I feel guilty about having hijacked the topic dedicated to Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion, to carry on an extended debate about whether it is more rational to be an atheist than to be a theist.

I thought I would try starting a new topic (my first on booktalk) with a slight twist on our previous conversation. I don't think MadArchitect has made a strong argument for theism, in point of fact. And, even though I am a committed atheist, I'm willing to bet I can make a stronger argument for theism than what I have heard so far.

I'm going to assert a Christian position, since that is the religion I am most familiar with. I think similar arguments could be made for Islam, Judaism, etc. Keep in mind, this is a thought experiment.

I'll begin by stating that my world view is based on faith in God. Everything else I believe is subordinate to this.

I see no problem with the lack of empirical evidence of God's existence. As beings of the natural world, why should we expect to perceive evidence of the supernatural? I'm not ruling out the possibility of evidence, mind you, I just don't think we can count on the supernatural interacting with the natural world in such a way as to demonstrate its existence. Needless to say, I deny that miracles (as commonly conceived) are required for faith. In fact, I would assert the opposite. And I can also offer a possible reason why God would not permit such a demonstration of his existence -- it would discourage the human quest to understand the natural world. Why do I think God wants us to pursue such knowledge? Because one of the innate characteristics of human nature is curiosity about our world.

Anyone care to play?

Fiske

PS: Oh, one ground rule for the game. It's okay to argue either position -- atheism or theism, but you should start by stating your actual orientation. I think it would be more interesting for atheists to argue the theistic position and theists to argue the atheist position, but I'll leave that up to each participant.

FiskeMiles: I don't think MadArchitect has made a strong argument for theism, in point of fact.

Nor would I try. Ultimately, I don't think rational argument can get us to a satisfactory answer either way. I think the only good reasons to sway one way rather than another, theist or atheist, are all personal.

Quote:

---

I see no problem with the lack of empirical evidence of God's existence. As beings of the natural world, why should we expect to perceive evidence of the supernatural?

---

This is exactly why you should disbelieve in God. The fact that we have no reason, and COULD have no reason, to believe in him!

If we examine how we acquire knowledge, it becomes clear that it is a type of foundationalism that ultimately rules--although coherence among beliefs is also important in a sense. The foundation for any truth claims we are going to be making is an empirical one. If we could not sense the world around us--if we were rocks, for instance--then we certainly couldn't make any remarks about "truth", about what is "out there" in the world. Because of this fact, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about non-empirical truth (in the sense that it is true but cannot possibly be known about with our sensory organs). All claims of knowledge and truth ultimately boil down to the evidence of our senses, and if something could not possibly have such evidence in support of it, then we have no reason to suppose it true, nor could we ever do so.

Is it possible that we are like rocks, incapable of sensing certain things that are real? Of course. But this gives us no reason to believe that there is something insensible out there. And, owing to the fact that our conceptions of truth and reality are bound up with the fact that we are empirical creatures, it would seem absurd to talk about the "truth" of a supernatural realm. We wouldn't even know what such a realm could possibly be like, nor could we coherently explain what a supernatural something is!

This is sort of a positivist objection, but I think it is ultimately a very good one against belief in God and in support of naturalism.

Dear Mad:

For someone who thinks rational argument cannot provide a satisfactory answer, you sure spend a lot of time arguing.

Merry Christmas!

Fiske

Dear Saint:

Thank you for contributing to this topic. You make a strong argument, but not an insurmountable one in my opinion. It is certainly an issue thoughtful Christians must carefully consider.

The holiday festivities don't leave time, at present, for a proper response. I'll post a detailed response to your argument when time permits.

Happy Holidays!

Fiske

Quote:

---

It scares the hell out of me. First the god-belief and then the belief that aliens are ordering you to murder your parents. Neither is supported by reason or empirical evidence, but what the hell, who needs those anyway?

