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?

[afungus amongus]

@theopoesis: I believe that anti-gay, pro-slavery young- (and flat-) Earth creationists take the "most coherent" approach to the Bible. But such idle observations, until supported by evidence, are just inflammatory and off-topic. You've got to show that non-theism leads rationally (not just anecdotally or statistically) to unacceptable conclusions.

Now on the question of which belief is more rational (theism or non-), that is a personal issue which depends primarily on your available evidence for theism and your personal desires. I want to know the truth and I've seen no good evidence for theism, so for me non-theism is more rational.

We can build an idea of objective (or inter-subjective, if you prefer) rationality based on public evidence and common desires. Here too I believe that we want to know the truth and that theism is ill-supported.

Are there any arguments for theism that have not (in your mind) been conclusively refuted? All I found on the first page of Christian apologetics threads was this and it was refuted here.

[Flail]

If by theism the OP refers to a definitive belief that there is a particular God, such belief is irrational under the circumstances of the present state of human existence and understanding. If by-non theism the OP refers to a definitive non-belief that there are any 'Gods', such belief is likewise irrational under the circumstance of the present state of human existence and understanding.

Believing there is a God is little different than believing there is not a God. There is absolutely no reason to believe on either side of such blind speculations. There is zero evidence for or against God in general or any specific God. We don't even know what a 'God' would be, not to mention our ridiculous attempts of supplying such supernatural somethings with a 'history'. Therefore, debating truth claims as to existence or non-existence of any 'God' in particular or of 'Gods' in general is meaningless.

[theopoesis]

@theopoesis: I believe that anti-gay, pro-slavery young- (and flat-) Earth creationists take the "most coherent" approach to the Bible. But such idle observations, until supported by evidence, are just inflammatory and off-topic.

Thank you for starting your post off with an unsubstantiated and admittedly inflammatory and off-topic statement.

You've got to show that non-theism leads rationally (not just anecdotally or statistically) to unacceptable conclusions.

I've attempted to suggest precisely this across this forum, and I have been educated to believe that this is the case through undergrad and graduate school. I suppose it should be easy enough to offer alternatives to the "anecdotal" references to unacceptable conclusions, but when I started a thread to offer secularists the opportunity, I didn't see much fruit. Eventually, the thread was shut down and deleted due to rules violations.

Now on the question of which belief is more rational (theism or non-), that is a personal issue which depends primarily on your available evidence for theism and your personal desires. I want to know the truth and I've seen no good evidence for theism, so for me non-theism is more rational.

On the first 2-3 pages of this thread, I sugested that there were theisms and non-theisms of equal intellectual and rational caliber. I take the "for me" in italics as indicating that other alternatives exist wherein theism might be the rational approach for someone else. If this is the case, then we are not too different in this one respect.

We can build an idea of objective (or inter-subjective, if you prefer) rationality based on public evidence and common desires. Here too I believe that we want to know the truth and that theism is ill-supported.

I think the conclusion is rooted in what is determined "public" and "common." Theism is ill supported in particular public groups with particular sets of commonality, but not in other commonalities in other publics.

Are there any arguments for theism that have not (in your mind) been conclusively refuted? All I found on the first page of Christian apologetics threads was this and it was refuted here.

I am a fideist. It's not that there is a completely conclusive argument in favor of theism, as much as there is also no conclusive argument in favor of secularism. Any selection of a paradigm, axiom, or metanarrative is equally arbitrary in many respects. The lack of conclusive argumentation would be convincing to me if and only if there was a conclusive and compelling variant of secularism that sought to address the same variety of intellectual, cultural, and personal fields as theism. In the absence of a conclusive alternative, any selection is equally subject to rational criticism.

In terms of an argument for the existence of God, I would first ask for a conclusive argument for the existence of Theopoesis. Once his existence and credentials are established, he might be able to offer a similar argument for the existence of God. Or, perhaps, God is not encountered as a rationally deduced premise, but as an "other" who is understood through encounter and not through deduction. Perhaps, this encounter itself is the determinative principle for the shaping of a new rationality (a "new creation" if you will) that is the source of my very remaking.

I've argued these points extensively and could cite threads if you'd prefer, but it's not exactly what you seem to be looking for.

[afungus amongus]

I suppose it should be easy enough to offer alternatives to the "anecdotal" references to unacceptable conclusions, but when I started a thread to offer secularists the opportunity, I didn't see much fruit.

You bear the burden of proof - in general we assume that statement A does not logically lead to statement B, even if several popular thinkers believed both A and B.

I think the conclusion is rooted in what is determined "public" and "common." Theism is ill supported in particular public groups with particular sets of commonality, but not in other commonalities in other publics.

Of course there may be public evidence I'm not aware of, or that I've misunderstood. If you think so, post it! That's what debate fora are for.

You're saying that the "variety of intellectual, cultural, and personal fields" addressed gives reason/warrant/justification to believe in theism. Could you elaborate?

