Problem of Evil Argument Conclusion versus a "lack of belief".

[Archaeopteryx]

If not, I apologize. I was pretty sure it was you.
I am not Jeremy. You seem to be taking on a tone on accusation (in here and in private messages with me) and I will not take it for too much longer before I report you for harassment.

Go ahead.

Craig has plainly defined faith many times as "putting your trust in something in which you have good reason to believe is true."

He has also gone further, as I'm sure you know, to argue that reason must serve a ministerial role and become subject to the dictates of faith. In his view, philosophy, the application of reason, is merely a "hand-maiden" to theology. As TheMessianicManic noted, that's not "reasonable faith," but "faithable reason."

Good question. I'm going to have to say no because I believe that I have the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Craig gives an example of this. Suppose that you were taken to trial and so much evidence was built up against you saying that you committed a murder, yet you have personal knowledge that you did not commit the crime (supposedly like OJ Simpson)...would you then be obligated to believe all of the evidence against you, and admit your guilt? Of course not.

If the evidence is as overwhelming as you claim it is, I would question my personal knowledge. My personal knowledge is not infallible; it is possible that I am wrong and that I actually committed the crime, even if I sincerely lack any recollection of it.

In the same manner, I believe that the Holy Spirit witnesses to me about the truth of Christianity.

What of those whose personal religious experience leads them to theological commitments that differ to your own? What of those who claim that God witnesses to their hearts the truth of a different theology?

But that does not negate the fact that we still have plenty of philosophical arguments and Christian evidences to support a reasonable belief in the Christian god, and those really are more for your benefit than mine. Why would I need these when I have the Holy Spirit witnessing to me personally?

Those arguments are irrelevant, as you just admitted. Even if every single one of them was unequivocally refuted, you would continue to believe regardless because the preponderance of epistemic weight is assigned to your "inner witness."

 

[GillDouglas]

If the evidence is as overwhelming as you claim it is, I would question my personal knowledge. My personal knowledge is not infallible; it is possible that I am wrong and that I actually committed the crime, even if I sincerely lack any recollection of it.

This seems a little far fetched. It seems as if you'd given up in this example. If you believe without a doubt that you're innocent, how could anyone else convince you otherwise? This doesn't make any sense. If you thought the sky was red, you would still see it that way regardless of what anyone tells you.

What of those whose personal religious experience leads them to theological commitments that differ to your own?

What about them? How does one individual's personal religious experience or theological differences affect another individual's experience? The way one comes to know God has no bearing on another's beliefs or understanding of the Bible and vice versa. That is between them and God, and you know that.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But wouldn't you think that those who put God in the same category as Santa Claus are guilty of not having really having investigated the Christian claim properly?

Personally speaking, no I don't think that. I think there's some aspects of religion/philosophy they are guilty of not having investigated, or not thought deeply or critically about, but if you're talking about Christianity in particular then my own opinion is that quite a lot of Christians haven't investigated it properly either! I'm not a Christian, but I am fascinated by the history of Christianity - its true history - and its relationship to other forms of religion. I could talk/write for a very long time on this topic, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

The "Santa Claus" type of atheist generally dismisses all religions as equally worthless nonsense, and a lot of them have almost as much disregard for philosophy. They are likely to claim that after 2500 years, philosophy has never proved anything or done anything useful - a claim which only really sounds clever/educated to a person who knows nothing about the topic they are dismissing. It's easy to say something is worthless if you know hardly anything about it.

That's why I said at least some of those who claim to have a lack of belief really have a faith in atheism. I am speaking of those who have become familiar with the arguments and evidence, but have then chosen not to believe. Think of all of the blood evidence in the OJ Simpson trial...yet, many consciously choose to disbelieve the evidence. Those people have chosen to believe that OJ was not guilty.

Some of them might be in this category, especially in the United States, where Christianity is still dominant and all around them. In the UK it is a bit different. It is very easy to simply ignore Christianity.

 

[KCfromNC]

But wouldn't you think that those who put God in the same category as Santa Claus are guilty of not having really having investigated the Christian claim properly? That's why I said at least some of those who claim to have a lack of belief really have a faith in atheism.

Have you properly investigated the Zoroastrian claim properly? If not, then would you not agree that your claim to be Christian is in fact just faith in a-Zoroastrianism? Seems that's exactly what you're doing here with atheists, and it makes as little sense in this example as it does in yours.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This seems a little far fetched. It seems as if you'd given up in this example. If you believe without a doubt that you're innocent, how could anyone else convince you otherwise. This doesn't make any sense.

Joshua seemed to suggest that the evidence for my guilt is overwhelming. If that really is the case, and the evidence is credible, then it is possible that I am guilty of committing the crime, even though I have no personal recollection of it. Given the fallibility of autobiographical memory, I cannot justify absolute certainty about my innocence, particularly given the evidence to the contrary.

What about them? How does one individual's personal religious experience affect another individual's experience? The way one comes to know God has no bearing on another's beliefs and vice versa. That is between them and God, and you know that.

If your claims about God are incompatible, then it is likely that one of you is in error.

You're not intellectually obligated to question what anyone else believes, especially ones faith.

When someone insists that I am intellectually obligated to assent to their religion's doctrines, I feel justified in asking 'why?'

 

[GillDouglas]

If your claims about God are incompatible, then it is likely that one of you is in error.

Not necessarily. If that were the case then a lot of denominations of Christianity would be wrong, and I simply don't believe that to be true. Though I view God in a certain light, I also believe that another's view could also be right. The relationship is between the man (or woman) and God. Remember the movie Shallow Hal, with Jack Black? Jack Black's character viewed women a certain way, regardless of what his buddy thought. His buddy's opinion had no bearing on how he viewed those women.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not necessarily. If that were the case then a lot of denominations of Christianity would be wrong, and I simply don't believe that to be true. Though I view God in a certain light, I also believe that another's view could also be right.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Christianity specifically, but to all religious claims. If your claims about God are correct, then various other incompatible claims must be wrong, and vice versa.

