Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[JapaneseKappa]

With respect to God in all this you demonstrate a preference for the epistemic method of empiricism and a dislike for a priori (pure logic).

That is to deny the validity of a priori because you don’t like the fact that you cannot check the* a priori with empirical data. But that is to submit the a priori *to a test that cannot apply to it, especially in the case of God. The epistemic method of approaching and confirming the existence of God is not through the senses but through the spirit. Since even the existence of spirit is denied by atheism, atheism has excluded God from any epistemic confirmation.

But I didn’t deny the possibility that some a-priori reasoning could turn out to be right. The issue is that without checking, we simply can’t know if it is or not. Second, it is important to note that while the epistemic method has been successful at generating useful knowledge, a-priori reasoning has not. People who try (e.g. alchemists, the “christian science” movement) have all ended up failing epistemic tests. So it could be that your favorite religious a-priori arguments are special and correct, where all others have failed, or it could just be that religions have learned from those failures, and taken care to phrase their arguments in such a way that we don’t know how to test them

Ironically, atheism must also exclude the non-existence of God from being tested by the epistemic method of empiricism. Only by a convoluted form of *a priori *can the non-existence of God be asserted.

1. I just explicitly claimed the opposite, that it is in principle possible to test the non-existence of God. We just don’t know how to do the test right now.
2. Do you have a way to quantify convoluted-ness, or are you just casting aspersions?

 

[Aloysium]

The issue we’re talking about is more fundamental than this. You have reasons for believing in your “relational existence” and “transcendence” and so on. And because those **reasons **require your reason to be reliable you can’t use them as a basis for proving the reliability of your reason. Doing so would beg the question. It would be equivalent to saying: If I assume my reason is reliable, I can prove my reason is reliable!

That’s nice, but we’re facing the prospect of fallible reason and the above discovery gives us no means of dispelling this possibility.

I am speaking about something more real than “reasons”.
It is. Knowing what is, we can understand reality.
Philosophy that loses track of the truth is nonsense.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

… it is important to note that while the epistemic method has been successful at generating useful knowledge, a-priori reasoning has not.

1. I just explicitly claimed the opposite, that it is in principle possible to test the non-existence of God. We just don’t know how to do the test right now.
2. Do you have a way to quantify convoluted-ness, or are you just casting aspersions?

Theoretical physicists and mathematicians regularly practice a priori reasoning and have thus generated useful knowledge. When their method is checked by empirical testing, the a priori method is verified.

In the case of* a priori *,or natural, theology we cannot use empirical methods, but we can use deductive reasoning to infer our way to Deity. There is no way to infer our way to the non-existence of Deity, and I don’t see why you think some day we will. It just isn’t possible to empirically demonstrate the non-existence of a being who transcends the universe and who therefore is not subject to any empirical testing methods.

Also, the idea that theology does not lead to useful knowledge is insulting to Christians. Everything we know from Christ brings hope and joy into our hearts. Atheism brings no such results, and is therefore useless as a practical guide for discovering ultimate answers to ultimate questions… how we should live and what we must do with our lives.

 

[inocente]

How would you answer Russell?

I would say we’re not talking about some theoretical nicety here, so a priori arguments (both for or against God) are totally irrelevant. It’s just plain silly to bow down to a theory, to worship an hypothesis.

This is God Almighty we’re talking about, creator of the universe. Kind of a big entity to pretend there’s no evidence.

If God is a real person then of course evidence must exist. So if Russell never encountered God, if he never met God, fair enough, his decision was valid for him.

 

[inocente]

I agree with you here unless you are implying that there is sufficient evidence regarding God’s existence for all to decide in which case I’d disagree. I’d disagree because different people would assess evidence differently when you factor in the quantity, quality or type, and strength of the evidence. I also don’t think that it is bad to engage in fence-sitting when it comes to “beliefs” (theism, atheism, etc.). I usually come off the fence when I have actual ‘knowledge’.

When asked about their beliefs in polls, apparently an increasing number of people say ‘none’. Seems that many find theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. have no relevance to them. So they don’t even sit on a fence, they never even ask the question.

But I think if you do get as far as asking yourself the question, at some point you need to make a leap of faith one way or another or you’ll never come off the fence.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I think that it is spiritual poverty from which atheism comes from.

Remember no one can comes to the Son unless the Father wills it. And no one can reveal the Father unless Jesus makes it so. In this way we are predestined to know the Holy Spirit.

Remember Jesus says the first will become last and the last will become first. It is to us that the Holy Spirit is revealed, even though a large portion of men reject the everlasting Father. It is through us, those in unity with the Spirit of Truth, that enlightens the world. Those with knowledge of the Truth become the first and the last. It is our labor in Heaven and on earth to reveal Our Lord to the faithless. Those without faith become the least in the Kingdom. It is the Lord’s will that this is to be so.

 

[PRmerger]

II usually come off the fence when I have actual ‘knowledge’.

So let’s apply this to a life decision you have to make, hypothetically.

What “knowledge” would you have that would give you the impetus to ask your beloved to marry you?

And how would this “knowledge” differ from the “knowledge” you have of God’s existence?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What “knowledge” would you have that would give you the impetus to ask your beloved to marry you?

