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?

[EduChris]

...some non theists are attracted to greater cogency, rigorous thinking, positions least guilty of logical fallacy and if they could would always choose the most adept handling of semantics. Have you not stopped to consider they might choose this life over "flourishing"...every time...Maybe your thought experiment is guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives some non theists.

This point has already been addressed numerous times. Yes, it is certainly possible that some non-theists might subjectively prefer "truth" (even a "truth" which cannot help them) over flourishing. But since it this would be a purely subjective preference, it is no more rational than a preference for kiwi rather than mango. Once we enter the realm of subjectivity, neither theism nor non-theism has any rational advantage.

[Cathar1950]

...some non theists are attracted to greater cogency, rigorous thinking, positions least guilty of logical fallacy and if they could would always choose the most adept handling of semantics. Have you not stopped to consider they might choose this life over "flourishing"...every time...Maybe your thought experiment is guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives some non theists.

This point has already been addressed numerous times. Yes, it is certainly possible that some non-theists might subjectively prefer "truth" (even a "truth" which cannot help them) over flourishing. But since it this would be a purely subjective preference, it is no more rational than a preference for kiwi rather than mango. Once we enter the realm of subjectivity, neither theism nor non-theism has any rational advantage.

How do you figure that? Both should be dealing with an objective world as one that is present to both while you have a subjective that is an objectified world only open to believers and disagreed upon by believers.
Either God is in the details or you have nothing to say about God.

[Furrowed Brow]

...some non theists are attracted to greater cogency, rigorous thinking, positions least guilty of logical fallacy and if they could would always choose the most adept handling of semantics. Have you not stopped to consider they might choose this life over "flourishing"...every time...Maybe your thought experiment is guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives some non theists.

This point has already been addressed numerous times. Yes, it is certainly possible that some non-theists might subjectively prefer "truth" (even a "truth" which cannot help them) over flourishing. But since it this would be a purely subjective preference, it is no more rational than a preference for kiwi rather than mango. Once we enter the realm of subjectivity, neither theism nor non-theism has any rational advantage.

This choice is just as subjective as choosing the ability to compute 2 + 2 = 4 as compared to making the sum 2 + 2 = 5. Motivations for choosing one way or the over may be personal and subjective but one option is rational and objective and the other illogically and obtuse. To be able to think clearly, rigorously, logically etc is not the subjective option. However the effort and commitment is down to personal choice.

To summarize, given objective (but temporary) certainty of non-theism, the reasonable choice is for this-worldy human adaptive advantage rather than for truth

If for instance theism is true and through the quantum wrinkle God gave you the instruction that you will flourish in this world and the next if you dogmatically assert 2 + 2 = 5 for the rest of your life then the reasonable response may well to be do as instructed, but the only objective rational response is to refuse and accept the truth and the risks this entails. Only those committed to rationality to a greater degree than their fear of God and the consequences will refuse the instruction.

Your experiment equates non belief and a lack of God with self serving choices. The truth is always the most truly reasonable choice if reason is defined as sticking to logic. The problem here is your experiment is founded on an equivocation as to what it means to be "reasonable".

[a] "Reasonable" implying "make good choices for one self"
"Reasonable" implying "thinking logically without fallacy and without personal bias".

To operate strictly by reason surely means ...no? If so then given the two choices a non believer limited to will choose [1] and this is the most "reasonable" choice. Like many theists you argument is a twist on the old theist notion that non beleivers have no deep reason to favor truth other than selfish ones. Yet you do not grant this to theism. Theism is somehow more dedicated to the "truth". But it is not. If God commands you must believe 2 + 2 = 5 then so be it. We see this today for real with the theists whose interpretation of their scripture means they felt impelled to build the creation museum.

I can see how this kind of equivocation over words like "reasonable" and the semantic muddle it creates is what is required to argue that non belief is less reasonable than theism. But thanks interesting experiment. I hope you find a way of correcting the equivocation.

(I've edited this a couple of times)

[EduChris]

...To be able to think clearly, rigorously, logically etc is not the subjective option...

In a non-theistic paradigm, evolution has already made it impossible for us to think robotically; we are incapable of objectivity, and neither objectivity nor non-objectivity has any ultimate purpose or goal apart from the evolutionary imperative to propogate. If someone happened to have some "perfect objectivity and logic" genetic mutuation, and if that mutation failed to provide at least as much selective advantage as disadvantage, the genetic defect would be selected out.

...The truth is always the most truly reasonable choice if reason is defined as sticking to logic...

