The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[Leela]

Well, no. It comes down to the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of anything at all supernatural.

Now that fact doesn’t mean there’s proof positive that there is no supernatural – but it does mean that there is no good reason to accept supernatural claims at all.

I’ve become more and more doubtful about the utility of “evidence” and “reason” as a cudgel to be used against believers. Believers generally do claim to have good reasons for their beliefs and value evidence as much as the next person even if the next person happens to be an atheist. We can argue about what reasons are better and worse than what other reasons and what evidence ought to be considered convincing and what our standards for justifying beliefs ought to be like, but claims that believers are simply irrational or not attentive to the evidence don’t hold water.

I do think there is much to be said about the notion that faith is often used as a license to believe in spite of an inability to provide good reasons for belief, an inability to provide counterarguments to the arguments for disbelief, and evidence to support their claims, but I think a given believer may be just as respectful of evidence and reason as a given atheist. There are some very intelligent and thoughtful believers out there, and I don’t think that we can explain away the fact that such people have come to some different conclusions than ours by just saying that they must be being unreasonable or inattentive to evidence.

I don’t think that there is anything more to be made of the term “evidence” than whatever experiences may help us get consensus about a belief. If that is the case, then we all probably believe lots of things without having any way to convince others of the truth of all of our beliefs. I don’t subscribe to any nuclear anihilation theory of evidence that treats certain experiences as so powerful that no one can resist adopting a certain belief without denying their obvious validity as a sheer matter of will. The ability of a new experience to change a belief will always depend on current beliefs as well as past experiences, so what is presented as strong evidence by one person may not convince another. When that happens, it doesn’t mean that the one let unconvinced just doesn’t care at all about evidence.

Of course, when it comes to making scientific claims, we are engaged in a public project where consensus is always important. One doesn’t get to claim something is scientifically true without having any way of trying to get consensus on the matter or one is simply not doing science. Likewise, if one uses a belief as justification for trying to enforce moral obligations on others, then that person is participating in a public project where demands for evidence will need to be met. But if one holds a belief with no demand that anyone else adjust their behavior to that belief, then the person holding such a private belief need face no obligation to provide evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[tm30]

“Faith” – if we’re defining faith as belief in the absence of evidence…which it has to be, since no one would sensibly describe something that they have evidence for as “faith” – is completely and totally unnecessary. I base all of my decisions on evidence, for example.

Since you base all of your decisions based on “evidence”, I find this to be an ironic statement. What proof do you have that I, or anyone else in this audience for your post, actually exists? If the police asked you to identify any one of us in a lineup, how would you do so?

 

[ContegoFides]

I don’t agree. Pascal’s Wager makes the assumption that belief can be chosen, that belief is subject to the will in the simple sense.

For me, “belief” is the state of being convinced that a proposition is true. Even if I were to determine that it’s beneficial for me to believe in your particular god – and that is far from a foregone conclusion – I would be unable to make myself believe solely on that basis.

For me – and I can’t speak for others here – belief isn’t the result of deciding what’s “safest” to believe…

But at any rate, I don’t agree with the risk/reward formula. There are hundreds of other religions, any of which could be the one true faith (and Christianity and its “inspired” scriptures may, in fact, have been the product of some evil spirit attempting to mislead people away from that true faith)…

It is laudable to seek the Truth in the absolute sense of the word. I agree that one should base one’s philosophy on the Truth.

However, the problem is that it is impossible to empircally know the Truth - whatever that is. Positivism simply cannot answer some questions because they are not subject to measurement. Will you “fail to believe” in something simply because it cannot be proven positivistically?

Doing so makes no sense even in the purely physical arena of positivism. For example, it is impossible to empirically prove the physics of the center of a collapsed mass (black hole, singularity). You cannot observe it, so no matter how fancy your theories are regarding the physics of collapsed masses, you cannot “prove” what is at the center. Clearly, we have positivistically proven the existence of collapsed masses; however, positivism can not prove anything regarding what is in the center because it cannot be measured. Note, it is not that we lack the technology to measure the center of a collapsed mass, but rather the intrinsic nature of the center of a collapsed mass will always keep it hidden from us. Thus, science will always be at a loss to prove what is there and how it behaves, even if we are able through theory to (in our belief) harmonize quantum mechanics and general relativity at the center of the collapsed mass.

You might choose to believe what is in the center of the collapsed mass based on physical theories worked out via rigorous mathematical treatement; however, you have no actual evidence. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from believing that something exists there.

