Theists - I want to know what you think

[robvalue]

Pragmatism uber alles.

If you can drop an assumption without losing any practical functionality, then you don't need it.

First to 501 wins, finishing on a double.

[SteveII]

---

If you don't have a candidate now, you never will. You must admit an unknowable first cause. A gap in your metaphysical framework--a gap in your worldview.

Unknown and unknowable are not synonyms.

I know. I chose 'unknowable' on purpose. If you think there was a first cause and you deny it was God, then you are admitting to a brute fact (whether you realize it or not). A brute fact is unknowable. 

Brute Fact: In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact

[Angrboda]

---

Unknown and unknowable are not synonyms.

I know. I chose 'unknowable' on purpose. If you think there was a first cause and you deny it was God, then you are admitting to a brute fact (whether you realize it or not). A brute fact is unknowable. 

Bullshit. That's a false dichotomy.

[SteveII]

I know. I chose 'unknowable' on purpose. If you think there was a first cause and you deny it was God, then you are admitting to a brute fact (whether you realize it or not). A brute fact is unknowable. 

Bullshit.  That's a false dichotomy.

Under a naturalistic worldview, there are no inferences you can make from the physical world that explains something causally prior to the existence of the physical world. It is a feature of the worldview. 

As far as a false dichotomy, what are the candidates for a first cause besides God and brute fact?

[LadyForCamus]

Yes, lacking belief in God is rational. You have not been presented incontrovertible proof to the contrary and as such a reasonable position to hold. However, such a position is a tacit admission of all kinds of gaps in your worldview--whether you know/admit they exist or not.

This is so interesting.  You, Neo, and Alpha all answered this question essentially the same.  Lack of belief in god is rational,  but incomplete and incorrect.  What, in your personal opinion is incomplete or lacking about it, and if knowing the truth requires something other than reason, did you reach that conclusion using something other than reason? 

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?  If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

Perhaps because they do not understand the evidence that is available or have a personal bias against it. There is sufficient evidence and arguments for justified belief in something. But really, IMO, there are always other reasons. For some. Others are more connected to the predisposition of the human race to believe in the supernatural. Still others want to have the relationship with God (and all that goes with that) that they observe in someone else.

Personally, I think human intuition is the wrong thing to rely on when considering the likelihood of a god’s existence, but that’s just a personal opinion.  

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god? 

I think reasoning can remove the barriers but not get you over the goal line.

What do you think could get an atheist over the goal line?  Again, interesting that you, Neo, and Alpha expressed the same sentiment on this question.  Not implying you guys are parroting each other, I’m just surprised at how in line in your thinking you guys are with one another.  

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

In addition to my #4 answer, IMO, God could intervene or circumstances could develop that gets you to take the very last step of genuine faith.

What could be such a circumstance if you were considering a hypothetical? 

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?  Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

I'm not saying there are not any, but I have not encountered any former theist that understood systematic theology and how the big picture works together. Growing up in a theistic home is not sufficient to equip someone with sound doctrine and a real faith journey. There is always the possibility of changing one's beliefs.

Why would god make it so difficult for someone to get it right?

7.  Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF.  If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be?  I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap.  I just want to know what you think would be, or should be the most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.

Don't confuse believing in God with living a Christian life. The former is a really low bar--even Satan believes in God. The value of a Christian life is a combination of salvation/redemption, purposeful living and a satisfying peace about the big picture.

Thank you much for your thoughtful responses, Steve. 🙂

[Angrboda]

Bullshit.  That's a false dichotomy.

Under a naturalistic worldview, there are no inferences you can make from the physical world that explains something causally prior to the existence of the physical world. It is a feature of the worldview. 

Now that's just bullshit. Naturalism isn't confined in any such way. You're putting naturalism in a box of your own making. Besides, the alternatives aren't simply God or naturalism, and no atheist is obligated to subscribe to one of those two options.

As far as a false dichotomy, what are the candidates for a first cause besides God and brute fact?

Rather than waste time presenting some, I'll simply point out that this is an appeal to ignorance. You don't justify a dichotomy that way. And besides, you already know and have posted against some of the alternatives in prior threads, so you're just being disingenuous.

[LadyForCamus]

One incoherent belief is that there can be personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe. Not in the sense that people cannot have personal goals or things they enjoy about life; but rather, in the sense that a purely physical universe cannot have meaning because physical objects aren’t about anything. They simply are.

I agree with this, though I don’t see how it’s a philosophical problem, or philosophically incoherent?  Maybe there is no objective, personal meaning. You don’t think that’s a justified position?

Other incoherent beliefs, that do not seem so on their faces, include that the universe can be intelligible or that there can be moral facts and natural laws apart from some transcendent reality.

