- Aug 18, 2007
- 6,437
- 2,685
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It’s common in discussions between theists and atheists for the subject of “evidence” to come up. Atheists will often state that the evidence for God is not sufficient to warrant belief, and the theist will either agree and appeal to faith, or they will disagree and provide what they think to be good evidence. The problem is, either way the theist chooses to defend their belief in God, the two parties hardly ever end up talking about the same thing, as it’s rare to see them take the time to agree on definitions for evidence, faith, and God. It’s hard to blame them for this, because trying to tie down a strict definition for either one of these words could send them plunging into a philosophical rabbit hole where it’s very easy to lose your way.
Because of this, when we see theists and atheists locking horns, the discussion often devolves one of two ways: A) into a frustrating, repetitive bout of talking past each other that escalates into lost tempers and name-calling or B) into an in-depth examination of the epistemic tools being used by both parties, in which case the more experienced/educated interlocutor wins by mentally exhausting the other and the subject matter at hand doesn’t even get discussed.
That’s not to say it always goes those ways, but I’d go so far as to say it happens more often than not, at least in the threads in which I tend to participate. While not entirely pointless, these discussions rarely ever end up being about the question that’s asked originally.
I think the fundamental difference between theists and non-theists here isn’t in the arguments they’ve heard, the experiences they’ve had, or the facts they’re aware of. Rather, it is their approach to belief itself: what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something? Is it important for a belief to comport with reality? What beliefs must we take as self-evident before forming the rest? These are the issues that have to be settled up-front or else our discussions will end up devolving in the ways described above. And yet if we were actually able to accomplish that we would probably end up all on the same side anyway.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is none of the discussions we have here are likely to sway anyone from one side to the other. Instead these discussions serve to display how different people justify their views based on their own idiosyncratic epistemologies. The best we can do is point out each other’s inconsistencies.
Just something to keep in mind when you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over and the bonehead on the other side isn’t “getting” it.
Because of this, when we see theists and atheists locking horns, the discussion often devolves one of two ways: A) into a frustrating, repetitive bout of talking past each other that escalates into lost tempers and name-calling or B) into an in-depth examination of the epistemic tools being used by both parties, in which case the more experienced/educated interlocutor wins by mentally exhausting the other and the subject matter at hand doesn’t even get discussed.
That’s not to say it always goes those ways, but I’d go so far as to say it happens more often than not, at least in the threads in which I tend to participate. While not entirely pointless, these discussions rarely ever end up being about the question that’s asked originally.
I think the fundamental difference between theists and non-theists here isn’t in the arguments they’ve heard, the experiences they’ve had, or the facts they’re aware of. Rather, it is their approach to belief itself: what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something? Is it important for a belief to comport with reality? What beliefs must we take as self-evident before forming the rest? These are the issues that have to be settled up-front or else our discussions will end up devolving in the ways described above. And yet if we were actually able to accomplish that we would probably end up all on the same side anyway.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is none of the discussions we have here are likely to sway anyone from one side to the other. Instead these discussions serve to display how different people justify their views based on their own idiosyncratic epistemologies. The best we can do is point out each other’s inconsistencies.
Just something to keep in mind when you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over and the bonehead on the other side isn’t “getting” it.