In terms of an argument for the existence of God, I would first ask for a conclusive argument for the existence of Theopoesis. Once his existence and credentials are established, he might be able to offer a similar argument for the existence of God.

Note that I asked for an argument that hasn't been conclusively disproven - I didn't ask for a conclusive argument. So if my argument for your existence is inconclusive, that shows no hypocrisy on my part.

I know enough about internet forums and the English language to infer that your posts come from a male homo sapiens who answers to the name "Theopoesis". I routinely post on the internet but to my knowledge I haven't made any universes (nor do I have many clues as to how they could be made) - so I reject the analogous argument for a Creator.

Or, perhaps, God is not encountered as a rationally deduced premise, but as an "other" who is understood through encounter and not through deduction. Perhaps, this encounter itself is the determinative principle for the shaping of a new rationality (a "new creation" if you will) that is the source of my very remaking.

Is the encounter publicly available? Does it deviate from the natural order? If not - if it is only understood via private emotions - then it is probably just your psychology playing tricks on you. We're familiar with such tricks: we see faces in trees and clouds, we've evolved to perceive intent all around us because those false positives posed less of a survival threat than failing to perceive hungry predators. We also tend to fill in unknown information based on our desires and social cues. God is very well understood as a mythological manifestation of human frailty (in the same vein as Zeus), which is a reason to doubt that He's real.

I've argued these points extensively and could cite threads if you'd prefer, but it's not exactly what you seem to be looking for.

Actually, links to interesting threads would be greatly appreciated, as I'm new around these parts. Links make sense in a broad topic like this with its inevitable branch-offs.

[theopoesis]

I suppose it should be easy enough to offer alternatives to the "anecdotal" references to unacceptable conclusions, but when I started a thread to offer secularists the opportunity, I didn't see much fruit.

You bear the burden of proof - in general we assume that statement A does not logically lead to statement B, even if several popular thinkers believed both A and B.

I generally offer two sorts of arguments, and it's a bit late in this thread to re-create them. The first is to suggest that secularism has undermined and eliminated _______ (such as communication, empiricism, philosophy, etc). I then offer an argument by one of the thinkers who argues this. I have yet to have much serious engagement when I do this. The most common responses are failing to understand what I say (possibly my fault) or dismissing philosophy altogether without responding to the arguments.

The second thing I offered was an empirical survey which says that secularism seems to undermine _________, but granting that counterexamples showing secular theories about ________ according to the principles/axioms of secularism would empirically challenge my claim. No counterexamples were really offered.

Thus, I was not so much arguing A and B therefore A leads to B, in the way that you suggest.

I think the conclusion is rooted in what is determined "public" and "common." Theism is ill supported in particular public groups with particular sets of commonality, but not in other commonalities in other publics.

Of course there may be public evidence I'm not aware of, or that I've misunderstood. If you think so, post it! That's what debate fora are for.

You're saying that the "variety of intellectual, cultural, and personal fields" addressed gives reason/warrant/justification to believe in theism. Could you elaborate?

My argument in this thread was simply intended to suggest that under certain conditions theism might be as rational as non-theism. I then offered a theory about reason, logic, and the structure of paradigms to back up this claim. I have made the arguments you request information on in other threads, and I link them below. Perhaps it might be easier to discuss these things there.

In terms of an argument for the existence of God, I would first ask for a conclusive argument for the existence of Theopoesis. Once his existence and credentials are established, he might be able to offer a similar argument for the existence of God.

Note that I asked for an argument that hasn't been conclusively disproven - I didn't ask for a conclusive argument. So if my argument for your existence is inconclusive, that shows no hypocrisy on my part.

Correction granted.

I know enough about internet forums and the English language to infer that your posts come from a male homo sapiens who answers to the name "Theopoesis". I routinely post on the internet but to my knowledge I haven't made any universes (nor do I have many clues as to how they could be made) - so I reject the analogous argument for a Creator.

This feeds into an interesting dilemma along the lines of postmodernity. Theism suggests a world created by God according to his desires, and then attempts to understand the Creator through the creation and the creation through the creator. Secularism eliminates the creator, thereby eliminating the transcendent universal which unites and links the particulars to one another. Then, knowledge of the other is only knowledge by analogy to the self. What is known about the other is only a radically reflexive knowledge of the self. You can know "Theopoesis" by your knowledge of yourself, but not a Creator because attributes of the Creator are not shared by yourself. Can you, then, actually know another as "other" or only as a projection of the self?

I see this dilemma, and I find secularism unappealing.

Or, perhaps, God is not encountered as a rationally deduced premise, but as an "other" who is understood through encounter and not through deduction. Perhaps, this encounter itself is the determinative principle for the shaping of a new rationality (a "new creation" if you will) that is the source of my very remaking.

Is the encounter publicly available?

Must something be publically available to be real? If a tree falls in the forest, and only I hear it, does it still make a noise?

Does it deviate from the natural order?

Can what is natural be defined apart from assumptions about what is normal? Aren't these assumptions linked with your own experience? What makes your experiences more valid than mine?

