Theists - I want to know what you think

[Mister Agenda]

For instance, one could take as their fundamental existential axiom 'the reality we experience is real, even though it can't be proven and our ability to perceive it completely is greatly limited'. One could take as their fundamental moral axiom that 'what's good for people and other living things is good, even though it can't be proven to be fundamental and applying it to all possible situations is challenging and tricky.'

I do get that ultimately you drill down to an axiom that can't be proven but has to be accepted as a brute fact. The measure of how good an axiom is, is how many people are willing to accept it, at least provisionally. An axiom that no one else agrees with is not useful. Building on what axioms we CAN agree on might let us move forward for a change.

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

The way I'd look at it is this: We're both reasonable... whoever is reasonable is more reasonable on this specific account from simply being correct and making one less logical error. But there's a big difference between making one more logical mistake (or even a few more logical mistakes, or even several) and being highly irrational as a person overall (or at least more so than the average person or more so than the average intelligent person).

I really think there is a huge distinction between saying "Your position is highly irrational" and saying "you are highly irrational." Because you could be logically superior and more rational in many other positions, and have just got this wrong. And, for starters, it could be me rather than yourself who is logically mistaken. Obviously I don't think it is otherwise I'd change my mind. If I actually thought any of the arguments for theism were logically sound then I'd be a theist.

Perhaps this is a good way to explain the difference between considering someone's reasons for believing in their particular worldview irrational is the fact is on the matter of someone's explanatory style:

People who generally tend to blame themselves for negative events, believe that such events will continue indefinitely, and let such events affect many aspects of their lives display what is called a pessimistic explanatory style.[1] Conversely, people who generally tend to blame outside forces for negative events, believe that such events will end soon, and do not let such events affect too many aspects of their lives display what is called an optimistic explanatory style

I think that you are framing something in both a personal and pervasive way.

Personal
This aspect covers the degree to which a person attributes an event to internal or external causes. An optimist might attribute a bad experience to luck whereas a pessimist might consider it his or her fault. Another person might also attribute an event to external forces in an unhealthy way (e.g. "I had no choice but to get violent.")

Pervasive
This distinction covers global versus local and/or specific and the extent of the effect. A pessimist might, for example, think that "Everywhere there is misery" and an optimist think that, "I have had dealings mostly with honest people".

So it's not just that you're taking something specific to an opinion about the irrationality of your worldview personally, but you are also interpreting it pervasively, meaning you are acting as if someone saying you have made some logic mistakes about getting to your primary worldview then that means you are an illogical and irrational person overall... it doesn't mean that because you could of course rarely make many other logical mistakes and happen to have got these ones wrong.

On this particular matter though... atheism and theism, like all true dichotomies, they can't both be true so SOMEONE has made a bigger mistake on this matter, logically speaking.

I'm more than happy to admit that if I'm wrong and God does exist and your arguments are sound and I've failed to notice their soundness then I'm actually more irrational than you are on this matter. Of course I don't think I am because if I did it would be because I believed I was wrong and I would only believe I was wrong if I also believed that your arguments were sound and if I believed that I would be a theist.

Does it make you feel better that really ultimately all I'm saying is "I think one of us must be more irrational on this matter and the other is more rational on this matter. And we both think we're right and by extension more rational on this matter (in one sense)... but we're both rational in another sense (we're both rational overall in general perhaps (although everyone is also irrational and biased to an extent too! Myself included))."?

I think you said there is at least one argument for theism you consider sound? You seem to like Aquinas's stuff (which personally I think are highly underwhelming and are fraught with non-sequiturs, but hey, maybe I'm missing something).

But this is another reason why I was confused when you said that you don't think Christianity can be reasoned to. Because you also seem to have said that Aquinas's arguments are sound?

Oh, unless you're saying that you think that deism (some form of a god created the universe) can be reasoned to with Aquinas's arguments (and perhaps other arguments) but you just don't believe that believing that any particular God is the Christian God can be reached to through reason... and you believe that you have to have some sort of revelational experience to consider the creator of the universe to be the Christian one?

(If so my answer would be: What about all the other religions that have members who claim to feel that they have felt revelational experiences just as deep as yourself and other Christians have? Are not the depth of their revelational experiences just as valid? How do you know that they don't feel just as deep and inspiring to them as the Holy Spirit does to you and Christians like yourself?)

P.S. Have you answered my question of what you mean by saying that you think beliefs can be reasonable without being rational yet? If so I missed it.

---

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?

My bold.

Yes we can agree on that.

---

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.

I agree with this. Here's a good example of that (from Daniel Dennett, who I really dislike overall but he does give us some gems such as the following

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.

