Is Theism Justified?

[LiamOS]

In the thread 'Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?' EduChris wrote:

[...] theism is at least as justified (and probably more justified) than non-theism.

For Debate:
-Is Theism justified?
-If so, is it more justified than Non-Theism?

[Board]

the history of evolution shows that truth often takes the back seat to selective advantage.

I don't even know what that means. Can you elaborate?

Given non-theist assumptions, it would appear that evolutionary forces have caused the vast majority of humanity to believe in a God who doesn't exist, merely because it was advantageous for them to have hope and optimism and social support, etc., etc., etc...

As Filtzerbiest pointed out, we have been around for 130k-150k years. We only have somewhat reliable history going back maybe 6k-10k years? If that? We have only really begun to learn what we are and where we are in the last maybe 300 years arguably the last 100 even?

I would challenge you to show how the belief in God is due to "evolutionary forces" from the non-theist perspective.

I would say that from a non-theist perspective, religion is an invention of man to prey on the weak to obtain power. By using our very early lack of understanding of the world, early religion creators were able to "play smart" to the rest of the people around them. This led to power, food, possession being given to the one who has communion with a god. Is that evolutionary? Not from a scientific perspective but arguably social evolution.

I do not think that the religions that have survived to this day are in that same boat. I believe they are a product of the early belief structures or more so a perfection. Religion has found the perfect gap in human understanding to thrive. It is as if the believers of the lie are now in charge of it and have discovered ways to justify that which cannot be shown to be true.

Of course it is comforting in giving them hope and some understanding of the world and this crazy thing called life because that is what we are lacking. Religion fills in the holes where we have yet to discover truth. The painful part comes when the truth is found, will religion step aside? That historically has not been the case.

So as to the OP so I can stop myself from rambling on further...

Is Theism justified? Subjectively, yes in light of human history.

Will theism continue to be justified? No, as we grow and learn more I believe the superstitions of our species youth will fade away.

[EduChris]

...I'm still confused by your original formulation, so I'll reverse it to see what happens...

The point is, if theistic belief is false, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, so long as it provides adaptive advantages (and it does seem to offer these advantages).

On the other hand, if theistic belief is true, then it might really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Theism, if true, has at least a potential upside; if false, it has no demonstrable downside.

Non-theism, if true, has no demonstrable upside (since we can't show that it offers any selective advantage); if false, there is at least the potential downside of not even trying to learn how and why we might matter to God.

[EduChris]

...I would challenge you to show how the belief in God is due to "evolutionary forces" from the non-theist perspective...

I don't have to prove anything; all I have to do is point out that the non-theist has no reasonable option other than #2. The best that the truth-seeking non-theist can do is hope that options #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive.

...Religion has found the perfect gap in human understanding to thrive...Of course it is comforting in giving them hope and some understanding of the world and this crazy thing called life because that is what we are lacking. Religion fills in the holes where we have yet to discover truth...

Either that or religion has already discovered truth. We can't really know with any certainty, given our common human condition. All any of us have is faith.

...The painful part comes when the truth is found, will religion step aside?...

See above.

...Will theism continue to be justified? No, as we grow and learn more I believe the superstitions of our species youth will fade away.

That sounds like a faith-based position. But as long as the non-theist can only reasonably choose option #2, then my claim holds true: theism is as justified as non-theism (given non-theist presuppositions) and it is more justified than non-theism (given theistic presuppostions). Therefore, theism is objectively more justified than non-theism.

Now as I said before, the fact that theism is justified does not in any way mean that it is objectively true--we can't know that in an objective way. You could be right, and I could be wrong, or vice-versa. All I am doing is saying that theists do not need to continually justify the theistic core of their worldviews. Freed from that burden (aka JoeyKnothead and Zzyzx) we can now begin the more productive discussions regarding the relative merits of particular theisms (religious traditions) and particular non-theisms.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 103:

I don't have to prove anything; all I have to do is point out that the non-theist has no reasonable option other than #2. The best that the truth-seeking non-theist can do is hope that options #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive.

You continue to beat the drum of a false dichotomy. Your position relies on there being only two options, when other equally valid options such as agnosticism, have been pointed out to you.

To claim one is more justified to believe in that which can't be shown to be true is as goofy a notion as any I've known.

