Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Latinitas]

“faith” is the key word. It applies to atheism like every other ideology. It is impossible to live rationally without making any assumptions about reality. For a start we have to believe in the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe, fundamental facts which require explanation but are usually taken for granted. That is where materialism and atheism collapse…

Careful, you’re confusing the articles of faith with the first principles of knowledge. While both admit of no demonstration, the reason for this indemonstrability is very different. The first principles of knowledge are obtained by sense-perception, and are thus said to be self-evident. The truths of faith on the other hand, far from being self-evident, are very obscure even after revelation and deep study of them. This is very different. The first principles of knowledge are undemonstrable because the principles of demonstration (the laws of logic, etc.) are gathered from perception. That is, the first principles of knolwedge are a priori with respect to the principles of demonstration. The truths of faith are not a priori, since they have to be revealed to even be known. The articles of faith are simply to sublime to admit of demonstration. The truth they contain surpasses the power of created reason. That’s a very different reason for the lack of proof.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Latinitas]

I’ll slightly correct my last post. There are some truths of faith thay may not be particularly sublime, but are still indemonstrable on account of their contingency. Thus for example, according to classical Thomism, the temporal beginning of the universe is an article of faith strictly speaking (non-demonstrable) even though of course, it’s perfectly comprehendable. Other articles of faith, however, like the Trinity, are non-demonstrable because of their sublimity.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Peter_Plato]

groan Not this again. I almost can’t be bothered to refute this once again, but I will (not that it will have any effect) It takes no faith to have a lack of belief in something.

Where have you refuted this the first time?

In order to not believe something intentionally – i.e., “HAVE a lack of belief in something” intentionally – it takes faith in your own capacity to discern the complete truth about basically everything required to dismiss that belief.

That is a whole lot of faith in yourself AND your capacities.

Rocks and clouds lack beliefs. They do not HAVE any “lack of beliefs” or any beliefs at all, for that matter. Obviously, you are capable of having beliefs and, therefore, an awareness of intentionally not subscribing or agreeing to some beliefs. It is THAT disagreement with a belief which you claim is a “lack of belief” which you still need to defend based upon which presumptions you do accept – i.e., do have faith in.

Thinking beings have beliefs. Ergo, a “lack of belief” which leads to a conclusion of atheism – God does not exist – by thinking beings, amounts to a discernible presence of the opposite belief – eliminative materialism – which IS supported by all kinds of convictions to the opposite of the purported “lack” of belief.

Again, faith in your own capacities of discernment is positively required to be an atheist precisely because it is your faith in what you think you know that leads to your dismissal of what you hold not to be true – the corresponding “lack of belief."

Otherwise the best that you can do is reserve judgement (agnosticism) based upon what you do know and an oblique but admitted awareness of the absence of what you don’t.

Even Socrates, by admitting that what he did know was that he knew nothing, was implying that he DID know for certain that he knew nothing. The truth provided him with the awareness of his ignorance even though he could not properly explicate what the truth was. He knew what it wasn’t. He didn’t “lack any belief” at all in his knowledge – he DID know that he didn’t know.

Socrates didn’t have faith in his own capacity to fully know the truth - he had no faith in his current state of knowledge – but he had faith in the truth itself and in the truth being (or making itself) accessible to him in some sense.

By taking an atheistic position – that you do not believe God exists or “lack a belief in the existence of God” – you must, therefore, know what it means for God to exist and dismiss that belief based upon what you do believe. That is, you have entertained the belief and have dismissed it – that is the reason you apparently “lack” the belief.

THAT is quite a different thing from not having a belief that God exists, which means you have no idea what “God exists” means because you have no capacity to understand it and therefore have never entertained it. That, my friend, is what it means to “lack a belief.”

How would you know you “lack the belief” unless you have never entertained it and dismissed it?

Rocks and clouds “lack” beliefs in that sense. They don’t need to try to defend their true “lack of belief."

You, I don’t think do “lack a belief” in that sense, so you still need to defend your “lack" of belief.

You have dismissed the belief because you have considered it, considered what is entailed by holding it and intentionally dismissed the belief. That is not “lacking a belief” in any real sense, except that you think the belief is errant in some way.

Still requires faith in yourself and your ability to reason, in what you have permitted as the data upon which you base your dismissal and, very likely, some faith in others around you that share your purported “lack" of belief.

