Why are we so bad at being convincing?

[fakename]

I was intellectually an agnostic atheist for a period of time myself. There just didn’t seem to be any good arguments for the existence of God. I personally think that most of the arguments for God’s existence aren’t worth much. Sure, a lot of them are interesting, but after close inspection, they give us next to nothing. Thomas Aquainus’s five proofs are no good after close inspection, the ontological argument is unsound, like the kalaam cosmological argument or the argument from morality… ocasionally, I would happen upon a proof that seemed flawless, like Lewis’s trilemma. But I wondered, if a sound proof for God’s existence has been around for more than a half century, why isn’t everybody a Catholic, or at least christian? Such a mindset made me sceptical of even the best proofs.

I think that yes, unfortunately, this is the case for most religious people. It was rather depressing when I, at the age of twelve, could look at some of the “proofs” for God’s existence and see the errors. I thought “really? Is that the best you could come up with?” I think that yes, most proofs of God are made up by believers who want to justify their own belief.

And of course, the same is true for atheists. When they try to show supposed contradictions in God’s nature, they perform just as badly as a theist who tries to that God exists from an empirical standpoint. Both are usually dealing with matters beyond their area of expertise. The atheist with theology, and the the theist with the material world.

Of course, it is difficult to speak for myself. If my belief in God is irrational, would I know it? The fact is that no one can be completely objective. What we believe is determined by what evidence and reasons we find. These, in turn, are determined by the evidence and reasons we look for. The reasons and evidence we look for are determined by what we want to be true. In other words, if a person wants theism to be true, he’ll look through a book on theism, and find the evidence that he’s looking for. Conversely, if someone wants atheism to be true, he’ll look through an atheistic book for evidence. So both the theist and the atheist are rational in the sense that they beleive what they believe based on the knowledge they are aware of.

Which brings me to the reason why not all people belive the same thing. As much as it pains me to admit it, I had to acknowledge that not everyone is perfectly reasonable. That’s true on both sides of the aisle. Both atheists and theists have personal benefits for beleiving what they believe.

That isn’t to say that we can’t attempt to be rational people with some degree of sucess, as I believe some have. We just need to be careful not to brainwash ourselves into one way of thinking. There are people who manage to do this, but they seem to be few and far between. It would be difficult for these people to find each other’s arguments over all the argumental “noise” from both sides. That’s why not even all the rational people believe the same thing. However, one would expect good proofs, over a period of time, to be adopted by all rational people. That’s why it is doubtful that there is a sustantial conclusive proof for God’s existence. If there were one, you would expect all rational people to eventually join the theistic side. I believe that I’ve come up with a proof that shows that God has a high Probability for existing. It is not conclusive. And, as far as I know, it’s new, meaning that I don’t know of anyone else who has proposed it, so the rational people of the world haven’t been able to accept or reject it.(Likely it’s been proposed and has failed so badly that it hasn’t made it into the philosophy books:thumbsup Let me know if you are interested in it!

LOL, I’m not aiming all of this at you, but it’s not true that people can’t be objective or that God’s existence cannot be conclusively proven. Indeed, it is a matter of faith that God’s existence can be so proved and that Aquinas’s proofs are perfect; for the bible states, “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they [who deny such a truth] are inexcusable.”. That people do not understand these proofs because they are too dim and lacking experience is of course, their fault and not the fault of the proofs.

Vatican I elevated Aquinas’s inductive proofs by this statement: “God, the first cause (principium) and last end of all things, can, from created things, be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason (Denz., 1785-old no. 1634)”

So there is no room for skepticism regarding the existence question.

Likewise there is no room for misplaced infantilism in one’s intellectual standards for the proofs of God’s existence. That we must become like children to know God means that we should be willing to have faith in experts and teachers who are willing to demonstrate God’s existence to us, not that we should be drooling credulous fools.

 

[zro_x]

LOL, I’m not aiming all of this at you, but it’s not true that people can’t be objective or that God’s existence cannot be conclusively proven. Indeed, it is a matter of faith that God’s existence can be so proved and that Aquinas’s proofs are perfect; for the bible states, “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they [who deny such a truth] are inexcusable.”. That people do not understand these proofs because they are too dim and lacking experience is of course, their fault and not the fault of the proofs.

Vatican I elevated Aquinas’s inductive proofs by this statement: “God, the first cause (principium) and last end of all things, can, from created things, be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason (Denz., 1785-old no. 1634)”

So there is no room for skepticism regarding the existence question.

