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?

[theopoesis]

Theo,

I appreciate your reasoned / thoughtful reply. We agree somewhat and disagree somewhat.

I appreciate your response as well. I think you help correct a few misunderstandings on my part as to what you mean. It was very helpful.

If one has a strong position to present they need not make such weak "arguments", but should be willing to debate honestly and openly without resorting to word games, tactics, and maneuvering.

"Present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all, and let them stand or fall by their own merits."

I disagree. Here's why:

Your final statement says "present your evidence and your conclusions for consideration by all." This implies that the only way to establish the validity of a perspective is through empiricism (i.e. through evidence).

As I use the term "evidence", it is with the meaning (as per Merriam Webster Dictionary) "something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof" of the matter being proposed or claim being made. It implies, "Show me that you speak truth" -- nothing more, nothing less.

I think that this definition is helpful. I had reduced evidence into empiricism to a degree, but your understanding of evidence would not only apply to empiricism/inductive logic but also to philosophy/deductive logic. Thus, I falsely limited your perspective where such a reduction was unwarranted. I retract that part of my statement.

I still wonder whether, definition of evidence aside, the perspective presupposes a particular rationality. Thus, for instance, requiring evidence (inductive or deductive) to establish truth presupposes or assumes the validity of an evidentialist rationality. If we were to assume that only something which is demonstrated with evidence can be true, what do we label the first principles I described above? Are they "true" or "false" or neutral in terms of truth?

In the case of evidentialism, it would seem that some set of premises as to what counts as evidence and how evidence is interpreted as well as the assertion that only evidence yields truthfulness would both be held prior to evidence itself. Would, then, these elements not be true?

Exactly what do you suggest in lieu of evidence to determine if a claim or statement is true?

I am not opposed entirely to evidence. Rather, I am opposed to the assumption that evidence is interpreted apart from underlying first principles. In my understanding, the first principles shape the conclusion more than the evidence itself (as we see in the case of repeated individuals coming to different conclusions about God based on the same evidence).

Therefore, what is "true" in many ways (at least for larger claims) is a different question from what is "rational" or what is a "valid perspective." I suppose I was imprecise in my post, but the intention was to show that something can be rational or intellectually valid apart from evidentialism. My entire understanding of knowledge and understanding (which is not evidentialism) is that the faithlike axioms lead one to a particular understanding of the evidence. Empiricism as it exists today (which I incorrectly linked to evidentialism) entails certain axioms which necessarily lead to non-theistic and naturalistic understandings. It is my opinion that the axioms/first principles shape the conclusion more than the evidence itself.

If this is true (something which I, a postmodern, will likely grant, while other empiricists will reject based on first principles of a different nature), then it is almost impossible to know what is "true" in a real sense. All we have are reasoned opinions based on particular interpretations of evidence.

I do not mean to discuss what is true as much as I mean to discuss what is rational. Zzyzx, I consider you extremely rational because you argue from your first principles clearly, precisely, and eloquently, and are willing to change when the need arises. I hope that I am rational, but I can not be sure that this is not simply vanity. But whether your rationality has led you to truth more than my rationality has lead me to truth, we may never know.

If someone claims, in debate, "The cow jumped over the moon", how do you suggest determining if the claim is true? Would you NOT ask for reason to accept the claim (i.e., evidence of truth)?

If information from biology indicates that cows have limited jumping ability but the person claims "this one was special", would you accept the claim as truthful in spite of contrary indications?

This example might not be the best given that I suspect we both deny that a cow jumped over the moon. But consider that the conclusion is based on certain presuppositions:

(1) The cow's identity: our rejection of a cow jumping over the moon assumes a definition of "cow" that is a set of animals one of whose traits is: lacking the ability to jump over the moon.

(2) The nature of biology: Our conclusion is based on the assumption that biology has the capability to speak about the cow accurately.

(3) The person seeing the event: The individual would lack the persuasive authority for us to accept his/her testimony that the cow jumped over the moon.

Given these presuppositions, if we demanded evidence for the cow's surprising leap, we could almost never accept it as having occurred.

Would the same hold true if the person claimed that a dead body came back to life after days in the grave -- and said "this one was special"?

Let's again examine a set of presuppositions here:

(1) The person's identity: a normal person

(2) The nature of biology: biology is capable of telling us about decomposition, etc., in such a way that it can speak to a person's ability to come back to life.

