Is Theism more RATIONAL than Non-Theism?

[Zzyzx]

.
In several current threads an Apologist argues that Theism is as rational as, or more rational than, Non-Theism. Let's address that issue directly.

Definitions:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Non-Theism: without belief in the existence of a god or gods

Rational: of, relating to, or based upon reason

Inferior: of less importance, value, or merit


Questions for debate:

1) Is Theism AS RATIONAL as Non-Theism? Why?

2) Is Theism MORE RATIONAL than Non-Theism? Why?

3) Is Non-Theism inferior to Theism? Why?

[McCulloch]

Requiring an axiom to be verified is like requiring a triangle to be a square.

Verified is different from proven. To verify an axiom is to show that it warrants being taken as axiomatic. For example, someone might say that the existence of the Christian God, in three persons, and the truth of the revelation of that God in the Holy Bible is axiomatic. I would disagree. The set of axioms should be the minimum number of fundamental statements that must be assumed in order that a consistent body of propositions may be derived deductively from these statements. So, requiring an axiom to be verified is asking that it be demonstrated that the statement is necessarily part of the minimum set of statements needed to build a consistent system. I do not think that the existence of God belongs on the list.

Every rational system ever has axioms. Every single one.

And every useful rational system's philosophers attempt to reduce the set of axioms to the minimum necessary.

As best I can see, secularism has a losing record, and so I am a Christian, and a rational one at that.

Over two hundred years of continuous existence, based on the world's first secular constitution, its principles imitated and copied, the world's only military and economic super-power, I would not call that a losing record.

[theopoesis]

Requiring an axiom to be verified is like requiring a triangle to be a square.

Verified is different from proven. To verify an axiom is to show that it warrants being taken as axiomatic. For example, someone might say that the existence of the Christian God, in three persons, and the truth of the revelation of that God in the Holy Bible is axiomatic. I would disagree. The set of axioms should be the minimum number of fundamental statements that must be assumed in order that a consistent body of propositions may be derived deductively from these statements. So, requiring an axiom to be verified is asking that it be demonstrated that the statement is necessarily part of the minimum set of statements needed to build a consistent system. I do not think that the existence of God belongs on the list.

I have several things to say here, but limited time, so I'll just list it out:

(1) I think there is a balance between minimizing what is needed for coherence and optimizing what is needed for the development of a comprehensive worldview. In terms of minimizing, agnosticism (or ignosticism) would offer a reduced set of axioms from theism while retaining coherence. However, in terms of optimizing the development of a worldview, I believe Christian axioms are superior, as I am attempting to show in the "Lessing's Ditch" thread, for example. Areas like ethics, politics, sociology, and anthropology would require axioms of a similar nature to Christian axioms. The alternative to theism seems to be nihilism in these areas, or arbitrary selection of a premise. I see no reason why an arbitrary non-theistic selection trumps an arbitrary theistic selection.

(2) Axioms are required for logic to function. Any attempt to logically verify the axiom (even if such verification is reduced to demonstrating its need as the minimal set of beliefs for coherence) would verify the axiom through circular reasoning. The reason itself which verifies the axiom depends upon it in the first place. Therefore, I am suspicious of any verification of axioms as necessary for reason because the reason doing the evaluation assumes the nature of reason and what falls within its scope as a result of its being built upon axioms. Descartes, for example, would build an entire system on the axiom of God and "thinking therefore existence", but his two axioms are largely a product of the rationality which he starts with, not verification of his premises.

(3) Virtually every philosopher I have read needs hundreds of axioms to build a philosophical system. Many are obvious (i.e. what we experience actually exists), but many others are simply defining terms. Each philosopher defines terms in different ways, but the term is almost always defined axiomatically, thereby shaping the system. I think finding a universally agreed upon set of minimal axioms would be extremely tedious, if not impossible.

Every rational system ever has axioms. Every single one.

And every useful rational system's philosophers attempt to reduce the set of axioms to the minimum necessary.

A minimum necessary for optimal explanation.

As best I can see, secularism has a losing record, and so I am a Christian, and a rational one at that.

Over two hundred years of continuous existence, based on the world's first secular constitution, its principles imitated and copied, the world's only military and economic super-power, I would not call that a losing record.