Now as I said before, the fact that theism is justified does not in any way mean that it is objectively true--we can't know that in an objective way. All I am doing is saying that theists do not need to continually justify the theistic core of their worldviews. Freed from that burden (aka JoeyKnothead and Zzyzx)...

I'm aware many theists would love to remove the burden of proof for their claims.

...we can now begin the more productive discussions regarding the relative merits of particular theisms (religious traditions) and particular non-theisms.

Who determines what constitutes "productive"?

I personally find it quite "productive" when the observer is able to see folks present fallacious arguments while failing to understand why their arguments are faulty.

[EduChris]

...other equally valid options such as agnosticism, have been pointed out to you...

Per my definition of theism, the agnostic is in the same situation as the non-theist: they both have no reasonable alternative to selecting option #2.

...folks present fallacious arguments while failing to understand why their arguments are faulty.

I wonder if the possibility has ever occurred to you of someone presenting fallacious counter-arguments which fail to demonstrate any comprehension of the original argument?

[Woland]

300th post. I love this place.

*cracks his knuckles*

The only way either of us would know anything in this regard is if we were somehow to attain knowledge which we do not currently have. Until we have such knowledge, the one sure thing we know is that theism must provide some selective advantages, or else it wouldn't be so prevalent in every era and every culture and every geographical location in the history of humankind.

...

What does that thing say about whether or not it's actually reasonable to keep believing in supernatural tales when you understand that people have NO evidence for their beliefs except for the only thing that's virtually GUARANTEED to fail them in their quest of finding out what's true and what's not, whatever the truth is:

FAITH.

Would you really deny this in light of the mutually exclusive forms of popular delusions?

How about this. Let me put my spin on the story of "specific personal loving interventionist god" theism (as opposed to generic theism with an undefined "god" which could be ANYTHING). If anyone disagrees with anything below, we can explore their disagreements. This goes for non-theists as well as theists.

Group delusion provides selective advantages such as cohesion, a sense of purpose etc., and this is clearly the case with "personal interventionist loving god with whom I have a relationship" type religions.

In short: sure, I think you're absolutely correct.

Many religions indeed appear to offer "tremendous selective advantage" (for themselves) since their members often largely consist of people with a constantly socially reinforced group mentality who procreate a lot and often teach their children to believe what they're told "on faith" early on until the point where they are no longer able to distinguish wishful thinking and speculation from evidence and actually FEEL they have a personal relationship or connection with, or knowledge of, any very specific one(s) of the THOUSANDS of mutually exclusive deities (most probably that of their parents or peers, unsurprisingly enough). Does this mean that humans who know what they do not know and who thus know better than to dogmatically adhere to evidently mythological tales and base their lives on these TALES written by IGNORANT desert-dwellers should think it's helpful at all that people are able (and even likely) to believe any form of UTTER nonsense?

I don't think so. I've been asking for years what REASONS there are to believe in any specific set of supernatural tales. I have not seen many until now. Call me a skeptic, but I like my knowledge cooked in a particular way - that is, I like it stuffed with tasty verifiable evidence, not a filler of endless claims and obfuscatory tactics which are absolutely indistinguishable from delusion or wishful thinking. I also like my speculation in a particular way - just like a pack of cigarettes, it should come with a warning sign. And so speculation always does, for those who care to look.

It's pretty apparent that Abrahamic religions in particular are the some of the most successful "parasitic/viral ideas" there are out there, especially within the realm of religions. They are able to gather vast numbers of people through the fear of the unknown (especially death), often with at least a slight hint of a possible Hell and unverifiable, tall promises as a reward for compliance and faith, and the EVIDENT tendency in humans to believe things that they want to believe, things they wish were true. They are naturally selected by the marketplace of ideas to gather the most people by manipulating their emotions from all the right angles. Anyone disputing that VAST numbers of humans are and have always been completely delusional in several ways because they followed their emotions instead of sound reasoning has a MASSIVE track record of wishful thinking and delusion to deny, a record which increases in variety with every new ridiculous claim or scam that a few million or BILLION people will believe because they've most likely been hit by these ideas in emotionally hard times in their lives OR, even more commonly, when they were children and their minds were malleable, which very well explains the diversity and abundance of the sort of people who are absolutely convinced that they know what they OBVIOUSLY do NOT know.