Therefore, I submit that it does make sense to belive in things that cannot be proven positivistically. If so, then risk analysis is helpful in trying to find the BEST understanding of the Truth in the absolute sense. Accordingly, Pascal’s Wager is relevant to determining which path is most likely to result in belief in the Truth.

Pascal’s Wager does, indeed, make the assumption that belief can be chosen, that it is subject to the will. However, your implication is that belief - at least your belief - cannot be subject to the will. This assertion is not correct, the assumption of Pascal’s Wager is correct.

You can choose to believe in anything you want; people do it all the time, usually to advance some personal, self-pleasing agenda. People clearly have free will and can, based on “evidence,” risk/reward, or any other basis, choose to believe any particular philosophy. Belief or absense thereof always boils down to a matter of faith, a choice - even in the case of atheism as you have defined it.

I submit that the odds of choosing the “correct” faith, if there is one, are slim to none and that the most honest position is not to choose any

In a vacuum, you would be correct.

However, we are not living in a vacuum.

You can analyze and judge each religion based on the merits of its teachings. Based on that analysis, right reason will provide a good indication of which religion actually preaches the Truth in an absolute sense, especially if there is a God - a “first cause” that created the universe.

Christianity is the ONLY major religion that teaches that it’s founder is God Himself - not just any “god” - but the creator of the entire physical universe we can see. Christianity holds that God incarnated Himself in the person of Jesus - fully human and fully divine. Jesus Himself claimed to be God.

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or actually God. I’m sure you will argue either liar or lunatic, but right reason shows that neither is likely given the available positivistic evidence, as well as the behavior and miracles performed by the Saints. (By the way, I will immediately reject as irrelevant any argument based on the grave evils committed in the name of Christianity - a philosophy must be judged on its own merits and those who actually adhere to it, and not based on those who fail to live according to the philosophy).

If Jesus was God, and if God is the creator of the universe, then Jesus defines what is real and Truth in the absolute sense. The Church founded by Jesus proclaims that Truth, especially since Jesus (God) promised to protect His Church from becoming dominated by error. Jesus’ authority is what gives the Catholic Church its credibility with regards to the Truth in the absolute sense.

No other major religion can make this claim or use the same line of logic. No other cult can offer the example of the Saints, or the endurance of the Church.

While not positivistic evidence, the logic makes sense (unless you argue Jesus was liar or lunatic) and points to the Truth in the absolute sense - even though you may not understand it yet.

An act of will of belief is sufficient to start down the path of feeling. That act of will starts one down the path of 1) learning and 2) growing in relationship with God. That experience is what brings a solid faith (trust without reservation) and the “feeling” that you seem to be referring to.

 

[ContegoFides]

I don’t think that there is anything more to be made of the term “evidence” than whatever experiences may help us get consensus about a belief. If that is the case, then we all probably believe lots of things without having any way to convince others of the truth of all of our beliefs. I don’t subscribe to any nuclear anihilation theory of evidence that treats certain experiences as so powerful that no one can resist adopting a certain belief without denying their obvious validity as a sheer matter of will. The ability of a new experience to change a belief will always depend on current beliefs as well as past experiences, so what is presented as strong evidence by one person may not convince another. When that happens, it doesn’t mean that the one let unconvinced just doesn’t care at all about evidence.

I agree that evidence, outside of the realm of positivism, will not by itself convince anyone. As a Catholic, I think this fact is by Divine design. If we are to have free will, an actual ability to chose, then it will be impossible to prove the existence of God. If we could, then there would be no meaningful choice to believe or not to believe.

I chose to believe in a creator God because right reason points to (but does not prove positivistically) the Truth of His existence. My choice is reinforced by the risk/reward analysis of Pascal’s Wager, and by the nihilistic meaninglessness that results from lack of belief in God. I choose to believe that the Catholic Church proclaims the fullness of Truth, as opposed to some other religion, because of Jesus’ claimed authority as God, and because of the true goodness and miracles that result when people actually and fully follow Catholic teaching. In the end, I have faith because God gave me that gift (which is there fore the asking - on God’s terms rather than ours).

I agree that I cannot convince an atheist to abandon his or her lack of faith. I can ontologically show that faith in God is more rational than lack of faith, on both a personal and societal level, but there’s nothing I can say that can actually logically compel faith in God. Personally, I wouldn’t want to take the risk of lack of faith, even if I did not have a desire to seek the Truth.

 

[Leela]

You can choose to believe in anything you want; people do it all the time, usually to advance some personal, self-pleasing agenda. People clearly have free will and can, based on “evidence,” risk/reward, or any other basis, choose to believe any particular philosophy. Belief or absense thereof always boils down to a matter of faith, a choice - even in the case of atheism as you have defined it.

