...Truth?

[Definitely Disillusioned]

vorlon13 and Alex K:
Please do not try to argue that a search for god and a pull to become closer to him/it/her/whatever is not part of a theistic worldview based on your perception of people not living up to the standards their religion demands. I've said this already: I'm speaking of religion, not the practice of it, and a worldview, not the failed attempts of people who hold to it. This is like saying communism makes no *logical* sense because it didn't work out too well *practically.* The latter is true, but that doesn't make the former false. I want logical arguments, not shallowly evidential ones.

And as for choosing god being as arbitrary as choosing truth, the thing is, choosing any worldview is an act of faith—or arbitrariness, whatever you wanna call it. The point is, in the theistic context, a search for truth is a natural progression given the beliefs they hold to, whereas for an atheist, the chief end of man is survival, and we'd have to go with Nietzsche: "Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us—or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? . . . The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it . . . the question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions . . . are the most indispensable to us." Yet this isn't how most atheists live. Theists and atheists choose their worldview. (They choose it arbitrarily, if you're set on that word—pure reason alone can't form the basis of any worldview. There are screeds of arguments for why not.) Yet both tend to value truth intrinsically. This is unexplained for the atheist, but not for the theist—the foundation, in both cases, is arbitrary, but not the conclusion reached based on that foundation, which, for the atheist, is unexplained. That's my point.

pocaracas:
You say "I'm a curious person. I want to know how reality works. What is real and what isn't." This focuses your appreciation for truth, and your desire to only accept truth that is confirmed through what you believe of the world, on a simple desire to know. You don't believe theism because you perceive that it doesn't line up with science, and you've chosen to put your faith in empiricism. Furthermore, you want to know because... you want to know. It's a simple desire, unexplainable, but there nonetheless. That's valid, let's work with that. (If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.)

According to your worldview, truth in an of itself has no intrinsic value. (Once again, if you believe it does, I'd love to hear an explanation.) You want to know things (the pleasure of exerting the mind inspires this want, perhaps); you've given yourself a definition of truth; you've decided that your truth, received solely through your senses and scientific study (empiricism, if I had to give it a label), is more valid than that of theism, or even the flying spaghetti monster, if you want to turn to the classic parody of religion. What you believe seems to me to be arbitrary. [If you need an explanation of why no worldviews may be based entirely on reason, I can give you that, by the way.]

I guess what I'm asking is whether you would be as satisfied believing in theism as you would in atheism. I assume the answer would be no. But this doesn't make sense as far as I can see—you hold to your beliefs arbitrarily, which means switching them would be arbitrary as well, unless you'd argue that your bent towards atheism is an inherent part of your identity and personality.

So why do you care what you believe? Do you? Do you care what other people believe?

If the answer to any of these questions is that you don't, I think we've safely established that your pursuit of truth is arbitrary and personal. I'm okay with that explanation. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it'll stand up under the question and it's honest. That means I'm still searching for why this pursuit of truth, for so many atheists, is not arbitrary, from a philosophical standpoint. (Once more, arguments that Christianity corrupts the population or something like that are not what I'm talking about here. Those are definitely valid concerns, but that's a different question.)

mh.brewer:
An act of belief in god, once again, is as much a leap of belief as that of naturalism, or any other worldview. The foundation of faith in every worldview has been shown multiple times (Kierkegaard, for instance, on subjective truth and existentialism, or Descartes, if you want to hear a basic setup of denial of any believable thread of thought—pure reason can't take you anywhere). The theist's leap to believe in god is not based on reason or logic or god's say-so, but belief. The theist chooses to believe in a god just as the atheist chooses to believe that they can only trust what they experience; what god says about himself/herself/itself/whatever is beside the point in the initial step of belief. Your dialogue between you and god is a misunderstanding of what philosophical theism actually believes.

[Alex K]

@insufferable Caleb,

You are strawmanning hard there, telling atheists what their supposed motivations are. You should ask us, not tell us. We're the experts, after all.

