Yes you do, as you cannot make your case. I don’t want to be deceived. I want to believe. Belief != deception. Belief can be warranted you see. Now not for one moment is even best case Christian belief rationally warranted, but it is faithfully warranted. It may still be actually warranted. Because God may ground being, the warrant for that being Jesus.
It is generally true I think that various tradtional fundamentalisms - whether of the religious or the atheistic sort - they do often come here to die. Or if they aren’t ready for death, they usually flee back before too long to their own more protective enclaves. Those believers that tend to persist here then are the ones who enjoy full-throated, robust science at its very, established consensus best - complete with recognition of all its inherent weaknesses and strengths; and simultaneously embrace full-throated religion at its best - complete with the acknowledgment of all the mess and humanity that comes with that too. We see Divinity in both. And the old fundamentalisms that so many of us have some history of being entangled with have had the curtain pulled back on their authority. When we’re told that reality and religion (science and sacred) are inherently immiscible, and one must choose, Biologos gently offers up another perspective for those who are ready to hear it.
3 Likes
Seems like people make this so complicated.
I dont believe in any god. Simple.
I dont believe in Nessie, Batboy, Bermuda Triangle or chupacabra.
None of those can be proved not to exist but
that hardly seems necessary or even sane, to
argue.
Though some would no doubt claim I refuse to see the evidence.
1 Like
Well, hmm… The title is objection but OP contains an argument as an example so… I think my response perhaps landed somewhere in the middle as well. I don’t know if this is nitpicky but if we’re taking your definitions then yeah, I guess you’re right. An objection could potentially make one or more of your arguments for theism fall apart but then the question of whether the arguments that either hold up or remain untested are enough to still arrive at the conclusion of theism remain undetermined.
If I’m reading you correctly you are perhaps seeing it as if I were to argue for the non-existence of Russel’s teapot. Or something more mundane, the non-existence of a particular pebble somewhere in space. I don’t exactly know how you would classify my non-belief in the pebble. I think it would be an objection to the proposition if I have no compelling arguments for it or if the arguments are wholly uncompelling like telling me what color it is. But yeah, I guess that would work since it’s an objection to the color argument not containing any substance, right? Sorry if this is a mess. I’m pretty much just typing as I think about it.
I think arguments do come into play when you start to add definitions for the proposed existence. If you add to the pebble that it lies in your shelf every day from 5 to 6 and the rest of the time it is in orbit around Saturn then there is an argument against its existence based on the physics of what we understand pebbles to be. I think in that respect I can say I have an argument against a particular type of god - the type that wants everyone to know he exists AND has the potential to do so.
I do think theists have arrived at an unreasonable conclusion but that is a purely tentative position based on the lack of demonstration for the proposition. As I said, I don’t care too much about the truth of the conclusion but more about the methods we use to conclude anything in general. Because that impacts us all no matter what the truth of the matter is.
We have another mind reader? Or do you mean I cannot make
my case , to you? Your " equals not " assertion presented thus
suggests that is the case. Espevislly as that and " dont want to be
deceived " are entirely irrelevant to what I said.
Please clarify.
You understand. If you can’t make your case to me, you can’t make it period.
Good, youve changed it to “if”.
Now, do you underdtand I said nothing about wanting to be deceived.
Good, youve changed it to “if”.
Now, do you underdtand I said nothing about wanting to be deceived?
So you didn’t say that?
I did. I DID NOT say anything about wanting to be deceived.
You injected that strawman.
If I want to believe I want the self-deception inherent in that, according to your mere assertion.
You are distracting from the fact that you cannot establish as a universal that self-deception is inherent in wanting to believe.
Drop one thing you pretend I said, and introduce another. Do stop.
Its quite distracting.
Youd find many fellow theist vigorously arguing my same
point.
That atheists reject evidence because they dont want to believe.
Are in denial. ( self deception)
Feynman points out that objectivity requires one understand that ones self is the easiest person to fool.
Con men rely on people wanting to believe.
The doting mother does not want to believe her lil darling
would rob the bank.
Of course if one doesnt want to see the connection between wanting
to believe / not believe and self deception, then likely they can stay in denial of that connection.
In other words you can’t.
It does not mean you want self deception, it means you are blind to it
What self deception? You’re the projecting mind reader, so please read mine.
Just stop. Making things up is not a discussion.
You can’t discuss your empty, baseless ipse dixit. Nothing in the last multi-line post applies to me in this regard. Make it so or get off the pot.
As a general thing I think theist style rules of evidence would
be considered most unsatisfactory if applied against them in a court of law.
It appears that you did not read the Kierkegaard story referenced above. I would have thought the “Why There is no Proof of God” would have piqued your interest.
It appears we all have that.