Likewise there is no room for misplaced infantilism in one’s intellectual standards for the proofs of God’s existence. That we must become like children to know God means that we should be willing to have faith in experts and teachers who are willing to demonstrate God’s existence to us, not that we should be drooling credulous fools.

If aquainus’s proofs are true, their validity is far from obvious.

 

[edwest2]

For the past few years i’ve been very interested in philosophy of religion. I’m a science student but i’ve taken a few philosophy classes (all philosophy of religion) and it’s become one of my biggest academic interests. I spend a lot of time reading arguments about religion and arguing over them myself and yet, no one ever seems to come out convinced. Why is this?

We’ve had people like Aquinas and Anselm churn out supposedly very good arguments for centuries and yet, the world is still awash with people who aren’t Christians, why is this?

My philosophy of religion professor is decently renown in the field and his idea is that a lot of religious arguments aren’t so much made for proving it to other people (because people are bound to deny a lot of the premises) but are more made to justify the beliefs people already hold or provide a rational case for them to continue to believe. Is this the case?

I can’t speak for everyone. It’s not so much that i don’t want to believe. I went to catholic schools for the entirety of my pre-university life. There have been times (without getting into specifics) in my life where it would have been greatly beneficial for me to believe in a God. So, it’s not that i don’t want to. It’s that i can’t, based on the evidence and arguments i see, it points towards the conclusion there is no God, so, i have little choice in believing that.

I think that’s just important to mention because i suspect some people might just accuse me of arrogance against God or not wanting to believe to preserve my current lifestyle or something.

Thanks for all the ideas guys, kp.

---

theistic arguments soley ]

[Thought i should just point out this is my interpretation, as a non-philosophy major, of my professors idea. I wouldn’t go around attributing it to him just because i mentioned it. I could be totally wrong. Don’t want to cause anyone any trouble.]

Why is anyone convinced by anyone about anything? When you’re a kid, mom and dad (hopefully), tell you, “This is hot, don’t touch it. You’ll burn your fingers.” Or “Don’t cross the street without looking both ways.”

The same with our teachers. The default position is to assume that they are giving us factual information.

The same with Christianity. If you study it, you need to look at the reasons to trust it, or not. A local priest applied a ‘series of questions’ approach to the historical Jesus. Was He a:

Liar?

Lunatic? or

Lord?

If we accept the liar part then not only was he a good con-man but his followers were good con-men as well. But if you read the early history of the Church, they weren’t sitting on a ton of gold, being a Christian was illegal in some places, and some were tortured and crucified. There was no Vatican.

If he was a lunatic, then all his crazy talk was never perceived as such by anybody, unless you accept the con-man idea regarding his followers. But, for them, we still have the torture and death part. And no big payoff in terms of gold and silver.

So, people generally don’t follow a liar or a crazy person and create a fantastic story and keep it going even though their fellow believers end up dead because of a false or crazy story. The early Church was persecuted for a long time, so no earthly reward was imminent.

Lord? If you believe there was a historical Jesus and there is good evidence from non-Christian writers that he existed, then maybe what ended up being recorded in the Bible is true. That all those who died for supposedly believing a liar or crazy person, actually died for the truth, and something beyond an earthly reward.

If you do a careful study of the past 40 years, which should be time-consuming but pretty easy to do, you’ll see how the primary building block of society - the family - was gradually broken apart. How the close-knit fabric of family ties was unwound. And how modesty and decency were gradually replaced with immodesty and indecency.

My argument is simple: at the end of that time period, today, what was once viewed as good is viewed as bad, or at best, too restrictive. What started out as a “revolution” in the late 1960s to “free” us from a culture that worked but was too restrictive, has led us - very, very gradually over the years - to believe that what those who wanted to do harm to the culture and the family did “good.” That is so far from being true so as to not be funny.

Too many of us traded in our modesty, decency, self-control and proper behavior to become the immodest, indecent, shameless and out of control copies of the radicals who started all this. Believing and being in a relationship with God was too hard. Doing whatever you wanted with almost no standards? Easy. No more judging, no more guilt, just whatever turns you on, man.

Today, as our eyes and ears are constantly exposed to the noise of watching, listening to, and reading about people who do the wrong thing as fun and good and easy, and without consequences, the idea of belief in God gets buried under all that.

