About that atheism thing…

[journey]

I don't consider it smart to be an atheist. I have more respect for agnostics.

 

[PureX]

Even confronted with the presence of God a man must still recognize and respond to that. But that experience and response cannot be demonstrated to be more than a subjective experience and subjective response.

I've used it for years and to a variety of very intelligent atheists and, more importantly, anti theists without getting an answer. Now that's anecdotal, but I think powerfully so with so much investment on the other side of it, especially among anti theists. And it's not a thing I've ever been able to cobble, which is how I came to it in the first place. So nothing in my experience, in my challenge or in my consideration moves me to another point.

That's how you answered Evo, but your answer doesn't speak to the point at issue. The fact that some atheists can't meet your challenge doesn't entail the idea that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God. As a matter of fact lots of--if not most--theists and atheists agree that there is a rational way to determine the existence of God.

As Evo noted, if your argument is more than merely negative, it would seek to define "God," and the "rational way" alluded to, and then explain why God isn't accessible to this rational way.

I think the problem, here, is that rationale cannot transcend itself, and so ultimately proves nothing. Cannibalism can be a rational course of action given a certain set of circumstances and priorities. While under other circumstances or relative to other priorities, it would be considered wildly irrational.

The point being that the task of using the process of logic/reason/rationale to establish the existence of "God" will always dependent upon the existential nature of the "God" being determined, and the priorities of those doing the determining. So that the answer to the question changes from person to person relative to their needs and existential awareness. And there really isn't any way around this, to some uniform/universal answer.

Atheists need the theist to give them an existential manifestation of their "God" to argue against, or to prove them wrong, because they can't acknowledge that ideas are reality. While most theists believe in God as an experience of reality based on a 'divine' (metaphysical) idealization of reality. So that the God the theist proposes is by it's idealized nature exactly what the atheist presupposes not to be real.

Thus, their respective reasoning is fundamentally incompatible. The 'proof' of existence the atheist insists upon is excluded by the existential nature of the "God" that the theist is proposing.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think the problem, here, is that rationale cannot transcend itself

I'd say you can rationally recognize what must, else the word itself signifies what, exactly?

The point being that the task of using the process of logic/reason/rationale to establish the existence of "God" will always dependent upon the existential nature of the "God" being determined, and the priorities of those doing the determining. So that the answer to the question changes from person to person relative to their needs and existential awareness. And there really isn't any way around this, to some uniform/universal answer.

Or you could simply say that the question can only be settled subjectively and not empirically.

Atheists need the theist to give them an existential manifestation of their "God" to argue against, or to prove them wrong, because they can't acknowledge that ideas are reality.

I know a number of mathematicians who would differ with you on the point.

While most theists believe in God as an experience of reality based on a 'divine' (metaphysical) idealization of reality. So that the God the theist proposes is by it's idealized nature exactly what the atheist presupposes not to be real.

Thus, their respective reasoning is fundamentally incompatible. The 'proof' of existence the atheist insists upon is excluded by the existential nature of the "God" that the theist is proposing.

Interesting approach, but I still say mine is simpler to digest (and really, how often is that going to happen? ).

 

[PureX]

I'd say you can rationally recognize what must, else the word itself signifies what, exactly?

We can rationalize all sorts of things. And we do so, routinely. But our rationale is based on parameter sets that are both relative and subjective. Which is why different people rationalize different conceptions of truth and reality, routinely.

Or you could simply say that the question can only be settled subjectively and not empirically.

The question may be subjectively "settled", as per individual, but never collectively or universally resolved. Thus faith produces proof for the believer that the skeptic can't recognize as such.

Interesting approach, but I still say mine is simpler to digest (and really, how often is that going to happen? ).

Basically, I think we are agreeing. But what's interesting to me is what can be learned from the shortfall of both positions.

The atheist is right in that the evidence produced by faith is weak if it can't be produced in the face of skepticism. Yet at the same time he is being irrational to expect otherwise, in regards to such a metaphysical proposition as the existence of "God". The lesson I take from this is that it's a serious mistake to devalue the significance of faith relative to truth on a grand scale.