I, too, “lack” a belief that the world is a flat disk, but that would be because I have faith in mathematics, in science, in my own capacity to reason about such things, etc., etc. Again a whole lot of faith, but faith that can be defended.

Now it would be up to you to defend why you dismiss the proposition “God exists” by appealing to the faith required to believe the things that you do believe – i.e., those things you do have faith in and accept as axiomatic based upon THAT faith – instead of standing behind what you suppose is an invulnerable position that requires no defence.

 

[Cheiron]

Where have you refuted this the first time?

In order to not believe something intentionally – i.e., “have a lack of belief in something” intentionally – it takes faith in your own capacity to discern the complete truth about basically everything required to dismiss that belief.

That is a whole lot of faith in yourself AND your capacities.

Rocks and clouds lack beliefs.

Thinking beings have beliefs. Ergo, a “lack of belief” which leads to a conclusion of atheism – God does not exist – by thinking beings, amounts to a discernible presence of the opposite belief – eliminative materialism – which IS supported by all kinds of convictions to the opposite of the purported “lack” of belief.

Again, faith in your own capacities of discernment is positively required to be an atheist precisely because it is your faith in what you think you know that leads to your dismissal of what you hold not to be true – the corresponding “lack of belief."

Otherwise the best that you can do is reserve judgement (agnosticism) based upon what you do know and an oblique but admitted awareness of the absence of what you don’t.

Even Socrates, by admitting that what he did know was that he knew nothing, was implying that he DID know for certain that he knew nothing. The truth provided him with the awareness of his ignorance even though he could not properly explicate what the truth was. He knew what it wasn’t. He didn’t “lack any belief” at all in his knowledge – he DID know that he didn’t know.

Socrates didn’t have faith in his own capacity to fully know the truth - he had no faith in his current state of knowledge – but he had faith in the truth itself and in the truth being (or making itself) accessible to him in some sense.

By taking an atheistic position – that you do not believe God exists or “lack a belief in the existence of God” – you must, therefore, know what it means for God to exist and dismiss that belief based upon what you do believe. That is, you have entertained the belief and have dismissed it – that is the reason you apparently “lack” the belief.

THAT is quite a different thing from not having a belief that God exists, which means you have no idea what “God exists” means because you have no capacity to understand it and therefore have never entertained it. That, my friend, is what it means to “lack a belief.”

How would you know you “lack the belief” unless you have never entertained it and dismissed it?

Rocks and clouds “lack” beliefs in that sense. They don’t need to try to defend their true “lack of belief."

You, I don’t think do “lack a belief” in that sense, so you still need to defend your “lack" of belief.

You have dismissed the belief because you have considered it, considered what is entailed by holding it and intentionally dismissed the belief. That is not “lacking a belief” in any real sense, except that you think the belief is errant in some way.

Still requires faith in yourself and your ability to reason, in what you have permitted as the data upon which you base your dismissal and, very likely, some faith in others around you that share your purported “lack" of belief.

I, too, “lack” a belief that the world is a flat disk, but that would be because I have faith in mathematics, in science, in my own capacity to reason about such things, etc., etc. Again a whole lot of faith, but faith that can be defended.

Now it would be up to you to defend why you dismiss the proposition “God exists” by appealing to the faith required to believe the things that you do believe – i.e., those things you do have faith in – instead of assuming what you suppose is an invulnerable position that requires no defence.

You’re confusing different definitions of faith. You’re talking about having confidence or trust in a particular person or thing. The other definition of faith is “believing without evidence.” A third definition of “faith” is more or less synonymous with religion: “A worldview that relates to a supernatural entity or entities.”

When atheists say they have no faith, they often mean one or two of the latter two definitions. I have “faith” (confidence) in the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean science is somehow related to the supernatural. Also, I can justify my faith in the scientific method with evidence: it works. If you follow the scientific method, you can develop technologies that put people on the moon.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re confusing different definitions of faith. You’re talking about having confidence or trust in a particular person or thing. The other definition of faith is “believing without evidence.” A third definition of “faith” is more or less synonymous with religion: “A worldview that relates to a supernatural entity or entities.”

