In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it…


There is not argument against it, because there is no argument for it. Faith is not logic based any more than beauty or love are logic based.



A long time ago BluffThis wrote that Catholics can accept the idea that an objective examination of the evidence is maybe not enough to lead someone who is an impartial, expert evidence evaluator, to come to the conclusion that the Catholic God is highly likely to be the true one.

But many other Christians on this forum disagree with that stance. They maintain that a logical examination of the evidence is by itself enough to lead a rational person to the conclusion that there is not only God, but that it is a fairly specific type of Christian God. It is easy for Catholics to disagree with them because Catholics allow for the possibility for non Christians to go to heaven. But when you don't allow for that possibility you are pretty muched forced to reject the notion that objective evaluation of the evidence leads you to smaller than 50-50 chance of the truth of Christianity. Because that would mean that God would be condemning objective truth seekers with no ulterior motives.

The bottom line is that people like txaq, Not Ready, and Splendour, do in fact think there beliefs are quite logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite to the point. The protestant Reformation was about the entry of the 'Age of Reason" into the Christian Church(Roman Catholic). Of course Martin Luther delineated his many difficulties with the Papacy/Church but at root was the "New" Christians utilizing Reason to a most significant extent. So we have "Protestants" living within the same cerebral framework as the scientist attempting to utilize reason for that which is within what the long line of Roman Catholics called "mystery".

It should be noted that because it is called "mystery" in no way obviates the ability of SOME Roman Catholics(or others in fact) to enter into these realms which REASON BY ITS VERY NATURE IS UNABLE TO ENTER. Seen from this perspective, to worship at the alter of 'Reason" to the exclusion of any other cognitive abilities is "unreasonable" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].


Those who believe that one cannot "prove" the "existence of God" via reason are dead wrong.Most perfect "proofs" are supplied by Aquinas, the logician and rationalist par excellence of the 14th century. These"proofs" WILL NOT PLACE DEITY ON YOUR PLATTER(some may expect these "proofs" to bring them into some sartoric state or at least produce a chair from heaven as an apparition and therefore they will not "believe"). These "proofs" are the exact logical consequence of reason and logic.

[bunny]

ah sorry. Must be hyper-sensitive this morning... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it…

[/ QUOTE ]
There is not argument against it, because there is no argument for it. Faith is not logic based any more than beauty or love are logic based.

[/ QUOTE ]

A long time ago BluffThis wrote that Catholics can accept the idea that an objective examination of the evidence is maybe not enough to lead someone who is an impartial, expert evidence evaluator, to come to the conclusion that the Catholic God is highly likely to be the true one.

But many other Christians on this forum disagree with that stance. They maintain that a logical examination of the evidence is by itself enough to lead a rational person to the conclusion that there is not only God, but that it is a fairly specific type of Christian God. It is easy for Catholics to disagree with them because Catholics allow for the possibility for non Christians to go to heaven. But when you don't allow for that possibility you are pretty muched forced to reject the notion that objective evaluation of the evidence leads you to smaller than 50-50 chance of the truth of Christianity. Because that would mean that God would be condemning objective truth seekers with no ulterior motives.

The bottom line is that people like txaq, Not Ready, and Splendour, do in fact think there beliefs are quite logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

They may think they are "logical" (so did Pascal, of course) but they don't claim they are reasoned. If you stopped using the first word to mean the second, you'd be clearer on that.

[No_Foolin'?]

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line...is this:
Anyone who thinks that a non belief in something will automatically result in someone going to hell, is almost forced to also think that the belief is logical and that the non belief is illogical. To think otherwise would mean that he believes in a God who does not want his creatures to be rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. In this sense, the believer you describe is acting rationally. And perhaps this is one area where dialog between the believer and non-believer becomes confused: The believer insists his/her faith has a rational basis and the non-believer insists otherwise. All the while, both are talking past each other because the believer's calculus is not explicitly communicated.


There is, however, another sense in which this same believer may fail to act rationally...and this occurs during the very process by which he/she arrives at his/her religious beliefs in the first place. And this, I think, is the point being made by the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
[OP:] In the case against religious theism, what is so damning is not that the universe is so easily explained without invoking a god (it isn't), it is that the existence (and proliferation) of these theistic religions is so easily explained without invoking a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, the point in this regard is that the experiences and/or information that lead people to believe in gods/God, if examined with closer scrutiny by the individuals in question at the time of experience, would tend BY FAR to lead them to draw conclusions other than that the experience were divinely-influenced.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[OP:] In the case against religious theism, what is so damning is not that the universe is so easily explained without invoking a god (it isn't), it is that the existence (and proliferation) of these theistic religions is so easily explained without invoking a god.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, the point in this regard is that the experiences and/or information that lead people to believe in gods/God, if examined with closer scrutiny by the individuals in question at the time of experience, would tend BY FAR to lead them to draw conclusions other than that the experience were divinely-influenced.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a tough call, in my experience, to say "I believe this - but I'm probably deluded." I think it's worth the effort to try and disprove your faith-derived beliefs, but I dont think it's irrational to accept them when they stubbornly persist (unless they contradict either themselves or a better-justified belief.)

[No_Foolin'?]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the theists that really rankle the atheists on this board are the theists who argue that science supports their claims. They argue that atheistic scientists purposefully "fudge their numbers" in order to push their agendas. By the fundamentalists' logic, the only scientists who are doing honest work are those who are espousing Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, etc... Sharkey/Skidoo and NotReady are in this category of theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. And as if these observors are in any position to know. What is so galling about these religionists is that their position isn't merely an example of lack of reason on their part, it seems to be more an example of intellectual dishonesty.

[No_Foolin'?]

I agree with you 100%. IMO, how can you possibly go wrong with such an approach?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a tough call, in my experience, to say "I believe this - but I'm probably deluded."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't knowingly believe anything without evidence, so my beliefs are either evidence-based or else I am delusional in that I think the evidence I have mandates a certain belief, but it doesn't. I probably hold a number of delusional beliefs in poker alone.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't knowingly believe anything without evidence, so my beliefs are either evidence-based or else I am delusional in that I think the evidence I have mandates a certain belief, but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont define faith as belief-without-evidence but it is true there is no objective evidence - merely a subjective experience, inaccessible to others. I dont accept this as no evidence, although I concede it is weak, unreliable and worth doubting (especially if it leads to a conclusion contradicting empirically derived beliefs). I think there is a third category of evidence-derived beliefs one has. My route to theism involved discovering I believed in God, not choosing to do so. I can see several obvious naturalistic explanations for my experiences (which psychologically I think I would prefer to be true) - so I am not in the position of thinking the evidence mandates my belief, merely that it supports it, albeit very weakly. Dont you have some beliefs even though you can see that there are alternative explanations for the evidence before you? Ie some beliefs without certainty?

It is also entirely possible (and I would think very likely) that you have a whole bunch of beliefs which arent derived from evidence - I'm thinking of the consequences of cultural, political, psychological or emotional differences that exist between people for example. My comment arose from considering this situation. The question then is, what would happen if one of those was pointed out to you? I'd be skeptical of anyone claiming the ability to "switch off" a belief if they suddenly became aware that there was a gap in their evidence chain (though I expect it would gradually disappear over time).