Really? People can just make themselves believe something that they currently do not believe? I don’t think I have this power, but I you think you have it, perhaps you can demonstrate. This ought to be a simple one for you: make yourself believe that your body is composed of an even number of cells at this moment. There is already a 50% chance that it is actually true, so you’ll only need to use your amazing power of will to believe things to get past the remaining 50%. How about making yourself believe that there is a tennis ball sized pearl buried somewhere underneath Lincoln Financial Field in Philly.

I’m being facetious of course. The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that in order to believe something you have to actually be convinced that it is true. There is no way to overcome disbelief on willpower. Someone can want to believe in God all she wants and still not be able to believe what seems implausible to her.

Best,
Leela

 

[tm30]

Really? People can just make themselves believe something that they currently do not believe? I don’t think I have this power, but I you think you have it, perhaps you can demonstrate.

I don’t believe that I’m going to get into a terrible car wreck, but my car insurance is evidence that I believe otherwise. .

Markets are built on people who take positions with the strong conviction that their beliefs about the market are “right”, then put on hedges with the same conviction that they are “wrong”.

Point being, Paschal’s theory is nothing more than the ultimate “hedge”. And “hedging” is conventional human behavior. So, yes, it’s indeed possible to make yourself believe something you currently don’t. It happens all the time.

The origins of faith could not be based on a hedge, however, since there was nothing to hedge against (assuming there was no belief in an afterlife before man came to believe in a Creator). Thus, the origin of faith in God can only be supernatural at its root.

But one does not need faith to know that faith exists. It is self-evident even though it cannot be described by the senses. And so, if the existence of faith can be agreed upon, moreso the existence of God.

 

[Leela]

I don’t believe that I’m going to get into a terrible car wreck, but my car insurance is evidence that I believe otherwise. .

Markets are built on people who take positions with the strong conviction that their beliefs about the market are “right”, then put on hedges with the same conviction that they are “wrong”.

Point being, Paschal’s theory is nothing more than the ultimate “hedge”. And “hedging” is conventional human behavior. So, yes, it’s indeed possible to make yourself believe something you currently don’t. It happens all the time.

The origins of faith could not be based on a hedge, however, since there was nothing to hedge against (assuming there was no belief in an afterlife before man came to believe in a Creator). Thus, the origin of faith in God can only be supernatural at its root.

But one does not need faith to know that faith exists. It is self-evident even though it cannot be described by the senses. And so, if the existence of faith can be agreed upon, moreso the existence of God.

What your examples illustrate is that one can behave as hough something were true even if she is not sure that it actually is true–in fact, even if she thinks it is probably not true. But behaving as though something were true (going to church on Sundays, not eating meat on Fridays, etc.) and actually believing that it is true are separate issues.

Pascals’s Wager is not supposed to be an argument for merely acting like you believe since only real belief is what is supposed to save us.

Best,
Leela

 

[ContegoFides]

Leena,

This quote is from your Blog:

C.S. Lewis in “An Experiment in Criticism” explained the Christian view of ethics as follows:
“In the moral sphere, every act of justice or charity involves putting ourselves in the other person’s place and thus transcending our own competitive particularity.” In Lewis’s view and my own, moral behavior is motivated by empathy and compassion rather than by fear of punishment or desire for reward. Where Lewis and I will disagree is on the notion that in addition to cultivating empathy and compassion and learning about what compassionate behavior is like, there is a need to also imagine a ground upon which this notion can stand. We need such a thing as The Moral Law and a Divine Command to follow this Law as an answer to the question of why we should even bother cultivating empathy and compassion. But this Divine Command carries with it a system of carrots and sticks that just takes us back to animal self-preservation instead of morality, so by accepting this answer we are rejecting our notion of morality as unmotivated by such insentives and disinsentives.

The moral law is not so much a system of carrots and sticks that takes us to some assumed inferior state of animal self-preservation. The moral law is based on absolute Truth - God. Whether or not you acknowledge God’s existence, He is real, as we will all discover when we die and are no longer shrouded by the veil of this life.

The reason why God’s law can be characterized as a law at all is because we must conform ourselves to the infinitely good, just, merciful, powerful, and unchanging creator. Because God does not change, we must change to conform to God. In other words, the moral law is not so much about carrots and sticks and animal instincts, as it is about naturally conforming ourselves to the Truth. Just as space is naturally warped by the presence of a mass in proportion to the amount of mass, and a planet is naturalistically compelled to go around its star, we are naturalistically drawn to remain close to God by following his “law.” The difference between gravity and us is that God has given us the supreme dignity of choice.