When atheists say they have no faith, they often mean one or two of the latter two definitions. I have “faith” (confidence) in the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean science is somehow related to the supernatural. Also, I can justify my faith in the scientific method with evidence: it works. If you follow the scientific method, you can develop technologies that put people on the moon.

No, actually, I think you are confusing what I mean by "faith.” I simply mean that every thinking being must, as a starting point, presume some things about reality. No one is exempt, not even Nixbits.

Those presumptions must be defended at some metaphysical level or other – which requires belief in the metaphysical principles by which even Nixbits has to defend his/her presumptions.

S/he can’t deflect his/her trust in those presumptions by accusing theists of having a different kind of “faith” than s/he has.

Accusing others of having “faith without evidence" is simply deflecting from justifying his/her “lack of belief.”

Even if some others have “faith without evidence,” that fact, in itself, doesn’t justify Nixbits’ recusing him/herself from defending why s/he lacks a belief in what s/he is completely capable of making sense of but claims “doesn’t exist.”

Atheism is claim that God doesn’t exist, it is not “lacking a belief" in God.

Again rocks and clouds “lack beliefs,” thinking beings believe or don’t believe based upon having reasons and those based upon faith in what are taken to be self-evident or grounding principles. In that sense, Nixbits can ONLY “lack a belief” in the existence of God after having considered and dismissed the notion based upon trust (faith) or confidence in those presumptions.

So the question remains, faith in what – which axioms and grounding metaphysical principles – has s/he founded his/her belief that God does not exist?

Nixbits can’t just dodge that question by claiming a “lack of belief” in God.

A rock might get away with it, but any rational person is not permitted that “out."

 

[Cheiron]

No, actually, I think you are confusing what I mean by "faith.” I simply mean that every thinking being must, as a starting point, presume some things about reality. No one is exempt, not even Nixbits.

Those presumptions must be defended at some metaphysical level or other – which requires belief in the metaphysical principles by which even Nixbits has to defend his/her presumptions.

S/he can’t deflect his/her trust in those presumptions by accusing theists of having a different kind of “faith” than s/he has.

Accusing others of having “faith without evidence" is simply deflecting from justifying his/her “lack of belief.”

Even if some others have “faith without evidence,” that fact, in itself, doesn’t justify Nixbits’ recusing him/herself from defending why s/he lacks a belief in what s/he is completely capable of making sense of but claims “doesn’t exist.”

Atheism is claim that God doesn’t exist, it is not “lacking a belief" in God.

Again rocks and clouds “lack beliefs,” thinking beings believe or don’t believe based upon having reasons and those based upon faith in what are taken to be self-evident or grounding principles. In that sense, Nixbits can ONLY “lack a belief” in the existence of God after having considered and dismissed the notion based upon trust (faith) or confidence in those presumptions.

So the question remains, faith in what – which axioms and grounding metaphysical principles – has s/he founded his/her belief that God does not exist?

Nixbits can’t just dodge that question by claiming a “lack of belief” in God.

A rock might get away with it, but any rational person is not permitted that “out."

I can see how that applies to science, but not to atheism. Atheism is not necessarily a claim that God doesn’t exist, although Victor Stenger did make such a claim in his book “God, the failed hypothesis.” However, there are a lot of atheists who are atheist because nobody has provided sufficient evidence (in their view) that God exists, such as myself.

I care about the truth and if I start accepting one God without evidence for His existence, then I must accept the rest too. And believing in every single religion will lead to a contradictory view of reality. That’s why atheism is for me the default position and any divergence from that position requires evidence. And so far, I have not seen enough evidence to change my position.

But I’ll accept your point that there is an element of faith in every worldview. We cannot exclude the possibility that we’re all being deceived by demons (as Descartes would say) or that we’re living in a computer simulation.

 

[Latinitas]

No, actually, I think you are confusing what I mean by "faith.” I simply mean that every thinking being must, as a starting point, presume some things about reality. No one is exempt, not even Nixbits.

Those presumptions must be defended at some metaphysical level or other – which requires belief in the metaphysical principles by which even Nixbits has to defend his/her presumptions.

S/he can’t deflect his/her trust in those presumptions by accusing theists of having a different kind of “faith” than s/he has.

Accusing others of having “faith without evidence" is simply deflecting from justifying his/her “lack of belief.”