(3) The person seeing the event: any normal person lacks the authority to convince us that a human rises from the dead.

Give these presuppositions, it is exceedingly unlikely that any evidence will be accepted as proving the event. Furthermore, the types of questions asked with these presuppositions will be distinctive: Is this likely according to the laws of nature? Has this historically ever happened before? What psychologically might explain the person's motive to tell us about the event? etc.

Let's consider another set of presuppositions:

(1) The person's identity: God incarnate

(2) The nature of biology: biology is perfectly capable of speaking to things in the normal causal chain, but a God exists whose will can change the normal causal chain making miracles possible. Moreover, biology cannot speak about God.

(3) The person seeing the event: Normal people may lack the authority to convincingly tell us that someone rose from the dead, but God has precisely the authority to declare such an act His doing.

Given these presuppositions (noting that both sets are quite simplified), one might possibly consider the evidence in a way that it affirms the resurrection. The questions asked here would be very different, as well: Is this likely according to the nature of God? Has God spoken in the past in a way that conforms to this present action? What theologically might explain God's raising Jesus from the dead?

Zzyzx, we likely share similar understandings in terms of cows, but we diverge in terms of the resurrection. I suspect (if I may be so bold) that your axioms are similar to the first set, while mine are closer to the second set. I believe in the resurrection according to the evidence because I believe in God. I cannot explain fully why I believe. You (or if I misjudged the presuppositions, any random non-theist) don't believe in the resurrection because you do not believe in God but tend toward the all encompasing ability of biology to explain.

The difference is not the evidence, but the axioms which shape the evidence's interpretation and the questions asked.

Thus, the statement implies already the superiority of the empiricist methods.

No, my statement asks for reason to believe what is presented. I, and others, will evaluate the merits of whatever substantiation is offered.

Correction accepted. Again, I falsely equated empiricism with evidentialism. Hopefully I have a more accurate interpretation now.

If empiricism is touted as the only valid system of rationality, but Christianity is built on another system of rationality

How is the request "show me that you speak truth" a claim of superiority?

Phrased that way, it is not a claim of superiority. But to base rationality in a particular set of axioms and to exclude other rationalities from other axioms is a claim of superiority. I had interpreted the post to assert that one set of axioms leading to a particular epistemology was superior to another set.

For the record, when I, as a Christian, assert the superiority of theistic rationality, I do so against inconsistent non-theistic rationalities. Consistent non-theistic rationalities are equally rational to my own, though they might still be inferior in different dimensions just as my own might be inferior in different dimensions.

Exactly what can be presented to show that Christian claims and stories are true?

To date what I have observed is largely:

I think so (or believe so)
He thinks so (or the book says so)
We've thought about what has been said and consider it credible
Great theologists, philosophers and scholars agree
If we assume that "god" exists then ____________ (fill in the blank)
It follows from the premises we have chosen to accept

I don't mind reducing many Christian claims to this level. There is evidence as well, but that evidence stands or falls based on premises that fit the above categories. I do tend to see many non-theistic arguments as being of a similar nature. (I do admit a shortage of theists who think critically enough to engage a non-theist on such terms, but fortunately we seem to have a stronger than average crop of theists and non-theists here).

every post by non-theists demanding an empiricist perspective implies that non-theism is more rational than theism.

Most posts by Theists seem to imply that Theism is more rational. Perhaps each of us considers our own position as more rational than contradictory positions.

This is likely the case.

The best response by a theist confronting a continued series of claims that non-theistic empiricism is more rational than the theistic perspective? Challenge the non-theist's implied claim to superiority of rationality.

In my opinion, the best response by a Theist would be to show that what they say is true.

If only we lived in a world where truth could be easily proven. If I were convinced that much of anything (beyond the most basic assertions) was proven true in a way that could be affirmed by any perspective, I might just retire from this forum and ponder that reality henceforward.

Until such a time, I look to the paradigms that shape the conceptions of truth.

If theism can be rational, or even more rational than the non-theist, the superiority of empiricism can be abandoned and a more fruitful dialogue can commence.

For purposes of fruitful dialog, I will temporarily accept equality of rationality for those two points of view.

Where do we go from there?

I accept the charitable concession.

To be honest, my concerns in life (albeit this is much less manifest here thus far) concern the questions of praxis. Globalization, genocide, political injustice, poverty, war, terrorism, racism, sexism, abuse, institutionalized criminalization, climate change. These are the things I would love to discuss, seeking to develop a response as a Christian.