That the search for truth is a "natural progression" for the theist is a completely unfounded claim, often shown to be false by the blatant religiously motivated denial of reality by theists (climate change is bogus because jesus, evolution is a lie because jesus). But even if that were true, it would be a mere accident that truth is pursued, not a motivated decision that truth is pursued for some higher purpose because it is the truth - "I am a believer in God, and like the mental plankton that I am, the memetic currents wash me this way, towards truth, as it happens, but why that is good, I don't know" (Euthyphro calling) . There'd be no deeper reason that makes the belief in God any truer because of this accidental outcome.

Alas, we know that this exercise is not necessary because god-belief manifestly does not steer man towards truth in general.

[Definitely Disillusioned]

People are stupid in any worldview. Just because some theists say climate change is false or don't hold to basic teachings of their worldview doesn't make their worldview inherently false, just as people who say "ha ha ha god is stupid lol" don't automatically make atheism ludicrous. Please engage with me on the field that I'm using. I don't give a darn about what people do. We're talking about ideas, not lives, and pure philosophy, not whether or not people practice it correctly.

The search for truth is a necessary part of the theist worldview, as well as it being a natural progression. Again, I'm talking about logic here, not the failed attempts of people to live up to their worldviews. In a super simple overview of this belief, theists assume that god forms the basis of truth. Theism demands that the theist believes in god as good, a desire to pursue god logically follows, and honestly it's not very hard from there to reason your way on to the value of truth.

That's all I'm going to say on this subject. The idea that true theism does not necessarily follow into a love for creation, knowledge, and finding truth about it is one that I didn't even expect anyone would bat an eye at. Philosophically speaking, that's basic stuff about theism. Please focus more on the atheism section of this or PM me if you want to continue that discussion, as I feel we're getting a bit off track here.

[Alex K]

So I am a follower of truthism, which asks me to pursue the truth, and I'm an atheist. How does this not refute your OP

[Definitely Disillusioned]

There's nothing to refute; perhaps you misunderstood. That statement does answer my original question: what makes you pursue truth? Thank you. For you, your decision seems to be arbitrary. In other words, for you, truth is not something that ought to be pursued, you just pursue it because. As I said to the other person who came to the same conclusion, I'll accept arbitrariness as an explanation.

What the post was originally about was a deeper value of truth. Atheistic philosophers such as Bertrand Russell seem to pursue it for its own sake, and most atheists I've experienced hold "not being duped" as their motivation, not arbitrary "truthism." The original question was why "not being duped" is important.

[brewer]

mh.brewer:
An act of belief in god, once again, is as much a leap of belief as that of naturalism, or any other worldview. The foundation of faith in every worldview has been shown multiple times (Kierkegaard, for instance, on subjective truth and existentialism, or Descartes, if you want to hear a basic setup of denial of any believable thread of thought—pure reason can't take you anywhere). The theist's leap to believe in god is not based on reason or logic or god's say-so, but belief. The theist chooses to believe in a god just as the atheist chooses to believe that they can only trust what they experience; what god says about himself/herself/itself/whatever is beside the point in the initial step of belief. Your dialogue between you and god is a misunderstanding of what philosophical theism actually believes.

No, you're incorrect, it's not the same leap of belief, not at all. If you choose to believe that you're welcome to it. I'll not be dragged there. 

Kirkawhat and Dessiewho?

And you're incorrect again, atheist for me means a lack of belief in god(s) and what they represent. That includes the supernatural. It has little to do with experience. 

I said I'd need to sniff you. I starting to back away.

[Whateverist]

What is Truth?

But haven't you seen Beccs in the buff?

[Definitely Disillusioned]

Kirkawhat and Dessiewho: Two famous philosophers who are highly respected in the philosophy realm.

Could you explain what you mean by "it's not the same leap of belief, not at all"? What makes you believe in empiricism? I'm really asking. Do you have a rational explanation? I wish I could communicate my sincerity in this question through text. I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I really want to know. I want to engage intelligently with other people who are willing to defend their beliefs, whether that be theism, atheism, pantheism, postmodernism, or whatever

Also, I don't quite understand "I starting to back away." Are you worried that I'm a theist and that I'll mess up the atheist forums? Because if that's the case, that saddens me. I just want to find the truth. I've left countless Christian circles because everyone thinks I'm atheist. I've offended countless people who think I shouldn't be asking the questions I do because they're too set in their dogma to consider actually finding truth. I think. I think about things people set in their beliefs consider blasphemy. And I try to find truth. There's my worldview. If you have a problem with that, back away. On the other hand, if you want to start arguing against atheism I can pick up that mantle and argue the sh*t out of theism. Would that prove my desire to honestly just find what's real?