Even if some others have “faith without evidence,” that fact, in itself, doesn’t justify Nixbits’ recusing him/herself from defending why s/he lacks a belief in what s/he is completely capable of making sense of but claims “doesn’t exist.”

Atheism is claim that God doesn’t exist, it is not “lacking a belief" in God.

Again rocks and clouds “lack beliefs,” thinking beings believe or don’t believe based upon having reasons and those based upon faith in what are taken to be self-evident or grounding principles. In that sense, Nixbits can ONLY “lack a belief” in the existence of God after having considered and dismissed the notion based upon trust (faith) or confidence in those presumptions.

So the question remains, faith in what – which axioms and grounding metaphysical principles – has s/he founded his/her belief that God does not exist?

Nixbits can’t just dodge that question by claiming a “lack of belief” in God.

A rock might get away with it, but any rational person is not permitted that “out."

You’re confusing different definitions of faith. You’re talking about having confidence or trust in a particular person or thing. The other definition of faith is “believing without evidence.” A third definition of “faith” is more or less synonymous with religion: “A worldview that relates to a supernatural entity or entities.”

When atheists say they have no faith, they often mean one or two of the latter two definitions. I have “faith” (confidence) in the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean science is somehow related to the supernatural. Also, I can justify my faith in the scientific method with evidence: it works. If you follow the scientific method, you can develop technologies that put people on the moon.

Both of you should read my posts above. Faith is the acceptance of a claim on authority. There’s a big confusion here. Faith is being used in a sense contrary to the accepted Catholic definition (yes, I know neither of you claim to be Catholic, but this is a Catholic forum). Faith is not based on probabilities, or presuppositions etc., but the infallible authority of God Who reveals. Again, see my post above.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Cheiron]

Both of you should read my posts above. Faith is the acceptance of a claim on authority. There’s a big confusion here. Faith is being used in a sense contrary to the accepted Catholic definition (yes, I know neither of you claim to be Catholic, but this is a Catholic forum). Faith is not based on probabilities, or presuppositions etc., but the infallible authority of God Who reveals. Again, see my post above.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

In that case, neither Peter Plato nor I have any faith (I think).

Careful, you’re confusing the articles of faith with the first principles of knowledge. While both admit of no demonstration, the reason for this indemonstrability is very different. The first principles of knowledge are obtained by sense-perception, and are thus said to be self-evident. The truths of faith on the other hand, far from being self-evident, are very obscure even after revelation and deep study of them. This is very different. The first principles of knowledge are undemonstrable because the principles of demonstration (the laws of logic, etc.) are gathered from perception. That is, the first principles of knolwedge are a priori with respect to the principles of demonstration. The truths of faith are not a priori, since they have to be revealed to even be known. The articles of faith are simply to sublime to admit of demonstration. The truth they contain surpasses the power of created reason. That’s a very different reason for the lack of proof.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

I don’t know what sublime is in the Catholic context and why that sublimity means that articles of faith don’t have to be demonstrated. Can you point me to a trustworthy source on this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I care about the truth and if I start accepting one God without evidence for His existence, then I must accept the rest too.

This doesn’t follow unless the ONLY reason you can possibly have for accepting any belief is because there is “evidence” for accepting the belief.

That isn’t so, because another very good reason for accepting some beliefs is that they provide a better explanation for the way things are than any of the alternatives. It is called abductive reasoning.

The other problem is that you cannot provide any “evidence” for your belief that ONLY evidence can substantiate belief. You would have to justify only accepting evidence for some other reason because there is no possible evidence that could convince anyone that ONLY evidence can be logically convincing.

Your accepting that only evidence can provide grounds for belief is defeated by the fact that there is no possible evidence that can show that evidence ALONE can serve as grounds for all beliefs.

There is, for example, the fact that a particular kind of God – Aquinas’ Ipsum Esse Subsistens – is far more explanatorily necessary than the gods of Mount Olympus. Therefore, you have something other than evidence by itself as good reason and justification for accepting the existence of the God of classical theism rather than “the rest” of the gods, too – explanatory necessity.

Another way of putting it is that you have complete faith in “evidence” but yet evidence cannot justify itself as the only foundation for your beliefs. There must be something else – some other reason why you trust evidence which cannot be justified by evidence itself since there isn’t and can’t be any evidence that evidence itself is the only justification for believing all the things that you or anyone else do believe.