Still though, all other things being equal Occam's Razor is rational. If you're really saying that you don't think the most fundamental positions of any worldview can be rational then surely if the more parsimonious one is the one without a deity then it's more rational to believe in that worldview even if the only rational difference is it being more parsimonious?

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.

But again, even if that is so surely the more parsimonious one is better?

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

Surely it's only a choice if you think all of them are equally likely to be true? If you believe there are reasons that one worldview is more likely to be true than another (for example I believe atheism is much more likely to be true because it doesn't postulate a complex supernatural deity necessarily without any evidence, so it's much, much more parsimonious, so much so that to me believing in any sort of god seems on the level of believing in Zeus or invisible unicorns, etc (perhaps the creator of a universe is even more improbable than an invisible universe because the creator of a universe seems to require an even bigger explanation than the universe itself? (If we're talking about a creator outside the universe whereas a natural first cause would merely be the first part of the universe rather than a cause outside of the universe)).

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.”

Surely the only leap involved is theism because theism adds in an extra cause outside the universe, and it also leaps to deciding that this extra cause is a supernatural mind, and theism also attribute all sorts of characteristics to it and many other claims, all without evidence. Atheism has the first cause in the natural universe just as theism does but WITHOUT an additional supernatural cause outside the universe with all those extra claims and postulations about that cause, without any possible experience of it.

[SteveII]

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?

Naturalism has problems with or explaining free will, consciousness, fine-tuning, biological life, even the question that if evolution selects for survival and not for truth, how can we rely on our cognitive faculties to discover truth about the worldview where such faculties are not an expected outcome. I think that a Christian worldview give more warrant to believe our cognitive faculties. One of these cognitive conclusions found in most people is a predisposition to believe in the supernatural. 

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. 

Perhaps arguing by intuition only is insufficient, but that is not what I argued. Believing in a Christian God is almost always the result of a cumulative case consisting of personal experience (yours and others), the resonance of the NT message and its relevance to life, reviewing the claims in the NT and finding them compelling, looking at the natural world and seeing that chance is the unlikely cause, etc. etc.  

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. 

God speaks to your heart and you desire the redemption and relationship that is offered. I imagine that Neo, Alpha and I agree on more than 95% of things having to do with Christianity. The misconception that there are so many possible versions has no basis in reality. 

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?

The most common I think is when you realize that running your own life with your own philosophy has not equipped you when hard times come. This knowledge could come from within (as in you knew what you were doing) or it could come from someone that God put in your life or somehow the message was conveyed at just the right time (radio, article, TV show). I have heard examples of all kinds where God somehow made himself known at exactly the right time. 

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?

Further to what I just said, the same message, acquaintance, article, chance encounter that resonates with someone at a specific time could very easily be dismissed (or worse) if the person has not yet gotten to that place where their heart is open to certain truths. Humility is a HUGE factor. Most people raised in a church (no matter how old they are now), do not pursue doctrine classes nor come to completely understand how it all works together (a good grasp on systematic theology). Such a pursuit is not required to 1) be a Christian or 2) belong to a church and pass on your less-than-precise thoughts about how it all works. But if your church and/or family systematically ignores this component, you end up losing a good portion of each new generation when they find they cannot answer the tough questions and their theology is ridiculously easy to pick apart when they go out in the real world. So, where a certain level of knowledge was sufficient for his/her parents, in this day and age, it is not sufficient.  It's a shame, because like I say all the time, we have had answer to difficult questions for centuries. 

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. 🙂

NP. I appreciate the chance for a real discussion.

[Godscreated]

 It amazes me how people can turn things around to fit what they want to hear instead of taking what was plainly said and applying it to the situation. I was saying if you treat Christians in a bad manner why should you expect to receive any better. My greater point which it seems you totally missed is that we as adults should stop acting like children on a play ground who argue over stupid small things and call each other names and be adult like, civil. We ask this of our children, we should actually do what we ask others to do. What is so wrong about being civil with our fellow man, I mean really how hard can it be.

GC

It amazes me how remarkable your sense of humor is and how you're such a good sport about everything. You stand as a shining example to the rebellious masses.

 There's nothing funny about my post, it is a serious matter and again to my amazement you have completely missed the point.

GC

[Mister Agenda]

The idea that there's no reason to think theists here should be better-behaved than atheists is one with which I concur. Glad we're on the same page. If you're promising to do better, I'd like to see it before I believe it.

[vorlon13]

The idea that there's no reason to think theists here should be better-behaved than atheists is one with which I concur. Glad we're on the same page. If you're promising to do better, I'd like to see it before I believe it.

It's not like the atheists here are being chased by an angry man waving and cracking a whip and neither are we seeing anyone upsetting the tables in the staff break room.

