Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[HitchSlap]

Why don't you think reason is evidence?

Because your premise is false.

 

[Tom 1]

It's a bit like not collecting stamps, is it?

Yep, you chose not to collect stamps, or just ignored the fact that you have a choice and ‘accepted’ that there might not be any stamps to collect! Poor you! ;-)

 

[HitchSlap]

Yep, you chose not to collect stamps, or just ignored the fact that you have a choice and ‘accepted’ that there might not be any stamps to collect! Poor you! ;-)

And why did you choose to believe in something you can't prove exists?

 

[Tom 1]

And why did you choose to believe in something you can't prove exists?

Well, that’s a good question. I started that one up in another thread, reasons for faith. The answer is I don’t really know. I expand on that a bit in the thread.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, that’s a good question. I started that one up in another thread, reasons for faith. The answer is I don’t really know. I expand on that a bit in the thread.

So you've chosen to profess faith in something you have no real idea why. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

 

[Tom 1]

So you've chosen to profess faith in something you have no real idea why. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

Aha, ok. But you do have faith

 

[HitchSlap]

Aha, ok. But you do have faith

I have faith in the fact you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Chriliman]

Because your premise is false.

How would you be able to draw conclusions based off my reasoning, when you don't consider my reasoning as evidence?

Isn't evidence needed to draw accurate conclusions?

 

[Tom 1]

So you've chosen to profess faith in something you have no real idea why. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

What I mean is, and what I say more about in the thread is, that whereas now I have a faith grounded in something that I consider to be true and reasonable, based on experience and study, what I can’t explain is why I believed in the first place - not a specific belief, but a belief that there was something worth the effort of looking for.

 

[Tom 1]

I have faith in the fact you have no idea what you're talking about.

Still in denial. Your ‘not collecting stamps’ is a bit of a last ditcher; you can deny that your lack of omniscience doesn’t imply the necessity of faith, but it simply does. Your ‘acceptance’ that whether or not God can be known is unknowable is an expression of your faith that God is unnecessary for you to exist

 

[HitchSlap]

Still in denial. Your ‘not collecting stamps’ is a bit of a last ditcher; you can deny that your lack of omniscience doesn’t imply the necessity of faith, but it simply does. Your ‘acceptance’ that whether or not God can be known is unknowable is an expression of your faith that God is unnecessary for you to exist

At some point you'll need to support your fantasy with evidence. Until then, I'm busy.

 

[Tom 1]

At some point you'll need to support your fantasy with evidence. Until then, I'm busy.

Grand so. You’ve given me some insight into the superficiality of atheist reasoning, so that’s a good takeaway.

 

[HitchSlap]

Grand so. You’ve given me some insight into the superficiality of atheist reasoning, so that’s a good takeaway.

And you, insight into how confused and difficult it is for theists to critically evaluate reason and logic. I'm sure you wouldn't do so well in life without the crutch of faith. You should probably keep it.

 

[Silmarien]

I remember listening to Harris's TED talk about objective morality and thinking he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I mean, I suppose it's nice to be passionate and all, but that doesn't equate to good philosophy.

I would not call any of it good philosophy, but I give him credit for recognizing that spirituality and morality are important. The bar is set very low here.

Personally, having been on both sides of the fence, I don't really see any ramifications of an "atheistic worldview" as opposed to a theistic one. But then again, I think the overexamined life isn't worth living, so it doesn't cross my mind all that much...

Yes, this is why I find so much of modern atheism to be apathetic and complacent. Everything's well and good as long as you don't think deeply about any of it. I find that intellectual lazy at best, and outright coercive at worst. Zeal of the convert, maybe.

If I say "I don't know" if a particular god proposal is accurate, it also means I have no way of telling if one side ("yes it's accurate" or "no it isn't") is more compelling or not, given that "compelling" to me in this case equates to "more likely". At that point, I absolutely would be arbitrarily "picking a side".

How would I not?