Until more people have granted the legitimacy of theology, I cannot address these questions without first setting aside the core of my identity: my Christianity. And so I seek to validate Christian theism and theology as an acceptable discourse in addressing these problems because I believe (more on this below) that Christian theism offers a wonderful response to the problems of this world.

I will still ask for reason to accept what is presented as truth (and will not agree to accept testimonials, conjecture, opinion or unverified claims and stories as verification of truth). I will certainly not accept "believe on faith" or "believe because philosophers think so."

I would fall out of my chair if you changed your methods in the future. Yet who knows, the day may yet come when you present a defense for God and I challenge you to provide proof, rejecting your claim.

As for the present post, I'll end with this thought: C.S. Lewis once wrote (more or less) "I believe in Christianity like I believe in the sun, not so much because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." This constitutes neither proof nor argument, but it does in many ways summarize my perspective. I can argue for the validity of distinct rationalities (theistic or non-theistic), but I have accepted my own perspective of Christianity because I see the rest of the world through it. Theological answers to contemporary problems seem the most profound to me. They seem to offer the best insight into the human condition, human potential, community flourishing, and environmental and intercultural sustainability. Christian axioms seem to me the most satisfactory philosophically, literarily, sociologically, and aesthetically.

I have yet to present any of this (or much of it at least) on this forum. I defend theology where it is attacked, I seek to strike down spurious claims, and I propose an alternative epistemology. I can't see how exactly such argumentation (if it can be labelled as such) fits here.

Can you see any space for such discussions? Would these perspectives, though not proof of any sort, be helpful in understanding why one might become a theist?

[Flail]

theopoesis wrote:

Therefore, what is "true" in many ways (at least for larger claims) is a different question from what is "rational" or what is a "valid perspective." I suppose I was imprecise in my post, but the intention was to show that something can be rational or intellectually valid apart from evidentialism. My entire understanding of knowledge and understanding (which is not evidentialism) is that the faithlike axioms lead one to a particular understanding of the evidence. Empiricism as it exists today (which I incorrectly linked to evidentialism) entails certain axioms which necessarily lead to non-theistic and naturalistic understandings. It is my opinion that the axioms/first principles shape the conclusion more than the evidence itself.

If this is true (something which I, a postmodern, will likely grant, while other empiricists will reject based on first principles of a different nature), then it is almost impossible to know what is "true" in a real sense. All we have are reasoned opinions based on particular interpretations of evidence.

Perhaps evidence is only a guide toward the ultimate truth. I grant that for 'big issues' our evidence may turn out faulty to a degree. Imagine then, how far off we will be as to those matters wherein there is no evidence? If the guideposts of evidence and the logical inferences we can make therefrom are absent, if we are left with supposition only.... then 'anything goes'. If our evidentiary guideposts lead us somewhat astray, imagine where we end up if we just follow our noses...???

[theopoesis]

Funny. I considering philosophical argumentation to be unproductive. I find that the vast amount of 'philosophical arguments' consist of 'lets start with a conclusion we want to arrive at, make up some unsupported premises designed to arrive at the conclusion, and then manipulate the arguments to arrive at the conclusion that is desired. The axioms are non verifiable, and the conclusion is non verifiable. There is no way to distinguish between 'this is how things works' verses 'we make things up as we go along'.

If all philosophy is nullified, theistic or non-theistic, so be it.

Then, why engage in philosophical debate?

You might consider reading my discussions on the following threads as to the questions of epistemology that you raise:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14573
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15130

Those threads actually reinforced my disdain of 95% of all 'philosophical argumentation'. It reinforces the concept that it's all word games. I see a lot of attempts to use complicate simple matters to hide the fact that nothing can be shown to be real. It seems to me that it all hides the fact of 'we can't show we speak the truth' with the use of 'let's hide the fact we can't show we speak the truth with complicated terminology and yet even more unsupported claims.

I make no attempt at intentional deception, and do not appreciate the implied accusations throughout your response.

I came here straight out of graduate school. The discussions I had in school used the vocabulary and terms that I use here. The books I read use the terms and vocabulary I use here. I do apologize if I am too complicated. Please let me know if there is a time where I need to try to simplify my thoughts.

