Atheism

[SteveII]

The doubt of Simon's friend should arise from the overall worldview. 

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

In ALL cases, religion has to be a cumulative case.

Your arguments against other religions all seem to revolve around criteria that are favorable to your religion, and seem -- at least superficially -- hostile to theirs.  If that's the case, as I think it is, that's simply another version of special pleading.  I don't offhand know what the proper evaluation of a religion or its claims should be, aside from an obvious correspondence to the real world, but your criteria seem unnecessarily biased.

I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

---

The doubt of Simon's friend should arise from the overall worldview. 

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

In ALL cases, religion has to be a cumulative case.

1. Hindu "theology" strikes me as having pretty much the same internal consistency as Parmenides, with some added mythical bells and whistles.

2. I'm sure there are plenty of scientifically literate Hindus who can square the mythical circle with the best of the Abrahamists.

3. I wouldn't know.

4. I can say without hesitation that, no, the alleged facts of Krishna's life are not believable. You, on the other hand, are on much shakier ground on that point.

What do you mean, "In ALL cases, religion has to be a cumulative case"? When one seeks to provide justification for the beliefs after their adoption, or prior to adopting those beliefs? I ask because I've never met one believer who came to their faith by way of a cumulative inferential case. Not one. But I've encountered plenty of apologists who concoct their philosophical cases after already having made an emotional commitment that cries out for a rationale.

A person may not come to the point of accepting a religion based on a cumulative case. I think most continues to believe (or not believe) a religion over the long term based on a cumulative case. This is why Christians loose a lot of young people--churches have historically not taught a cumulative case.

---

According to Plantinga, a belief, B, is warranted if:

Stevell can you tell me what point Alvin the not so lucid is trying to make here...

But then clearly enough if  or [the Christian beliefs given above] is true, it could be produced in me by a reliable belief-producing process.  Calvin’s Sensus Divinitatis, for example, could be working in the exclusivist in such a way as to reliably produce the belief that ; Calvin’s Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit could do the same for. If (1) and (2) are true, therefore, then from a reliabilist perspective there is no reason whatever to think that the exclusivist might not know that they are true.

a reliable belief-producing process.

Where is the quote from?