If your point is that all faith is not the same, I couldn’t agree more. In particular there is a big difference between faith which contradicts the objective evidence and faith which does not. The point of faith is that there are very few things if any with absolute proof or evidence. There is always some leap of faith however small. And there is a difference between faith which is reasonable and faith which is not. For example, there is no way to prove that the universe was not created this morning with all our memories as they are. But it is unreasonable to believe something contrary to all our memories and everything we see, for this would render too much of our experience and lives meaningless.
A more reasonable faith is one that makes our lives more meaningful rather than less. Of course, this isn’t always like the above example where one choice is pretty universally more meaningful for everyone. In some cases what gives more meaning to life varies considerably between people. Theists think a belief in God and a context of life where there is an existence of life after we die makes life more meaningful. Atheists think it is more meaningful to be completely responsible for our own lives and to devote all our thoughts and efforts to the existence we can actually see and experience.
You were trying to tell me that how atheists define atheism wasn’t the business of any theist. And SuperBigV was trying to tell me that the proper definition of atheism was one which made the average atheist someone who hardly thought about anything at all just in order to make atheism a default position and put all the burden of proof on anybody who thought differently – one of the sleaziest examples of empty rhetoric there is.
So here are my (definitely modernized) definitions Atheism: The belief that there is no sufficiently good reason to think that any of the gods described by religions actually exist. Atheist: someone who has considered the question of God’s existence and decided there is no sufficiently good reason to think such a thing exists.
But there are a lot of other definitions which are just fine like this from Wictionary
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms) (narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
I say modernized because the oldest dictionaries simply give a definition like this:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
But this is rightly rejected because it does not adequately describe the spectrum of those who self identify as atheist.
Well I was agreeing with you that it is everybody’s business. Meaning that although atheism takes its meaning by contrast with theism, it is not the prerogative of theists to decide why atheists take the stand they do. If you want to know, you can ask and you will get a variety of answers.
You were just agreeing with Vlad that even Christians are atheists in regard to some gods. If you grant that then you should see that there is room to disagree with the particulars of what counts as God/gods. What is really at issue between Christians and atheists isn’t whether or not God/gods exist. It is whether there are authoritative historical reasons to accept that the Bible’s account of God is the right one.
I’m glad we can agree that not all faith is the same. Next step is to determine how we can determine whether our faith contradicts objective evidence.
I think the case for Deism can be made, and we would just agree to disagree on that one. Deism, as I understand it, is the belief that God created the Universe and then let it run it’s due course. I don’t think this claim can be tested or disproven, and for me, the best approach is to remain agnostic on it. I just don’t know and can’t know. And I’m okay with that.
But for theism, you must go a few steps further. You need to have God involved in his creation, answer prayers, reveal himself to people, direct their thoughts so that he is accurately represented, and also keep a watch on copying the manuscripts. From my experience and understanding, most theists become such due to their upbringing. It was certainly true in my case. And then, as people become rooted in their faith, they look for reasons.
Which is curious, because it’s as if people understand that IF their faith be true, it must have some reasons behind it. Theists are not content with just believing and leaving it at that.
Objective evidence means scientific evidence, and since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis it is not a valid scientific idea. So the cases for both Deism and theism falls flat on their face right at the start. The only evidence for or against the existence of God is subjective – all of it.
Well of course it was your experience because that is always going to be the case when you live in a society where the large majority are theist. But in a society where the large majority are atheist this is not the case.
It was because of that experience that when I did do about 10-12 years of serious doubt about christianity, I couldn’t get past that experience, which I feel strongly does show God’s involvement in this world. I know you will call it a fluke but i would suggest that one would have to in order to maintain an agnostic/atheistic position.
Just so you will know my belief is not due to my upgringing, My father was an atheist and my mother a sociopath–yes she had religious beliefs, but the abuse she gave to her children certaintly didn’t attract us to christianity.
PS: probably won’t be able to respond. I am spending large chunks of time at MD Anderson.
Ahhh - don’t let a little unfinished reading stop you from sounding off here. It doesn’t stop most of us. What’s life without a little running off at the mouth prior to learning the material? It helps cultivate humility … eventually.
By READING said literature and weighing in the arguments. If you want to base the decision primarily on emotion you refuse a rational engagement. I´m not a charismatic and don´t hold to sola scriptura and think both views are heavily wrong.