Furthermore, I read books by theists and non-theists alike, I digest their content, and then I incorporate it into my line of thinking. Any dishonesty is inherited, as I hold my position because particular thinkers have influenced me to do so.

The trouble with all that is when you get your argument all finished, the one thing you can't do is show testing and results. With all that 'word soup', you can not show that what you have has to do with the real world what so ever.

This is precisely because the argument questions the limits of testing and results. Can you respond to the argument?

Furthermore, which of your arguments in this thread have you tested and posted results for?

I have yet to see any form of theism that has come up with a method of showing that it is a true and accurate representation of the world. While there are some forms of theism that make claims about the world that have been proven false, I haven't seen any form of theism were the basic claims of the religion can be shown to be true. I do see these forms use 'word soup' to hide that fact.

I could label your continued red herrings and refusal to address arguments as a "word jambalaya with spicy cajun sauce." We will be on equal footing in our culinary quips, but not any better off from dialogue or debate. So what's the point?

For example, let's see you support your premise that the atheist is taking their concepts from theism. Prove it. I see nothing but unsupported claims and word games.

I already gave an example. The Greek word "prosopon" meant mask. In Greek or Roman thought individuals were understood only in terms of social roles. Hence the paterfamilias ethic. The individual was not one who rose above the deterministic elements of biology and culture, but rather a mask or role assigned by fate.

The Cappadocian fathers were the first to link the term "prosopon" (mask) with "hypostasis" (individual existence). To the Cappadocian fathers, this fusion led to the invention of the idea of the "person", such that the individual "mask" was reinterpreted. It was no longer a role, but a fusion of existence with individual transcendent will. The person was the possibility of an individual rising above the realm of necessity (i.e. fate) into a realm of freedom. We can know that this realm existed, according to the Cappadocians, because the Triune God existed. This God, though one in being, subsisted as three persons, suggesting that persons need not be definitively linked to being-ness (i.e. to fate or necessity).

Insofar as modern secular fields such as cognitive psychology or the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas cling to conceptions of personhood, they do so parasitically.

I'm not sure how I can state this more clearly. I already cited wikipedia and several books. Would you prefer extended citations of primary sources?

Show me evidence that any of your starting points in logic can be shown to be TRUE.

A starting point cannot be demonstrated or else it is not, by definition, a starting point. It is a conclusion.

All I see is the purposeful use of complicated language to disrupt communication. "If they can't understand my double speak, they can't prove me wrong'.

I do not appreciate your claims. In our future dialogues, I'll try to tone it down, but I'm not sure I am smart enough to simplify some philosophical elements.

By the way, if no one understands my "double speak" no one would know I was right either. Why would I come here to post arguments that are intentionally "doublespeak"? I understand what I post and was not aware that others did not. I typically get responses, but rarely requests to clarify. I interpreted weak responses as weak positions by debaters, not as their lacking understanding.

Somehow, I don't think so. And, for that matter, I find that path to claimed knowledge to be 'Let me make it up as I go along, because I can't show I speak the truth'.

I don't know that this does justice to my positions.

I find that the use of doublespeak and complicated language is a barrier to communication. I find that the logic leaves a lot to be desired.

I fail to see any direct critiques of the logic of my first post in this thread, or in the OP in the Trinity and Personalism thread. I will admit my failure to be logical when it is proven. I have done so elsewhere.

Since Cnorman was kind enough to be a decoder for you , let's go and see you demonstrate that 'atheism's first principles ('i.e. assumptions' are drawn from theism.
'
Let's see if you can simplify your word soup to accurately describe what you think the assumptions that atheism use '(you use first principles, because why use one simple word when two can words can confuse the issue) are drawn from theism. Try to use the readers digest condensed version, .. because using a long sentence when a single word will do is counterproductive.

For the record, I used two words because it was the verbatim wikipedia definition and I was trying to be precise to definitions, as Zzyzx's high standards of debate demand.

If you prefer simplicity, here it is:

Not all versions of atheism steal from theism. Atheists who claim to be something more than a biological machine or a social role do steal from theism. Prove how you are more than a biological machine or a social role (i.e. how you are a person) without starting with theism. Then I will be proven wrong. Or, admit you are just a biological machine. Then you will be consistent.

Here is another example:

Jean Bethke Elshtain's book Sovereignty traces the idea of sovereignty throughout the late middle ages and early Enlightenment. In the late middle ages, theologians like Duns Scotus and Ockham reinterpreted omnipotence so that it meant that God has complete freedom to do whatever He wills.

