Leaving Theism

[LilyM]

I’m not sure that sexual reproduction is irrational vs asexual. I think, and I’m no biologist that a greater genetic diversity is inherent in sexual reproduction and thus a stronger species emerges. I may be wrong, but I think that sexual reproduction is by far a more evolved method of perpetuation of the species.

There’s other and easier ways of getting genetic diversity - for example viruses have developed seemingly greater capacity for mutation which helps to ensure their survival.

 

[theistgal]

Just to get things straight in my head.

I totally sympathize. I have left theism twice during my lifetime (during my last bout, I wound up as a moderator at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board! so I’ve been there! ).

May I suggest a book that helped me a lot both those times? It’s by Martin Gardner and called “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener” (you should be able to find it on Amazon pretty easily). In it he explains his reasons for being, among other things, a theist.

The reason it helped me is that Gardner is widely known as a skeptic - founder of CSICOP, editor of “Skeptical Inquirer” magazine, mathematician, among other things. Yet he’s also a theist (though no longer a Christian) and his reasons for being one are quite interesting and compelling (at least to me).

I know it’s kind of an “argument from authority” - sorry about that. There are other voices to listen to and other good books to read. Still, if you’re really still teetering on the theism/atheism fence, I think Gardner’s book would be well worth reading for you.

One more thing - don’t be afraid to just take a break from religion altogether for a while. If God really exists, He’ll understand; if He doesn’t, then He won’t care.

 

[GreenLantern]

1. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

I dislike the phrase “omnibenvolent” since it implies a far too restrictive attribute on an omnipotent being. It creates the impression that it would be impossible for God to act in a malevolent manner.

I prefer the term “perfectly good” as that gives the implication that God could in theory act malevolently but just that he never does.

 

[GreenLantern]

I totally sympathize. I have left theism twice during my lifetime (during my last bout, I wound up as a moderator at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board! so I’ve been there! ).

Did you just suddenly leave that board or were there any, “interesting” threads that popped up?

 

[Benedictus]

There’s other and easier ways of getting genetic diversity - for example viruses have developed seemingly greater capacity for mutation which helps to ensure their survival.

It’s true that mutations do cause genetic diversity. Unfortunately, too much mutation can be a bad thing. The same mechanism that produces genetic diversity tends to cause numerous diseases, cancer, and death.

 

[Ryan29]

People don’t need god centered religion, if you have a general understanding that all living things course through life, we use one another to get ahead, we love, we lose, we gain, we suffer, we are victorious, we live, and we die.

We as humans don’t need to know how the Earth and universe works, that’s not practical thinking, anymore than needing to know how pond scum collects on the surface of the water. When we are struggling because we are animals that suffer under a weight of impermnance. The only thing eternal is the fear of humans of death and the denial what is, was. If there was no death, there would be no need for an afterlife and god centered religions.

 

[cpayne]

“People don’t need god-centered religion.”

Well, people don’t “need” any sort of religion at all. I would guess that most of the people on this forum have a “God-centered” religion because God exists and should be taken into account. If God does not exist, then we’re simply deluded, no matter what we might “need.”

 

[RobNY]

No problem with them at all.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of them isn’t too great. But I’ve heard Richard Swinburne does them. Perhaps that would be worth a try?

I’m pretty familiar with the literature, but I’m always looking for new stuff to read so any suggestions will be appreciated. I used to believe based on Plantinga’s formulation of the Ontological Argument, but I think that other philosophers have given good responses to it. I’ve also read Aquinas, but I don’t think that the arguments work.

The ontological argument is the toughest one. Perhaps you’d prefer a model formulation of the argument, i.e., If God is possible, God exists necessarily, God is possible, therefore etc. Of course, that God is possible is the tough one to get to, but if you’re already sympathetic to theism, it seems to shift it in your direction.

Other than that, I’m not sure where to go. Like I said, I’m not very well versed, so I’ll spit out a few things which I’ve noticed. W.L. Craig has a pretty extensive amount of work on the web… I’m not sure if you like his stuff or have read it. He seems pretty well known. I know he has some version of the kalaam cosmological argument.

You may also want to read some theistic philosophers. Recently I’ve been browsing the blogs of two very interesting Christian theists,

Alexander Pruss:

alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/

and

William Vallicella:

maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/

and I’ve been reading this guy for a while

Michael Liccione:

mliccione.blogspot.com/

I think if you browse what they have you might start to see how some intelligent theist philosophers talk about religion. I’ve seen Alexander Pruss give lots of interesting takes on theistic arguments. All these men are well versed in philosophy.