 

[GillDouglas]

I wasn't necessarily referring to Christianity specifically, but to all religious claims. If your claims about God are correct, then various other incompatible claims must be wrong, and vice versa.

Again, not necessarily. While I do not know the teachings of the religions other than the Abrahamic religions, they're viewing God in a different way from me. That doesn't change the way I worship Him, and it certainly doesn't affect how a Muslim or Jew worships either.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, not necessarily. While I do not know the teachings of the religions other than the Abrahamic religions, they're viewing God in a different way from me. That doesn't change the way I worship Him, and it certainly doesn't affect how a Muslim or Jew worships either.

What do you mean "not necessarily"? If you claim that God commands X, and someone else claims that God commands not-X, then you are making an incompatible claim about what God commands. Assuming you care about the truth of the matter, how do you settle this theological difference?

 

[GillDouglas]

What do you mean "not necessarily"? If you claim that God commands X, and someone else claims that God commands not-X, then you are making an incompatible claim about what God commands. Assuming you care about the truth of the matter, how do you settle this theological difference?

In the matter of theological debate between two totally different religions, which I don't understand why that would be taking place to begin with, there would be no settling of it. That doesn't make one definitively right and one wrong because two cannot agree. One believes X based on their perspective and no one else can change how one perceives that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the matter of theological debate between two totally different religions, which I don't understand why that would be taking place to begin with, there would be no settling of it. That doesn't make one definitively right and one wrong because two cannot agree. One believes X based on their perspective and no one else can change how one perceives that.

So there can be no progress in theological understanding? There is no reliable way of assessing the relative merit of different theological claims to determine which is most likely to be true?

 

[GillDouglas]

So there can be no progress in theological understanding? There is no reliable way of assessing the relative merit of different theological claims to determine which is most likely to be true?

This would never happen between two totally different religions. Within the same core religion, sure. Again, that's why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Though some claim to be the 'right' one (I will not point fingers in this thread), I believe not one have it exactly right. I can't even claim to know everything about God or to have everything right. How could anyone? Only God knows all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This would never happen between two totally different religions. Within the same core religion, sure. Again, that's why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Though some claim to be the 'right' one (I will not point fingers in this thread), I believe not one have it exactly right. I can't even claim to know everything about God or to have everything right. How could anyone? Only God knows all.

Yet you seem uninterested in actually pursuing this line of inquiry, in examining these claims. Why is that?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This would never happen between two totally different religions. Within the same core religion, sure. Again, that's why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Though some claim to be the 'right' one (I will not point fingers in this thread), I believe not one have it exactly right. I can't even claim to know everything about God or to have everything right. How could anyone? Only God knows all.

I don't understand what the difference is between "different denominations of Christianity" and "different core religions". These distinctions are abitrary. What counts as Christianity is abitrary. Was 3rd century Gnosticism "Christianity"? Not according to the 4th century Christian authorities it wasn't. Is mormonism included in Christianity?

What you think about different denominations of Christianity, I think about all religions. None of them have it "exactly right", some are closer to the truth than others, and all of them are trying to point towards the truth.

 

[GillDouglas]

I don't understand what the difference is between "different denominations of Christianity" and "different core religions". These distinctions are abitrary. What counts as Christianity is abitrary. Was 3rd century Gnosticism "Christianity"? Not according to the 4th century Christian authorities it wasn't. Is mormonism included in Christianity?

What you think about different denominations of Christianity, I think about all religions. None of them have it "exactly right", some are closer to the truth than others, and all of them are trying to point towards the truth.

Exactly my point, and is who has the right to say which one is right and which ones are wrong? Nobody.

 

[GillDouglas]

Yet you seem uninterested in actually pursuing this line of inquiry, in examining these claims. Why is that?

It's not my place.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly my point, and is who has the right to say which one is right and which ones are wrong? Nobody.

Someone who cares enough about whether those claims are true, perhaps?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not my place.

Why not? You presumably assess the merits of competing claims in other endeavours. When two insurance companies attempt to persuade you to purchase their products, presumably you weigh the risks and benefits of each in an attempt to select the best available option. Yet when it comes to the ostensibly "ultimate" question, the question on which your soul apparently depends, all of a sudden "it's not your place" to consider these matters in any great depth? All of a sudden is not a matter worth taking seriously?

 

[siralex172]

I don't understand what the difference is between "different denominations of Christianity" and "different core religions". These distinctions are abitrary. What counts as Christianity is abitrary. Was 3rd century Gnosticism "Christianity"? Not according to the 4th century Christian authorities it wasn't. Is mormonism included in Christianity?

What you think about different denominations of Christianity, I think about all religions. None of them have it "exactly right", some are closer to the truth than others, and all of them are trying to point towards the truth.

"Christianity is abitrary" Well the bible is the basis of Christianity and you'll find it very straight forward and not to contradict. I don't think you should treat denominations of Christianity like different religions because fundamentally they each have a backbone (Christ) whereas other religions use different God's.

 

[GillDouglas]

Why not? You presumably assess the merits of competing claims in other endeavours. When two insurance companies attempt to persuade you to purchase their products, presumably you weigh the risks and benefits of each in an attempt to select the best available option. Yet when it comes to the ostensibly "ultimate" question, the question on which your soul apparently depends, all of a sudden "it's not your place" to consider these matters in any great depth?

It's not my place to question why you chose one insurance over another.