In other words, the draw of Truth is stronger than the draw of self interest.

Your central premise appears to be that morality, or a reason to love, does not need a basis - that it can be “free floating” as it were and learnable through our stories and compassion.

However, there are four problems with this approach. First, it is essentially impossible to agree on what is good and what constitutes right compassion without some kind of underlying philosophy that has a grounding in what it claims is Truth. Just look at the current debates regarding abortion and “gay marriage.” Unless you have this basis you will have no way of guaging what is right and wrong and society - even among otherwise good people - will polarize into bitterly opposed camps, resulting in exactly the kind of mess we have today.

Our currently opposed camps are moral absolutists, which include Christians (such as myself), which hold that society should institute laws that reflect objective moral realtiy, and moral relativists, which hold that personal freedom and choice is the highest good. While moral absolutism does not deny that personal freedom is good in the right circumstances, it is not the highest good; thus, when there is a conflict, morality must take precedence. Otherwise, we find ourselves tolerating all kinds of objective evils, such as abortion.

Second, compassion does not answer the problem of moral evil. Some people choose to do evil, even if they are not “psychopaths.” Your answer is the “carrot and stick” for such people, but that provides no answer for why people choose evil in the first place. If morality is “self evident” from our stories, then why would anyone choose evil? Your answer seems to be to provide no answer at all, to deny the question, but the reality of moral evil vitiates such a claim.

Third, “free floating” compassion and goodness still leaves you with a nihilistic sense that nothing you do or say matters; it will all come to an end faster than the blink of an eye in geological time, much less astronomical time. As a result, the Godless philosophy leaves one with a nagging emptiness that even the little love they experience is meaningless and irrelevant. What results is not actual adherence to love and goodness, but depression and emptiness.

Fourth, related to the second, without an absolute sense of morality, nothing prevents those in power from defining over time what is good and then performing objective evil in the name of that “good.” For example, China forces abortions and sterilizations of tens of thousands of people under penalty of detaining relatives and other extremely severe penalties in the name of the “good” of population control. They force late term abortions against the mother’s will in the name of “good.” (This is documented fact, by the way.) Who are you to say it is not loving to rip a 33 week old fetus limb from limb against the mother’s will in the name of the asserted loving good of feeding everyone? Shudder.

Instead, if your philosophy were adopted generally, what would happen is that people in power would simply use sophistry and spin to assert that their personal agendas were “loving,” just as the “pro choice” movement asserts that the “loving” solution to a crisis pregnancy is to allow the mother to make the choice to remove the fetus by force and thereby kill it.

Fortunately, there is a moral foundation which no one can avoid.

Finally, there is a fifth objection. You cite great moral actors such as Moses, Desmond Tutu, and others as revealing examples of goodness and compassion. However, all of these great moral actors believed in God and derived their morality from God, even if they did not all share the same understanding of God.

 

[AntiTheist]

Since you base all of your decisions based on “evidence”, I find this to be an ironic statement. What proof do you have that I, or anyone else in this audience for your post, actually exists? If the police asked you to identify any one of us in a lineup, how would you do so?

I have a lot of evidence that messageboards are populated by people other than me. I am aware of no cases where a messageboard has been nothing more than a huge testing ground for a bunch of turing robots, carried out on an unsuspecting subject (though, if this were a turing test, I know several posters who would have failed by now…)

Just to be clear, I’m not claiming that I have 100% positive evidence of everything that I think – merely that my beliefs are based on what is most likely to be the case, as determined by evidence. Sometimes, the evidence is bad or you make some sort of error inducing or deducing from the evidence, but the only reasonable way to proceed is by evidence.

Another point that should be considered is that different claims have different burdens of proof. For example, if you claimed that you have red hair, that’s such an ordinary claim that I would accept it as a matter of convenience – it wouldn’t really matter much if you were lying, anyway.

But if you claimed that you had hair made of living snakes, I would not accept it. That is an extraordinary claim that I would not accept without some very compelling evidence.

Leela:

I’ve become more and more doubtful about the utility of “evidence” and “reason” as a cudgel to be used against believers. Believers generally do claim to have good reasons for their beliefs and value evidence as much as the next person even if the next person happens to be an atheist.

Generally – but there is a good number who claim that religion is something that can’t be demonstrated with evidence and that actual evidence would render faith pointless and take away our “free will,” or something like that.

