Come now, you know better than to cut off discussion by crying “No True Scotsman” especially when I wasn’t even going there. It is a fact of life that what people do and say in public does not always match what they truly believe or reveal their motivating desires. One philanthropist may donate funds in order to aggrandize himself. Another may do so because of his genuine concern for the beneficiaries. Who is the more generous person? In accordance with this line of reasoning, I think a pious believer has more in common with an earnest seeker than with a nominal believer. Both a pious believer and an earnest seeker have a desire to understand principles and truths that may go beyond what is merely apparent. Likewise a nominal believer and confirmed non-believer have many similarities. Both look to and put their trust in their own powers and seek comfort and gain only within the natural sphere. I’m not trying to be judgmental; I have throughout my life been at least three of the above: nominal believer, seeker, and confirmed non-believer. I’m still working on achieving actual piety.
In many ways my belief that ‘love comes before logic’ is similar to Godchild’s ASK (Ask Seek Knock). Before you can know the truth you must first want to know the truth. If you’re not interested in asking the question, “Is there more?” then it’s not surprising that all of your reasoning will not reveal anything more to you than what you think there already is. Nor will you seriously entertain arguments suggesting otherwise; the slightest problem will serve as the basis for dismissing an opposing view. For example I often feel that many atheists are too quick to dismiss rational demonstrations of God and justify those dismissals with the slimmest objections. Likewise if you hope to find more, then all of your reasoning will be directed to finding something and you won’t stop until you find it. There can be little doubt that some people fool themselves with the ‘answer that satisfies’. For example, I feel too many believers are too quick to enthusiastically embrace highly suspect Kalam-style proofs.
Nevertheless perseverance often gets rewarded with genuine truths. It took quite a bit of challenging study for me to gain enough confidence to stand-up as a believer. If it were possible to determine, I would be willing to lay money down that my conversion from atheist to theist was the result of deeper and more thorough intellectual consideration that most AF members did to de-convert.
In many ways my belief that ‘love comes before logic’ is similar to Godchild’s ASK (Ask Seek Knock). Before you can know the truth you must first want to know the truth. If you’re not interested in asking the question, “Is there more?” then it’s not surprising that all of your reasoning will not reveal anything more to you than what you think there already is. Nor will you seriously entertain arguments suggesting otherwise; the slightest problem will serve as the basis for dismissing an opposing view. For example I often feel that many atheists are too quick to dismiss rational demonstrations of God and justify those dismissals with the slimmest objections. Likewise if you hope to find more, then all of your reasoning will be directed to finding something and you won’t stop until you find it. There can be little doubt that some people fool themselves with the ‘answer that satisfies’. For example, I feel too many believers are too quick to enthusiastically embrace highly suspect Kalam-style proofs.
Nevertheless perseverance often gets rewarded with genuine truths. It took quite a bit of challenging study for me to gain enough confidence to stand-up as a believer. If it were possible to determine, I would be willing to lay money down that my conversion from atheist to theist was the result of deeper and more thorough intellectual consideration that most AF members did to de-convert.
