Theists - I want to know what you think

[Neo-Scholastic]

Coherence is a very low bar to meet in terms of justification. And parsimony with respect to assumptions helps, but not a lot. In general, non-naturalistic accounts will contain more assumptions than naturalistic ones.

Given the recent spat of recriminations, I am taking a step back to reflect how it is possible to interact civilly – debating ideas and beliefs without implying, intentionally or otherwise, that the people holding them are willfully ignorant, indoctrinated, dishonest and/or mentally deficient in some way. I feel too often people say things like “I’m not calling you, stupid just your stupid ideas” or “I love the sinner and not the sin” without being fully cognizant of how that sounds to other people with whom you disagree. It’s very difficult hear someone ridicule or disparage your most highly revered objects, deeply held convictions, or compelling desires and not take it personally. In other words, can we agree that despite profoundly different opinions, is it still possible to consider each other “reasonable” in the sense of recognizing one another as fair-minded individuals exercising sound judgment to the best of his or her ability?

For example, in a strict logical analysis using the argument from authority is a fallacy; however, that doesn’t not mean that it isn’t often wise in one’s daily life to adopt the beliefs of respected authorities or honor long-standing traditions. Major scholars such as Bart Ehrman and N.T. Wright have widely divergent views about the New Testament. I think it is entirely reasonable for a layman to study either as guides in their studies and in amateur discussion, like ours on AF, to cite either to support his opinions. At the same time it is entirely appropriate to question who the better authority is. For instance, when it comes to theology I trust David Bentley Hart more than William Lane Craig.

So to directly address your point, yes, coherence and parsimony set a low bar. I’m just saying that a low bar is acceptable for people who aren’t Olympic high-jumpers. For instance, belief that universal global flood happened in the distant past would be a warranted belief during the Middle Ages but is not one in the 21st century.

With respect to the topic of this particular thread, my point is this. When it comes to fundamental beliefs that are necessary to inform how we approach life to have but which cannot be ultimately justified, those foundational beliefs can be warranted without being rationally justified. As such, adopting one set of foundational beliefs as opposed to others is a choice everyone must make without recourse to any proven guide. They are instead "leaps of faith" in the truest sense. In the words of the Moody Blues, “…we decide which is right and which is an illusion.”