Truthworthy claims that...

[Edwardo Piet]

..."[...]to not relinquish the position of belief is not to challenge that belief honestly"

I disagree with him because I see it as a non-sequitur in itself and I am yet to here him prove why this either necessarily must be the case.

I don't see why it's not possible at all for believers, indeed, to question their beliefs without losing it even momentarily.

EvF

[tackattack]

for clarification are you saying that it's impossibe for a theist to question his belief and maintain that belief?

[Edwardo Piet]

It seems that is what Truthworthy is claiming, yes. But he also said that he does not mean that theists have to lose their belief in God permanently if they honestly question - only temporarily. TW seems to think that it's impossible to honestly question God's existence (or lack thereof) as a theist - and also simultaneously still hold the God belief. I don't see why this has to be the case at all. I hope I've pinned his view down correctly - and I look forward to reading his own response on this thread.

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

My reasoning says that a believer can question their belief in a way they believe to be honest just not in the truest sense of challenging it.
Seeing how the supporing argument for the truth in the existence of God is based on faith/belief then under proper scrutiny you would nessessarily have to adopt a position of disbelief in order to make a comparison.
I accept that a believer can think they're honestly question their belief without relinquishing such faith but objectively they aren't scrutinising the apparent truth of their god's existence.
I honestly think many theists are unable to trully question / scrutinise as objectively/rationally as a scientist would (does think). I believe this is due to the emotional investments made in such a faith, and also the subsequent negative emotional consequences involved in coming to see an opposing point of view, contradicting the existence of god. Also that from a theists perspective of belief to not adopt a postion of at least a skeptic they aren't scrutinising in the truest sense and skepticism is a form of a state of being in non belief whereby the agnostic nature and impartial/unbiased scrutiny would allow a truthful (momentary at least) judgement.

---

Close enough, albeit loose toward the end.

[Edwardo Piet]

My reasoning says that a believer can question their belief in a way they believe to be honest just not in the truest sense of challenging it.

What do you mean by 'not in the truest sense'?

What about interpretation? Someone can ask the same questions and draw different conclusions from them. So I don't see how 'true' scrutinizing necessarily leads to atheism for instance...

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

---

My reasoning says that a believer can question their belief in a way they believe to be honest just not in the truest sense of challenging it.

What do you mean by 'not in the truest sense'?

What about interpretation? Someone can ask the same questions and draw different conclusions from them. So I don't see how 'true' scrutinizing necessarily leads to atheism for instance...

EvF

---

Because a scientist can generally detach themself, they aren't emotional about maintaining something more than they are prepared to challenge it. And to answer, the rationality of the theist scrutiny (without challenging the belief itself) is done so from within the same frame of reference as that which is in support of that belief. Therefore the belief itself was never trully challenged regardless of how honest that theist believed their scrutiny to be.

[TruthWorthy]

That is that a trully honest scrutinisation nessessarily requires at least a momentary adoption of an opposing belief which to be adequate in all honesty must be a position of atheism. That isn't to say that atheism will be assumed indefinately, just that the position would be adopted, however briefly.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't see why a belief cannot be genuinely challenged but without being discarded even temporarily.

I can play Devil's Advocate and try and adopt a theistic perspective without actually becoming a believer even for a second.... so I don't see why a believer has to become an atheist in order to honestly be skeptical.

In fact, they wouldn't need to be skeptical and scrutinize their belief if they already lost it and were atheist. So surely the only time a theist can question his belief is when he is still a theist, otherwise he wouldn't even hold the said belief in God in order to scrutinize it (whether momentarily or permanently)?

EvF

[fr0d0]

It's the same from both sides - both can be attached to their position - take Atheists on here - it's be a big thing to declare a change of mind. I came here wanting to be non committal on faith, but was forced to label myself as theist. I think it's very easy, from my own POV, to consider a position of disbelief. Evie, for example, has said he finds it impossible to consider a position of faith. So my understanding is to the contrary.

[Edwardo Piet]

I never claimed it is impossible. I consider the possibility of God and my self being a theist in future.... it's just I choose evidence because I consider it sane and rational, and since I know of no evidence of God, I see no rational reason to believe he exists (at the moment at least).

EvF