Throwing the ball back in your fiel, íf the basis you rely on about the God-question is emotion, can your atheism really be said to have a rational basis?
Then your experience is wrong. Though people often have an a priori sensus divinitatis, up until a few decades ago it was the role model for the pastor to be knowledgable about the philosophical and theological foundation.
If I weren´t convinced by the metaphysics underlying it, I wouldn´t be a theist. If the metaphysics would indeed support atheism, I would be one, although atheism entails nihilism and I would probably have to eventually arrive at a position like Nietzsche. Or even Rosenbergs eliminativism, if his arguments for the final end of naturalism holds.
Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, because God-belief, as the data shows, looks to be the natural position for a human. Anyway, taking that as an argument is a genetic fallacy, since it doesn´t take into account the strength of the metaphysical arguments supporting the position. I freely admit that I am sympathetic to the theistic worldview in the first place, but if the arguments wouldn´t have convinced me, I wouldn´t be one.
Sympathies for their respected position however can be found on both sides. Thomas Nagel is a prominent example for the atheist side of the debate (he doesn´t engage in philosophy of religion though).
As if I needed any more proof to know that you don´t know what you are talking about. The scholastic, rationalist or ontological arguments argue for God as a conclusion and don´t take him to be a premise. I can´t even conceive of a metaphysical argument for Santa Claus. God´s attributes however can be derived, sometimes by the nature of the proof, other times through additional arguments, by simply arriving at a necessary being. If they were simply asserted, wouldn´t you think that the debate within philosophy of religion would have been settled centuries or even millennia ago?
Read Ed Fesers “The Last Superstition” for a treatment for that kind of objections. It is for beginners and shows why those points you make here have nothing going for them.
Quite frankly, I don´t think you can make an informed judgment on that one.
As I’ve said, there could be a case made for Deism, the Creator of everything that left us to our own devices. But the existence of a supernatural being who cares about people, and loves them and is omni- everything (i.e. omni-potent, omni-present, omni-benevolent, etc…) that is contradicted by my and everyone else’s experience.
But I would be open to correction. Where do you think my thinking is flawed?
I don’t believe in Santa Claus. Have I ever been to the North Pole? Nope. Have I examined all ‘evidence’ there is and every story about him? Nope. So, at what point am I justified in my A-Santa-Clauism?
Well, yes, yours is just a story. How telling it is that people prayed about a translator rather than a supernatural gift of understanding and communicating in Turkish. There are many unlikely coincidences. Just last week there was a story about two women walking/jogging near a cemetery that were killed by a lightning strike. What are the chances of that happening?
Primarily, I suggest your reasoning is flawed in that you claim to speak on behalf of every single person who has ever or does (or will) exist. I can certainly claim that my experience, and my interpretation and perception of my experiences, does not contradict the above beliefs. You know that every single person who ever has, does, or will ever live will have experiences that contradict the traditional beliefs about god?
Moreover, I’d be curious how (in affirming possibility of deism but denying any theistic concept of god) you can claim with some kind of certainty that God has never spoken in some sort of direct way with anyone who has ever lived on the face of the earth. The Bible records all manner of such interactions, miracles, and such that reveal God to be one involved more in this world. You believe that all of these are false, because… why exactly? Because you presume that God would never, and has never, done such a thing? You somehow know that he has never, and will never, reveal himself directly to anyone?
Finally, a minor but niggling point… “Omni-benevolent” is an unfortunate neologism that has somehow crept into modern philosophical discussions of god. This was never a traditional statement of Christian belief about God, it seems to me more often used by skeptics or atheists than by Christians, and this is quite problematic. It is at best an unintentional straw man, a claim about “what Christians believe” that Christians have never historically claimed.
This may well be correct and I think you are in a better position to know than I. It certainly seems logically flawed on the face of it since with most moral dimensions, what is best is usually a golden mean between extremes. “Omni-benevolent” seems to imply “maximally generous”. One might well wonder if excessive benevolence might likely lead to dependence and ultimately be disempowering.
But for what it’s worth, as someone whose church experience ended before becoming literate, something like this was one of the strong impressions I walked away with. Left to think about what I’d heard, the impression I formed of Jesus was that he was “morally best”, and that our own moral development was his primary concern. Of course you can’t leave it to illiterate children to decide theology, but the impressions a church makes on its least formed might still be one way to judge its impact.