I also note the Atheist Forum money changer, Patreon, remains unmolestered.

[SteveII]

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.

Really? Naturalism isn't confined to the natural world? If something were the cause of the natural world, it would not by definition be separate from the natural world? 

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.[/quote]

It cannot be an appeal to ignorance when my position is that the any characteristics of a first cause (by definition prior to the natural world) is unknowable under naturalism because the very system that defines where it can get knowledge from. The box is not of my own making--it is a limit of the worldview. 

Metaphysical naturalism, also called "ontological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism", is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism...naturalism

[Edwardo Piet]

Naturalism has problems with or explaining free will,

What can be dismissed as incoherent by rationalism is not a problem for naturalism.

consciousness,

Consciousness is the most known thing of all. More so than any scientific fact. Consciousness isn't a problem for materialism, idealism, naturalism or supernaturalism.

fine-tuning,

None required for that one.

biological life,

Nor that one either. God of the Gaps is not the answer, my friend.

even the question that if evolution selects for survival and not for truth, how can we rely on our cognitive faculties to discover truth about the worldview where such faculties are not an expected outcome.

The whole "brain fizz" thing is a really low bar. Are you sure you want to go there?



You are confusing epistemic subjectvity with ontological subjectivity. Just because we have subjectivity/consciousness doesn't mean that we can't use that subjectivity to draw objective conclusions.

I think that a Christian worldview give more warrant to believe our cognitive faculties.

It's all we can rely on to believe anything regardless. No God required.

One of these cognitive conclusions found in most people is a predisposition to believe in the supernatural. 

We can all make cognitive conclusions and we all rely on our own subjectivity for belief... but the question is, is that subjectivity being objective/rational? Again your mistake appears to rely on the equiocation fallacy. Because our subjectivity is ontologically objective you get mixed up and think without God it must also be epistemically subjective. Were that really the case then even God's cognition would be incapable of objective knowledge let alone omnisicent knowledge.

Perhaps arguing by intuition only is insufficient, but that is not what I argued. Believing in a Christian God is almost always the result of a cumulative case consisting of personal experience (yours and others),

The problem here is that the naturalist uses their experience to believe in that which is natural and therefore experiencable. That makes a lot of sense. You use your experience to believe in things that can be experiencable.

The supernaturalist, on the other hand, believes in precisely that which that cannot be experienced. The supernatural being beyond the universe. So it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that personal experience can be any evidence of God. And since all evidence is experience-based it makes no sense to talk of evidence of God unless you admit that God is natural in some way.

You do indeed believe that God is capable of intervening with the natural universe... but it is literally only the natural parts that there is evidence of. There is no evidence of any supernatural part. So once again I think you are confused. Because the only part of God that is deemed Godly is the fact that he is beyond the universe but it is precisely everything beyond the universe that we cannot have any evidence or experience of.

the resonance of the NT message and its relevance to life, reviewing the claims in the NT and finding them compelling, looking at the natural world and seeing that chance is the unlikely cause, etc. etc.  

The most common I think is when you realize that running your own life with your own philosophy has not equipped you when hard times come. This knowledge could come from within (as in you knew what you were doing) or it could come from someone that God put in your life or somehow the message was conveyed at just the right time (radio, article, TV show). I have heard examples of all kinds where God somehow made himself known at exactly the right time. 

You are talking of natural experience I don't see how that can possibily lead you to believe in anything supernatural. Once again I think you are confused. Whatever there is evidence of, it seems to be pointing to something natural not something supernatural. There's a big difference between something natural but out of reach and something beyond nature.

Further to what I just said, the same message, acquaintance, article, chance encounter that resonates with someone at a specific time could very easily be dismissed (or worse) if the person has not yet gotten to that place where their heart is open to certain truths.

What's worse than "dismissed"?

The argument from coincidences/syncronisity is just confirmation bias and very unimpressive and underwhelming. And, laughably, whatever it points to it's not something beyond nature. Again, there is a big difference between something that is natural and out of reach and something beyond nature.

Humility is a HUGE factor. Most people raised in a church (no matter how old they are now), do not pursue doctrine classes nor come to completely understand how it all works together (a good grasp on systematic theology). Such a pursuit is not required to 1) be a Christian or 2) belong to a church and pass on your less-than-precise thoughts about how it all works. But if your church and/or family systematically ignores this component, you end up losing a good portion of each new generation when they find they cannot answer the tough questions and their theology is ridiculously easy to pick apart when they go out in the real world. So, where a certain level of knowledge was sufficient for his/her parents, in this day and age, it is not sufficient.  It's a shame, because like I say all the time, we have had answer to difficult questions for centuries. 

Doesn't theology already assume the existence of God? And isn't that putting the cart before the horse?