This conception of society then shaped political thought throughout history. Political philosophers and theorists began to interpret sovereignty as unlimited and unbound power. What the state did was correct because sovereignty in the government was given by God to use in His absence, and God's sovereignty was not limited.

Eventually, in the modern era, certain philosophers developed theories about individual sovereignty. They said, since man is made in God's image, man has sovereignty like God's, and it is unchecked and unlimited. Then they developed certain theories in philosophy, psychology, and ethics.

As non-theism or secularism began to spread, many people kept the ideas about political sovereignty or individual sovereignty, but they abandoned God. If they did not believe in God, they no longer believed in the foundational points of the political or individual theories. In some cases, these theories could be maintained on a new secular basis, but often times the theories were never justified or explained in terms of the new secular perspective. They were accepted because of tradition, but they were never linked to a comprehensive world view.

I simply claim that a non-theist who retains such elements while abandoning the assumptions is less rational because he/she is less consistent.

That is a simplified version. I can go into more detail on specific theories or thinkers if you'd like, but that would require much more detail and complexity.

WRONG.. because, you see, there is this thing know as 'RESULTS'. If you can make accurate and precise predictions when testing things , you can show that the initial assumptions are reasonable. When it comes to theistic concepts, you can't verify the conclusions. For most of philosophy, you can't verify the conclusions.

Predictions can be helpful in some areas, but in others they might not be. For example, the hard sciences study natural phenomena such as mitosis. These phenomena are relatively fixed. Others, such as sociology, study human beings, which are fairly flexible. Some studies (scientifically backed here) suggest that test results measured from flexible subjects like human beings might be the result of the underlying theory being tested rather than the result of the test subject itself. In some instances, the same might be true for science.

The point? Results are filtered through presuppositions. Therefore, results do not guarantee truth.

Except, of course, that is not 'chess' verse 'checkers'. It's more like talking about 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin'. Pardon me, but I don't find such 'philosophical argumentation' productive.

You are pardoned. I'm not sure why we continue in a philosophical debate though. And the dancing angels were almost always a peripheral matter to non-theists, but many of my ideas philosophically come from non-theists like Jacques Derrida, Francois Lyotard, Michel Foucault, etc. Non-theists take this philosophy seriously too, even if you don't, so perhaps there is still room for it on this forum.

You can object to it as much as you want. I am sure you wish to assume that 'objective morality' exists too. When it comes to those, can you show that you speak the truth though?

We're running in circles here. Can you prove anything outside of science using your methods? If not, why keep talking to me about anything other than science?

(Please note that your arguments are not based on science).

It would seem that modern philosophy and cultural criticism interprets empiricism much in the way you interpret ethics. To eliminate ethics as being "true" would simultaneously suggest that empiricism cannot be "true."

You certainly make a lot of assumptions about on how I view ethics. I will say that I don't believe in 'objective morality'. .. other than that, I find your argument there to be totally meaningless and off base when it comes to understanding life and reality.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I also would like to say where I said that 'ethics aren't true'. I don't see how comparing apples and frogs mean anything what so ever .

I am not comparing apples to frogs. If ethics is a matter of individual perspective, and evidence reduces to individual perspective, then there is a correlation.

When claims are made about the physical world, or the imposition of laws upon everyone else is made because of some people's personal beliefs, then the question of 'What evidence do you have' is very important.

The statement 'God created the world' is a truth claim that is about the empirical world. When a statement is made about the empirical world then empirical evidence is required for veracity.

By what logic do you reduce "the world" to the "empirical world"? It seems that you presuppose (i.e. apart from empirical evidence) that the world is only empirical.

because of VERIFICATION and RESULTS. If you can't show RESULTS , how can you show you speak the truth?

I have challenged the link between evidence and results and truth here and in other forums. You call it "Word soup" there, so I cannot expect otherwise here. I'll save some time and just say we disagree on this point.

[theopoesis]

Perhaps evidence is only a guide toward the ultimate truth. I grant that for 'big issues' our evidence may turn out faulty to a degree. Imagine then, how far off we will be as to those matters wherein there is no evidence? If the guideposts of evidence and the logical inferences we can make therefrom are absent, if we are left with supposition only.... then 'anything goes'. If our evidentiary guideposts lead us somewhat astray, imagine where we end up if we just follow our noses...???