Well said. In hopes of not overstating, just that this has become a certain pet peeve of mine. In any list of God’s attributes until very recently, you could always find 3 “Omni” adjectives… omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I happened to try searching the historical usage of some terms in google books (just now realized you can do this), the results are pretty obvious:
One issue is that the term is claimed to be synonymous with “all morally good”, but as you noticed, it seems to imply “maximally generous” or the like. Google tells me the synonyms for benevolent, after all, are kind, kindly, kindhearted, warmhearted, tenderhearted, big-hearted, etc…
I had never heard this word except from the writings of atheists (and then occasionally from Christian apologists responding to atheists). I suspect the word was attractive as it makes it easier to “prove” God’s logical nonexistence, as all one needs to do is find a single example where God was not as generous or nice as conceivably possible, and your work is done. Read genesis 6 and there it is, proof positive, that God is not “omnibenevolent,” but the critical has only succeeded in proving the non existence of a God that Christians don’t believe in.
Unfortunately, I fear the term simply muddies waters and leads away from clear and useful dialogue. Thus why this is relevant to Vlad’s argument above. I would agree with him that - if we Christians did claim that God was “Omni benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient,” - then any human in the entire history of the world who ever experienced even the slightest discomfort would prove that such a God would not exist.
And now that I’m having fun playing with this feature of google books I just discovered… here’s a chart comparing historic use of the three traditional words (omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent) against omnibenevolent, since either 1750 or 1920…
Sorry again, Mitchell, I don´t know why this keeps happening!
Depends. This requires the so-called “existential inertia”. Once you exist, nothing keeps you in existence. Problem is from the view of a neo-aristotelian, that this requires the rejection of “essentialism”, basically the claim that the whole is different than the parts, holism instead of reductionism. But even if we meet in the middle, God holds our existence up, while he doesn´t intervene in human affairs, deism would be impossible.
Depends also. Judaism clearly states that God is responsible for both good and evil. I´d also say that the one necessarily requires the other. The statement “A is good” is meaningless if it can´t be contrasted by something evil. Third, I´d say that Gods goodness is analogous. God is good on that view is the same as “God exists”. That´s the view of St.Thomas Aquinas and although it might sound strange at first, this is actually the best way I ever found for grounding something like objective morality, when goodness is equivalent to “being”. An act becomes evil if I prevent you from following what is natural to you. For example: In your natural state you have the actual ability to walk. My action of hurting your legs is thereby objectively evil, since I prevent you from actualizing natural abilities.
Directly in the next passage:
What makes you think that this is analogous to the question if God exists? Were you a Mormon? Because the material deity on another planet is the only equivalent conception I could find. In which way is that comparable from the monotheistic God, who is immaterial, theground of existence and necessary?
Well, that’s an interesting response. Let me turn this argument around, and lets say that I am claiming to have divine powers. What would be a reasonable approach to testing my claim, in your opinion?
Since you can’t know what every single person who has ever lived or currently lives experiences, perhaps I can claim to be able to answer prayers and grant people their wishes. After all, this claim cannot be tested based on the premise that you (or I) can’t possibly know what every single person experiences.
I believe Bible claims are false for the same reason you would claim my claim is false.
Lets take a specific promise of Jesus.
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Here Jesus is making several promises that can easily be tested. If you ask Jesus to heal amputees or Down’s syndrome, you will find that no healing will take place. Which is the same thing that would happen if you ask ME to heal amputees or Down’s syndrome. If this test is not sufficient to test a claim, then I’d be curious about your methodology to test this.
Of course, we can’t really test Deism claims, because Deism pretty much agrees that God is not detectable today. But we can certainly test prayer answering claims of personal Gods.
Maybe there’s something I’m not getting but even if the universe could be said to have only a minute chance of existing we still can’t explore those cases because we live in the case where the Universe DOES exist.
As an atheist I can say that my reason for not being a believer is simply lack of evidence in support. I can think of arguments like the problem of evil, but if I apply simple skepticism where any claim has a burden of proof then I simply don’t see sufficient evidence to warrant such a belief. So the argument I see as the strongest is divine hiddenness; If there is a god that wants us to know he exists why is the evidence lacking?