As for other arguments, there’s a few which I like.

I like Kreeft’s take on the argument from desire:

peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

I find it resonates very deeply with the longing I have for complete happiness. If you find theism as attractive as I do, it’s perhaps because you agree with me that it gives the only reasonable answer to how man’s longing for happiness can be fulfilled. This does seem to point towards God. See if you like it. I’d be glad to discuss it with you.

You said:

I have no idea. If I decide to leave the Church, it will require a complete re-evaluation of my beliefs.

Now, my first thought is this: your morals will need a major overhaul.

Like you, I’ve also had troubles with belief in God. I completely understand and sympathize with what you are going through. One of the reasons why I could never be an atheist, ultimately, is the problem of morality.

I could never find a sufficient justification for morality in any atheistic philosophy.

Now, I do find that there are certain things which are definitely good or definitely evil. But such absolute morality can only exist if some sort of God exists.

For a long time I vacillated on this and other issues, because I wasn’t sure how I’d get an atheist to agree with them, but I realized that as long as I believed the premises to be true, on good reason, I ought to grant the conclusion. Having a good reason is necessary, but having a consensus is not. Don’t forget that.

Oh yeah,

another theistic blog,

prosblogion.ektopos.com/

I got a link to an interesting argument there. It’s a formulation of a fine-tuning argument.

Dr. James Beebe on the Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s existence:

youngphilosophers.org/2008/03/fine-tuning-argument-for-existence-of.html

One last argument: from mystical experience.

Read up on the great mystics, especially our Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, etc (non-Christian mystics are also permissible). It follows rather trivially if they had authentic mystical experiences that God exists. What’s even more interesting is the claim that I’ve seen in most books I’ve read on prayer-- that deep infused prayer is an open possibility for all Christians (cf. Thomas Merton, “What is Contemplation?” and Thomas Dubay, “The Fire Within” and Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP in “The Three Ages of the Interior Life” and Fr. Juan Arintero OP in “The Mystical Evolution”). Taste and see the goodness of the Lord, I suppose.

Enjoy! And relax. God bless.

-Rob

 

[cpayne]

I have no major comment to make here. I just wanted to say I think “prosblogion” is the best name for a religious blogsite I’ve ever seen.

 

[RobNY]

I have no major comment to make here. I just wanted to say I think “prosblogion” is the best name for a religious blogsite I’ve ever seen.

I think I’d have to agree.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you familiar with Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)? In my honest opinion this is the best argument I have ever heard for God.

Here it is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

Plantinga restricts his argument, at least as presented above, to evolutionary matters. However, the basic idea behind it can be stated in far more general terms, which I will attempt to do below:

If God does not exist, then there is no purpose or design to anything in the world. If there is no purpose or design to anything in the world, then our mind ultimately has no purpose or design. If so, then why do we know that it is capable of arriving at the truth of God’s nonexistence? Why did it come to be always capable of forming true beliefs? If the mind is just an undesigned aggreggate of neurons, then how do we know that we can we trust these neurons?

Since this argument concerns how we know things, it can be used to override other arguments against God that operate within the atheistic system that this argument attacks.

I’ve discussed this many times in the past. If you want to read my debates, they are in the database.

 

[jbehan]

Hey guys. Thanks for all the suggestions.

Story of Father Zosima and a woman

The Brothers Karamazov is a great book.

Have you read CS Lewis?GK Chesterton? Newman? Also I highly recommend a book called A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken

t’s by Martin Gardner and called “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener” (you should be able to find it on Amazon pretty easily).

Yup, I’ve read most of Lewis and Chesterton and some Newman. The books sound interesting - I’ll order them from B&N.

I prefer the term “perfectly good” as that gives the implication that God could in theory act malevolently but just that he never does.

That sounds reasonable. Good correction.

Enjoy! And relax. God bless.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

f God does not exist, then there is no purpose or design to anything in the world. If there is no purpose or design to anything in the world, then our mind ultimately has no purpose or design. If so, then why do we know that it is capable of arriving at the truth of God’s nonexistence? Why did it come to be always capable of forming true beliefs? If the mind is just an undesigned aggreggate of neurons, then how do we know that we can we trust these neurons?