[pocaracas]

I think you're trying too hard to read something into what I said...

pocaracas:
You say "I'm a curious person. I want to know how reality works. What is real and what isn't." This focuses your appreciation for truth, and your desire to only accept truth that is confirmed through what you believe of the world, on a simple desire to know. You don't believe theism because you perceive that it doesn't line up with science, and you've chosen to put your faith in empiricism. Furthermore, you want to know because... you want to know. It's a simple desire, unexplainable, but there nonetheless. That's valid, let's work with that. (If I've misunderstood you, please correct me.)

Oh, now you want to go down the rabbit hole, huh?
Is there any valid reason to accept the theist proposition as an accurate description of reality?

Empiricism, if you wish to call it that, presents us with our best way to probe reality.
Like I said before, I'm not interested in going down the solipsist way, so that's what I have left.... empiricism.

I want to know because I'm compelled to know. Because I feel pleasure in learning new wonderful things about reality. Because I'm the product of millions of years of evolution and a good deal of it was spent in learning about the reality around us.

According to your worldview, truth in an of itself has no intrinsic value. (Once again, if you believe it does, I'd love to hear an explanation.)

What is "intrinsic value"?
What is value? What renders something valuable?
Why do humans generally consider gold as valuable? Does gold have some intrinsic value? Is it just because it's relatively scarce and shiny and yellow like the Sun?

I will tell you that I value more an accurate description of reality than a random made up description. (which flies in the face of me paying money to watch a movie about unreal beings, and not paying money to watch a documentary but that's entertainment)

You want to know things (the pleasure of exerting the mind inspires this want, perhaps); you've given yourself a definition of truth; you've decided that your truth, received solely through your senses and scientific study (empiricism, if I had to give it a label), is more valid than that of theism, or even the flying spaghetti monster, if you want to turn to the classic parody of religion. What you believe seems to me to be arbitrary. [If you need an explanation of why no worldviews may be based entirely on reason, I can give you that, by the way.]

What is a worldview?
I look at the world through my senses... how else would I view it? Making up yarns in my head and never actually experiencing reality?

And yes, empiricism is more valid than theism. It has a base to stand on. Theism has only tales and dreams.
If I go solipsist, these can both be equivalent.... but I said out from the gate that I'm dismissing solipsism, remember?

I guess what I'm asking is whether you would be as satisfied believing in theism as you would in atheism. I assume the answer would be no.

You assume correctly.

But this doesn't make sense as far as I can see—you hold to your beliefs arbitrarily, which means switching them would be arbitrary as well, unless you'd argue that your bent towards atheism is an inherent part of your identity and personality.

Which beliefs do I hold to?
That I have senses?
That they probe a real world?

As far as I know, every human being is born with pretty much the same sensory data at its disposal.
How is that arbitrary?

So why do you care what you believe? Do you? Do you care what other people believe?

What do I believe?

I care what other people believe to the extent that those beliefs impose themselves upon me while presenting what seems to be an erroneous description of reality.

If the answer to any of these questions is that you don't, I think we've safely established that your pursuit of truth is arbitrary and personal. I'm okay with that explanation. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it'll stand up under the question and it's honest.

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary.... more like inescapable.

That means I'm still searching for why this pursuit of truth, for so many atheists, is not arbitrary, from a philosophical standpoint.

It is what it is.
And you do what you must.
Just try to be more precise with certain words... or, at least, provide a glossary, because not all words mean the same for everyone... specially in philosophy.

[Definitely Disillusioned]

pocaracas:
Thanks so much for your detailed analysis. I'll check up on this tomorrow and see what I can find. I appreciate your willingness to engage with me. Please don't feel attacked, in case you're feeling that way—I'm not attacking people, I'm examining ideas.