---

When that happens I'll be scared. Mostly though it seems to be orders to give to charity and attend church picnics. Hardly frightening to me. A few of them seem to be trying to stop people from having sex but they're more irritiating then frightening. Of course there are the actual frightening ones but they live half way across the world and they haven't been up to much in years.

I find there's a bit of evidence behind you're alien killer analogy.

What happens if a person desides there's aliens who want him to kill people. He gets thrown in jail or a sanitarium. What happens if a person desides there's some intelegent force telling that wants him to be compassionate to others. Nothing he's just like everyone else.

Quote:

---

What else do you believe in just for the hell of it

---

Umm well I have no reason right now to believe that anyone besides myself actually exists. I have senses but thats hardly evidence and they've been proven faulty again and again.

Personally I find you're fears paranoid and irrational. The number of people who actually make such violent faith based decisions are quite few. Even if you factor in religeous violence scattered accross the world you still have a very small percentage. You have no basis to decide that such occurances are likely to happen to you. Statistics clearly show that your chances of being killed by a religeous fanatic or a person who believes they're under alien control are quite slim.

To back this up a bit further anyone who kills you in the manner you described for the same motives would be considered a serial killer. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice then to be killed by a serial killer.

Are you afraid of being struck by lighting twice?

So I submit to you that your fear of being killed for no reason because of a person's faith is a phobia and thus irrational.

Edited by: MaesterAuron151 at: 12/25/06 3:16 pm

Quote:

---

Ultimately, I don't think rational argument can get us to a satisfactory answer either way. I think the only good reasons to sway one way rather than another, theist or atheist, are all personal.

---

Either way?

It is blatantly obvious that there isn't a thing rational about believing in gods, so I'll agree with you on this, but I do NOT agree that rational argument can't get us to a satisfactory answer "either way." When rational argument doesn't support or defend a belief that belief should be promptly discarded or held in question. Just throwing your hands up and saying, "Oh, I know it doesn't make much sense, but I'm sticking to my belief in God," is dangerous behavior. It scares the hell out of me. First the god-belief and then the belief that aliens are ordering you to murder your parents. Neither is supported by reason or empirical evidence, but what the hell, who needs those anyway?

Mad, think about what you're saying. You are literally saying "My belief in God makes ZERO SENSE, but I am still going to retain this belief for "personal reasons." WTF? This doesn't scare you? You can't explain your god-belief rationally and this is ok?? How so? What other beliefs do you or others hold that cannot be explained rationally, but are acceptable or healthy to retain?

If a belief makes no sense and you don't discard it you have a VERY VERY serious thinking problem. My saying so comes across as harsh and intolerant, but I just don't give a damn. Much like Dawkins I view ALL beliefs that are unsupported by evidence to be weird, scary, dangerous and unhealthy. It literally blows my mind that grown adults can look me straight in the eye and say, "I can't explain it rationally, but I just have faith." Huh? You MUST be shitting me. Surely you jest. What else do you believe in just for the hell of it? Let's cover that right now so I can comfortably turn my back before you plunge a knife into it. I'd like to know if aliens or gods or ghosts are speaking with you and ordering you to do me harm. Heck, I'd like to know if you simply have "faith" that aliens, gods or ghosts are ordering you to do me in. I already know that all three don't exist, but as long as there are people walking around that "just believe" I'm scared! I'm dead serious. What else do they "just believe" in!? My life literally depends on other people using their heads and thinking through things rationally. When I run into a person that "just believes" and for "personal reasons" I back away wondering what other crazy shit is happening in their weak minds. And who is to know? The moment reason and empirical evidence are removed from the equation we're all at the mercy of arbitrary "beliefs," but hey, faith is a good thing. We have to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, even if they haven't a thing to do with objective reality.

Your above statement is plain wrong. Rejecting the god belief isn't on par with accepting the god belief. One is the default position. One of the two is the starting point, and that is the lack of belief in ANYTHING at all. And this includes the belief in a loving god. We're all born as atheists - we lack the belief in a god or gods. Changing from this default position SHOULD require evidence, but you've just said to hell with evidence. I believe for "personal reasons" and that is all I personally require. Well, what are those personal reasons? If you can't answer this question in literally 1 or 2 sentences then something is massively wrong with your critical thinking skills. And I personally have no interest in developing, fostering or harboring irrational beliefs in my head. I have much too much respect for myself and the great minds that have come before me and rendered the god hypothesis as unnecessary.