I’ve heard the argument before, but I haven’t investigated it in detail. Off the top of my head, why isn’t it reasonable to assume that evolution would instill us with true beliefs, without any need for a Designer?

 

[Hastrman]

I’ve heard the argument before, but I haven’t investigated it in detail. Off the top of my head, why isn’t it reasonable to assume that evolution would instill us with true beliefs, without any need for a Designer?

Because false beliefs are often more useful in passing on genes, and that’s the sole consideration.

But I deny the argument from design; I deny the ontological argument; I deny that Pascal’s Wager is intended as a proof (it is not addressing the logical truth or falsity of any statement whatsoever; it is addressing the preferability of a course of action—two entirely separate considerations); and I deny your definition of reason.

Reason is the discursive or inferential faculty, the ability to follow a chain of logic. It is only seeking for explanations when one is performing reasoning after efficient (how did X get that way) and, in a sense, final (what is X for) causes–it is not seeking explanations when one is reasoning after material causes (what is X like) or formal causes (what is X).

Forget the arguments of the already-convinced. I invite you to read a book by a (then) agnostic for non-believers, that showed that belief in God is logical–indeed, that the alternative is probably not logical.

The book is Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Think About God. Not to put to fine a point on it, but anyone who hasn’t read it, doesn’t know…how to think about God.

 

[Hastrman]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.

False. Reason is the power of following a chain of logic. It is only explanatory when dealing with efficient causes (how did X get that way).

1. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

More importantly He is the subsistent act of being, the essence of existence itself.

1. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Only if the benefits of so living outweighed the penalties for being wrong.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

Nihilism–nothing exists or matters–is the simplest of all philosophies, followed by Monism–only God/Existence exists.

Are those more rational than Theism? Tell me, who has greater faith in syllogistic reasoning, a Christian or a Shingon Buddhist?

Besides, it is obviously not true that the simpler philosophy is always the rational position–the simplest explanation for all natural phenomena is either they’re illusions, or they’re all miracles. The fewer systems you need to posit, the simpler your philosophy.

I’ve a feeling you’re misapplying Occam’s Razor.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

How does atheism explain existence, by which is meant, the fact that “to be” or “to exist” can be predicated of anything?

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

You just decided to convert to Buddhism, not agnosticism–monism and nihilism are simpler, remember?

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

Actually, no, since souls aren’t “objects” except in the sense that they are objects of thought. And Dawkins among others act like there is an objective moral law–why else would they exist in a perpetual state of moral outrage, not to say high dudgeon?

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position

This is a faulty syllogism, I’m afraid, since I disproved your minor premise. I think–you didn’t define simplicity, atheism, or theism at any point in your argument and were using the terms ambiguously.

I advise you to read Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Think About God”. He was an agnostic when he wrote it, and he shows the weaknesses of most of the arguments for God before showing the strong one: the modified Cosmological Argument, or Argument from radical contingency.

 

[jbehan]

Dear Hastrman:

Thanks for your response.

Reason is the power of following a chain of logic. It is only explanatory when dealing with efficient causes (how did X get that way).

Our accounts of reason aren’t mutually exclusive.

More importantly He is the subsistent act of being, the essence of existence itself.

Agreed. But, it is important to remember He is more than just Being.

Only if the benefits of so living outweighed the penalties for being wrong

I don’t think Pascal’s Wager is good argument. It presupposes utilitarianism. We can discuss this more, if you would like.

Nihilism–nothing exists or matters–is the simplest of all philosophies, followed by Monism–only God/Existence exists.

Are those more rational than Theism? Tell me, who has greater faith in syllogistic reasoning, a Christian or a Shingon Buddhist?

I agree that Nihilism and Monism are simpler philosophies, but they have almost no explanatory power. We’re not just looking for the simplest philosophy.

Besides, it is obviously not true that the simpler philosophy is always the rational position–the simplest explanation for all natural phenomena is either they’re illusions, or they’re all miracles. The fewer systems you need to posit, the simpler your philosophy.

I’ve a feeling you’re misapplying Occam’s Razor.

Again, the illusion / miracle hypothesis doesn’t really have any explanatory power.

How does atheism explain existence, by which is meant, the fact that “to be” or “to exist” can be predicated of anything?

I’m not claiming that atheism has the answers to important philosophical problems. I don’t think atheism can explain existence particularly well (though there have been notable attempts). The problem is: Christianity doesn’t explain it particularly well either.

