Coming home . . .

[Haven]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

To everyone who's spoken with me here over the past few months, thanks, I really appreciate it. To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction. If you want more details, just ask.

Thanks

Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

[His Name Is John]

In the case of 'tree' or 'table' or 'sun', I can point to various items and say this is a tree, table or sun. This is not the case with the term god. As in the case of all abstract entities, a definition is required. Defining God as ineffable to me is useless. Sure there may be some ineffable entities out there. But, their existence is entirely moot due to their ineffability.

If God is truly ineffable, then you cannot say, "God want this" or "God has a Son" or even "God loves" without denying the god's ineffability.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

As far as I see it Haven, your switch is both logical and emotional. Which I think is good. The emotion switched the presumption to that of theism and your rational / logic defended and backed up such a presumption.

At least, I guess that is what happened. Or am I wrong?

[Bust Nak]

Just war, euthanasia, capital punishment, punishment in general, social conscience, rights of the individual, rights of the state, worship of God ect.

Euthanasia, that's a big one. The other issues we disagree with ourselves as much as we disagree with Christians.

This is only just scratching the tip of differences (or potential differences). Perhaps atheists and Christians agree on certain of these things, but usually their reasons for doing so are most defiantly not the same.

This I agree with.

So you love others for selfish reasons?

Well "selfish" is a word with negative connotation assocate with it, and suggest doing something at the expense of others, I don't think that applies here. But in a way, any and all motives ultimately boils down to "selfish" reason.

If so it isn't really love of others as much as love of yourself.

To love another first you must learn to love yourself.

[revelationtestament]

To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction.

I disagree with your conclusion, but do not apologize for debating. The whole purpose of debate is to strongly challenge opposing points of view, to eliminate error and winnow out the truth.

Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

I do not believe that rational theism is possible. Let's start with the word god. Surely you agree with me that it is not rational to claim to believe in that which you cannot even define. What is it that you mean when you use the word god? Please be as complete and precise as possible.

Well Haven
somewhat unexpected announcement.
I differ from McCullough on the possibility of rational theism. I believe God is rational, and in the end has set up a rational plan for us to follow. I believe this plan is the best possibility for our happiness. I do not care to live in a world where everyone is concerned only with themselves. The best possibility for happiness is where everyone learns to do for others. This is rational as even Spock recognized: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. However, having said all that, a belief in God will ultimately depend on faith. God provides evidence for His existence, but still wants us to learn to have faith in Him which involves spirituality. This involves developing a relationship with Him - not using rational thought. So yes, learn from the best books etc, but also develop a relationship with our Savior. In conclusion I believe theism is both rational and spiritual. Maybe McCullough would agree with this - I have noticed his signature saying the truth will set you free.

I believe one problem many would-be-Christians have is that they find themselves struggling with and rejecting so many things taught in the various churches because they seem irrational or seem to contradict one another or the scriptures. This is a problem brought about by man-made doctrines. I would posit in your continued search for truth and happiness to rely upon the scriptures. If you read something that seems right in a book, turn to God with it.

[JCviggen]

I differ from McCullough on the possibility of rational theism. I believe God is rational, and in the end has set up a rational plan for us to follow.

Without judging this claim of rationality, simply believing it is rational...is clearly not enough to make it so.

a belief in God will ultimately depend on faith

Well if that's what it boils down to..then it is not rational but simply faith. Accepting something as true without evidence.

but still wants us to learn to have faith in Him

Out of curiosity, on which basis are you making claims about God's thoughts or wishes?

I believe one problem many would-be-Christians have is that they find themselves struggling with and rejecting so many things taught in the various churches because they seem irrational or seem to contradict one another or the scriptures.

Having been brought up Catholic, what got me out of it once I was old enough to think for myself was not that the religions contradict each other, but rather they frequently contradict history and archaeological evidence. And there is never a solid basis for their claims. I could care less about them contradicting each other, that's to be expected.

to rely upon the scriptures

Which ones? There's quite a few religions to choose from that have ancient scriptures, and they all claim to be right, they all claim to have evidence and miracles and many of their followers claim to have (had) direct contact with their God(s). To presume one's own religion the only correct one is a) arrogant and b) ignores that by far the largest determining factor for one's religion is the religion of those around you, family in particular. Making it statistically obvious that there is little reasoned choice involved.

[Slopeshoulder]

Hi all,
Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind?

Of course not. But it appears you've been under stress and very invested in this issue of faith. And why not?

Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism?

I feel very strongly that evidentiary apologetics is beside the point.

Does God exist?

Existence is not a category that pertains to God. God gods.

Is rational theism possible?