I have no idea what "a particular god proposal" even means--one of the many benefits of growing up post-Christian, probably. If you find specific theistic concepts confusing, though, I think a better place to start would be at something like Schellenberg's ultimism: "the claim that there is a metaphysically and axiologically ultimate reality (one representing both the deepest fact about the nature of things and the greatest possible value), in relation to which an ultimate good can be attained."

I found the quote in a fairly critical review of his book, if you're interested. I think he's one of the more intriguing atheistic philosophers of religion out there, at least in the Anglosphere.

 

[Tom 1]

The poster may be mistakenly referencing Schrodinger's Cat.

Just looked that up again. I read something about that a while ago so it might have been in the back of my mind, but not the point I was trying to make. What I was getting at is that I think that once you (any person) get past ‘I think therefore I am’ you are already living by faith. Of course we can very strongly believe any number of things based on the evidence of our senses, tested rigorously or not. And I share that faith, I exist in the ‘now’, and I have memories that indicate a past series of ‘nows’ and I strongly believe that will continue into the future, that the world will keep turning, etc etc etc. But to say I know those things would be absurd - of course I don’t know them in any objective sense. That would require omniscience. What I have is a strong belief based on my experience and a shared set of assumptions about how things work

 

[anonymous person]

And why did you choose to believe in something you can't prove exists?

For me, one reason I choose to believe in God is the same reason I choose to believe my beliefs about reality actually correspond to a reality that exists outside of and independent of my mind, and that reason is that I intuit or have a sense of God, and this sense is from God and of God. French Protestant reformer John Calvin labeled this sense the "sensus divinitatis", and it is something I believe that the apostle Paul alluded to in his letter to the Christians in Rome.

We sense the existence of a world that exists independently of us. We sense and perceive order, uniformity, and intelligence in this world. We sense these things, but we in no way attempt to "prove" them. We do not rely on other beliefs or knowledge for these beliefs. We take these beliefs about the world to be properly basic, that is, they are axiomatic and foundational to our structure of beliefs.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I would not call any of it good philosophy, but I give him credit for recognizing that spirituality and morality are important. The bar is set very low here.

I'm still holding out hope that Waking Up was simply an attempt to write a book that tricked theists into buying it despite knowing he's an atheist.

Yes, this is why I find so much of modern atheism to be apathetic and complacent. Everything's well and good as long as you don't think deeply about any of it. I find that intellectual lazy at best, and outright coercive at worst. Zeal of the convert, maybe.

Ah, the straw man. Apparently still a useful tool...

Personally, what I find to be intellectually lazy are those theists that get so wrapped up in a feedback loop of "PHILOSOPHY!" that they're unable to articulate their own thoughts, but rather label themselves with the thoughts of others and convince themselves that they know something. It's very much akin to the Christian that says "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.".

I have no idea what "a particular god proposal" even means--one of the many benefits of growing up post-Christian, probably.

Well... a "particular god proposal" would be a statement... about a purportedly existent god...

If you find specific theistic concepts confusing, though, I think a better place to start would be at something like Schellenberg's ultimism: "the claim that there is a metaphysically and axiologically ultimate reality (one representing both the deepest fact about the nature of things and the greatest possible value), in relation to which an ultimate good can be attained."

I don't find theist concepts confusing. I am sometimes confused why on earth anyone finds them to be compelling. But I have ideas as to why this occurs.

And as stated before, without any reason to believe one way or the other, the only intellectually honest position is to remain undecided. Relying on wishful thinking or emotion and picking a side for no good reason isn't something I'd be comfortable doing. To me it's not a sign or bravery. It's quite the opposite.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

For me, one reason I choose to believe in God is the same reason I choose to believe my beliefs about reality actually correspond to a reality that exists outside of and independent of my mind, and that reason is that I intuit or have a sense of God, and this sense is from God and of God. French Protestant reformer John Calvin labeled this sense the "sensus divinitatis", and it is something I believe that the apostle Paul alluded to in his letter to the Christians in Rome.

