Theists - I want to know what you think

[Neo-Scholastic]

With regard to this truth proposition, do you think that believing god does not exist is less reasonable than believing he does?  

I think that is obvious otherwise I would not be a Christian.

Would you mind expanding on that a bit?  What would be an example of a position that is rational on the surface but incoherent on a deeper level?

One incoherent belief is that there can be personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe. Not in the sense that people cannot have personal goals or things they enjoy about life; but rather, in the sense that a purely physical universe cannot have meaning because physical objects aren’t about anything. They simply are. Other incoherent beliefs, that do not seem so on their faces, include that the universe can be intelligible or that there can be moral facts and natural laws apart from some transcendent reality.

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?

No. There must first be an acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit by a receptive heart. Faith is the position we reason from, not the position we reason towards.

Do you find that this acknowledgment complicates discussions with atheists who need a reason for belief first?  I feel like this is the root of why theists and atheists end up talking at each other instead of to each other.  Atheist says, ‘why should I believe?’, and theist says, ‘well, you just have to believe.’  Do you think we ever move through such a monumental barrier between us?  Should theists even try to convert atheists?

&

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

As an existentialist (the Neo part of Neo-Scholastic), I say that before anyone, atheist or Christian, can even begin to reason he or she must embrace some basic absolute foundational beliefs in the absence of certainty. These ultimately unverifiable beliefs can be unrelated, mutually exclusive, or reinforcing of each other. One of these is the belief that the “sensus divinitatus”, sense that there is more to reality than what is immediately apparent in the physical world. For me, to accept this feeling a as an indication of the Divine supports, rather that undermines, my other foundational beliefs in the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of the universe. I believe it is theoretically possible for an atheist to read the demonstrations of Aquinas and start to believe in God. But as a practical matter I do not think such an atheist would accept them unless those demonstrations confirmed a deep seated intuition.

Reason can only remove objections to faith but ultimately faith comes from the Holy Spirit.

So then it comes down to being willing to leap to that belief in spite of the fact that it’s perfectly reasonable to not believe?

Not exactly. We find ourselves alone in an apparently absurd world. It’s ALL a leap of faith.

Do you think it irrational of an atheist to reject Christian testimony as evidence?

Depends. The most basic meaning of evidence is that which is evident. Whether what is evident supports a specific conclusion is entirely different. It is evident that 1st century Gospel writers recorded events they claimed to experience. It is evident that effects follow regularly from their causes. It is evident that the physical constants fall within an extremely narrow range of values that seems implausible to attribute solely to chance. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Gospel writers were entirely accurate or that the natural order manifests Divine purpose or that the universe was Intelligently designed. Those things must be argued for and defended against objections. But it is not right or proper to say there is ‘no evidence’. That’s just avoiding a debate on the merits of the claim being made. It is, however, perfectly fine to suggest that the evidence presented does not support the conclusions drawn from it.