I don't think rationalism is a road to faith, or an argument against it. Rationality certainly can and must have a role in religious life, to ward off dangerous extremisms and silly beliefs, and to doscern ever greater meaning and be able to express it; my own tradition certainly values reason. I prefer "reasonable," per Schleiermacher (The Reasonableness of Christianity). While I'm not really a fan of Plantinga, his use of the word "warrant" is also appealing. I think theism is reasonable. And I think a faith life is a function or emotion and intuition and culture as much or more than reason. It's an existential orientation, lived with heart and feet as much as head. It's also a form of life, a language, and you're right to say that a lifetime of indecision is banal, as we have to exist inside some language, some community.

Lastly, that quote from Rahner that theopoesis provided is GREAT! I was unfamiliar with it (unless I forget reading it way back when). Rahner is existentialist, but here he's clearly in the post-analytic linguistic camp, sounding like late Wittgenstein. LOVE it.
Theo, which book?

[revelationtestament]

I differ from McCullough on the possibility of rational theism. I believe God is rational, and in the end has set up a rational plan for us to follow.

Without judging this claim of rationality, simply believing it is rational...is clearly not enough to make it so.

Well, I really don't have time to show all the ways it is rational. It comes from a lifetime of studying the scriptures and pursuing the truths found in them. At first many things may not be understood, but after studying them, pondering them, and praying about them, understanding has usually come, and the rationality of it all is seen.

me:

a belief in God will ultimately depend on faith

Well if that's what it boils down to..then it is not rational but simply faith. Accepting something as true without evidence.

You do not understand. Faith is not based just upon things not seen. Faith is based upon the evidence presented in the scriptures, and experiences of life, as well as the admittedly subjective outcomes of prayer etc. Faith is based upon knowledge and experience.

me:

but still wants us to learn to have faith in Him

Out of curiosity, on which basis are you making claims about God's thoughts or wishes?

From passages in the New Testament. For instance, where Jesus implores us to exercise faith even as a grain of a mustard seed. To build upon what grows.

me:

I believe one problem many would-be-Christians have is that they find themselves struggling with and rejecting so many things taught in the various churches because they seem irrational or seem to contradict one another or the scriptures.

Having been brought up Catholic, what got me out of it once I was old enough to think for myself was not that the religions contradict each other, but rather they frequently contradict history and archaeological evidence. And there is never a solid basis for their claims. I could care less about them contradicting each other, that's to be expected.

I believe the prophecies in the scriptures fit right in line with history.
I don't have a problem with genetics or even evolution. I accept them as part of God's creation. Like much of the Bible the story of the creation is more metaphorical than literal, and is trying to teach us. In fact I believe the creation story to be a very concise version of how the earth came about that basically conforms with our scientific understanding of the creation of the earth.

me:

to rely upon the scriptures

Which ones? There's quite a few religions to choose from that have ancient scriptures, and they all claim to be right, they all claim to have evidence and miracles and many of their followers claim to have (had) direct contact with their God(s). To presume one's own religion the only correct one is a) arrogant and b) ignores that by far the largest determining factor for one's religion is the religion of those around you, family in particular. Making it statistically obvious that there is little reasoned choice involved.

I believe you are being divisive here. Since the original post was about returning to theism, and from what I know of Haven, a Christian theism, I assume he knows I am referring to the Bible. The title of the thread is that he is returning to Christianity, so should we assume some other scripture such as the Quoran? That would be totally inappropriate.

[theopoesis]

Hello McCulloch:

Nice to hear from you. I hope you are well.

In the case of 'tree' or 'table' or 'sun', I can point to various items and say this is a tree, table or sun. This is not the case with the term god.

As was granted with my post and in Rahner's quote.

As in the case of all abstract entities, a definition is required.

Please demonstrate this requirement. I do not find it self-evident.

In point of fact, modern theories of language differ on this point. Many forms of speech-act philosophy, or Wittgenstein's idea of language games, suggest that words can still perform a function without necessarily having a clear definition, or at least one that can be "pictured."

There also may be counter-factuals to your claim. I can't think of an English example off the top of my head (perhaps English is a specifically definitional/pictorial language), but the Greek might suffice. is considered "untranslatable" and simply indicates a shift to making a clause conditional. It has no clear equivalent in Latin, English, or German, and seems to serve only a grammatical purpose. However, it still has a function. Since no one is alive who still speaks ancient Greek natively, we cannot know for sure. But I suspect it undermines your claim.

Defining God as ineffable to me is useless. Sure there may be some ineffable entities out there. But, their existence is entirely moot due to their ineffability.

If God is truly ineffable, then you cannot say, "God want this" or "God has a Son" or even "God loves" without denying the god's ineffability.

I think traditional Christian doctrine has claimed that God is ineffable in terms of God's quiddity, His "whatness." To say that God is ineffable is to say that we cannot explain what God is directly. But it need not necessarily follow that we cannot explain what God does, assuming God's quiddity is such that it can do anything at all.

