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]

...Replace "gods" by "unicorns" in the second statement and you may see why it's more justifiable to suspend belief in something extraordinary in the utter absence of evidence...

And here is the Unicorn-Leprechaun-Bigfoot argument, which can be refuted as follows:

1) Is the Unicorn (or Leprechaun, or Bigfoot) deemed to be God? If so, then Unicornism (or Leprechaunism, or Bigfoot-ism) must be compared to other theistic traditions, on the grounds of a) internal coherence, b) general consistency with other scholarly disciplines, and c) explanatory scope. In this case, Unicornism (et al) does not fare well in comparison to the major world faith traditions.

2) If the Unicorn is not deemed to be God, then it becomes merely one more "thing" in the universe of "things," and it can be evaluated accordingly. "Things" are contingent, and thus fall into an entirely different category than God. God is defined as the non-contingent ground of all existence.

3) It is easy to avoid reference to unicorns and leprechauns and bigfeet: all we have to do is not expose ourselves to the fairy tales which speak of such. But we cannot avoid the matter of God--at least not when we have reached the stage of development where we understand the concept of cause-and-effect. The question of our universe, our selves, our destiny is unavoidable--and thus the question of God would be unavoidable for thoughtful people, even if the world never had any Bible or Qur'an or Upanishads.

In summary, unicorns and such are simply a diversionary tactic and unworthy of further consideration.

[Board]

...we cannot avoid the matter of God--at least not when we have reached the stage of development where we understand the concept of cause-and-effect. The question of our universe, our selves, our destiny is unavoidable--and thus the question of God would be unavoidable for thoughtful people, even if the world never had any Bible or Qur'an or Upanishads...

The concept of cause and effect does not lead us to the concept of a god. The concept of cause and effect leads us to look for a cause based on the effects we see, nothing more. Only the ignorance of our past has lead people to look to a god for an answer to an unknown cause. We need to examine both the cause and effects rather then lay cause at the feet of a non-existent deity.

The question of God is only unavoidable because the ignorance of our youth as a species has forced the issue to be unavoidable. We need to shake off these superstitions to truly grow as intelligent lifeforms or we will continue to destroy ourselves...

at least that is my opinion...

[Woland]

One could come up with any number of possible scenarios, and given more precise information we might make a more informed decision. But since we do not have such information, there remains an element of risk. The point of my thought-experiment is that the theist--in stark contrast to the non-theist--does have at least some chance of some potential benefit in choosing truth.

The theist also has a potential benefit in choosing flourishing. You have no way of saying which option the theist should choose - at all.

If you're going to justify believing in things based on whether or not they offer a potential benefit while ignoring potential drawbacks -which you have no means to evaluate-, I think it's safe to say that your thought experiment has been exposed as being irrelevant.

There is at least the possibility that theistic truth might benefit in some way, whereas non-theistic truth necessarily takes the backseat to this-worldly human flourishing.

This has not been demonstrated, only claimed several times. You do not have the information of whether or not flourishing and truth are correlated, and to which extent. You do not know whether or not flourishing would be limited by how much emphasis is placed on truth. The person in your thought experiment cannot make an informed choice when it comes to benefits/drawbacks in BOTH scenarios. They can only speculate blindly.

If the theist were given the information that the truth could not help, and could only hurt, then the theist would be in the exact same situation as the non-theist. But in fact, the theist does not have such information--and there is no good reason to assume such to be the case--and so for the theist there is at least some potential benefit that offsets the risk.

Going around in circles. You still haven't shown -at all- why a theist should choose option 1 rather than 2.

-Woland

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 181:

1) Is the Unicorn (or Leprechaun, or Bigfoot) deemed to be God? If so, then Unicornism (or Leprechaunism, or Bigfoot-ism) must be compared to other theistic traditions, on the grounds of a) internal coherence, b) general consistency with other scholarly disciplines, and c) explanatory scope. In this case, Unicornism (et al) does not fare well in comparison to the major world faith traditions.

