to qualify as first principles, although I call these positons "existential stances". All of these, the two transcendental certainties, plus the two existential stances, are my first priniples so to speak. On AF at least, most critiques of theistic demostration are based in a rejection of one or more the above mentioned first principles. That means that the critique tacitly asserts variously that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. And maybe they aren't. Who is to say? People will never agree on first principles.

[Jehanne]

I agree with you that people do equivocate between the differnent connotations of the word faith. To me that's the kind of natural confusion resulting from an ambiguity in overlapping meanings of the English words, trust and faith.

With respect to first principles, I was thinking specifically about the principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. More generally, I consider the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of reality to qualify as first principles, although I call these positons "existential stances". All of these, the two transcendental certainties, plus the two existential stances, are my first priniples so to speak. On AF at least, most critiques of theistic demostration are based in a rejection of one or more the above mentioned first principles. That means that the critique tacitly asserts variously that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. And maybe they aren't. Who is to say? People will never agree on first principles.

I think that it is clear that all (or, at least, nearly all) atheists agree that minds are real and that other human beings (and, indeed, some animals) also have minds.

If God exists (and, especially, the Christian God), let him spontaneously heal an adult amputee, and I, as an atheist, will convert to Christianity.  Now, I propose to you, what empirical observation would convince you to abandon your theism and embrace an atheistic position?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Now, I propose to you, what empirical observation would convince you to abandon your theism and embrace an atheistic position?

You pose an impossible challenge by asking for an empirical test by which someone prove could negative. While such a challenge is rhetorically clever during debate, I'm not interested responding to trick questions and arguing over semantics. You clearly have concerns about the Christian faith that I am not prepared to address.

[Belacqua]

The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence. 

I don't think any of those things are falsifiable. 

I mean, any evidence you have that you're NOT in the matrix could just be dropped in by the people who run the matrix. 

Like a lot of unfalsifiable things, there is no good reason to believe it. (I certainly don't believe we're in the matrix.) But that doesn't mean it's been falsified. 

Is it a first principle for you that you should believe things based on evidence? That seems like a reasonable first principle to me, but not one that could be proved with evidence. Because to accept the evidence, you'd first have to accept the principle. 

Is it a first principle that falsifiable claims are superior to non-falsifiable claims? Apparently not, since the three you list are not falsifiable. But science-type people often say this. So for them it may constitute a first principle. When they say there is no evidence for God, they are relying on a principle about what good evidence will look like: science-type falsifiable evidence, not personal unfalsifiable experience.

Is it a first principle that empirical evidence, interpreted in the light of current scientific theory, is better than revelation? This again seems unprovable and unfalsifiable, but lots of atheists hold to it. How could you falsify the idea that some revelation is true?

In addition, to be an atheist, you have to accept a number of other propositions:

1) religious claims have not been proven. 
2) the world is explicable, more or less, without positing God or other religious elements. 
3) that religious claims are "unevidenced stuff" that religious people add.

These propositions may be very reasonable, but they are certainly things that atheists believe. If "I believe it" means "I hold it to be true," then these are beliefs that you must have in order to be an atheist.

[Jehanne]

Belacqua,

It is not very often that I encounter (at least on this board) such incredibly weak and fallacious reasoning.

When atheists "say there is no evidence for God", well, there is no evidence for IPUs, the FSM, the ISM ("Invisible Sock Monster"), etc.

As for falsifiable claims being superior to nonfalsifiable claims, the latter constitute an infinite set; why value one claim in the latter set over another? Problem with theology is that there is nothing that is "not true".

As for revelation being true, establishing such is falling off a log. I will flip a coin 100 times next Tuesday. You give me the exact sequence of heads/tails that I will get and that will prove Revelation.

As with the spontaneous healing of an adult amputee, there are events that Science cannot explain, except, that such events have yet to occur.

We continue to wait...

[Belacqua]

The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence.

As I understand it, many many people in history have reported religious experiences which, for them, constituted solid evidence that God exists. 

In other types of cases, such a large number of people reporting similar experiences would be considered good evidence. Atheists, however, reject the claims of all of these people. What principles do they use for this rejection?

I would say that they are interpreting the evidence in light of a theory. This is something like a scientific theory -- a structuring system through which claims are evaluated. The theory posits the principle that personal experiences do not count as good evidence if they are not backed up by different kinds of evidence -- the scientific kinds of evidence which scientists prefer. 

The principles provided by this theory, which posit certain facts about the world, provide the standards by which atheists reject the claims of millions of people, and settle on the belief that God remains unevidenced. Without these evaluative principles, used to reject people's claims, we would have to admit that the millions of people in history who have claimed personal experience of God do lend credibility to the belief in the existence of God.

So it's pretty clear that to be a thinking conscious atheist in today's world requires commitment to certain principles.

[Angrboda]

I agree with you that people do equivocate between the differnent connotations of the word faith. To me that's the kind of natural confusion resulting from an ambiguity in overlapping meanings of the English words, trust and faith.

With respect to first principles, I was thinking specifically about the principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. More generally, I consider the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of reality to qualify as first principles, although I call these positons "existential stances". All of these, the two transcendental certainties, plus the two existential stances, are my first priniples so to speak. On AF at least, most critiques of theistic demostration are based in a rejection of one or more the above mentioned first principles. That means that the critique tacitly asserts variously that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. And maybe they aren't. Who is to say? People will never agree on first principles.

Not accepting the PSR does not imply accepting that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. That's a non sequitur.

[Fake Messiah]

In other types of cases, such a large number of people reporting similar experiences would be considered good evidence. Atheists, however, reject the claims of all of these people. What principles do they use for this rejection?

I guess it's the same principle atheists use to dismiss claims of alien abductions, and also the same principles that theists use to dismiss religious experiences by people of other religions.