By way of example, let's consider dark matter. (I admit my knowledge of this subject is limited to one college astronomy class and Wikipedia.) We do not yet know what dark matter is, but we know it exists from its gravitational effects. We can therefore speak meaningfully of dark matter without having any access to its quiddity. Similarly, we do not know what God is in essence or quiddity, but we know God from His effects, or so Christians claim.

It would seem that we can still therefore speak of God as "loving" insofar as we mean that something (or more properly Someone) exists from which moral order emerges and therefore from which the boundaries of love exist. We can claim that God has acted in such a way to demonstrate that he is loving and acts according to His character, and we can claim that God has spoken and claimed to be loving.

Certainly, these claims are disputable, but they are not therefore devoid of content.

My point is simply that we don't have to necessarily have a clear definition of "God" the word in order for it to fulfill its purpose us toward God that we might know Him according to His self-revelation.

[Clownboat]

To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction.

I disagree with your conclusion, but do not apologize for debating. The whole purpose of debate is to strongly challenge opposing points of view, to eliminate error and winnow out the truth.

Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

I do not believe that rational theism is possible. Let's start with the word god. Surely you agree with me that it is not rational to claim to believe in that which you cannot even define. What is it that you mean when you use the word god? Please be as complete and precise as possible.

Well Haven
somewhat unexpected announcement.
I differ from McCullough on the possibility of rational theism. I believe God is rational, and in the end has set up a rational plan for us to follow. I believe this plan is the best possibility for our happiness. I do not care to live in a world where everyone is concerned only with themselves. The best possibility for happiness is where everyone learns to do for others. This is rational as even Spock recognized: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. However, having said all that, a belief in God will ultimately depend on faith. God provides evidence for His existence, but still wants us to learn to have faith in Him which involves spirituality. This involves developing a relationship with Him - not using rational thought. So yes, learn from the best books etc, but also develop a relationship with our Savior. In conclusion I believe theism is both rational and spiritual. Maybe McCullough would agree with this - I have noticed his signature saying the truth will set you free.

I believe one problem many would-be-Christians have is that they find themselves struggling with and rejecting so many things taught in the various churches because they seem irrational or seem to contradict one another or the scriptures. This is a problem brought about by man-made doctrines. I would posit in your continued search for truth and happiness to rely upon the scriptures. If you read something that seems right in a book, turn to God with it.

In what way does a god provides evidence for His existence? Does this evidence point us to your specific god concept, or just a god concept in general?

Is this a personal god, and if so, how do you know?
Thanks,

[theopoesis]

I suppose I should at least answer the OP questions:

Debate questions:Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible? [/i]

(1) This would entirely depend upon your definition of what counts as admissible "evidence." I am inclined to consider Christian theism as a prerequisite for a plausible worldview (among possible others) which have the metaphysical components necessary to make evidence available.

(2) I believe so.

(3) Certain varieties of theism have a rational coherence and explanatory scope which rivals, and in my opinion surpasses, the equivalent non-theistic counterparts.

[JCviggen]

Well, I really don't have time to show all the ways it is rational.

OK, but if you look up you'll see that the title of this site contains the word "debating". I'm sure you understand we won't just take your word for it...if you only have time for assertions I'm not sure what the purpose of the post was.

It comes from a lifetime of studying the scriptures and pursuing the truths found in them. At first many things may not be understood, but after studying them, pondering them, and praying about them, understanding has usually come, and the rationality of it all is seen.

This is a classic example of circular reasoning.
You're finding out truth and rationality of the bible by studying the bible. It's just not valid on a logical level.
And it is perfectly possible to create a fictional story in a book without committing logical fallacies or contradicting anything we know scientifically. That doesn't make any of it true, or therefore rational to accept. The bible could contradict nothing (not even itself) but that would not be proof of the claims it is making.

Faith is based upon the evidence presented in the scriptures

Same as above, circular.

From passages in the New Testament. For instance, where Jesus implores us to exercise faith even as a grain of a mustard seed. To build upon what grows.

Circular, you're only quoting assertions by humans.

I believe the prophecies in the scriptures fit right in line with history.

I wouldn't agree, but in any case it is possible to make prophecies that are sufficiently vague that anyone who wishes to believe in them can find examples. There's a long list of religious and non-religious prophecies and on the whole they're not accurate.

I don't have a problem with genetics or even evolution.

I didn't expect that, but am pleased to hear it! Knowledge is the key to understanding.

I believe you are being divisive here. Since the original post was about returning to theism, and from what I know of Haven, a Christian theism, I assume he knows I am referring to the Bible. The title of the thread is that he is returning to Christianity, so should we assume some other scripture such as the Quoran? That would be totally inappropriate.

Not my intention to be divisive, but perhaps it was indeed unsuitable for this particular topic, got a bit carried away.