On the other hand, the theist needs to remain aware of the profound human limitations that remain in spite of his belief, relative to the truth, or he runs the risk of fostering and justifying his own ego-driven insanity and mistaking it for some grand truth.

 

[TIPlatypus]

I think that flying the banner of a religion is bad because there are often bad people flying that banner alongside you. I go to church and I am a good christian not because I have to but because I want to. You seem to be very open-minded about the whole thing though. Anyway, if you don't see any evidence of God doing good in the world, why don't you try. It is surely a win-win situation.

 

[Town Heretic]

We can rationalize all sorts of things.

That's a word that gets a bum rush. I suspect it's because of the "if" later on in the defintion.

And we do so, routinely. But our rationale is based on parameter sets that are both relative and subjective.

Is that absolutely true?

The question may be subjectively "settled", as per individual, but never collectively or universally resolved.

Not so far as I can see or reason it, in this life.

Thus faith produces proof for the believer that the skeptic can't recognize as such.

And reason likewise, given the failure of empiricism to address faith beyond indicators.

Basically, I think we are agreeing.

I think for the most part we are. Our lexicon and approach differs a bit, but the conclusions seem compatible.

The atheist is right in that the evidence produced by faith is weak if it can't be produced in the face of skepticism. Yet at the same time he is being irrational to expect otherwise, in regards to such a metaphysical proposition as the existence of "God". The lesson I take from this is that it's a serious mistake to devalue the significance of faith relative to truth on a grand scale.

I'd have a lot more faith in atheists if they knew what would satisfy their demand and the satisfaction was of an objective nature and not something more akin to a genie.

On the other hand, the theist needs to remain aware of the profound human limitations that remain in spite of his belief, relative to the truth, or he runs the risk of fostering and justifying his own ego-driven insanity and mistaking it for some grand truth.

I suspect the closer Christians remain to the cross and its instruction the less trouble we'll get into.

 

[aikido7]

As some friends and fellow TOLers have noticed, some of whom have sent me messages asking about it (thanks! ), and for others who have yet to notice but who knew what I previously believed: I no longer consider myself a Catholic nor a theist.

As to what lead to this change, it had been some time in the making, reaching a tipping point about a year and a half ago. But the short of it is that I don’t see the hand of an all loving, knowing and powerful God at work in the world or what is said to be his Church; rather, I see a God who does his hardest to remain hidden and everything unfolding in a way that one would expect if such a God was not active in the world or simply didn’t exist. I find myself in an universe in which no process attests to God's activity within it.

As my faith in God, the supernatural and the Catholic Church waned, I came to a point where I realised that I was not being honest with myself if I continued on that path. The lack of evidence for God and for the supernatural reality entailed by the beliefs I was holding by faith lead to an internal conflict that kept piling up and by the end I came to realise that I was holding on to the faith due to an emotional attachment to it and not because I still believed in it. But there was no integrity to be found in that setup and I got nothing but cognitive dissonance out of it; so I let go.

While I am an atheist now, I do not consider myself a strong/militant atheist, that is, I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Nor do I have a penchant for bashing God or religion. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence and this lack of evidence leads me to think the existence of God or the supernatural is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists. But as new evidence can always emerge which can change one’s mind, I do not adopt the strong/militant stance as some atheists do.

I wasn’t sure at first what to write for this OP, my original idea was to write a longer post detailing everything but I opted instead for not writing an essay and for leaving things a bit less formal and open, letting the thread unfold by itself and then ride along with it.

The above is condensed for the sake of brevity but I’d be willing to expand on it. So, yeah, I’d be open to discuss things and answer any questions you may have about this change. Hopefully it can be done in a friendly, conversational and respectful manner :cheers:


Evo

I think this is a good example of the tendency today to reject religion, specifically the conservative, Sharia Law-type versions found in both Christianity and Islam.

People of our global culture see religion as other-worldly, elitist, bigoted and no longer compelling or persuadable.

In my view, if we on the Christian side don't get a better theology, our faith will die. We need a religion based on action in the world. Instead we have a faith that demands we give assent to a list of early, first-century theological claims.