Another obvious "selective advantage" for religions in spreading themselves is that the average human simply doesn't appear to understand what a fallacy is and why it's an irrelevant form of "argumentation", so what sounds good and seems to him to be defensible is emotionally perceived as being better than taking a step back and looking at what we're dealing with here:

People all around the world, in all of history, convincing themselves that they know what they in fact do not know.

What does wishful thinking have to do with what's desirable or reasonable or not?

Who would dare to say that religion hasn't held humanity back for far too long by persecuting and vilifying those who dissented with ridiculous claims which are conveniently suddenly "metaphorical" (and even then, only to some) once they're shown to be incorrect if taken literally?

Who can proclaim that they know what humanity would look like if there were less "personal specific god" theists out there, or even, from an evolutionary standpoint, if we stand anything to presently maintain that personal god theism is a reasonable position?

Even very intelligent people get caught in scams or by con artists - OFTEN. When you are ready to believe ANYTHING "on faith", you are liable to believe ANYTHING and impose your beliefs on reality instead of doing the opposite, which is evidently more reasonable. People have VERY often considered things which are immoral by any modern standard to be alright, because of faith. Muslims today still STONE others for consensual sex.

These people STONE HUMAN BEINGS, and they simply define this as being perfect morality. Try showing them that their actions are inhuman when they're convinced ALLAH told them it was a good idea. MOST Christians I've ever met and heard of think this is barbaric (well they do today, anyway), but they come up with the EXACT SAME kind of nonsense excuses to try to justify their deity from allegedly condoning or having condoned all sorts of despicable and unjust ideals such as vicarious redemption, collective punishment, child murder (for crying out loud), slavery and ownership of humans in general, and I could go on and on.

How does it feel, if you "believe" irrational/hateful things because you have faith?

It feels exactly as if you were correct.

...I believe we are beginning to transition into the sort of civilization where such a comparison can actually be made...

Belief noted. If you are right, perhaps we will know for certain in the future. Until then, we are talking about what is most reasonable now, given our current state of knowledge.

Our current state of knowledge is not sufficient enough to justify belief in any other supernatural being than, perhaps, an undefined "god" which resembles in no way the god of the religionists. That's what he was explaining, but you seem to have a preference for believing your very sophisticated speculation/sophistry despite an utter absence of convincing evidence.

Once again, wishful thinking is great, but it should be acknowledged by reasonable thinkers as being such.

...you're just cheering your home team...

Not at all. Even Board has admitted that theism confers advantages (community, support, encouragement, companionship, membership in something larger than oneself, etc., etc., etc.).

Secular humanism and other worldviews can easily also give rise to all of these, minus the delusion that the whole universe was created for the benefit of a few ants on a rock, and minus the dubious "interpretations" that INEVITABLY come from worshiping a deity described in a book written by people who thought stoning/crucifiction/slavery were just fine, among other delightful things like the mass killing of children.

-Woland

[Board]

...Religion has found the perfect gap in human understanding to thrive...Of course it is comforting in giving them hope and some understanding of the world and this crazy thing called life because that is what we are lacking. Religion fills in the holes where we have yet to discover truth...

Either that or religion has already discovered truth. We can't really know with any certainty, given our common human condition. All any of us have is faith.

Granted. However, to claim that we got religion right 2000 years ago when we were ignorant of the world is a giant leap of faith in my mind.

...The painful part comes when the truth is found, will religion step aside?...

See above.

I saw above and I think I did not present the point clear enough. The earth is not the center of the universe. The sun does not revolve around us. The world is not flat. There are countless scientific discoveries that throughout history, major religious institutions have denied and actively fought against these discoveries of truth. Religion did not peacefully step aside when their misconceptions of the world were shown to be false. How can we then justify the same religions take on the world as truth? Did they only get some parts correct and not others? Which parts are true?

...Will theism continue to be justified? No, as we grow and learn more I believe the superstitions of our species youth will fade away.

That sounds like a faith-based position. But as long as the non-theist can only reasonably choose option #2, then my claim holds true: theism is at least as justified as non-theism (given non-theist presuppositions) and it is more justified than non-theism (given theistic presuppostions). Therefore, theism is objectively more justified than non-theism.