Again, assuming you’re right that the universe is unintelligible and that there are no such things as moral facts without god, why is that a philosophically unjustified position?  

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?


Do you find that this acknowledgment complicates discussions with atheists who need a reason for belief first?  I feel like this is the root of why theists and atheists end up talking at each other instead of to each other.  Atheist says, ‘why should I believe?’, and theist says, ‘well, you just have to believe.’  Do you think we ever move through such a monumental barrier between us?  Should theists even try to convert atheists?

&

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

As an existentialist (the Neo part of Neo-Scholastic), I say that before anyone, atheist or Christian, can even begin to reason he or she must embrace some basic absolute foundational beliefs in the absence of certainty. These ultimately unverifiable beliefs can be unrelated, mutually exclusive, or reinforcing of each other. One of these is the belief that the “sensus divinitatus”, sense that there is more to reality than what is immediately apparent in the physical world. For me, to accept this feeling a as an indication of the Divine supports, rather that undermines, my other foundational beliefs in the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of the universe. I believe it is theoretically possible for an atheist to read the demonstrations of Aquinas and start to believe in God. But as a practical matter I do not think such an atheist would accept them unless those demonstrations confirmed a deep seated intuition.

Personally (and I’m repeating what I just said to Steve), I think human intuition is the wrong tool for the job here.  Human intuition is pragmatic, and it’s utility is related primarily to the survival advantages it provides us.  I don’t think it’s the right tool for determining existential truths about reality.  If you try to use a hack saw to hammer in a nail, you aren’t going to get very far.  😝

So then it comes down to being willing to leap to that belief in spite of the fact that it’s perfectly reasonable to not believe?

Not exactly. We find ourselves alone in an apparently absurd world. It’s ALL a leap of faith.

I think in a sense this is true.

[Mister Agenda]

---

Unknown and unknowable are not synonyms.

I know. I chose 'unknowable' on purpose. If you think there was a first cause and you deny it was God, then you are admitting to a brute fact (whether you realize it or not). A brute fact is unknowable. 

Brute Fact: In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact

In contemporary language use, something that is unknowable can never be known. You can't know that. After all there a multiple explanations for possible 'first causes' that have math behind them and don't contradict known physical laws. In principle, evidence could someday be discovered that confirms one of those explanations or an explanation that hasn't been devised yet. I think 'unknowable' in this case is premature.

---

One incoherent belief is that there can be personal meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe.

Can you fill the gap between 'if the universe is meaningless' and 'there can be no personal meaning'? Why can't there?

[Edwardo Piet]

My position is that there is no certain basis on which any belief system rests and yet the human condition requires each of us to have beliefs that rest, either tacitly or explicitly, on some freely adopted intellectual assumptions.

I don't think the most fundamental axiom of all lacks a certain basis. I don't think there's any basis more certain than the very basis that allows all certainty itself to be reached.

I don't see how reason itself is not a reasonable axiom. Wouldn't any other sort of axiom be... unreasonable?

You still haven't clarified what you mean by saying that beliefs can be rational without being reasonable (EDIT: Oh wait you said it the other way around. You said they can be reasonable without being rational. Again, what's the difference?). That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Surely if God were to exist the very minimum characteristics for God would be Logos. Without logic itself being built into the essence of God I would consider God to be inferior to logic itself and therefore God would be kind of Logos's sidekick.

After all, God cannot do the logically impossible... doesn't that make him kind of inferior to logic unless it is literally part of him? The way I see it is that him having to follow certain rules makes the rules have power over him rather than the other way around (again, unless the rules are literally part of his being).

---

I know. I chose 'unknowable' on purpose. If you think there was a first cause and you deny it was God, then you are admitting to a brute fact (whether you realize it or not). A brute fact is unknowable. 

Bullshit.  That's a false dichotomy.

He's also confusing unknown with unknowable. And, even if the nature of the first cause is unknowable... that doesn't mean that pretending to know the nature of the first call and pretending it has a mind is at all rational. On the contrary... the most rational stance to take when you don't know is to withhold judgement until you do.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Coherence is a very low bar to meet in terms of justification. And parsimony with respect to assumptions helps, but not a lot. In general, non-naturalistic accounts will contain more assumptions than naturalistic ones.

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?

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 or honor long-standing traditions. Major scholars such as Bart Ehrman and N.T. Wright have widely divergent views about the New Testament. I think it is entirely reasonable for a layman to study either as guides in their studies and in amateur discussion, like ours on AF, to cite either to support his opinions. At the same time it is entirely appropriate to question who the better authority is. For instance, when it comes to theology I trust David Bentley Hart more than William Lane Craig.

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.

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