Given non-theistic assumptions, sticking to logic is only as reasonable as it leads to greater selective advantage. If it fails in that regard, such a predilection will necessarily be weeded out in favor of a more adaptive (and less logical) orientation.

...The problem here is your experiment is founded on an equivocation as to what it means to be "reasonable"...Like many theists you [sic] argument is a twist on the old theist notion that non beleivers have no deep reason to favor truth other than selfish ones...

Non-theists may indeed select the subjective goal for a useless truth even to their own detriment--but given non-theistic assumptions, there is no objective advantage for them to do so. The problem is not any equivocation on my part, but rather your inability to follow through with the implications of non-theism. You simply refuse to recognize the game-changing implications of non-theism; you attempt play the game of non-theism according to rules which only make sense within a theistic paradigm.

Given theistic assumptions, there may be some truth that is worth knowing in an objective sense. Given non-theistic assumptions, on the other hand, all truth necessarily plays second-fiddle to evolutionary advantage. There may be times when truth and evolutionary advantage coincide, but there are also times when they diverge. Given non-theism, choosing a useless truth that may entail selective disadvantage runs counter to the only possible source and ground of existence: evolutionary pressure.

[Cathar1950]

...To be able to think clearly, rigorously, logically etc is not the subjective option...

In a non-theistic paradigm, evolution has already made it impossible for us to think robotically; we are incapable of objectivity, and neither objectivity nor non-objectivity has any ultimate purpose or goal apart from the evolutionary imperative to propogate. If someone happened to have some "perfect objectivity and logic" genetic mutuation, and if that mutation failed to provide at least as much selective advantage as disadvantage, the genetic defect would be selected out.

...The truth is always the most truly reasonable choice if reason is defined as sticking to logic...

Given non-theistic assumptions, sticking to logic is only as reasonable as it leads to greater selective advantage. If it fails in that regard, such a predilection will necessarily be weeded out in favor of a more adaptive (and less logical) orientation.

...The problem here is your experiment is founded on an equivocation as to what it means to be "reasonable"...Like many theists you [sic] argument is a twist on the old theist notion that non beleivers have no deep reason to favor truth other than selfish ones...

Non-theists may indeed select the subjective goal for a useless truth even to their own detriment--but given non-theistic assumptions, there is no objective advantage for them to do so. The problem is not any equivocation on my part, but rather your inability to follow through with the implications of non-theism. You simply refuse to recognize the game-changing implications of non-theism; you attempt play the game of non-theism according to rules which only make sense within a theistic paradigm.

Given theistic assumptions, there may be some truth that is worth knowing in an objective sense. Given non-theistic assumptions, on the other hand, all truth necessarily plays second-fiddle to evolutionary advantage. There may be times when truth and evolutionary advantage coincide, but there are also times when they diverge. Given non-theism, choosing a useless truth that may entail selective disadvantage runs counter to the only possible source and ground of existence: evolutionary pressure.

You have no such thing as an objective advantage in your theism. You have a subjective you have objectified. Your straw man theism is nothing more then reductionism as it relates to others as you ignore your own.
Whatever objective world their is we all share it, unlike yours.

[Furrowed Brow]

Given non-theistic assumptions, sticking to logic is only as reasonable as it leads to greater selective advantage.

Oh I see, the definition of "reasonable you allow the non theists is conditional on evolutionary advantage. OK understood.

The problem is not any equivocation on my part

No you most certainly were.

Now, repeat this exercise except that this time your altered state of consciousness informs you that theistic belief is true. You again have the same two choices. In this case, given theism, which choice is more reasonable? If you operate strictly by reason, you would have to choose option 1.

It seems you intend the greatest evolutionary advantage is associated with option 2. You ask which is more reasonable. By allowing the theist to choose a different option, and counting the theist option as more reasonable you are applying the term reasonable in two ways.

You simply refuse to recognize the game-changing implications of non-theism; you attempt play the game of non-theism according to rules which only make sense within a theistic paradigm.

This is a really interesting argument tactic...to defend yourself against an accusation of the fallacy of equivocation you marshal the defence that one meaning of the term reasonable of the two you are employing in your argument and on which your argument turns does not apply to the non theist. Bravo!

Really this should just be tackle head on and called as the equivocation it is, and it should also be pointed out you are conflating non belief with evolutionary theory. But hey ho.

