Theists - I want to know what you think

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

The way I'd look at it is this: We're both reasonable... whoever is reasonable is more reasonable on this specific account from simply being correct and making one less logical error. But there's a big difference between making one more logical mistake (or even a few more logical mistakes, or even several) and being highly irrational as a person overall (or at least more so than the average person or more so than the average intelligent person).

I really think there is a huge distinction between saying "Your position is highly irrational" and saying "you are highly irrational." Because you could be logically superior and more rational in many other positions, and have just got this wrong. And, for starters, it could be me rather than yourself who is logically mistaken. Obviously I don't think it is otherwise I'd change my mind. If I actually thought any of the arguments for theism were logically sound then I'd be a theist.

Perhaps this is a good way to explain the difference between considering someone's reasons for believing in their particular worldview irrational is the fact is on the matter of someone's explanatory style:

People who generally tend to blame themselves for negative events, believe that such events will continue indefinitely, and let such events affect many aspects of their lives display what is called a pessimistic explanatory style.[1] Conversely, people who generally tend to blame outside forces for negative events, believe that such events will end soon, and do not let such events affect too many aspects of their lives display what is called an optimistic explanatory style

I think that you are framing something in both a personal and pervasive way.

Personal
This aspect covers the degree to which a person attributes an event to internal or external causes. An optimist might attribute a bad experience to luck whereas a pessimist might consider it his or her fault. Another person might also attribute an event to external forces in an unhealthy way (e.g. "I had no choice but to get violent.")

Pervasive
This distinction covers global versus local and/or specific and the extent of the effect. A pessimist might, for example, think that "Everywhere there is misery" and an optimist think that, "I have had dealings mostly with honest people".

So it's not just that you're taking something specific to an opinion about the irrationality of your worldview personally, but you are also interpreting it pervasively, meaning you are acting as if someone saying you have made some logic mistakes about getting to your primary worldview then that means you are an illogical and irrational person overall... it doesn't mean that because you could of course rarely make many other logical mistakes and happen to have got these ones wrong.

On this particular matter though... atheism and theism, like all true dichotomies, they can't both be true so SOMEONE has made a bigger mistake on this matter, logically speaking.

I'm more than happy to admit that if I'm wrong and God does exist and your arguments are sound and I've failed to notice their soundness then I'm actually more irrational than you are on this matter. Of course I don't think I am because if I did it would be because I believed I was wrong and I would only believe I was wrong if I also believed that your arguments were sound and if I believed that I would be a theist.

Does it make you feel better that really ultimately all I'm saying is "I think one of us must be more irrational on this matter and the other is more rational on this matter. And we both think we're right and by extension more rational on this matter (in one sense)... but we're both rational in another sense (we're both rational overall in general perhaps (although everyone is also irrational and biased to an extent too! Myself included))."?

I think you said there is at least one argument for theism you consider sound? You seem to like Aquinas's stuff (which personally I think are highly underwhelming and are fraught with non-sequiturs, but hey, maybe I'm missing something).

But this is another reason why I was confused when you said that you don't think Christianity can be reasoned to. Because you also seem to have said that Aquinas's arguments are sound?

Oh, unless you're saying that you think that deism (some form of a god created the universe) can be reasoned to with Aquinas's arguments (and perhaps other arguments) but you just don't believe that believing that any particular God is the Christian God can be reached to through reason... and you believe that you have to have some sort of revelational experience to consider the creator of the universe to be the Christian one?

(If so my answer would be: What about all the other religions that have members who claim to feel that they have felt revelational experiences just as deep as yourself and other Christians have? Are not the depth of their revelational experiences just as valid? How do you know that they don't feel just as deep and inspiring to them as the Holy Spirit does to you and Christians like yourself?)

P.S. Have you answered my question of what you mean by saying that you think beliefs can be reasonable without being rational yet? If so I missed it.

---

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?

My bold.

Yes we can agree on that.

---

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.

I agree with this. Here's a good example of that (from Daniel Dennett, who I really dislike overall but he does give us some gems such as the following

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.

Still though, all other things being equal Occam's Razor is rational. If you're really saying that you don't think the most fundamental positions of any worldview can be rational then surely if the more parsimonious one is the one without a deity then it's more rational to believe in that worldview even if the only rational difference is it being more parsimonious?

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.

But again, even if that is so surely the more parsimonious one is better?

As such, adopting one set of foundational beliefs as opposed to others is a choice everyone must make without recourse to any proven guide.

Surely it's only a choice if you think all of them are equally likely to be true? If you believe there are reasons that one worldview is more likely to be true than another (for example I believe atheism is much more likely to be true because it doesn't postulate a complex supernatural deity necessarily without any evidence, so it's much, much more parsimonious, so much so that to me believing in any sort of god seems on the level of believing in Zeus or invisible unicorns, etc (perhaps the creator of a universe is even more improbable than an invisible universe because the creator of a universe seems to require an even bigger explanation than the universe itself? (If we're talking about a creator outside the universe whereas a natural first cause would merely be the first part of the universe rather than a cause outside of the universe)).

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.”

Surely the only leap involved is theism because theism adds in an extra cause outside the universe, and it also leaps to deciding that this extra cause is a supernatural mind, and theism also attribute all sorts of characteristics to it and many other claims, all without evidence. Atheism has the first cause in the natural universe just as theism does but WITHOUT an additional supernatural cause outside the universe with all those extra claims and postulations about that cause, without any possible experience of it.