The first requirement would be the unquestionable evidence for existence of this hypothetical loved one. Everything else is secondary.

And how would this “knowledge” differ from the “knowledge” you have of God’s existence?

There is no evidence - much less an unquestionable one - of God’s existence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The first requirement would be the unquestionable evidence for existence of this hypothetical loved one. Everything else is secondary.

There is no evidence - much less an unquestionable one - of God’s existence.

The evidence of God’s existence can most directly be known by a personal encounter with God, by opening one’s heart as well as one’s head to such an encounter. Atheists are incline to open neither, not because they don’t see the evidence, but because they don’t want to see the evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would say we’re not talking about some theoretical nicety here, so a priori arguments (both for or against God) are totally irrelevant. It’s just plain silly to bow down to a theory, to worship an hypothesis.

This is God Almighty we’re talking about, creator of the universe. Kind of a big entity to pretend there’s no evidence.

If God is a real person then of course evidence must exist. So if Russell never encountered God, if he never met God, fair enough, his decision was valid for him.

Aquinas never asked us to worship a hypothesis.

Being a relativist, Russell’s decision was valid for him; but he failed to recognize that he never opened his heart as well as his head to any evidence whatever for the existence of God. He had become an agnostic in his teen years, hardly a recommendation for a well thought out decision of such tremendous significance.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The evidence of God’s existence can most directly be known by a personal encounter with God, by opening one’s heart as well as one’s head to such an encounter. Atheists are incline to open neither, not because they don’t see the evidence, but because they don’t want to see the evidence.

Amen, Charlemagne, Amen.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The evidence of God’s existence can most directly be known by a personal encounter with God, by opening one’s heart as well as one’s head to such an encounter. Atheists are incline to open neither, not because they don’t see the evidence, but because they don’t want to see the evidence.

Your assumption about the “desire” of those millions and billions of atheists is “uncharitable” to the extreme. “They don’t WANT to see the evidence???” You accuse them of being dishonest. If I had moderator power, you would be banned at this moment for violating the most important rule of conduct of the board. And, of course you are not qualified to say what goes on in the mind of those atheists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your assumption about the “desire” of those millions and billions of atheists is “uncharitable” to the extreme. “They don’t WANT to see the evidence???” You accuse them of being dishonest. If I had moderator power, you would be banned at this moment for violating the most important rule of conduct of the board. And, of course you are not qualified to say what goes on in the mind of those atheists.

Not true. While I cannot say what goes on in the minds of all atheists, I can certainly tell what went on in my mind when I was an atheist.

I didn’t desire to believe.

If an atheist desired to believe, he would certainly have the incentive to believe and nothing to stop him.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Not true. While I cannot say what goes on in the minds of all atheists, I can certainly tell what went on in my mind when I was an atheist.

I didn’t desire to believe.

Do you really think that you were a representative of ALL atheists? Because this is what you said:

Atheists are incline(d) to open neither, not because they don’t see the evidence, but because they don’t want to see the evidence.

That is uncharitable and seriously insulting.

If an atheist desired to believe, he would certainly have the incentive to believe and nothing to stop him.

Except that pesky lack of evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is uncharitable and seriously insulting.

So you want to believe in God if you could just see the evidence?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So you want to believe in God?

I would be very happy if I could have a reason to believe that God exists.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would be very happy if I could have a reason to believe that God exists.

Well that’s a good start. The fact that you are here at CA signals the start.

I wish you the very best on the endless journey of discovery.

 

[PRmerger]

The first requirement would be the unquestionable evidence for existence of this hypothetical loved one. Everything else is secondary.

Again, try to think in the abstract, Vera.

And just take the question on its own merit.

There is no evidence - much less an unquestionable one - of God’s existence.

This is the most uninformed of uninformed statements made on this thread.

Examine all of the numerous proofs for God’s existence,(some are available here) then come back and talk about which one is the one you find to be the best, and why you find it wanting, and then we can chat further.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, try to think in the abstract, Vera.

You asked a direct question, to which I provided a direct answer. You asked, what kind of evidence would I need if I desired to marry to someone. The answer is that I would need to have concrete, irrefutable evidence of that person’s existence. Once that is done, there would be other requirements - obviously. But to discuss that would be premature at this juncture.

Examine all of the numerous proofs for God’s existence,(some are available here) then come back and talk about which one is the one you find to be the best, and why you find it wanting, and then we can chat further.

Bad approach. Number one problem is that the word “proof” is only applicable in a formal (axiomatic) system. In open (deductive) systems you can only hope for convincing (preferably overwhelming) evidence. I am familiar with those 20 “proofs” presented by Kreeft. (Who is not?) Even if one of them would be convincing, it would only lead to an impersonal, deistic creator - but of course none of them is convincing to anyone who does not a-priori believe it. Now, if you think that you have access to an overwhelming evidence that the “Christian God” exists, please open a thread and we can discuss it.

 

[PRmerger]

You asked a direct question, to which I provided a direct answer. You asked, what kind of evidence would I need if I desired to marry to someone. The answer is that I would need to have concrete, irrefutable evidence of that person’s existence.

Ok.

And then what evidence would you have that would cause you to pursue the relationship?