FiskeMiles: For someone who thinks rational argument cannot provide a satisfactory answer, you sure spend a lot of time arguing.

Yeah, but I haven't been arguing for theism or against atheism. I've been arguing basically what I just stated, that they're both, at root, a-rational positions. And that's fine, I just think that we're better off recognizing as much.

Chris OConnor: When rational argument doesn't support or defend a belief that belief should be promptly discarded or held in question.

I think you'd be pretty disappointed if you applied that principle more broadly. Rational argument can't get us to the existence of love or demonstrate that a significant other loves us. It can't produce, on its own, a justification for the existence of justice, or demonstrate that we really ought to live one way or another. Rational argument has even proven incapable of justifying our assumption that what we perceive as real is real. Maybe I've misjudged you, but I doubt that you'd be willing to throw any of those away.

You are literally saying "My belief in God makes ZERO SENSE, but I am still going to retain this belief for "personal reasons." WTF? This doesn't scare you?

It might scare me, if I thought it were possible to give a more rational explanation for why I shouldn't believe in god. I don't; I think I have very strong rational reasons for believing that the difference between theism and atheism is not a difference in reasoning ability, but boils down ultimately to preferences that arise mostly as the result of personal experience and disposition.

It's likely that you've missed out on a lot of discussion -- I've already covered most of this ground in the Dawkins thread. And since you've missed so much, I'm going to skip the rest of your post, which looks early on to be a rant. If you're really interested in hearing me out, you can check out that other thread (starting more or less with Fiske's first post), or you can ask me directly (preferably in another thread, so that we don't hijack this one the same way Fiske, Frank and I hijacked the Dawkins thread), rather than just assume that I'd suspend all reason in order to maintain a pet belief.

Mad thats exactly how I feel.

Atheism is NOT a-rational. Atheism is the only rational position. It is completely rational to discard the idea of gods when there is no evidence to support the idea of gods. Believing in something without evidence, knowing fully well that your belief exists despite the lack of evidence, is irrational. Theism is not a-rational unless it exists in some sort of vacuum where reason never entered the picture. Rejecting claims unsupported by evidence BECAUSE they are unsupported by evidence is the epitome of rational.

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 12/25/06 11:17 pm

Dear Saint:

Quote:

---

This is exactly why you should disbelieve in God. The fact that we have no reason, and COULD have no reason, to believe in him!

---

You perhaps have no reason to believe in God but I have a perfectly legitimate reason for believing -- I have felt the presence of the Lord. It was the most profound emotional experience of my life -- a feeling of total peace, of oneness with all creation, of total confidence and trust, and complete assurance of absolute love. And what's more, I am not alone in experiencing this. Millions and millions of Christians have experienced the same. More than that, millions of Muslims, Hebrews, and practitioners of other religions have had similar experiences, though the language and metaphor they use to describe the experience differs from that of Christians.

I understand that you have never felt this. It is clear, because having felt it removes all doubt concerning the Lord's existence. It is simply not possible for me to disbelieve.

Experiencing the presence of the Lord does not, however, invalidate or supersede the empirical truth claims made by science about the natural world. How could it if God created the world? The natural laws that science seeks to discover and understand are, quite simply, the work of God.

I think this is where some Christians (and practitioners of other faiths) lose their way. Some creationists, for example, claim that the Earth is a ridiculously young age. Six thousand years say. They reason themselves into this position (yes I said reason), by positing the infallibility of the Bible. They understand it as the word of God, and therefore believe it is absolutely true. Their argument for a young Earth is rational, it is simply based on an invalid premise. It is the premise that invalidates the conclusion, not the reasoning based on the premise.

