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?

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

From Post 71:

In other words, if theism is in general unreasonable, then all particular theisms become automatically unreasonable as well. This is in fact what the JoeyKnotheads and Zzyzx's of the world always try to claim.

Please do not attempt to make my claims for me. If you wish I make a statemtent, PM me and request I put in my two cents. I ask this to ensure I'm not held responsible for claims I've not made and to ensure I am able to respond to folks who claim to speak on my behalf who may not include certain qualifiers or context or such I may present if allowed to speak for myself.

I will report your post here to the moderators as a dishonest, dishonorable attempt to make statements on my behalf.

That said, how on God's green earth can conclusions borne of the unreasonable be reasonable?
^notice there is no claim either way here, so again, I would expect you wouldn't say I'm claiming something I've not claimed.

I would say that correcting another poster on what your position is, in a case where he or she has mistated it or inferred a position you do not take is fine. I don't think the moderators are likely to step in, though, unless it seems to be a repetitive or intentional behavior.

[EduChris]

...How does the possible truth that there is no god ultimately lead to human suffering if it is exposed?...

There would be the loss of the selective advantage that theism presently seems to provide (and historically has provided) for billions of people.

...How is Theism the only way to maximize human flourishing? I completely disagree with the conclusions you are trying to draw...

I have made no such conclusion. I simply say that if theistic belief is false, there is still a reasonable chance that it might be beneficial--and selective adaptation seems to demonstrate numerous benefits, which you yourself have aluded to.

On the other hand, if theistic belief is true, then it is more reasonable than not to believe that this truth will be of some benefit.

...In both cases the truth about theism or non-theism is what matters...

Given non-theism, the belief or unbelief in God becomes relevant only to the extent that such belief adds or detracts from this-worldly human flourishing, since human flourishing (evolutionary selective adaptation) is the only absolute demand in a non-theistic world. But since we can't know whether non-theism will add or detract from human flourishing, the safest and most reasonable route is to make the choice for maximum human flourishing (rather than maximum truth). The two choices (maximum flourishing or maximum truth) may or may not be mutually exclusive: it may be that given non-theism, this-worldly human flourishing might increase if this truth were told. But since we can't know this for sure, we have to adhere to the absolute demand for maximum this-worldly human flourishing. That is the only reasonable option, given non-theism.

[flitzerbiest]

...How does the possible truth that there is no god ultimately lead to human suffering if it is exposed?...

There would be the loss of the selective advantage that theism presently seems to provide (and historically has provided) for billions of people.

The only way you would know that theism provided a selective advantage would be to have theism and non-theism coexisting and competing in similar conditions. For most of the history of mankind, this has not been the case, although I believe we are beginning to transition into the sort of civilization where such a comparison can actually be made. Until then, however, you're just cheering your home team. Honestly, it doesn't sound much different than other iterations of religious triumphalism.

[EduChris]

...The only way you would know that theism provided a selective advantage would be...

The only way either of us would know anything in this regard is if we were somehow to attain knowledge which we do not currently have. Until we have such knowledge, the one sure thing we know is that theism must provide some selective advantages, or else it wouldn't be so prevalent in every era and every culture and every geographical location in the history of humankind.

...I believe we are beginning to transition into the sort of civilization where such a comparison can actually be made...

Belief noted. If you are right, perhaps we will know for certain in the future. Until then, we are talking about what is most reasonable now, given our current state of knowledge.

...you're just cheering your home team...

Not at all. Even Board has admitted that theism confers advantages (community, support, encouragement, companionship, membership in something larger than oneself, etc., etc., etc.).

[flitzerbiest]

...The only way you would know that theism provided a selective advantage would be...

The only way either of us would know anything in this regard is if we were somehow to attain knowledge which we do not currently have. Until we have such knowledge, the one sure thing we know is that theism must provide some selective advantages, or else it wouldn't be so prevalent in every era and every culture and every geographical location in the history of humankind.

...I believe we are beginning to transition into the sort of civilization where such a comparison can actually be made...

Belief noted. If you are right, perhaps we will know for certain in the future. Until then, we are talking about what is most reasonable now, given our current state of knowledge.

...you're just cheering your home team...

Not at all. Even Board has admitted that theism confers advantages (community, support, encouragement, companionship, membership in something larger than oneself, etc., etc., etc.).

Perhaps you are unaware of the concept of epiphenomena. The ubiquity of religion does not imply selective advantage. If this were the case, you would have to make a case for the selective advantage of the appendix or the fifth toe.

[Board]

Not at all. Even Board has admitted that theism confers advantages (community, support, encouragement, companionship, membership in something larger than oneself, etc., etc., etc.).

I would call those characteristics and not advantages over non-theism.

I need to digest more of this topic...

[EduChris]

...The ubiquity of religion does not imply selective advantage...

Nor does it imply selective disadvantage. The point I'm making here is that we just don't know, and until we do know, the only reasonable option (given non-theism) is to choose maximum this-worldly flourishing.

As non-theists, you can always adhere to the hope that maximum flourishing is in this case compatible with maximum truth, but since you have no guarantee, you have to make the choice for maximum this-worldly flourishing in order to remain reasonable.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 71:

In other words, if theism is in general unreasonable, then all particular theisms become automatically unreasonable as well. This is in fact what the JoeyKnotheads and Zzyzx's of the world always try to claim.

Please do not attempt to make my claims for me. If you wish I make a statemtent, PM me and request I put in my two cents. I ask this to ensure I'm not held responsible for claims I've not made and to ensure I am able to respond to folks who claim to speak on my behalf who may not include certain qualifiers or context or such I may present if allowed to speak for myself.

I will report your post here to the moderators as a dishonest, dishonorable attempt to make statements on my behalf.

That said, how on God's green earth can conclusions borne of the unreasonable be reasonable?
^notice there is no claim either way here, so again, I would expect you wouldn't say I'm claiming something I've not claimed.

Given the recent moderator ruling, let's see if EduChris has the honor to retract.

[EduChris]

...let's see if EduChris has the honor to retract.

Do you or do you not make the following explicit or implicit claim:

...if theism is in general unreasonable, then all particular theisms become automatically unreasonable as well...

If you do not make any such claim, whether implicitly or explicitly, then (upon receiving your assurances that you will stop hijacking virtually every thread with incessant demands for "evidence" of things which either you now believe are reasonable, or which you now admit may be reasonable despite being borne of things which are unreasonable) I will retract.

On the other hand, if you do make such claims, whether implicitly or explicitly, then perhaps you are the one who should apologize to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 89:

Do you or do you not make the following explicit or implicit claim:

...if theism is in general unreasonable, then all particular theisms become automatically unreasonable as well...

I will not be dragged into defending claims I've NOT made.

If you do not make any such claim, whether implicitly or explicitly, then (upon receiving your assurances that you will stop hijacking virtually every thread with incessant demands for "evidence" of things which either you now believe are reasonable, or which you now admit may be reasonable despite being borne of things which are unreasonable) I will retract.

I don't negotiate with folks who claim to speak for me without my permission.

I think your post here sufficient to settle the issue of honor, or rather lack thereof.