You demonstrably have “faith” in evidence AND believe that without any good evidence, since evidence cannot logically justify your complete faith in its power to support your belief about it or faith in it.

Ergo, YOUR belief or faith in evidence fits the most disingenuous description of faith as “believing without evidence” since your belief in the power of “evidence” CANNOT itself be supported by evidence. YOU believe in evidence without evidence, so to speak. Speaking of faith.

And believing in every single religion will lead to a contradictory view of reality. That’s why atheism is for me the default position and any divergence from that position requires evidence. And so far, I have not seen enough evidence to change my position.

But I’ll accept your point that there is an element of faith in every worldview. We cannot exclude the possibility that we’re all being deceived by demons (as Descartes would say) or that we’re living in a computer simulation.

I don’t think we need to go that far because what we do need to come up with is a sufficient explanation for why things are the way they are and “they just are” isn’t a good explanation for anything. Yet, that “brute fact” view is what the atheist, in the final analysis, commits himself to.

It is one thing to admit not having a clear grasp of that sufficient explanation, another thing entirely to claim there isn’t one. A commitment to atheism, as far as I can tell, is just such a claim. There is no ultimate explanation (AKA God) … well, because there is no ultimate explanation.

Your claim amounts to “there is no ultimate explanation because there is no evidence of an ultimate explanation.” How would you know that without striving to honestly ascertain whether an ultimate explanation can be evidenced to begin with?

The endeavors of science and philosophy both presume an ultimate explanation or all philosophers and scientists should close up their offices and labs and go home or involve themselves in frivolous and whimsical pursuits.

I mean, what “evidence” could there possibly be to justify looking for ultimate explanations without a basic and prior commitment that the future discovery of evidence will eventually get us there even though that evidence doesn’t currently exist.

Ah, yes, the faith of the scientist and philosopher, no less than the theologian.

 

[PRmerger]

It takes no faith to have a lack of belief in something.

Interesting…
I find this statement to be a statement of great faith:

To accept premise 1 as true seems to me to assert knowledge about all physical matter of all types and at all scales and at all stages of the life-cycle of our universe and even outside the space-time of our universe (assuming such a concept even makes any sense). I’m not prepared to assert such knowledge.

IOW: what is being asserted is “I don’t know but I have faith that it** could** be…”

 

[PRmerger]

You’re confusing different definitions of faith. You’re talking about having confidence or trust in a particular person or thing.** The other definition of faith is “believing without evidence.”** A third definition of “faith” is more or less synonymous with religion: “A worldview that relates to a supernatural entity or entities.”

When atheists say they have no faith, they often mean one or two of the latter two definitions. I have “faith” (confidence) in the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean science is somehow related to the supernatural. Also, I can justify my faith in the scientific method with evidence: it works. If you follow the scientific method, you can develop technologies that put people on the moon.

Catholicism rejects any type of religious faith that is predicated on what I have bolded.

 

[Cheiron]

This doesn’t follow unless the ONLY reason you can possibly have for accepting any belief is because there is “evidence” for accepting the belief.

That isn’t so, because another very good reason for accepting some beliefs is that they provide a better explanation for the way things are than any of the alternatives. It is called abductive reasoning.

But how do you determine which explanation is better than the other? You need evidence to make a choice. Abductive reasoning is reasoning with evidence.

For example:
1: the lawn is wet
2: If it rains, the lawn gets wet
3: conclusion: it has rained.

1: the lawn is wet
2: If someone waters the lawn, the lawn gets wet
3: conclusion: somebody has watered the lawn.

Without evidence for either rain having happened or a watering can being used by someone, I say I’m not conviced that it has rained and I’m not convinced somebody watered the lawn. Without evidence, I don’t believe in any explanation. If evidence doesn’t matter, then I have to accept both explanations, because there is no difference between the two. Perhaps this was a rather poor example, because it could be perfectly true that people water their lawn in the rain, so accepting both doesn’t lead to a contradictory worldview.

When it comes to God or gods, matters are not much different. I’m not convinced any god exists. That’s why I call myself an atheist. I know that some people have tried to use abductive reasoning as evidence for God, but the God-explanation has consistently failed. Throughout the ages, God has been pushed further and further back as our knowledge increased. See also Victor Stengers book that I mentioned earlier.