Listen, all we have to do is keep repeating the truth. The land of Roman orgies became the home of the Vatican.

Peace,
Ed

 

[shoe]

For the past few years i’ve been very interested in philosophy of religion. I’m a science student but i’ve taken a few philosophy classes (all philosophy of religion) and it’s become one of my biggest academic interests. I spend a lot of time reading arguments about religion and arguing over them myself and yet, no one ever seems to come out convinced. Why is this?

We’ve had people like Aquinas and Anselm churn out supposedly very good arguments for centuries and yet, the world is still awash with people who aren’t Christians, why is this?

My philosophy of religion professor is decently renown in the field and his idea is that a lot of religious arguments aren’t so much made for proving it to other people (because people are bound to deny a lot of the premises) but are more made to justify the beliefs people already hold or provide a rational case for them to continue to believe. Is this the case?

I can’t speak for everyone. It’s not so much that i don’t want to believe. I went to catholic schools for the entirety of my pre-university life. There have been times (without getting into specifics) in my life where it would have been greatly beneficial for me to believe in a God. So, it’s not that i don’t want to. It’s that i can’t, based on the evidence and arguments i see, it points towards the conclusion there is no God, so, i have little choice in believing that.

I think that’s just important to mention because i suspect some people might just accuse me of arrogance against God or not wanting to believe to preserve my current lifestyle or something.

Thanks for all the ideas guys, kp.

---

theistic arguments soley ]

[Thought i should just point out this is my interpretation, as a non-philosophy major, of my professors idea. I wouldn’t go around attributing it to him just because i mentioned it. I could be totally wrong. Don’t want to cause anyone any trouble.]

I’m not so sure that the reason we cannot convince others about the reality of God is that we are “so bad at being convincing?” One of the reasons that we may not be able to convince some people of the reality of God’s existence is that they simply are not looking for Him; in fact, they are doing all they can to avoid believing in God all together. And some people will not allow themselves to believe in the existence of God unless they can first see Him in a test tube or dissect Him in a laboratory, though Jesus says plainly in John 4:24 that “God is spirit.” I have known some Christians who have tried to share the reality of God and the reason of the hope they have in them with unbelievers until they were blue in the face but to no avail. Christians believe that the evidence for the existence of God is everywhere; the Bible states, “ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse” (Romans 1:20). The convincing evidence for the existence of God is within everyone; but since the world view of some unbelievers is based on the presumption that God does not exist, their objectivity to know the evidence for the existence of God also does not exist, or is asleep.

 

[kingpomba]

I would usually try to reply to everyone individually in detail but considering the dearth of responses, it might be just a little hard. I’ve seen a few general themes though.

Don’t take lack of reply as thinking your argument wasn’t worth it or didn’t address the question (although this did happen once or twice, not going to lie). Most of the times i didn’t reply, i agreed with all your post, so there wasnt much to reply to. Even the parts of the arguments i didn’t quote are parts i agreed with. I only picked out the ones i disagreed with.

No matter how many ‘convincing arguments’ one made to a lifelong Republican, they will never switch sides. The same with religion. A committed Catholic will never be convinced otherwise. And the same with a committed atheist.

Someone like Dan Barker or Anthony Flew were very hardened in their Christianity or Atheism respectively, to the point of making it their profession and yet, both ended up switching sides.

So, i’m more than a little skeptical that no one ever switches sides.

Staying a republican just because you identify as a republican (rather than explicitly think their policies are good) seems like all kinds of folly, both in politics and if we apply it to religion.

The best argument we can give people for the message of Christ is to put His teachings into practice. Hopefully, people will ‘like’ being compassionate and humble, and the idea of Heaven and a Loving God. That is probably the best we can do.

Don’t think i agree with your aesthetics idea (not quoted). I can find all the things you mention above say in Socialism, my own personal charity or secular humanism.

Growing up going to catholic schools, i have a great admiration for a lot of the charitable values they instilled and talked about. There was a donation box in every room.

I think i can do all the things you mentioned sans God though, so, it doesn’t seem like a very good push factor to get people to believe in religion.

---

And of course, the same is true for atheists. When they try to show supposed contradictions in God’s nature, they perform just as badly as a theist who tries to that God exists from an empirical standpoint.