Were I concerned about political success, I might consider western secularism a close runner up to Roman paganism. (I also might question the degree to which Western secularism in the USA was truly secular in origin... many of the ideas demonstrably originated in theological premises, which depended on God as axioms). However, I am not concerned with political success, but rather with developing a consistent and optimal paradigm or worldview.

I look at the secular options that I consider most coherent in this area, and I see the following: Freidrich Neitzsche, who reduces everything to the will to power and violent self-assertion; Jacques Derrida, who reduces all meaning to "play" and the inevitable inability to communicate meaningfully; Ayn Rand, who suggests freedom is nothing deeper than the ability to arbitrate value, worth, and virtue according to personal self-interest through free market interactions in order to destroy altruism and any group loyalty; Michel Foucault (or, in a sense, Lessing), who reduces historical developments and fields of knowledge to ploys at control and power, but incapable of uncovering truth; and on and on and on.

Time and again, the secular axioms are reaching their conclusions in the nihilism, deconstructive postmodernism, and extreme individualism of the past two hundred years. The "sea of meaninglessness" of Dawkins is not rhetorical flair as much as it is concrete reality in libraries around the world.

I don't know why I believe, I just do. But I can say that the apologetics in the past 5 years that has effected me most is not Josh McDowell and his equivalents arguing that there is "evidence that demands a verdict" confirming Christianity. Rather, I read intelligent secular theorist after intelligent secular theorist undermining ethics, politics, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and philosophy and then I read theologians saying "wait, if we accept Christianity, we can fix this!" I'm testing these things out here because I have lacked many secular debate partners who do not embrace the arbitrary "will to power" as the dominant force in the world. If we only seek the minimum, the only measure of success will one day be the nihilistic will to power of a nuclear nation. If we seek to optimize the worldview (though I admit "optimization" depends upon the axioms themselves), I think there is hope for knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community. That is what I think is at stake, and that is what I do not see from the secular writers I have been reading as of late.

[JoeyKnothead]

I gotta say, watching McCulloch and theopoesis go at it is far better'n them soaps the old lady watches when she's off work.

I would like to comment on something theopoesis says...

If we seek to optimize the worldview (though I admit "optimization" depends upon the axioms themselves), I think there is hope for knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community. That is what I think is at stake, and that is what I do not see from the secular writers I have been reading as of late.

I would like to point out that not seeing a given deal there from a given set of writers could be an indication one's reading (or misunderstanding) the wrong books. This could apply equally to my rejection of some notions.

I make this known because I'm seeing (regardless of real intent) an implied claim that such a view (secularism) fails simply because a given set of folks can't present a valid argument (or the reader simply can't understand that argument) and where the given argument is not presented for examination.

I do NOT challenge the claim so much as I wish to comment. I don't expect theopoesis to have to defend his position here, as it is obviously a personal observation and does not appear to be an overt claim.

[theopoesis]

I gotta say, watching McCulloch and theopoesis go at it is far better'n them soaps the old lady watches when she's off work.

When I first read this, I imagined a woman sitting around looking at decorative hand soaps. Then I figured it out and decided I needed more sleep.

I would like to comment on something theopoesis says...

If we seek to optimize the worldview (though I admit "optimization" depends upon the axioms themselves), I think there is hope for knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community. That is what I think is at stake, and that is what I do not see from the secular writers I have been reading as of late.

I would like to point out that not seeing a given deal there from a given set of writers could be an indication one's reading (or misunderstanding) the wrong books. This could apply equally to my rejection of some notions.

I make this known because I'm seeing (regardless of real intent) an implied claim that such a view (secularism) fails simply because a given set of folks can't present a valid argument (or the reader simply can't understand that argument) and where the given argument is not presented for examination.

I do NOT challenge the claim so much as I wish to comment. I don't expect theopoesis to have to defend his position here, as it is obviously a personal observation and does not appear to be an overt claim.

I appreciate the comment and the intent to keep me honest. I'll clarify a bit here. When I am saying that secularism is undermining knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community I am not saying that secularists who argue in favor of these things are falling short of the mark. Rather, I am saying that I see an increasing number of secular theorists who are actively arguing against the existence of these things. Also (I don't think I've said this but as I reflect I think it influences me) I am thinking about particular studies on the decay of community, virtue, etc (Bowling Alone comes to mind).