The other problem is that you cannot provide any “evidence” for your belief that ONLY evidence can substantiate belief.

If anything better than evidence comes along, please give me an example.

Your accepting that only evidence can provide grounds for belief is defeated by the fact that there is no possible evidence that can show that evidence ALONE can serve as grounds for all beliefs.

So what else is there?

There is, for example, the fact that a particular kind of God – Aquinas’ Ipsum Esse Subsistens – is far more explanatorily necessary than the gods of Mount Olympus. Therefore, you have something other than evidence by itself as good reason and justification for accepting the existence of the God of classical theism rather than “the rest” of the gods, too – explanatory necessity.

Yes, if in the absence of evidence we decide we’re not going to multiply beyond necessity, then God wins the battle with the Greek gods.

But if you’re really going with that argument, then God is out of the picture too, because scientists can explain how the universe works without that assumption. So we’re back to atheism.

Another way of putting it is that you have complete faith in “evidence” but yet evidence cannot justify itself as the only foundation for your beliefs. There must be something else – some other reason why you trust evidence which cannot be justified by evidence itself since there isn’t and can’t be any evidence that evidence itself is the only justification for believing all the things that you or anyone else do believe.

…]

Ergo, YOUR belief or faith in evidence fits the most disingenuous description of faith as “believing without evidence” since your belief in the power of “evidence” CANNOT itself be supported by evidence. YOU believe in evidence without evidence, so to speak. Speaking of faith.

Scientists use evidence to construct a model of reality that works. They’ve put people on the moon and made pictures of Pluto. That is evidence that a worldview based on evidence works. When was the last time a theologian accomplished anything like that. You’re jumping to conclusions.

I don’t think we need to go that far because what we do need to come up with is a sufficient explanation for why things are the way they are and “they just are” isn’t a good explanation for anything. Yet, that “brute fact” view is what the atheist, in the final analysis, commits himself to.

There are plenty of atheist scientists who try to come up with an explanation for why things are the way they are. But if you’re looking for intent, then please provide evidence that there is intent behind the universe.

It is one thing to admit not having a clear grasp of that sufficient explanation, another thing entirely to claim there isn’t one. A commitment to atheism, as far as I can tell, is just such a claim. There is no ultimate explanation (AKA God) … well, because there is no ultimate explanation.

Well, you’re wrong. My atheism is not a commitment. I made no vow to be an atheist. It’s the result of my evidence-based worldview. If there is evidence of God or of several gods, then I’ll change my mind.

I’m not sure what you mean with ultimate explanation, but there are scientists trying to work on a Theory of Everything (with lots of capital lettters). Why can’t an ultimate explanation be natural? Why does it have to be God?

Your claim amounts to “there is no ultimate explanation because there is no evidence of an ultimate explanation.”

• as far as I can tell at this point and time. If new evidence comes along, I’ll adjust my beliefs accordingly.

I mean, what “evidence” could there possibly be to justify looking for ultimate explanations without a basic and prior commitment that the future discovery of evidence will eventually get us there even though that evidence doesn’t currently exist.

Because knowledge can help us develop new technologies that improve our lives, even if we will never come to an ultimate explanation.

Ah, yes, the faith of the scientist and philosopher, no less than the theologian.

Non-sequitur.

 

[PRmerger]

If anything better than evidence comes along, please give me an example.

No, Cheiron.

We’re asking for evidence that ONLY evidence can substantiate belief.

If you can’t provide…evidence…for this, then you have accepted something based on…
faith.

 

[PRmerger]

Another way of putting it is that you have complete faith in “evidence” but yet evidence cannot justify itself as the only foundation for your beliefs.

This is oh-so-pithy and oh-so-trenchant.

It is especially egregious to have someone espouse this faith-based belief who rejects faith-based belief.

 

[Cheiron]

No, Cheiron.

We’re asking for evidence that ONLY evidence can substantiate belief.

If you can’t provide…evidence…for this, then you have accepted something based on…
faith.

I offered an explanation in the very same post, a few lines further down. It works, that’s why I base my beliefs on evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

I offered an explanation in the very same post, a few lines further down. It works, that’s why I base my beliefs on evidence.