Of course, i wouldn’t suppose its any less than a mirror in either direction. There are many Christians much more learned, considered and intelligent than I and yet they came to a different conclusion. There’s not some kind of en masse psychology defect with either side or patent dishonesty on either side. So, i wouldn’t have any less than it being a mirror.

What we believe is determined by what evidence and reasons we find.

Does that mean we’re totally free though? If all my beliefs are determined by my past knowledge and experiences, it seems like i have limited choice. As i mentioned earlier, all i know about the world, philosophy and religion points me towards the conclusion there is no God. It’s not like i could ignore this backing and choose God, as i am, in this singular moment.

These, in turn, are determined by the evidence and reasons we look for. The reasons and evidence we look for are determined by what we want to be true. In other words, if a person wants theism to be true, he’ll look through a book on theism, and find the evidence that he’s looking for. Conversely, if someone wants atheism to be true, he’ll look through an atheistic book for evidence.

All seems a bit hopeless then doesn’t it? Almost something we’re constantly doomed to do, a bit like Sisyphus constantly rolling his stone up the hill.

However, one would expect good proofs, over a period of time, to be adopted by all rational people. That’s why it is doubtful that there is a sustantial conclusive proof for God’s existence. If there were one, you would expect all rational people to eventually join the theistic side.

Mmm, yes. This is a huge part of what i was getting at. Christians have been trying for 2000 years to convince people, not to mention all the older religions. If there was such a good dynamite proof developed in those 2000 years, you’d think we’d be awash with Christians right now.

I think another problem is the fact that most of the arguments prove a generic tripartite God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent). How are we to go from proving this kind of God to any particular religion, let alone denomination? I guess my professor would say that this is proof that the theistic arguments are more for convincing believers of their own case rather than bringing in new believers.

I believe that I’ve come up with a proof that shows that God has a high Probability for existing. It is not conclusive. And, as far as I know, it’s new, meaning that I don’t know of anyone else who has proposed it, so the rational people of the world haven’t been able to accept or reject it.(Likely it’s been proposed and has failed so badly that it hasn’t made it into the philosophy books:thumbsup Let me know if you are interested in it!

I’m always open to reading something innovative and new (probably why i love pascals wager so much, even though i think its wrong). I can’t promise i won’t point out the things i think are wrong with it (if there are) though, such is the nature of philosophy.

---

 

[kingpomba]

I’ll just simply say that, when I look at science, and all the discoveries we’ve made, for me, I can’t see there not being a God.

With all due respect of course, i can see it just fine personally.

It’s very good you don’t deny them out of some perceived misguided duty (like a lot of the extreme, American protestant Christians or some parts of the underdeveloped islamic world).

So, I think whether we’re convincing or not has some to do with how people see things, or what people see in things

I don’t agree with the bunch of words that came immediately after this but i think you’re onto something very big within what i quoted.

I’ve come to realise theres a lot more than pure philosophy at work here. Psychology and social norms as a whole probably need to be given a much deeper look.

led me back to God. Christianity came a few years after that. And it wasn’t until about 2-3 years ago that I started to come back to Catholicism.

This is a process i’m absolutely fascinated with. You determined there was a God, thats the easy part with all the philosophical arguments. Even if i believed all those arguments, they point me no more in the direction of Christianity than Judaism, Islam or the numerous other faiths.

Certainly, they point you even less in the direction of particular denominations. Maybe it might just be a cultural aversion to Islam or Judaism but how did you go from reaching the conclusion there is a God to the conclusion catholicism is the right faith? I’m very interested.

---

For me the idea of trying to prove God is an exercise in futility. Trying to argue the point is equally as futile.

So, what would you say of Anselm and Aquinas’s endeavors? They were all folly? For all intents and purposes they seemed like very intelligent men. Maybe their heart was in the right place but their reason was not?

God is of an order of magnitude so far above man that we lack the capacity to prove him within our limits.

If he is that far to understand or independently reach, i don’t know why i should be held accountable for not personally reaching him then. Seems like the natural conclusion. I’ve certainly sincerely searched. Not trying to bait you or be a contrarian but it just seems like the natural logical progression.

Trying to may seem interesting but it lacks the ability to succeed. Understanding comes through revelation not arguments. Trying to intellectually prove God doesn’t work.

Very fresh and innovative idea from what i’ve heard here thus far, thanks for sharing. However, i thought it was the position of the church that God can be proved rationally. I could be wrong but i recently read an essay by Bertrand Russel and he claimed the following:

To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.