 

[Lon]

As some friends and fellow TOLers have noticed, some of whom have sent me messages asking about it (thanks! ), and for others who have yet to notice but who knew what I previously believed: I no longer consider myself a Catholic nor a theist.

:*( I mean, you are welcome I guess, but that wasn't/isn't the point. The point is no smilie but a tragic loss. God is there and incredibly loud. Did you read Revelation? Seems spot-on to me (on top of a plethora of more evidence and interactions from Him in ALL of our lives. Did you quit reading your Bible? We ARE what we eat. You eat the world and its offerings, there is no doubt at all in my mind, "You are what you eat." NOBODY escapes that truth. It is both nature and nurture. You nor I will or can escape that. I believe that truth has always explained ALL conversions and deconversions.

As to what lead to this change, it had been some time in the making, reaching a tipping point about a year and a half ago. But the short of it is that I don’t see the hand of an all loving, knowing and powerful God at work in the world or what is said to be his Church; rather, I see a God who does his hardest to remain hidden and everything unfolding in a way that one would expect if such a God was not active in the world or simply didn’t exist. I find myself in an universe in which no process attests to God's activity within it.

You quit looking: You ARE what you eat.

As my faith in God, the supernatural and the Catholic Church waned

Such writing is on the wall, I'm just sad I'm not close enough in proximity to have spent some time with you to have headed it off at the pass. Trains are hard to stop. Train-wrecks, even harder. Scripture is replete with warnings. I have never understood how any one person can ever chuck Jesus, who has claimed to be a Christian. :nono:

I came to a point where I realised that I was not being honest with myself if I continued on that path. The lack of evidence for God and for the supernatural reality entailed by the beliefs I was holding by faith lead to an internal conflict that kept piling up and by the end I came to realise that I was holding on to the faith due to an emotional attachment to it and not because I still believed in it. But there was no integrity to be found in that setup and I got nothing but cognitive dissonance out of it; so I let go.

:nono: You never asked me :nono:

While I am an atheist now, I do not consider myself a strong/militant atheist, that is, I don’t make the claim that I know for a fact that God does not exists. Nor do I have a penchant for bashing God or religion. Rather, my disbelief arises for the most part from a lack of evidence and this lack of evidence leads me to think the existence of God or the supernatural is unlikely and I thus live my life as if it doesn’t exists. But as new evidence can always emerge which can change one’s mind, I do not adopt the strong/militant stance as some atheists do.

My brother, a biologist, reminded me again why he is a Christian two weeks ago and why he rejects macro. His reasons were really revealing. Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus Christ our Lord all foretold of waxing and waning. Such is no shock to me, but it surely shouldn't be for you either. We have always had folks who have rejected Christ. If Jesus had one of His 12 reject Him, it surely is to be expected today as well. From what I've known of you, I'd simply thought better of you.

I wasn’t sure at first what to write for this OP, my original idea was to write a longer post detailing everything but I opted instead for not writing an essay and for leaving things a bit less formal and open, letting the thread unfold by itself and then ride along with it.

The above is condensed for the sake of brevity but I’d be willing to expand on it. So, yeah, I’d be open to discuss things and answer any questions you may have about this change. Hopefully it can be done in a friendly, conversational and respectful manner :cheers:


Evo

In brevity, then, I'm sure there is a God. I know there is sin in the world as well. C.S. Lewis addressed it well. The evidence of it assures you there is a God as well. You aren't seeing with eyes that see or hearing with ears that hear. The writing is on the wall, and it is clear. It is sad to see you giving up. Seek God, He IS there and has never been silent!

 

[annabenedetti]

If Jesus had one of His 12 reject Him, it surely is to be expected today as well. From what I've known of you, I'd simply thought better of you.

I think very highly of Evo. He's thoughtful and insightful, he has a penetrating intellect and treats others with respect and kindness.

I can't imagine how much thought and prayer he put into coming to this decision.

In brevity, then, I'm sure there is a God. I know there is sin in the world as well. C.S. Lewis addressed it well. The evidence of it assures you there is a God as well. You aren't seeing with eyes that see or hearing with ears that hear. The writing is on the wall, and it is clear. It is sad to see you giving up. Seek God, He IS there and has never been silent!