The Bible is not the word of God, but the word of human beings trying to relate their experience of God. Humans, being fallible, the Bible is also fallible, though this takes nothing away from its sacred character or its importance to Christians. Think about it for a minute -- if there were really nothing to all this, do you suppose a two thousand year old book would remain the most widely published and read text on the planet?

Think about this too, the Bible was written by humans. This is a fact disputed by no one. Fundamentalists argue that it was actually written by God through humans but they do not dispute that humans agents wrote the actual texts. No Christian disputes that God created our world. Nor would any Christian dispute that the Lord endowed humans with the intellect to discover natural laws and the curiosity to impel them to do so. Is it reasonable to believe that the Bible, written by humans, is a more reliable guide to the truth than directly studying God's creation? When the two don't agree, the problem must be one either of interpretation, or because the human authors of Biblical texts could not understand or fully convey their experience of the Lord as a result of the historical context from which they perceived the world.

A second mistake of fundamentalists is to insist on the infallibility of their own interpretation of the bible.

The majority of Christians reject fundamentalism for just these reasons. Evolutionists often point out that Creationists don't really criticize evolution. Instead, they set up evolutionary strawmen, which don't accurately portray the powerful arguments attesting the truth of the evolutionary process. These strawmen are easy to knock down. This is a legitimate criticism of Creationist arguments. But it is also true that Evolutionists, along with many atheists, criticize theists in the same way -- they don't go after the strongest theists, but the weakest. Those whose arguments are the easiest to defeat. They make all theists fundamentalists, which is not only insulting but leads to profound misunderstanding and mistrust.

Quote:

---

The foundation for any truth claims we are going to be making is an empirical one. If we could not sense the world around us--if we were rocks, for instance--then we certainly couldn't make any remarks about "truth", about what is "out there" in the world. Because of this fact, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about non-empirical truth (in the sense that it is true but cannot possibly be known about with our sensory organs).

---

Well, in what sense could we talk about the "truth" of the scientific model of the atom? We can't sense atoms. And our conception of them, as balls of protons and neutrons with a shell of orbiting electrons is a metaphor. I mean, this is not what atoms actually are, it is a mental picture or model we have created to understand how they operate.

Christians are doing the same thing when they communicate with each other about experiencing the Lord using terms like love. We can no more understand the reality of the Lord than we can see an atom, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the experience at all or communicate anything about it.

And why should empirical evidence by the ONLY foundation for truth claims? Isn't that an a-rational or pre-rational assumption?

Fiske

Quote:

---

Let's try it this way. What is the foundational assumption of your world view? Put another way: what is the one thing in your belief that comes before anything else?

---

Observation.


Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic  at: 12/26/06 4:07 pm

Quote:

---

Of course. We have many different institutions filled with people that we do this to.

---

Insanity eh. Well what is insanity. Esencially it is when the function of a person's mind differs greatly from that of the norm.

Thats all that really seperates schizophrenics from the rest of us. If the majority of people were schizophrenic it would be nonschizos who would be considered insane.

If the majority of people, or even a very large minority say 30% can feel the pressence of god then we don't have a small enough number to discount it as a dillusion.

Have many individuals who claim to feel the pressence of god been diagnosed with any recognizable conditions. Often I've heard people discredit those who claim to have divine inspiration as schizophrenic. But out of the millions of people who claim they can feel god's pressence how many do you really think can be diagnossed as schizophrenic.

I recal that you've claimed this feeling is just caused by endorphins. That really doesn't stack up to much. All our emotions are related to one chemical or another, does that mean your family doesn't make you happy (or otherwise)? Essencially chemicals are how you feel emotions rather then why you feel emotions. So while we know how people "sense gods pressence" I don't think you've made much of an argument that we know why.

Besides institutions are for people who are a threat to themselves or others. If a man thinks he's a dog in human form, let him. As long as he isn't harming anyone its nobody's concern and of course unless you can attribute this particular belief to a treatable condition (which you often can't) there's no way to change this belief. He for whatever reason is sure that he is in fact mans best friend. You can't argue with that.