Now as I said before, the fact that theism is justified does not in any way mean that it is objectively true--we can't know that in an objective way. All I am doing is saying that theists do not need to continually justify the theistic core of their worldviews. Freed from that burden (aka JoeyKnothead and Zzyzx) we can now begin the more productive discussions regarding the relative merits of particular theisms (religious traditions) and particular non-theisms.

But can you see it from our perspective? Can you see that some non-theists look at religion and see all these things I have stated? We see the holes in human psychology and the gaps that religion fills. We see the manipulation of religious bodies over the years. We see the reliance on faith in areas that we should be questioning. We see the ignorance of our human history and in light of new discoveries we have fully justified doubt that anyone in the past got much of anything right. So why should we allow religion to continue to be presented as truth?

Theism can be justified in light of all these things and in light of our history. Yet I do not feel you can expect a non-theist to accept that justification is greater than the justification for non-theism. To us the core of your world view is flawed much like to you, the core of our world view is flawed.

I would agree that some questions get repeated a little too often. Some challenges are too repetitive. I cannot speak for JoeyKnothead and Zzyzx but if there is a challenge like "You claim god exists, prove it" and the answer is "I cannot objectively prove it but rely on faith and my experiences" I fell most people would understand the point of view. Whether they believe it or not and accept your position is a different story but they should at least be cordial in their discussion.

I don't think it is fair to try and show your position as more justified than the alternative while defining the alternative position. Present your case for how you justify your position and then allow the alternative points of view to present theirs. We can then work toward discovering if we are equally justified or if one side is more justified. Your first post started out on the offensive against non-theism and that is never beneficial to discussion.

One thing I learned long ago is to try and never speak for someone else or use the word "you". If you want to get someone talking and not force them into a defensive position always use "I" and only talk about yourself. No accusations, no straw men, no attacks. Talk about how I feel, what I believe, what I have seen, what I have learned and then the other person will open up on their views and if you can continue to stay off the offensive there can be true understanding...

And here I have gone and rambled on and on... sorry for the giant post. Hopefully some of it makes sense.

[EduChris]

...Group delusion provides selective advantages such as cohesion, a sense of purpose etc., and this is clearly the case with "personal interventionist loving god with whom I have a relationship" type religions...In short: sure, I think you're absolutely correct...

Thank you.

...Secular humanism and other worldviews can easily also give rise to all of these...

And there is your faith-based position. But regardless, as long as you have no reasonable option other than #2, then my claim holds true.

[EduChris]

...I don't think it is fair to try and show your position as more justified than the alternative while defining the alternative position...

Essentially I am presenting the minimalist core of my worldview, showing how and why it is more reasonable (or at least no less reasonable) than any alternative starting position. Once I have shown that the theistic core of my worldview is justified, then I am more than happy to discuss particulars.

In a sense, I feel that this entire thread is foolish, since it should be understood by all people of good will that we all have our worldviews which are based on presuppositions which cannot be proven. But since there are those folks here who keep insisting that my presuppositions are inferior to theirs, and therefore require special justification, I thought I would show them why they are wrong on their own terms.

In short, I agree that the particulars are what matter most, but until the minimal (presuppositional) core is granted (or until I put a few folks back on my ignore list, which seems like a drastic measure) this sort of thread is a necessary evil.

[Adamoriens]

The point is, if theistic belief is false, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, so long as it provides adaptive advantages (and it does seem to offer these advantages).

On the other hand, if theistic belief is true, then it might really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Theism, if true, has at least a potential upside; if false, it has no demonstrable downside.

Oh, I get it now. But even on the criterion of selective advantage (which you've failed to establish as the prime concern of non-theism), the falsehood of theistic belief could very well be of concern, since theism could be pernicious (religious wars, social stagnation, denominational divisions etc.). I haven't seen you address this possibility.

Non-theism, if true, has no demonstrable upside (since we can't show that it offers any selective advantage); if false, there is at least the potential downside of not even trying to learn how and why we might matter to God.

It seems that you advance to the specific to commend theism (speaking of community, interaction with God) but retreat to the general when criticized. For your argument to be effective, you need to show that the most general theism has a possible upside without commending a specific theism or appealing to the risk of rejecting a specific theism, and you need to show that theism confers more selective advantage over and above non-theism.

I'd like to repeat my earlier question: if theism is true, why would beliefs matter?