I know you mean that in all charity, but for many, He is indeed silent.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think very highly of Evo. He's thoughtful and insightful, he has a penetrating intellect and treats others with respect and kindness.

I'm fond of him as well.

I can't imagine how much thought and prayer he put into coming to this decision.

A process is only as good as what you feed it.

I know you mean that in all charity, but for many, He is indeed silent.

We will likely never agree on this point.

 

[Lon]

▲Thank you Th. ▲

I know you mean that in all charity, but for many, He is indeed silent.

It depends on what you are looking for. Our Lord asked if the 12 would abandon Him too. "You have the Words of Life. Where could we possible go?"

Scripture is incredibly revealing of God and His existence. Okay, so I've had some very up close and personal interaction with Him, so what? Scripture convinced me a long long time before all of that. Romans 1 says God is 'clearly seen so that ALL men are without excuse. I totally (no doubt on it) believe that is true. If Christ is not raised from the dead, all of our faith would be in vain. There is no Christianity without the Lord Jesus Christ who lives!

 

[rexlunae]

That's how you answered Evo, but your answer doesn't speak to the point at issue. The fact that some atheists can't meet your challenge doesn't entail the idea that there is no rational way to determine the existence of God. As a matter of fact lots of--if not most--theists and atheists agree that there is a rational way to determine the existence of God.

I can envision potential means to prove the existence of God objectively, and there have been many attempts along those lines. But the problem is not symmetrical. I cannot imagine what would stand as a definitive disproof of the existence of God. I take the failure of the attempts to prove existence as suggestive of human contrivance, but there is no way that I know of to be certain that human contrivance wasn't by-chance advocating a proposition that was true nonetheless.

 

[zippy2006]

I can envision potential means to prove the existence of God objectively, and there have been many attempts along those lines. But the problem is not symmetrical. I cannot imagine what would stand as a definitive disproof of the existence of God. I take the failure of the attempts to prove existence as suggestive of human contrivance, but there is no way that I know of to be certain that human contrivance wasn't by-chance advocating a proposition that was true nonetheless.

Okay, but you're speaking to something like demonstration, while I was concerned with something weaker like rational justification.

Regardless of what some may like to claim, I think the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is disbelief in God. Far from fideism, I think that disbelief has a strong relation to rationality for many atheists. I think there are atheists who do not suffer from the problem TH claims all suffer from, namely the absence of criteria.

So yes, there is an asymmetricity, and it may bar negative demonstrations, but it does not bar negative beliefs that are rationally justified.

It seems that I generally think TH's claims are too simplistic. For example, "All apostates never trusted," or "All atheists lack coherent criteria for belief." In the extreme case where one dissects enough arguments to defend such notions, the effort becomes dialectically untenable, mostly because the colloquial meaning of those claims becomes so diminished that an entirely new proposition is formed--a proposition that is not nearly as interesting or powerful yet one which TH wishes to retain the same power and interest as the initial candidates. I also think this is how the charge of "lawyer talk," when correctly applied, cashes out.

On the other hand, other things follow from the atheists who have coherent criteria. A common entailment would be a conception of God that is different from what Christians mean by "God."

 

[rexlunae]

Okay, but you're speaking to something like demonstration, while I was concerned with something weaker like rational justification.

Ok.

Regardless of what some may like to claim, I think the difference between an agnostic and an atheist is disbelief in God.

Well, they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. You could potentially be an agnostic theist, someone who believes in a god but doesn't claim knowledge. Most forms of theism make this a difficult proposition to sustain in practical terms, however.

Far from fideism, I think that disbelief has a strong relation to rationality for many atheists. I think there are atheists who do not suffer from the problem TH claims all suffer from, namely the absence of criteria.

I would be interested to hear from any atheist who claims to be able to satisfy his challenge as he intends it.

So yes, there is an asymmetricity, and it may bar negative demonstrations, but it does not bar negative beliefs that are rationally justified.

Well, you'll certainly get no dispute from me on that point.