But anyway – while some believers claim to have good reasons and evidence for their beliefs, they’re almost always wrong about this. Compare, for example, the claims of evidence made by UFO believers (look at all the eye-witnesses, many of whom corroborate each other’s accounts). I submit that this is not acceptable evidence of an extraordinary phenomenon.

ContegoFides:

You might choose to believe what is in the center of the collapsed mass based on physical theories worked out via rigorous mathematical treatement; however, you have no actual evidence. Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from believing that something exists there.

Therefore, I submit that it does make sense to belive in things that cannot be proven positivistically.

We know that black holes exist – there’s a big difference between making reasonable suggestions about the characteristics of something known to exist and wildly speculating about supposed non-physical things for which there is no evidence.

However, your implication is that belief - at least your belief - cannot be subject to the will. This assertion is not correct, the assumption of Pascal’s Wager is correct.

Oh, well when you make an airtight argument like that…

Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or actually God.

Or a legend, perhaps based on an actual person or people.

No other major religion can make this claim or use the same line of logic.

Special pleading. Every religion has its own unique claims. You can’t use something that makes a religion unique as evidence that it’s true.

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t believe that I’m going to get into a terrible car wreck, but my car insurance is evidence that I believe otherwise.

No, it’s evidence that you have rationally concluded – based on evidence, I would hope – that there is always a possibility that disaster could strike, no matter how unlikely it is. (Actually, it’s more likely evidence that you’re required to purchase it)

Point being, Paschal’s theory is nothing more than the ultimate “hedge”. And “hedging” is conventional human behavior. So, yes, it’s indeed possible to make yourself believe something you currently don’t. It happens all the time.

Hedging your bets isn’t “making yourself believe something you currently don’t” – it’s simply admitting that there are unforeseen circumstances and being prepared for them.

But in the case of buying insurance, there is evidence that such a circumstance should strike.

In the case of believing in gods, there is not only no evidence, but there are hundreds of competing god claims and no way to distinguish between them.

 

[ContegoFides]

Really? People can just make themselves believe something that they currently do not believe? I don’t think I have this power, but I you think you have it, perhaps you can demonstrate. This ought to be a simple one for you: make yourself believe that your body is composed of an even number of cells at this moment. There is already a 50% chance that it is actually true, so you’ll only need to use your amazing power of will to believe things to get past the remaining 50%. How about making yourself believe that there is a tennis ball sized pearl buried somewhere underneath Lincoln Financial Field in Philly.

I’m being facetious of course. The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that in order to believe something you have to actually be convinced that it is true. There is no way to overcome disbelief on willpower. Someone can want to believe in God all she wants and still not be able to believe what seems implausible to her.

Yes, really. People can make themselves believe in anything. I assert, without proof for the moment, that evidence abounds for this fact. Your objections are based on the assumption that belief must happen instantly. That is not the way faith works. Faith is formed by choices and experiences, incrementally. Only very rarely is someone instantly granted huge faith, like St. Paul on the way to Damascus.

Faith is also based on right reason. It is not right reason to believe there’s a pearl underneath Lincoln Financial Field, absent some reason to the contrary, but the totality of arguments, pointers, and examples of the Saints shows that right reason does lead one to God.

Thus, you can overcome disbelief by choice if you are willing to open yourself to experience the reality of God. If you are closed, then God respects that choice and you will not receive Him. God gives us the dignity of this choice.

Pascal’s Wager is, indeed, ineffective at establishing true faith in God - because it is motivated by self interest alone rather than a recognition of the Truth. However, Pascal’s Wager is effective at getting a person with no faith to at least recognize that the risk/benefit analysis is suffient motivation to more deeply explore and open oneself to the faith experience and a relationship with God.

What your examples illustrate is that one can behave as hough something were true even if she is not sure that it actually is true–in fact, even if she thinks it is probably not true. But behaving as though something were true (going to church on Sundays, not eating meat on Fridays, etc.) and actually believing that it is true are separate issues.

Pascals’s Wager is not supposed to be an argument for merely acting like you believe since only real belief is what is supposed to save us.

Pascal’s Wager is not a proof in the existence of God. Pascal’s Wager is a demonstration that belief in God is rational and that lack of belief in God is not rational. When taken in the context of other arguments, such as Jesus’ divinity and authority, the first cause argument, the ontological argument, the industrial complexity argument, the lives of the Saints, miracles, and others we have a whole bunch of huge arrows pointing at the existence of God. Saying there is no God, or saying that you fail to believe in God, because of lack of positivistic evidence is like putting blinders on and saying that you cannot see the arrows in your blind spot.