This is true, to an extent. On the other hand, if our suppositions shape the way we interpret evidence too much, the wrong suppositions might lead us further astray with evidence than without it. False assumptions that are not applied do less damage than applied false assumptions.

[Flail]

Perhaps evidence is only a guide toward the ultimate truth. I grant that for 'big issues' our evidence may turn out faulty to a degree. Imagine then, how far off we will be as to those matters wherein there is no evidence? If the guideposts of evidence and the logical inferences we can make therefrom are absent, if we are left with supposition only.... then 'anything goes'. If our evidentiary guideposts lead us somewhat astray, imagine where we end up if we just follow our noses...???

This is true, to an extent. On the other hand, if our suppositions shape the way we interpret evidence too much, the wrong suppositions might lead us further astray with evidence than without it. False assumptions that are not applied do less damage than applied false assumptions.

Agreed. Therefore we should make certain, where possible, to couch our suppositions as such and to avoid characterizing hearsay, subjective experiences and speculation about the supernatural as 'evidentiary'. Religion should take a clue from science and call 'God belief' for what it is....speculation, conjecture, hypothesis and philosophical theory.

[theopoesis]

Perhaps evidence is only a guide toward the ultimate truth. I grant that for 'big issues' our evidence may turn out faulty to a degree. Imagine then, how far off we will be as to those matters wherein there is no evidence? If the guideposts of evidence and the logical inferences we can make therefrom are absent, if we are left with supposition only.... then 'anything goes'. If our evidentiary guideposts lead us somewhat astray, imagine where we end up if we just follow our noses...???

This is true, to an extent. On the other hand, if our suppositions shape the way we interpret evidence too much, the wrong suppositions might lead us further astray with evidence than without it. False assumptions that are not applied do less damage than applied false assumptions.

Agreed. Therefore we should make certain, where possible, to couch our suppositions as such and to avoid characterizing hearsay, subjective experiences and speculation about the supernatural as 'evidentiary'.

agreed

Religion should take a clue from science and call 'God belief' for what it is....speculation, conjecture, hypothesis and philosophical theory.

Let's compromise: You call it speculation, conjecture, hypothesis and philosophical theory. I'll call it an encounter with the Triune God. We'll note that we won't know who is right until we die or Jesus returns. And if you're right, when I die I won't know I'm wrong because I'll be dead first and wrong second.

[flitzerbiest]

And if you're right, when I die I won't know I'm wrong because I'll be dead first and wrong second.

Perhaps, but it is quite possible to be dead wrong while you are alive, and this is not a good thing.

[theopoesis]

And if you're right, when I die I won't know I'm wrong because I'll be dead first and wrong second.

Perhaps, but it is quite possible to be dead wrong while you are alive, and this is not a good thing.

touche.

[flitzerbiest]

And if you're right, when I die I won't know I'm wrong because I'll be dead first and wrong second.

Perhaps, but it is quite possible to be dead wrong while you are alive, and this is not a good thing.

touche.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night...

[Flail]

Perhaps evidence is only a guide toward the ultimate truth. I grant that for 'big issues' our evidence may turn out faulty to a degree. Imagine then, how far off we will be as to those matters wherein there is no evidence? If the guideposts of evidence and the logical inferences we can make therefrom are absent, if we are left with supposition only.... then 'anything goes'. If our evidentiary guideposts lead us somewhat astray, imagine where we end up if we just follow our noses...???

This is true, to an extent. On the other hand, if our suppositions shape the way we interpret evidence too much, the wrong suppositions might lead us further astray with evidence than without it. False assumptions that are not applied do less damage than applied false assumptions.

Agreed. Therefore we should make certain, where possible, to couch our suppositions as such and to avoid characterizing hearsay, subjective experiences and speculation about the supernatural as 'evidentiary'.

agreed

Religion should take a clue from science and call 'God belief' for what it is....speculation, conjecture, hypothesis and philosophical theory.

Let's compromise: You call it speculation, conjecture, hypothesis and philosophical theory. I'll call it an encounter with the Triune God. We'll note that we won't know who is right until we die or Jesus returns. And if you're right, when I die I won't know I'm wrong because I'll be dead first and wrong second.

Agreed. My speculation is that when we die we will discover that neither one of us had any real idea of what we were talking about. In the interim I suggest that we both give up the notion of 'being right' and encourage others the same.