Why not? There's just as much literature regarding unicorns and such as there is literature regarding gods.

What "internal coherence" is there in claims a supernatural god became human in form and died to save us from the punishment of the sins that god was so against?

How is the claims of sticks changing the coloring or patterning of animals "consistent" with the scholarly discipline of genetics?

How does "god did it" explain - beyond superficially - anything?

2) If the Unicorn is not deemed to be God, then it becomes merely one more "thing" in the universe of "things," and it can be evaluated accordingly. "Things" are contingent, and thus fall into an entirely different category than God. God is defined as the non-contingent ground of all existence.

Can you show God is non-contingent?

How can we know the properties of something that can't be shown to exist? We guess. We use sophism. We speculate. We create our own personal set of criteria for determining belief in a god that can't be shown to exist is "justified".

In the absence of evidence for something existing, to say belief is more justified than non-belief is as goofy a notion as ever presented to humankind.

3) It is easy to avoid reference to unicorns and leprechauns and bigfeet: all we have to do is not expose ourselves to the fairy tales which speak of such...

It never fails to amuse me when the theist refers to other stories as "fairy tales".

But we cannot avoid the matter of God--at least not when we have reached the stage of development where we understand the concept of cause-and-effect.

We can't avoid the matter simply because so many theists expect us to accept unproven, unprovable tales - often at the point of a spear.

The question of our universe, our selves, our destiny is unavoidable--and thus the question of God would be unavoidable for thoughtful people, even if the world never had any Bible or Qur'an or Upanishads.

This "thoughtful people" objects to the implication others who don't come to question whether there's a god or not would be "unthoughtful" or "thoughtless".

Just because one feels the question of a god's existence is so important does not bind others to such a notion.

In summary, unicorns and such are simply a diversionary tactic and unworthy of further consideration.

Right. And "god" ain't a diversionary tactic from actually trying to find the truth.

I notice you tend to disregard, dismiss or otherwise skip over a lot of posts that counter your notions, and I must conclude you consider such to be "unworthy of further consideration".

It is my contention this is itself a "diversionary tactic" to keep from having to address notions counter your own.

What do we know of unicorns, bigfoots, and leprechauns?

They can't be shown to exist. But folks'll carry on like they do.

What do we know of gods?

They can't be shown to exist. But folks'll carry on like they do.

[Kuan]

You: Thus, as a Non-Theist, I do not "believe in gods", BUT do not deny that they MAY exist.

Theist: Thus, as a theist, I do believe in gods, BUT do not deny that they MAY NOT exist.

Of course there are some theists who wont accept the "MAY NOT" but I am sure there are many theists who do accept that.

Those that add the May or the May Not are also agnostic (or in rarer cases ignostic). Those that refuse to add the May or May Not label are, imo, often using an argument from ignorance in their life view and thus being unreasonable.

Well...I do consider myself agnostic to an extent.

[Kuan]

You: Thus, as a Non-Theist, I do not "believe in gods", BUT do not deny that they MAY exist.

Theist: Thus, as a theist, I do believe in gods, BUT do not deny that they MAY NOT exist.

Of course there are some theists who wont accept the "MAY NOT" but I am sure there are many theists who do accept that.

Those that add the May or the May Not are also agnostic (or in rarer cases ignostic). Those that refuse to add the May or May Not label are, imo, often using an argument from ignorance in their life view and thus being unreasonable.

So to be certain that there is a god or to be certain that there isn’t a god is un reasonable?

Yes.

[JoeyKnothead]

Dude, please debigulate your avatar.

[Kuan]

Dude, please debigulate your avatar.

Debigulate?

[JoeyKnothead]

Dude, please debigulate your avatar.

Debigulate?

Make smaller.

I get about 5 or 6 words per line in threads you're in. I'm gonna get carpal tunnel.

[Kuan]

Dude, please debigulate your avatar.

Debigulate?

Make smaller.

I get about 5 or 6 words per line in threads you're in. I'm gonna get carpal tunnel.

What? It appears normally in my screen...I mess with it, and see if it works.