 

[ContegoFides]

We know that black holes exist – there’s a big difference between making reasonable suggestions about the characteristics of something known to exist and wildly speculating about supposed non-physical things for which there is no evidence.

However, in your philosophy, unless you can prove to me that the center of a black hole exists, I fail to believe it exists. You cannot prove to me that it exists, therefore I fail to believe that it exists. Ontologically speaking there is no difference between this assertion and the assertion that you fail to believe in God because you have no evidence for Him. Whether or not the event horizon of a collapsed mass is positivistically known to exist is irrelevant to the question of whether or not its center exists. Additionally, there is “circumstantial” evidence for God (miracles, verifiable behavior of Saints, a host of ontological arguemnts) just as there is “cirumstantial” evidence for the existence of the center of a collapsed mass (it’s event horizon and its the effects on surrounding masses). Still further, inquiring as to the nature of the center of a black hole is as irrelevant to you as inquiring about the existence of God - becasue neither can be measured. Thus, in your philosophy, both are a waste of time. The point I am making is that because the arguments are ontologically the same, and because I think you would say that inquiring about the center of a collapsed mass is not a waste of time, then enquiring as to the nature of God is also not a waste of time.

But anyway – while some believers claim to have good reasons and evidence for their beliefs, they’re almost always wrong about this. Compare, for example, the claims of evidence made by UFO believers (look at all the eye-witnesses, many of whom corroborate each other’s accounts). I submit that this is not acceptable evidence of an extraordinary phenomenon

Comparing believers in aliens to Catholics is like comparing apples to oranges. Given the synnergistic effect of all arguments for the existence of God, I’d go so far as to say you have setup a paper tiger.

Or a legend, perhaps based on an actual person or people.

If He is a legend, then His apostles were liars or lunatics. You are left in the same boat.

Special pleading. Every religion has its own unique claims. You can’t use something that makes a religion unique as evidence that it’s true.

Another paper tiger that doesn’t address the real argument. Just because every religion has unique claims does not mean that the Christian claim is not more valid or special. The Christian claim is to having direct Divine authority, that claim should be evaluated on its own merits. Islam claims to have Divine authority, but not from God Himself, but rather from His prophet Muhammed. Hinduism makes no claim to authority, but simply asserts it observes the truth (I think, I’m leaving my field of expertise). Budhhism does not assert there is a God, only suffering and that Budhhism will result in the nihilist end of suffering.

The point being made is to address your argument that there is no point to picking any religion because we don’t know which is right. My argument is that no other major religion makes this claim so, if it is true, Christianity is going to be the one to pick.

In the case of believing in gods, there is not only no evidence, but there are hundreds of competing god claims and no way to distinguish between them.

Again, not correct. You only make this assumption because 1) you refuse to evaluate them on the merits, 2) deny belief in anything that is positivistically unprovable. Which, ironically, would include the abstract concepts we are discussing.

 

[ContegoFides]

On the issue of belief, I would say anyone that converts to Christianity - or any other religion for that matter, including atheism - is proof that one can choose to believe something. Every conversion experience is almost always told in terms of experiences and choices.

 

[Quid_estVeritas]

This is false. Don’t make me quote the professional philosophers who argue otherwise.

Atheism (literally “without gods”) is the absence of belief in gods. It includes those who simply don’t have a belief as well as those who actively believe there are no gods (sometimes called “weak atheists” and “strong atheists” respectively).

Antitheist, my experience is that it’s agnostics that better fit your description. There are some atheists that would also fit the “Atheism is the absence of belief in gods” definition, but strangely, you rarely find those ones hanging out on Religion Forums. It’s the “new atheists”, (which are often just the militant atheists of years gone by repackaged in a new lable) that are the guys who buy up all the books that Dawkins and the gang are pumping out all the time that you find hanging out on the religion forums and do appear to have much more of an “atheism is an affirmative belief that there are no gods” attitude. I’ve been flamed and insulted by enough over the years to know that they don’t merely have “the absence of belief in gods”.

 

[AntiTheist]

However, in your philosophy, unless you can prove to me that the center of a black hole exists, I fail to believe it exists.

Oh boy. In the absence of evidence, I would reserve judgment on the question of the existence of the center of a black hole – in the same exact way that I reserve judgment on the existence of a multiverse or dark matter or any other hypothetical areas of science.

It’s not always a binary question. Some things are stronger possibilities than others based on evidence.

But no one lives his life on the basis of accepting that there is a center to a black hole or a parallel universe. If you are making a claim that you expect others to accept and which you expect others to live their lives on the basis of, then you have a higher burden of proof.