You only said, “What else is there?” which is, of course, NOT evidence, but merely rhetoric.

 

[PRmerger]

It works, that’s why I base my beliefs on evidence.

But this belief ^^, is based on…faith.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I offered an explanation in the very same post, a few lines further down. It works, that’s why I base my beliefs on evidence.

It works for what?

I would assume you mean to support the explanations. But the explanations must be arrived at independently of the evidence or you wouldn’t know what actually counts as evidence.

The evidence is evidence for some hypothesized explanation or other which has been surmised before all the evidence is gathered. The explanation is precisely what tells us what evidence counts as evidence.

 

[Latinitas]

In that case, neither Peter Plato nor I have any faith (I think).

I don’t know what sublime is in the Catholic context and why that sublimity means that articles of faith don’t have to be demonstrated. Can you point me to a trustworthy source on this?

As to the first point, it seems that you’re right, since neither of you claim to believe anything on authority.

What does sublime mean? It means it’s too high for created reason. Here’s an analogy. Consider the Incompleteness Theorems of Goedel. These theorems are indeed very profound, and of course, true. But, to the person untrained in mathematical logic, they’re nearly impossible to fully comprehend, nevermind demonstrate. That is, these theorems are above their current power to understand and prove. Similarly the mystery of the Trinity, for example, is very profound and also true. But to those of us here below, it’s impossible to understand or demonstrate. It has nothing to do with the Trinity being contrary to reason, we simply lack the ability as it were to prove it. Now, of course, in the case of the Incompleteness Theorems, one can acquire the necessary knowledge in this life to understand and prove them. Not so the Trinity (and other articles of faith) although our understanding will grow and we’ll see them a little more clearly, although always in a dark glass, as St. Paul says. The mysteries of faith are simply too profound for anyone on earth to prove. The saints see these truths intuitively and clearly, similar to the way that an advanced mathematical logician might intuitively and clearly and intuitively see the truth of the incompleteness theorems fully, although of course, in the case of the saints, they see the truths so clearly and intuitively that they have no need of proofs, whereas even the mathematical logician may need to rely on the proofs to help him understand.

Now, of course, God can make these truths known through revelation, in the same way that the mathematician can make known to a layman in a basic way the incompleteness theorems. In the case of Divine Revelation, God makes these truths credible through miracles and other ways. That is, I can demonstrate that 1) whatever God reveals must be true, 2) God has revealed the mysteries of faith, therefore the mysteries of faith must be true. It should be noted however, that faith does not rest on these syllogisms, but is an infused gift of God. Anyway, this is actually a deep question you bring up, so it’s hard not give a lot no answer. Of course, I should say that the analogy to the mathematician above is still imperfect, of course, but it does shed some light on what you’re asking.

I’m not really sure what you mean by “trustworthy” source. I can give some things to read by Catholic authors that explain this more fully, but some of them will use heavy theological and philosophical vocabulary that’s difficult to understand if you’re not trained in it.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Nixbits]

Peter Plato:

Even if some others have “faith without evidence,” that fact, in itself, doesn’t justify Nixbits’ recusing him/herself from defending why s/he lacks a belief in what s/he is completely capable of making sense of but claims “doesn’t exist.” Atheism is claim that God doesn’t exist, it is not “lacking a belief" in God.

I don’t recall ever making the claim that God does not exist. Perhaps Peter can provide evidence to the contrary. I do recall pointing out, on several occasions, that atheism is a term that is used for a wide range of opinions, one of which is a rejection of belief in a God or gods but without claiming that a God or gods do not exist. This is the so-called ‘weak’ or ‘negative’ atheist position. I think it perfectly justified to describe such a person as “lacking a belief” in God, inasmuch as ‘lacking’ means ‘being without’.

Peter argues that this requires faith in the person’s capacity to discern. I don’t agree. I suggest that it’s quite possible for atheists to have a reasonable confidence in their own ability to discern whether or not the arguments put forward for the existence of a God are compelling. But I wouldn’t use the word ‘faith’ to describe such confidence. Faith means complete trust or confidence in something. The confidence in question is more likely to be measured. In other words, atheists of this type think it most probable that the God claim is wrong, but would not go as far as claiming the complete trust or confidence that is the hallmark of faith. They admit the possibility that they may be wrong.