If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[max-greece]

---

I appreciate those who responded to my second post. A number of you critiqued that I was using a ploy to lower the meaning of evidence. Actually, I would argue that I believe the opposite. I believe that much of what we call evidence is actually our interpretation of the evidence. Hence, the statement “the facts say” or “just give me the facts” confuse the meaning of facts and evidence. These statements actually speak about our interpretation of the facts. Therefore, my desire is to help us understand the difference between fact and the interpretation of the fact. The author, G. K. Chesterton, wrote an essay entitled “The Club of Queer Trades”. This essay does a good job at illustrating the difference between fact and interpretation of the facts. I encourage everyone to read the essay. It is available on google books.

My point is that the difference between us is not a matter of evidence, but our interpretations. Some of you acknowledged this point and I appreciate that. This is important because it is a major reason why a theistic belief system is plausible. If it was simply a matter of the evidence then there would be no disagreement. We all would be either theists or atheists. However, the theist points to the same evidence as the atheist, but we come away with opposite conclusions. Why is this and how do these interpretations formulate? Before I deal with this question I would like to make a second proposal.

---

Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?


I know the initial reaction in our culture is a definitive yes. However, I do not agree. I base this heavily on the fact that we truly believe in absolute realities.

Actually I am not even sure what you mean by absolute realities. Our reality is determined by what we are, our physical size and our senses.

Beware of absolutes - they rarely are in my experience.

Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact.

Had you actually asked us, however, rather than assuming the answer, I think you would have found that VERY few of us hold to this viewpoint. Highly unlikely - yes, absolutely no chance, no. Simply not enough evidence to warrant belief.

However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage? Does the intellect alone make us choose right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? How about the gut? Does the Gut make us decide right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? I would submit that empirical investigation cannot definitively tell us why there are some things that all of us define as wrong, or why the soldier stands up in the midst of battle, or what beauty is.

I don't think intellect has anything to do with it. Evolution through natural selection of an intelligent, social creature, however, probably has a great deal to do with it. It appears, in common with some other social, intelligent creatures that we are, to an extent, pre-programmed for empathy, reciprocation and an essential sense of fairness. Beauty? That's in the eye of the beholder but a sense of the aesthetic is probably again a by-product of how we have evolved - alongside an element of the encouragement to breed.

Ok, so I know that someone is going to say well aren’t those simply determined by chemical reaction? But these studies only describe what is going on. None of them deal with what causes them or why these causes are different from one culture to another. Further, do these studies explain why a soldier stricken with fear will work to overcome the fear? Where does this sentiment for honor come from? The studies show very little about how chemical reactions in the brain can account for one's full range of sentiments.

Agreed - see above.

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence? The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation. There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?

And this is the foundation of theist belief - but it is dangerous ground. How do you decide one God over another? How do you eliminate the possibility of any other mythical being or place?

In simpler terms - if you have a given phenomenon and 2 possible explanations, one of which involved an unprovable deity and one which doesn't. which do you think its the more logical to choose?

Over the centuries God has been cited as the reason or cause for a great many things from being the only plausible explanation for the variety of life to the only way the heavenly bodies can stay in place. To date that explanation has yet to prove correct. It appears that there is always a more logical explanation that science can reveal that makes no requirement for an omnipotent being.