It isn't so much that I think arguments fail, as that I think arguments that begin with secular assumptions and argue against meaning, valid ethics, and truth seem fairly compelling, and the only way I can escape the argument is through theology. I'm trying to start to introduce some of these ideas here. "Lessing's Ditch" is an example of arguments by secular thinkers that destroy or deconstruct the possibility of valid knowledge (assuming secular premises). Based on the response there, it might be that I more gullibly accept postmodern arguments and that I shouldn't be persuaded by these secular perspectives.

As for reading the wrong books, I am always looking for recommendations. I'm a bit behind on my reading list (still haven't read DZ Phillips at Slopeshoulder's recommendation), but are there any you'd recommend? I know you said I didn't need to respond, but why pass up the chance to understand someone else's perspective more?

(I also guess I made the claim more overt, didn't I?)

[Goat]

I appreciate the comment and the intent to keep me honest. I'll clarify a bit here. When I am saying that secularism is undermining knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community I am not saying that secularists who argue in favor of these things are falling short of the mark. Rather, I am saying that I see an increasing number of secular theorists who are actively arguing against the existence of these things. Also (I don't think I've said this but as I reflect I think it influences me) I am thinking about particular studies on the decay of community, virtue, etc (Bowling Alone comes to mind).

I have to say I have never seen any 'secular theorist' argue against the existence of 'virute, knowledge , communication or meaning'. I have seen plenty of them argue against 'objective morality' and the theistic twist on what 'virtue' is, but that is not the same thing. I have seen that being brought forth as a straw man, but I have not seen anyone argue for it.

I have seen the claim of some theists that insists that is the position of atheism, who then refused all evidence or arguments to the contrary.

[theopoesis]

I appreciate the comment and the intent to keep me honest. I'll clarify a bit here. When I am saying that secularism is undermining knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community I am not saying that secularists who argue in favor of these things are falling short of the mark. Rather, I am saying that I see an increasing number of secular theorists who are actively arguing against the existence of these things. Also (I don't think I've said this but as I reflect I think it influences me) I am thinking about particular studies on the decay of community, virtue, etc (Bowling Alone comes to mind).

I have to say I have never seen any 'secular theorist' argue against the existence of 'virute, knowledge , communication or meaning'. I have seen plenty of them argue against 'objective morality' and the theistic twist on what 'virtue' is, but that is not the same thing. I have seen that being brought forth as a straw man, but I have not seen anyone argue for it.

OK. So let's see if I can do this briefly...

Secularists against meaning: Jacques Derrida is most famous. "Meaning" in a text in terms of presence instead of projection does not exist in his mind. There are many who have adopted his argument.

Secularists against knowledge: Michel Foucault, Martin Heiddeger, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Freidrich Neitzsche all argue against knowledge as apprehending truth. Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, and others all have a similar leaning, although less comprehensively. Each makes "knowledge" just an expression of culture, history, or opinion.

Secularists against communication: Derrida again. This is kind of redundant with "meaning." Stanley Fish, (early) Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Richard Rorty have tendencies in this direction as well. This can also be characterized by a historical development in philosophy known as the "linguistic turn." There is a modern preoccupation with the issue of language.

Virtue: This is a bit more complicated. I suppose this is based both on an analysis by Alisdair MacIntyre which claims that all modern ethics has turned from focusing on "virtue" to focusing on "utility" or "decisions." He is secular-ish, but offers an alternative. Neitzsche is another example of an individual who says that morality is just an expression of a will to power.

I'm ridiculously simplifying these ideas, and mostly just listing names. But the "Straw man" has flesh.

[Goat]

I appreciate the comment and the intent to keep me honest. I'll clarify a bit here. When I am saying that secularism is undermining knowledge, virtue, communication, meaning, and community I am not saying that secularists who argue in favor of these things are falling short of the mark. Rather, I am saying that I see an increasing number of secular theorists who are actively arguing against the existence of these things. Also (I don't think I've said this but as I reflect I think it influences me) I am thinking about particular studies on the decay of community, virtue, etc (Bowling Alone comes to mind).