That said the point that evolution theory somehow necessitates the non theist must choose 2 need to be tackled. This is simply a misuse and misrepresentation of evolution theory. As you will already know the unit of natural selection is the gene not the phenotype or conscious thought. Characteristic traits of being human are abilities such as abstract thinking, truth evaluation etc. Your argument is predicated on the false notion that if there is no God then individual human behaviour is limited to selfish choices. This idea that individual behaviour is always selfish is not a premise of evolutionary theory. It maybe, and often is, advantageous to the gene that some members of species follow altruistic behaviours, and thus it is always possible and seems most likely that there will be members of a conscious intelligent species like humans more wedded to the truth as this behaviour would provide the gene its own advantage. The notion that non belief only choose 2 because they must obey evolutionary advantage if they areto be true to their beliefs mangles evolutionary theory. Dawkins Selfish Gene is a good place to start reading up on you evolutionary theory.

Bottom line you either allow the non theist full acces to their rationa faculties or continue to perpetuate a very flawed and bias thought experiment.

Given non-theistic assumptions, on the other hand, all truth necessarily plays second-fiddle to evolutionary advantage.

OK evolutionary question....advantage to whom/what?

[Meow Mix]

Suppose during your sleep a wrinkle in the fabric of space-time transports you into an altered state of consciousness in which you all of a sudden know with objective clarity that theistic belief is false. In this altered state of consciousness, you have amnesia so you don't know who you are or what your belief system was when you went to sleep, but you do have an otherwise normal view of the world and culture. Given perfect objective knowledge that theistic belief is false, you can choose one of the following belief systems which will become your belief system once you return from this altered state. Once you awake, you will not remember what has happened to you. You will hold your newly chosen belief system, but only with the same degree of subjectivity as is common to all humanity (that is, you will no longer have the objective certainty you had during your altered consciousness). Here are your choices:

1) You may choose to adopt whatever belief system which best provides for truth, and only secondarily for this-worldly human flourishing.

2) You may choose to adopt whatever belief system which best provides for this-worldly human flourishing, and only secondarily for truth

Given non-theism, which choice is more reasonable? Operating strictly according to reason, you would have to choose option 2--and this option, in terms of evolutionary advantage, could go either way for theism or non-theism (since neither can be shown to offer any definite adaptive advantage over the other).

I must object here -- how is "this-worldly human flourishing" generally defined, and why would (2) be the more rational choice given non-theism? I would have responded that given non-theism (1) is the most rational choice.

Are you perhaps equivocating "practical" for "rational?"

[EduChris]

...how is "this-worldly human flourishing" generally defined...

Given non-theism, "adaptive advantage" becomes the only (quasi) objective benefit--that which ensures humans go extinct later rather than sooner. Selective advantage cares not for truth, but rather only for pragmatic advantage.

...and why would (2) be the more rational choice given non-theism? I would have responded that given non-theism (1) is the most rational choice...

Selecting a useless truth at the risk of diminished human flourishing would be irrational, given non-theism. This is not to say that some stubborn individuals might subjectively prefer the useless truth--but if unbridled subjectivity is the benchmark, then there is no longer any basis for labeling the theistic position "irrational."

...Are you perhaps equivocating "practical" for "rational?"

No one has yet demonstrated any such error on my part, though many have tried.

[sickles]

...how is "this-worldly human flourishing" generally defined...

Given non-theism, "adaptive advantage" becomes the only (quasi) objective benefit--that which ensures humans go extinct later rather than sooner. Selective advantage cares not for truth, but rather only for pragmatic advantage.

selective advantage also doesnt care what happens to you after you reproduce. Keep that in mind. You could be totally messed up with everything possibly wrong with you on your 21st birthday, but as long as you had a kid or two first, natural selection doesnt care. This is how many diseases can subvert our inherited immune systems. The immune system is passed on before the pathogen strikes, thus illiminating the threat that immunity could passed down.

[sickles]

...how is "this-worldly human flourishing" generally defined...

Given non-theism, "adaptive advantage" becomes the only (quasi) objective benefit--that which ensures humans go extinct later rather than sooner. Selective advantage cares not for truth, but rather only for pragmatic advantage.

...and why would (2) be the more rational choice given non-theism? I would have responded that given non-theism (1) is the most rational choice...

Selecting a useless truth at the risk of diminished human flourishing would be irrational, given non-theism. This is not to say that some stubborn individuals might subjectively prefer the useless truth--but if unbridled subjectivity is the benchmark, then there is no longer any basis for labeling the theistic position "irrational."

True, i think. If the thiestic position promotes solidarity among a band of individuals, this indeed gives advantage. Actually anything that promotes solidarity in the same way is equally advantageous.


[