You cannot prove to me that it exists, therefore I fail to believe that it exists.

Then I applaud your decision not to believe it. I’m not trying to convince you of it, and I don’t think it’s important for you to believe it.

But believers do want to convince others of their god beliefs and they do think it’s important for others to accept them. So the burden of proof is considerably higher.

Comparing believers in aliens to Catholics is like comparing apples to oranges.

I’m not comparing the believers – I’m comparing the amount of evidence in each case.

Alien believers are relying on eye-witness testimony – and not supposed testimony from 2000 years ago, but testimony from people who are alive now, to whom you can talk today, and whose accounts corroborate each other’s.

I’m pointing out that eye-witness testimony – even when you can be 100% sure that it is eye-witness, which is not the case with the Gospels – is not sufficient evidence for accepting extraordinary claims.

If He is a legend, then His apostles were liars or lunatics. You are left in the same boat.

No, I’m not. Legends grow up around great men all the time. It’s not the least bit surprising that magic exists in the stories told about a charismatic figure back then.

There’s not the slightest bit of evidence that the stories are actually true, just as there’s not the slightest bit of evidence that UFO abduction stories are actually true.

And anyway, why could his apostles, if they actually existed as in the story, not have been lunatics? I mean, kooky cults spring up all the time even today. Back then, there were all sorts of Messiah-claimants with followers, so it’s not exactly shocking that groups of true believers existed.

Just because every religion has unique claims does not mean that the Christian claim is not more valid or special.

How “special” you feel it is has nothing to do with how true it is. I’m sure a Hindu thinks that Lord Krishna’s avatars and their sayings are “special,” but it doesn’t demonstrate anything.

My argument is that no other major religion makes this claim so, if it is true, Christianity is going to be the one to pick.

That’s a pretty big if, there.

 

[AntiTheist]

Antitheist, my experience is that it’s agnostics that better fit your description.

Ok. Call me an agnostic, then. I really don’t care about the label.

There’s still no evidence for god beliefs and no good reason to accept them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Hope I’m not repeating a point someone else has already made.

The central problem of atheism is its methodology. It fixes all knowledge on the immediately knowable world of sensory data. Nothing else exists. Theories may exist, and may be true or false, but if they are not directly falsifiable, they have no real merit.

This creates a dilemma. If the Big Bang (scientifically verified as much as it can be) was a starting point for the universe, that event points to a creation moment consistent with religious belief in God.

Thus, the atheist is driven to suppose another explanation for the creation event, such as a Big Crunch alternating with a Big Bang, or that we are a baby universe spawned by a mother universe. But these very notions are useless because they are not scientifically verifiable.

That doesn’t stop atheists from speculating about them. They would believe in anything they can’t prove, anything … so long as it isn’t God.

There’s the rub. Or should I say the grudge?

Not all atheists are intellectually dishonest. Antony Flew, the most famous atheist philosopher of the last fifty years, escaped the methodological box and now believes there is something out there that designed and created the universe. See his book, There Is a God.

 

[ContegoFides]

… If you are making a claim that you expect others to accept and which you expect others to live their lives on the basis of, then you have a higher burden of proof.

I don’t have to prove God exists. He is real, just is the sun is real; however, unlike the sun, God cannot be positivistically measured.

You say that for you to believe in God, I must prove Him positivistically. I can’t. So, feel free to fail to believe in God. However, the onus is on you if you are wrong (Pascal’s Wager). Taking that risk doesn’t seem rational to me.

But believers do want to convince others of their god beliefs and they do think it’s important for others to accept them. So the burden of proof is considerably higher.

Yes, I would like you and everyone to believe. Not because I need affirmation or control, but becuase I would like for you and everyone else receive deep happiness that comes from the Truth, rather than nihilism and hopelessness that comes from denial or refusal. It is a desire to share a deep and lasting peace. Again, I cannot positivistically prove God, and you are indeed free to reject belief. However, the totality of arguments (ontological, first cause, lives of the Saints, miracles) in conjunction with Pascal’s Wager shows that belief is rational - even though it requires a leap of faith (trust without reservation).

Alien believers are relying on eye-witness testimony – and not supposed testimony from 2000 years ago, but testimony from people who are alive now, to whom you can talk today, and whose accounts corroborate each other’s.

I’m pointing out that eye-witness testimony – even when you can be 100% sure that it is eye-witness, which is not the case with the Gospels – is not sufficient evidence for accepting extraordinary claims.