---

I’ll try to respond to everyone else a little later.

 

[zro_x]

Does that mean we’re totally free though? If all my beliefs are determined by my past knowledge and experiences, it seems like i have limited choice. As i mentioned earlier, all i know about the world, philosophy and religion points me towards the conclusion there is no God. It’s not like i could ignore this backing and choose God, as i am, in this singular moment.

There lies in every human being a fundamental choice: will I base my beliefs on reason, or will I stick to what I want to be true no matter what arguments are put against me? If you choose the latter, than yes, in a sense, you do choose what you believe. However, it is obvious that the former is the best way to go. In that case, your beliefs may be determined by your prior knowledge and experience, but usually, you have a certain amount of freedom in choosing the sources of this knowledge and experience. Again, you have a choice: Will I only study books by people I agree with, so that technically I believe what I do from logic because of an extreme unbalance in the logic I’m aware of, or will I study both sides equally, preventing my self-brainwashing? obviously, the latter is the best option from these two choices. Once you reach that point, than yes, your beliefs are determined by the arguments you accidentally run across, but arguments that are true are more likely to get adopted by people in the most rational mindset, and grow as more and more rational people adopt them. Thus, your odds of accidentally discovering, and then believing the truth are much higher.

All seems a bit hopeless then doesn’t it? Almost something we’re constantly doomed to do, a bit like Sisyphus constantly rolling his stone up the hill.

yes, but as I said above, I think that a person can recognize that he wants theism (or atheism) to be true, and move on from that, to study both sides equally, and make judgments based on what the evidence shows, not on what he personally wants.

Mmm, yes. This is a huge part of what i was getting at. Christians have been trying for 2000 years to convince people, not to mention all the older religions. If there was such a good dynamite proof developed in those 2000 years, you’d think we’d be awash with Christians right now.

as we are, are we not? I’m not sure, but I believe that Christianity is one of the biggest religions. And, as I’ve said, I think that the people who believe something solely because they want it to be true, and those who go by logic but only study one side, far outnumber those who rationally study both equally. This makes it difficult for rational people to find each other anyway, especially with all the “noise” coming off from both sides. Combine that with the fact that before this generation, different cultures had minimal contact, and the fact that people who have found the truth are often replaced by other rational people just starting their journey through the cycle of life and death, and are you really surprised that all rational people aren’t in one camp? 5000 years may not be enough. However, in the past generation, people from cross cultures can finally have a free exchange of ideas with relative ease. Now that this is possible, we may finally start to see a shift from one belief to the other as the rational people of the world start hearing new arguments and switch sides. (which is one of the reasons why the recent rise of atheism is so unsettling ) still, I don’t think it has reached the point where all is lost for Christianity. We’ll just have to wait, keep searching, and see.

I think another problem is the fact that most of the arguments prove a generic tripartite God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent). How are we to go from proving this kind of God to any particular religion, let alone denomination?

ah, good question, which I think that my own proof tackles.

I’m always open to reading something innovative and new (probably why i love pascals wager so much, even though i think its wrong).

excellent! here’s the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735505

The first three posts descibe my reasoning for why God is highly probable, but not conclusive. I only ask that you post comments about it on that thread.

I can’t promise i won’t point out the things i think are wrong with it (if there are) though, such is the nature of philosophy.

I welcome it! If there is a flaw in my reasoning, I want to know.

 

[fakename]

I would usually try to reply to everyone individually in detail but considering the dearth of responses, it might be just a little hard. I’ve seen a few general themes though.

Don’t take lack of reply as thinking your argument wasn’t worth it or didn’t address the question (although this did happen once or twice, not going to lie). Most of the times i didn’t reply, i agreed with all your post, so there wasnt much to reply to. Even the parts of the arguments i didn’t quote are parts i agreed with. I only picked out the ones i disagreed with.

Someone like Dan Barker or Anthony Flew were very hardened in their Christianity or Atheism respectively, to the point of making it their profession and yet, both ended up switching sides.

So, i’m more than a little skeptical that no one ever switches sides.

Staying a republican just because you identify as a republican (rather than explicitly think their policies are good) seems like all kinds of folly, both in politics and if we apply it to religion.

Don’t think i agree with your aesthetics idea (not quoted). I can find all the things you mention above say in Socialism, my own personal charity or secular humanism.