Quote:

---

Observation.

---

What a terribly fallible basis. We both know how inconsistent human observation can be. After all don't the insane you're talking about observe things in order to create their dillusions? I guess you could say scientific observation but once again that eventually returns to human observation which as I've established is inconsistent. Of course you also need to interprit the scientific observation using your own limited human observational abilities.

Now indeed observation has given us many great things over the years, cures to diseasesm new transportation, but it still can't be applied effectively to all of life's problems, particularly the very complicated ones.

Edited by: MaesterAuron151 at: 12/26/06 4:43 pm

Dear Chris:

Comments like the following from your post are why I started this topic:

Quote:

---

Nah, none of this will ever happen again. All of these miraculous feats are buried in an antiquated book of fairy tales from times long past when cameras and scientific instruments and skeptical inquiry weren't prevalent. And you fall for it. Each of you theists is gullible enough to actually believe this nonsense happened.

---

This statement is incorrect and demonstrates a total misunderstanding concerning the nature of theism. In fact, many theists do not believe the miraculous claims in the Bible actually happened. My father, who was a devout Christian all of his days, certainly didn't. I'm not sure he even excepted the divinity of Christ, though we never frankly discussed it. This didn't stop him from believing in God, tithing 10% (or more) of his income to charitable causes, or volunteering in community programs like Meals-on-Wheels and reading books to disadvantaged children at Kansas City's Shepherd Center until the final year of his life when he became to ill to drive.

Theists and atheists can easily find common ground -- our human nature causes us to want many of the same things. But deriding the beliefs of others as irrational and/or delusional is no way to conduct a dialog or find ways to live in peace and harmony. Moreover, you simply cannot prove the non-existence of God. This doesn't mean you must accept God's existence, as some misguided theists assert, but it precludes you from arguing all theists are wrong by virtue of believing something that does not lend itself to empirical claims or observation. Is this so hard to understand? Is it so hard to understand that requiring an empirical foundation for all belief is not a provable position?

You make the case for what would convince you of the existence of God. So far, so good. I think your critique of Mad's argument is spot on. BUT, you also insist your standard of proof is what everyone must ascribe to and that is where we part company.

Quote:

---

How about we start over and not ask the atheists to explain what we believe would constitute "proof," and instead ask the affirmative claimants, the theists, what do you personally accept as proof? I won't expect any answers to this one as I've been through it with theists for decades now. You don't have any proof and have nothing but philosophy and Zen riddles and dodging and weaving in response to such an honest and straight-forward challenge.

---

Here again you insist that proof must be miraculous in nature. Why? Paul being blinded on the road to Damascus was not miraculous. People sometimes lose their sight and eventually recover it. But through this event Paul experienced the presence of the Lord, became a Christian convert, and devoted his life to the Church. The physical context when this person or that feels the presence of God will necessarily be mundane. How could it be otherwise when we live in the natural, not a supernatural, world? What is transformatory about such an experience is the internal emotional/intellectual context which is anything but mundane.

This is straightforward argument concerning what constitutes proof. No word play, dodges, Zen riddles, and no BS. Of course, it is not proof to people who have not had the experience. It cannot be empirically tested. Nor can it justify the insistence that others comply with a faith position, though extremists attempt to insist that it can.

But are you really going to tell someone who has had the experience that they didn't have it? What proof could you hope to offer? If you were in their position, how would you respond? (More or less the point of this topic.)

Quote:

---

Show me your God or the evidence that leads you to infer the existence of a God.

---

No one can show you God. You have to see for yourself.

Fiske

Dear Mr. P:

Quote:

---

Oh...and for the record...I do not think that NOT believing in a god is a-rational or a-logical or a-whatever. No argument posed by Mad has convinced me of this to any extent.

---

Let's try it this way. What is the foundational assumption of your world view? Put another way: what is the one thing in your belief that comes before anything else?

Fiske