We sense the existence of a world that exists independently of us. We sense and perceive order, uniformity, and intelligence in this world. We sense these things, but we in no way attempt to "prove" them. We do not rely on other beliefs or knowledge for these beliefs. We take these beliefs about the world to be properly basic, that is, assumed and taken for granted to be true.

Wouldn’t you say that this “properly basic belief” idea can be used to justify belief in anything? And at that point, wouldn’t that mean the elimination of any chance of rational discussion between people that hold opposing properly basic beliefs?

 

[Silmarien]

Ah, the straw man. Apparently still a useful tool...

Where's the strawman? There was no argument there, just a statement about why I disliked modern atheism. If you can find me some really thoughtful stuff I haven't seen yet, I would be quite happy. If all you can do is attack philosophy instead, then you're precisely what I dislike about modern atheism in the first place.

Personally, what I find to be intellectually lazy are those theists that get so wrapped up in a feedback loop of "PHILOSOPHY!" that they're unable to articulate their own thoughts, but rather label themselves with the thoughts of others and convince themselves that they know something. It's very much akin to the Christian that says "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.".

Well, I'm not sure what your incentive was, some of us get degrees in philosophy because we actually like philosophy. Shocking, I know.

I really don't see how identifying with a particular school of thought means that you're incapable of articulating your own ideas, though. To the extent that anyone really has their own ideas, that is. Every thought has already been thought, there is nothing new under the sun. It's all just difference and repetiton now.

And as stated before, without any reason to believe one way or the other, the only intellectually honest position is to remain undecided. Relying on wishful thinking or emotion and picking a side for no good reason isn't something I'd be comfortable doing. To me it's not a sign or bravery. It's quite the opposite.

If your decision comes down to what is and isn't "comfortable," you've already failed to avoid relying on emotion.

 

[Dirk1540]

, the only intellectually honest position is to remain undecided.

...Relying on wishful thinking or emotion and picking a side for no good reason isn't something I'd be comfortable doing.

I would say that it's not intellectually dishonest if you intellectually lean in a certain direction though. If you believe it's 80% probable that theism and Jesus' resurrection is true than it would make less sense to choose as your belief system that which you consider to be 20% probable. So you're not picking a side for no good reason (although there are many who do). Now picking a side for 'Emotion' becomes more complex. Now we get into telling people that say they have had a bona fide God experience that they didn't have one.

Personally, what I find to be intellectually lazy are those theists that get so wrapped up in a feedback loop of "PHILOSOPHY!" that they're unable to articulate their own thoughts, but rather label themselves with the thoughts of others and convince themselves that they know something.

Hmm I wouldn't word it like that. Philosophy is the the human history of deep thoughts towards the deepest subjects. You sort of join in on the argument more than you steal the argument. Instead of reinventing the wheel you just point out that you fall into this or that camp by referencing the philosopher (or you'll be a mixture of beliefs of various philosophers).

I actually find it odd that atheists lash out at philosophy. The environment for the beginnings of western philosophy was in the port cities like that of ancient Athens where the intellectuals became sick & tired of the 3,000 religions & gods & dogmas that past through their port cities constantly...the same tired song & dance of 'My god says so.' It was an overthrowing of all traditional dogmas in exchange for attacking the deep questions instead from a blank slate of intellect. The more I study it the more perplexed I am that atheists don't actually champion philosophy instead.

Back to the 'Emotional' experience as a decision to adopt theism. I actually both agree & disagree with you, I think there's a difference between something significantly extraordinary happening to a person, and an everyday story of a flood of emotions. Both of these situations convert people. But, overall, this again leads us into matters of philosophy (of mind). Preferring to hear 2,500 years worth of the articulated arguments, instead of ONLY choosing to find your inner Socrates (you should actually do both), is probably the wisest move to make. I wouldn't call that being lazy or stealing the argument.

There's a famous saying that everything in western philosophy is a footnote to Plato. It would almost be impossible to have a deep opinion that Plato didn't at least in some form bring to the table (whether he agreed or disagreed with it).