Actually, no, since souls aren’t “objects” except in the sense that they are objects of thought.

You’re right – this was a fumble on my part. Guess I slipped into Cartesian dualism without thinking!

I advise you to read Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Think About God”.

I’ll definitely read this. Thanks for your help!

 

[Mirdath]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Well… hi. I’m one of Them.

I’m not going to dwell on arguments. Arguments against faith are pointless, arguments for God I could talk smack about all day and not convince a soul, and the position I’d take up is the one you want out of. Contarini worked your logic over pretty well, and he’s quite right about the whole ‘simple’ and ‘object’ thing. Pay attention to him and to cpayne – they know their stuff.

So, yeah. Losing your faith, it does blow chunks. Hope you’re having a better, or at least quicker, time of it than I did.

Absolute best thing you could do for you – not your faith, not God, not Madalyn Murray O’Hair, but you personally – is to find a friend or a few you can talk about this with, friends who won’t turn on you if you pick ‘wrong’. Bit of a tall order, but it’s doable. If you’re a regular at a church and on friendly terms with the priest, he might do in a pinch. Just because he’s a man of the cloth doesn’t mean he hasn’t had second thoughts about the whole shebang. Sure, he’ll be plumping for you to return, but if he’s any good at his job as a shepherd, spiritual leader, and counselor he won’t be a jerk about it.

Second, don’t let things beyond your control get you down too much. Yeah, it’s a miserable process, but if it starts to weigh on you, ignore it for a while. Put it in God’s hands, whether or not they’re there to catch it, and go out for a walk. No matter what anyone says, people don’t choose to have crises of faith. And besides, what kind of good, merciful God expects the blind to tell him what color robe he’s wearing?

Best of luck, and may your dark night pass quickly, leaving you calmer and happier – wherever you do end up

also – hi cpayne, how’s it going?

 

[jbehan]

Best of luck, and may your dark night pass quickly, leaving you calmer and happier – wherever you do end up

Hi. Thanks for your advice. Did you find leaving your faith changed your outlook on life?

 

[BlaineTog]

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

Why? Is it simpler to claim that the light bulb turns on because you flick the switch, or because flicking the switch closes a circuit which allows electricity to flow along a wire, pass through and heat a filament, the byproduct of which is light?

Simply doesn’t mean “more correct,” or even more reasonable, just simpler. Now if you have to guess with limited information, choosing the simpler option will give you a better chance of being right, but simplicity still has nothing to do with the truth of a matter. You are best off drawing on all your knowledge to try to determine which of the two options rings truer and then tentatively going with that one.

- Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

Christianity explains the existence of the universe better (ie more persuasively; Atheist is pretty much stuck with “it just happens,” which isn’t really an explanation at all), but Atheism explains the problem of pain better (ie more persuasively; I certainly think Christianity does a more than adequate job, but the argument that murder and drought exist because God loves us is a tough one to stomach emotionally).

 

[BobCatholic]

One of the biggest faults I’ve found with atheism is the following questions

Why should I be unselfish?

What is so special about us humans that we deserve any human rights at all? After all, we’re just a lucky bunch of cells, according to certain atheistic Darwinian evolutionists.

The concept of human rights is based upon human dignity which is based on the ultimate dignity: the dignity of God, as we are made in the image of God.

I’ve already seen what is the result of the materialistic, atheistic governments. Lots of blood in the streets. No thanks.

Also, why should we have hospitals, in a Darwinian “only the fittest survive” framework? Why should we have social programs in such a framework? Why should we have charities in such a framework? Why should we not have slavery in such a framework? Remember, we’re just smart monkeys, why not?

Tough questions. I never got answers from atheists who were asked this, which satisfied my hatred of dehumanization and its effects on society.

 

[mathematician]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

It seems to me that you are making the major mistake of trying to treat God as if he was a scientific hypothesis, and then of dismissing him because he is not necessary as a scientific hypothesis. If that is what God was, then Richard Dawkins expectation would have been fulfilled long ago, and theistic religion would have disappeared in the face of the explanatory power of science. (Although, having said that, you might find it more than a little enlightening to consult a book called “The Mind of God”, by the physicist Paul Davies.)

But that is not what God is. The primary reason for believing in God is the felt need for worship, and, judging by the tone of your post, you are well aware of that need. If your heart doesn’t want to be an atheist, then sooner or later your mind won’t succeed in being one either.