Interesting. I've observed a range of support for Christian belief on the other hand, from those similar to your description (superficial belief) to what I find to be the presentation of a sound apologetic.
Well, I have observed many apologetic arguments for Christianity and have yet so see one, the hold up will to objective scrutiny. All require a good deal of assumptions and speculation and when you peel back the layers, is when the holes emerge.
With that said, I wouldn't expect arguments for a God or a religion to be objectively sound, (why it is called faith) when heavily scrutinized and this also doesn't mean, I couldn't be wrong and a certain God does exist and a certain religion is correct. I base my judgment on certain religious theologies, on the basic claims they make and overlaying those, with the well evidenced realities of the world. When I do so, I can not reconcile the Christian theology, or any other theology with reality.
We do share a similarity, though. On the flip side of the coin as my own theology has developed it's opened up doors for me to see how my atheist brethren paint themselves into their belief system, layered in much the same sense you see that of the Christian. The difference might be characterized in that the Christian constructs magnificent doctrinal towers using mud (false mortar), while the atheist digs holes into the inner reaches of points in time and space where she finds comfort in inert reality. Because she refuses to allow her thinking to extend beyond this 'cave', her rationalizations--and that of all those of her religion--are as predictable as she finds those of the Christian.
I have an advanced degree in physiology, but I have devoured readings on human psychology for over a decade and part of the reason I am on this site, is my interest in psychology. I am not so much concerned with what people believe or don't believe on this site, but much more so, for why they believe what they do and how they justify their belief and I find this highly interesting.
All of us, are impacted by our personal psychological needs in regards to how we form beliefs or reject beliefs. Some of this is hardwired in us, but our life's experiences and the knowledge we accumulate, can also heavily impact how we perceive and digest information to form our beliefs. The field of "psychology of belief" is quite fascinating and delves into the same.
But this implies subjectivism, which is self-defeating and untenable.
I disagree. Looking at things subjectively, may be what a person needs and that is how they go about their business. This goes back to people who are more prone to be; analytical thinkers, vs intuitive thinkers and how which one is most dominant, impacts how they digest information. Look at the placebo effect and how it is very real. Simply thinking one is taking a medicine that is helping them, can impact them in a positive way (according to their own perceptions), even though what they are taking, is a sugar pill. Our minds are powerful forces indeed.
Why do I get the feeling comments like these boil down to thinly veiled praise for the atheist worldview and criticism for the theist's?
Not meant to be. As I already stated, I firmly believe, theism for some, may be the absolute best thing for them to believe in, as it helps give them hope and live a happier life.
And I also feel my theology is able to give a reasonable account of why the atheist can be as moral as anyone else. Most of my Christian brethren--understanding that the ability to believe (unite with) true prescriptive or moral propositions requires regeneration--err in the assumption (imo) that spiritual birth is withheld from atheists or Moslems, Hindus, etc.
IMO, all humans get their morality from the same place. Their culture, their life experiences and to a lessor degree, how they are wired. Atheists can be moral and immoral and theists can be moral and immoral.
And for what it's worth, the above is consistent with my first post stating that the question "Where did God get His morals?", typically consistent of today's atheist mockery of Christianity, is meaningless. God doesn't "get" morals because morality only identifies the pressure experienced in intellectual operation of the tension and resistance between prescriptive truth and falsity. In other words, morality can only have meaning for fragmentally falsified beings with intellectual capability. People.
What is moral and what is not, changes with the times and our history is a good example of that. 50 years ago, many Christians may have considered interracial marriage immoral and many fewer today do not. 55% of the United States approves of gay marriage, where just a short time ago, this was not the case.
What is moral and what is not, is always in flux.