Growing up going to catholic schools, i have a great admiration for a lot of the charitable values they instilled and talked about. There was a donation box in every room.

I think i can do all the things you mentioned sans God though, so, it doesn’t seem like a very good push factor to get people to believe in religion.

---

Of course, i wouldn’t suppose its any less than a mirror in either direction. There are many Christians much more learned, considered and intelligent than I and yet they came to a different conclusion. There’s not some kind of en masse psychology defect with either side or patent dishonesty on either side. So, i wouldn’t have any less than it being a mirror.

Does that mean we’re totally free though? If all my beliefs are determined by my past knowledge and experiences, it seems like i have limited choice. As i mentioned earlier, all i know about the world, philosophy and religion points me towards the conclusion there is no God. It’s not like i could ignore this backing and choose God, as i am, in this singular moment.

All seems a bit hopeless then doesn’t it? Almost something we’re constantly doomed to do, a bit like Sisyphus constantly rolling his stone up the hill.

Mmm, yes. This is a huge part of what i was getting at. Christians have been trying for 2000 years to convince people, not to mention all the older religions. If there was such a good dynamite proof developed in those 2000 years, you’d think we’d be awash with Christians right now.

I think another problem is the fact that most of the arguments prove a generic tripartite God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent). How are we to go from proving this kind of God to any particular religion, let alone denomination? I guess my professor would say that this is proof that the theistic arguments are more for convincing believers of their own case rather than bringing in new believers.

I’m always open to reading something innovative and new (probably why i love pascals wager so much, even though i think its wrong). I can’t promise i won’t point out the things i think are wrong with it (if there are) though, such is the nature of philosophy.

---

It’s interesting that you bring up the valid point that if Christianity were so reasonable, then it would be more popular. Certainly the most popular religion is to the contrary, Buddhism.

In response I think this is partly due to the possibility that Christianity is only easily grasped by those who are either uncommonly wise or stupid. The latter, can accept on faith, what is impossible to prove and can likewise accept even what can be proved while the former can prove and master that sacred science & metaphysics which it takes a lifetime to approach even in the best of circumstances.

This result makes sense in so far as it is true that heaven was made only for a select few and that the path to heaven is necessarily narrow -for whatever quality goes above the necessities for a thing is necessarily rarely expressed among the class of those things. It also makes sense because natural theology itself takes years of experience and prior scientific study to bear fruit, to say nothing of supernatural metaphysics.

 

[Qoeleth]

ISo, i’m more than a little skeptical that no one ever switches sides.

Staying a republican just because you identify as a republican (rather than explicitly think their policies are good) seems like all kinds of folly, both in politics and if we apply it to religion.

Don’t think i agree with your aesthetics idea (not quoted). I can find all the things you mention above say in Socialism, my own personal charity or secular humanism.

Growing up going to catholic schools, i have a great admiration for a lot of the charitable values they instilled and talked about. There was a donation box in every room.

I think i can do all the things you mentioned sans God though, so, it doesn’t seem like a very good push factor to get people to believe in religion.

---

Jesus wanted us to be charitable, compassionate and self-giving. Often, that is also found in secular humanism.

Returning to the idea of aesthetic evaluation of beliefs- a person who strives for compassion and self-overcoming could easily become a secular humanist, a Catholic, or perhaps even something else. It comes down to which they ‘like’ the best.

Imagine this- a secular humanist goes to Church- he likes the atmosphere, the mystery, enjoys the readings as literature, likes the ethical message, the music. He doesn’t really have an opinion on its objective truth, and (as a modern person) doesn’t really believe in objective truth anyway. So he keeps going each week, and gets baptized? Does this make him a believer?

Why not?

 

[rcjones]

Paul says in Romans 1:18 ff that all men already know that God is God, but that they do not acknowledge him or give him thanks.

So the question is not one of convincing the mind but of convicting the soul.

The essence of original sin is that we prefer to be gods than to acknowledge God.
We will define which fruit we can eat.

Logic does not determine truth. It is a method and a measure of the soundness of reasoning not of facts. Because of our sinful nature we use logic to convince ourselves and others that our capricious acts are rational.

 

[Ghosty]

If aquainus’s proofs are true, their validity is far from obvious.

What do yous see as problems in their validity? If you don’t want to get into on this thread you’re welcome to PM me.

I was an atheist who was convinced of the existence of God by Aquinas’ proofs, but not from reading them specifically.

Peace and God bless!