It seems that I generally think TH's claims are too simplistic. For example, "All apostates never trusted," or "All atheists lack coherent criteria for belief." In the extreme case where one dissects enough arguments to defend such notions, the effort becomes dialectically untenable, mostly because the colloquial meaning of those claims becomes so diminished that an entirely new proposition is formed--a proposition that is not nearly as interesting or powerful yet one which TH wishes to retain the same power and interest as the initial candidates.

In other words, you think he's changing the subject?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, they don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief. You could potentially be an agnostic theist, someone who believes in a god but doesn't claim knowledge. Most forms of theism make this a difficult proposition to sustain in practical terms, however.

See, that's the sort of thing that some people like to say, and it's the sort of thing I disagree with. Presumably it's grounded in etymology, but an etymology isn't a definition and I doubt you will ever find the average English speaker using the terms that way. Out of curiosity, I checked Merriam-Webster, and it agrees with me. But as far as I can see this is just a tangent and does not impact our topic.

I would be interested to hear from any atheist who claims to be able to satisfy his challenge as he intends it.

Do you believe you have legitimate criteria that, if fulfilled, would convince you of the existence of God?

Well, you'll certainly get no dispute from me on that point.

I'll take it!

In other words, you think he's changing the subject?

No, perverting language. Using words in a way they aren't used. Now, words are fluid to some extent, and the move isn't intrinsically illegitimate, but trying to retain the same force that the initial proposition had is perhaps where the problem arises. For example:

At t1 we could define x as "You didn't trust in God."

At t2 a 40-page argument ensues which attempts to qualify the proposition, "You didn't trust in God."

At t3 we arrive at a distinct concept, y, attached to the same signifier, "You didn't trust in God."

We all know what x means, because it just reflects colloquial usage. Anyone who has carefully followed the argument knows what y means, and may even agree with the meaning of y while at the same time disagreeing that concept y should be expressed using the words, "You didn't trust in God."

x and y are two completely different things, yet TH equivocates between them in a certain way. The apostate who doesn't fully understand the long, nuanced argument will understandably be insulted by y since they mistake it for x. y is essentially impotent and uninteresting--certainly not a matter of insult.

IMO TH's theological systems have altered the meanings of certain propositions from their colloquial sense. I don't think he fully understands this. I think he looks at the signifier ("You didn't trust in God") and sees y, failing to understand the primary meaning in x. Yet the end goal, as TH admits, is protecting the faithful from aggressors or apostates. If we stay at the level of (misunderstood) appearances, they may be protected in some way, because [most Christians, who did not read the 40-page argument] will see the apostate as transgressing x, something which they clearly uphold, rather than transgressing y, which they neither uphold or even agree with. So they are protected, albeit by a kind of sophistry. I don't like it, especially because it reflects very badly on Christianity for outsiders who see through it, including apostates like Spectrox.

 

[Town Heretic]

I would be interested to hear from any atheist who claims to be able to satisfy his challenge as he intends it.

Me too.

In other words, you think he's changing the subject?

What I hold is that the apostate has placed his trust in something else, in his judgement of the object and not in the object itself, not in God. If you ever want the longer version and particulars, illustrations, I'd be happy to go through it.

:e4e:

 

[annabenedetti]

Watching faith be reduced to a bunch of x's, y's and whatnot is desiccating.

 

[annabenedetti]

Scripture is incredibly revealing of God and His existence. Okay, so I've had some very up close and personal interaction with Him, so what? Scripture convinced me a long long time before all of that. Romans 1 says God is 'clearly seen so that ALL men are without excuse. I totally (no doubt on it) believe that is true. If Christ is not raised from the dead, all of our faith would be in vain. There is no Christianity without the Lord Jesus Christ who lives!

I'm a Christian Lon, but in reading the above, it basically says you know that Scripture reveals God because Scripture convinced you. For someone who doesn't believe the Bible is God's word, how would that convince him of anything? I don't see it.

 

[kmoney]

Watching faith be reduced to a bunch of x's, y's and whatnot is desiccating.

I was going to say "confusing".

 

[annabenedetti]

I was going to say "confusing".

Like football. :chuckle:

Faith shouldn't look like this. Should it?