If not - if it is only understood via private emotions - then it is probably just your psychology playing tricks on you. We're familiar with such tricks: we see faces in trees and clouds, we've evolved to perceive intent all around us because those false positives posed less of a survival threat than failing to perceive hungry predators. We also tend to fill in unknown information based on our desires and social cues. God is very well understood as a mythological manifestation of human frailty (in the same vein as Zeus), which is a reason to doubt that He's real.

I am quite familiar with this construction of human psychology. I've read Freud, Hobbes, Fuerbach, etc. It's a compelling tale, but really no more verifiable than alternate constructions of human psychology from a theistic perspective. The purported subconscious drive to "perceive intent all around us" for survival's purpose is equally inaccessible as the subconscious and innate "inner longing" for God of Tillich, Schleiermacher, or Luther. The catch is that the subconscious is subconscious, meaning it is not accessible to us through conscious reflection. Therefore, any conscious analysis of the subconscious is speculative, and nothing more.

I've argued these points extensively and could cite threads if you'd prefer, but it's not exactly what you seem to be looking for.

Actually, links to interesting threads would be greatly appreciated, as I'm new around these parts. Links make sense in a broad topic like this with its inevitable branch-offs.

I'm glad to see you on this forum. You seem to be a polite, intelligent, and interesting discussion partner. Welcome to the forum. I'd be happy to oblige and send you links to the threads where I began these sorts of debates. Material gets churned out so fast here that your head spins to try to keep up. Best of luck to you.

My views on empiricism in light of postmodernity:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14573

Another thread on my views in light of postmodernity and presuppositionalism:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=337779

A thread with some of Foucault's ideas on power:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=329215

A thread on subjectivity and Christianity's ability to overcome it:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15338

A thread on history as a problem for secularism but not Christianity:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15639

Another good thread (the first few pages) on the reasonableness of Christianity:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15950

[afungus amongus]

This feeds into an interesting dilemma along the lines of postmodernity. Theism suggests a world created by God according to his desires, and then attempts to understand the Creator through the creation and the creation through the creator. Secularism eliminates the creator, thereby eliminating the transcendent universal which unites and links the particulars to one another. Then, knowledge of the other is only knowledge by analogy to the self. What is known about the other is only a radically reflexive knowledge of the self. You can know "Theopoesis" by your knowledge of yourself, but not a Creator because attributes of the Creator are not shared by yourself. Can you, then, actually know another as "other" or only as a projection of the self?

Two replies:

-It is unclear whether God (assuming He exists) helps you know other minds. We may be united and linked to them by a "transcendent universal" but this tells us nothing about what other people are thinking or feeling, i.e. the contents of their minds. Nor does it shed light on God's mind. It seems that even if God exists, all information about other minds must be inferred from behavior by analogy to yourself. To the extent that God's mind operates like ours, we can know it by analogy; the rest is an opaque mystery.

-We must distinguish different types of appeal. A magical connection to all other minds is emotionally appealing, but of course that doesn't make it real. We're interested in intellectual appeal, which consists in agreement with the evidence. We do not, in fact, have supernatural access to other minds; so if theism predicts that we do, that is evidence against the God hypothesis.

Must something be publically available to be real? If a tree falls in the forest, and only I hear it, does it still make a noise?

Publicity is evidence that it's not all in your head. That's why we ask "did you hear/see something?" upon perceiving strange events, because we often imagine or misinterpret them.

Can what is natural be defined apart from assumptions about what is normal? Aren't these assumptions linked with your own experience? What makes your experiences more valid than mine?

I had Occam's Razor in mind - if your encounters are plausibly explained within "the natural order", according to physical laws, then God is superfluous. He just clutters the mental landscape.

I am quite familiar with this construction of human psychology. I've read Freud, Hobbes, Fuerbach, etc. It's a compelling tale, but really no more verifiable than alternate constructions of human psychology from a theistic perspective. The purported subconscious drive to "perceive intent all around us" for survival's purpose is equally inaccessible as the subconscious and innate "inner longing" for God of Tillich, Schleiermacher, or Luther. The catch is that the subconscious is subconscious, meaning it is not accessible to us through conscious reflection. Therefore, any conscious analysis of the subconscious is speculative, and nothing more.

Perceptual failures are verifiable psychological facts, not a "construction" on par with theological speculation. A plausible evolutionary explanation is just icing on this factual cake.

I think we can agree that reliability depends strongly on our circumstances. The riddle, then, is why the circumstances of religious encounters are exactly those in which it is easy to be wrong - private, emotional, unmeasurable, unverifiable experiences. Don't you find that a bit odd?

I'm glad to see you on this forum. You seem to be a polite, intelligent, and interesting discussion partner. Welcome to the forum. I'd be happy to oblige and send you links to the threads where I began these sorts of debates. Material gets churned out so fast here that your head spins to try to keep up. Best of luck to you.

Thanks! I promise to visit every one of those threads and offer up some meaty and robust challenges~