But there’s so much more you ignore, so it’s still apples and oranges. Eyewitness testimony is only the beginning. Again, there are many logical reasons for concluding that belief is rational (ontological, first cause, etc.) The lives of the Saints and miracles are others. The self-evident beauty and consistency of Catholic philsophy is another. I concede that none of these constitutes a postivistic proof of existence, but there is so much more than simple eyewitness evidence of “aliens.” While no line of proof actually touches God, there’s a whole bunch of arrows that point to Him - and ignoring them simply because they are not positivistic is like putting blinders on and then saying you can’t see them.

No, I’m not. Legends grow up around great men all the time. It’s not the least bit surprising that magic exists in the stories told about a charismatic figure back then.

There’s not the slightest bit of evidence that the stories are actually true, just as there’s not the slightest bit of evidence that UFO abduction stories are actually true.

And anyway, why could his apostles, if they actually existed as in the story, not have been lunatics? I mean, kooky cults spring up all the time even today. Back then, there were all sorts of Messiah-claimants with followers, so it’s not exactly shocking that groups of true believers existed.

But you are still in the same boat as deciding between liar, lunatic, or God. Those legends around great men are all either going to be lies (falsehoods), lunacy, or truth.

Also, there IS evidence that some of the stories are true. We have plenty of positivistic historical evidence that Jesus existed, as did several of the apostles. Also, to which stories do you refer? You put all of the stories in the Gospels and the New Testament into one big lump without actually addressing the merits of any of them.

The odds the apostles were lunatics are quite small, given their wisdom, discipline, and objective goodness. Also, the past “lunatics” you referred to all died out when their cults of personality died; the religion preached apostle’s has endured unchanged for 2000 years. The simplest explanation for these facts, that they were rational, is the most likely. Naturally, this is not a positivistic proof, so you are free to hold whatever opinion you want.

How “special” you feel it is has nothing to do with how true it is. I’m sure a Hindu thinks that Lord Krishna’s avatars and their sayings are “special,” but it doesn’t demonstrate anything.

You are missing the point, again. I am not proving with this argument in particular that Christianity is true, only that I have refuted your assertion that it is impossible to pick which religion among them all is the True one.

1. The truth or falsity of a religion, including atheism, cannot be reliably asserted without evaluating the religion on its merits in terms at least of its own internal consistency.
2. Christianity claims to have as its founder God himself. If this is true, then that authority is greater than any other authority asserted by any other religion. Therefore, again if Christianity’s claims are true, you can reliably pick which religion is the True one among many.

That’s a pretty big if, there.

Agreed, that is a MIGHTY big “if.” You see that “if” as a hole to justify non-belief. I see that “if” as an invitation to explore the Truth of a relationship with God.

There’s still no evidence for god beliefs and no good reason to accept them.

Sure there is reason, there’s lots and lots (ontological, teleological, observed miracles, the obvious, deep happiness of saints before they died, and much more). You just exclude, without real justification I think, any evidence that is not positivistic in nature.

Your entire argument is based on shifting the burden of proof to believers, but that doesn’t work because, if God is real, the onus or benefit of non-belief will be on you.

 

[ContegoFides]

AntiTheist,

All this makes me wonder, why are you here??? This is a Catholic forum and you are spending a lot of time arguing with us. Are you trying to “evangalize” us? If so, then you are wasting your time because you cannot prove God does not exist. Why would you be wasting your time? Do you have a nagging doubt and are trying to get us to show you something you haven’t thought of before? Are you trying to convince yourself by attempting to refute our arguments? I’m curious.

 

[ContegoFides]

Hope I’m not repeating a point someone else has already made.

The central problem of atheism is its methodology. It fixes all knowledge on the immediately knowable world of sensory data. Nothing else exists. Theories may exist, and may be true or false, but if they are not directly falsifiable, they have no real merit.

This creates a dilemma. If the Big Bang (scientifically verified as much as it can be) was a starting point for the universe, that event points to a creation moment consistent with religious belief in God.

Thus, the atheist is driven to suppose another explanation for the creation event, such as a Big Crunch alternating with a Big Bang, or that we are a baby universe spawned by a mother universe. But these very notions are useless because they are not scientifically verifiable.

That doesn’t stop atheists from speculating about them. They would believe in anything they can’t prove, anything … so long as it isn’t God.

There’s the rub. Or should I say the grudge?

Not all atheists are intellectually dishonest. Antony Flew, the most famous atheist philosopher of the last fifty years, escaped the methodological box and now believes there is something out there that designed and created the universe. See his book, There Is a God.

Well said.