I have to say I have never seen any 'secular theorist' argue against the existence of 'virute, knowledge , communication or meaning'. I have seen plenty of them argue against 'objective morality' and the theistic twist on what 'virtue' is, but that is not the same thing. I have seen that being brought forth as a straw man, but I have not seen anyone argue for it.

OK. So let's see if I can do this briefly...

Secularists against meaning: Jacques Derrida is most famous. "Meaning" in a text in terms of presence instead of projection does not exist in his mind. There are many who have adopted his argument.

Secularists against knowledge: Michel Foucault, Martin Heiddeger, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Freidrich Neitzsche all argue against knowledge as apprehending truth. Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, and others all have a similar leaning, although less comprehensively. Each makes "knowledge" just an expression of culture, history, or opinion.

Secularists against communication: Derrida again. This is kind of redundant with "meaning." Stanley Fish, (early) Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Richard Rorty have tendencies in this direction as well. This can also be characterized by a historical development in philosophy known as the "linguistic turn." There is a modern preoccupation with the issue of language.

Virtue: This is a bit more complicated. I suppose this is based both on an analysis by Alisdair MacIntyre which claims that all modern ethics has turned from focusing on "virtue" to focusing on "utility" or "decisions." He is secular-ish, but offers an alternative. Neitzsche is another example of an individual who says that morality is just an expression of a will to power.

I'm ridiculously simplifying these ideas, and mostly just listing names. But the "Straw man" has flesh.

This looks more like the argument between existentialism verses post modernism, rather than than secularism.

[theopoesis]

This looks more like the argument between existentialism verses post modernism, rather than than secularism.

Fine. Would you prefer that I say "secular post modernism" and "secular existentialism" instead of "secularism"? I'm simply basing my analysis on the fact that all of the thinkers in question are writing based on non-theistic axioms as part of the secular modernist tradition (there is a reason why there is a debate on whether to call it "postmodernism" or "late modernism"). The fruit of secular modernity is the questions raised above. I find the perspectives of these thinkers compelling if we assume secular axioms. I find many Christians writing with theistic axioms to be able to provide legitimate alternatives. That's my only point.

Label the intellectual movements what you will, my argument is not a straw man. You said you've never seen anyone argue those things, and I offered a dozen people who had. I consider the point made.

[Goat]

This looks more like the argument between existentialism verses post modernism, rather than than secularism.

Fine. Would you prefer that I say "secular post modernism" and "secular existentialism" instead of "secularism"? I'm simply basing my analysis on the fact that all of the thinkers in question are writing based on non-theistic axioms as part of the secular modernist tradition (there is a reason why there is a debate on whether to call it "postmodernism" or "late modernism"). The fruit of secular modernity is the questions raised above. I find the perspectives of these thinkers compelling if we assume secular axioms. I find many Christians writing with theistic axioms to be able to provide legitimate alternatives. That's my only point.

Label the intellectual movements what you will, my argument is not a straw man. You said you've never seen anyone argue those things, and I offered a dozen people who had. I consider the point made.

The one thing I notice about all these philosophers you referenced is that they are all dead. I don't see anybody on this board that is making those claims.

I guess I am not a philosophical kind of guy, because what I call both extentionalism and postmodernism is self absorbed nonsense.

No i have never seen anybody on this board argue for that junk. Of course, I generally avoid the philosophy section, because the presumptions people take just are annoying to me.. I see no value in it.

[theopoesis]

The one thing I notice about all these philosophers you referenced is that they are all dead. I don't see anybody on this board that is making those claims.

I guess I am not a philosophical kind of guy, because what I call both extentionalism and postmodernism is self absorbed nonsense.

No i have never seen anybody on this board argue for that junk. Of course, I generally avoid the philosophy section, because the presumptions people take just are annoying to me.. I see no value in it.

True, they are dead and absent from the board, but I don't think I ever claimed they were alive or present on the board. I simply said, "I look at the secular options that I consider most coherent in this area, and I see the following... Time and again, the secular axioms are reaching their conclusions in the nihilism, deconstructive postmodernism, and extreme individualism of the past two hundred years." In fact, I think the "most coherent" options are the thinkers I cited, and in saying "of the past two hundred years" I think I was pretty clear that they might be dead.

I'm still not seeing where the straw man is...