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]

...-Is Theism justified?

Remember that theism is a general belief which is separate and distinct from the more specific belief in any particular God(s).

There are numerous examples where general beliefs underwrite specific beliefs. Take evolution--you can be committed to the general idea of change over time without necessarily committing yourself to any specific theory of precisely how the mechanism worked (e.g., gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium vs. acquired genomes, etc). Since a general belief can be true even if none of the currently available specific beliefs are entirely true, if follows that general beliefs are easier to justify than specific beliefs.

...-If so, is it more justified than Non-Theism?

Neither theism nor non-theism can be proven in an objective sense. But we can adopt each position, one at a time and for the sake of argument, and examine the logical consequences of the respective positions.

We cannot know if theism is objectively true or false, but if it were true, then we would be justified in adopting it over and against the alternative.

We cannot know if non-theism is objectively true or false, but if it were true, then we would be justified in adopting any subjective beliefs which provide us with an internally consistent and coherent worldview (theistic or otherwise) offering satisfactory explanatory scope.

In other words, given the generally admitted absence of undisputed objective evidence:

1) theism is more justifiable than non-theism on the grounds that it is either objectively true, or else it is as equally legitimate as any other subjective belief.

2) non-theism is less justifiable because it is either objectively false, or else it is irrelevant to one's equally legitimate but subjectively chosen beliefs.

3) specific theistic beliefs must be judged on the relative merits of their: a) internal consistency, b) their overall coherence with other scholarly disciplines, and c) their explanatory scope. But the plausibility of any specific theistic belief is irrelevant to the more general question of theism vs. non-theism.

[cnorman18]

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?

Seems to me that these questions are far too broad to be answerable. The answers would depend on the specific variety of "theism," and the specific variety or approach of "non-theism."

Strikes me as a bit like asking if Italian food is tastier than Mexican food. Are we talking about the Macaroni Grill vs. Taco Bell, or canned ravioli vs. Pappasito's Mexican Cantina?

[LiamOS]

Remember that theism is a general belief which is separate and distinct from the more specific belief in any particular God(s).

Of course.

There are numerous examples where general beliefs underwrite specific beliefs. Take evolution--you can be committed to the general idea of change over time without necessarily committing yourself to any specific theory of precisely how the mechanism worked (e.g., gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium vs. acquired genomes, etc). Since a general belief can be true even if none of the currently available specific beliefs are entirely true, if follows that general beliefs are easier to justify than specific beliefs.

Indeed.

I don't see how that justifies Theism, though.

Neither theism nor non-theism can be proven in an objective sense.

But Non-Theism is a result of that until Theism can be proven in as objective a sense as would be necessary.

But we can adopt each position, one at a time and for the sake of argument, and examine the logical consequences of the respective positions.

We cannot know if theism is objectively true or false, but if it were true, then we would be justified in adopting it over and against the alternative.

But if it were wrong we would not... I fail to see a point here.

We cannot know if non-theism is objectively true or false, but if it were true, then we would be justified in adopting any subjective beliefs which provide us with an internally consistent and coherent worldview offering satisfying explanatory scope.

What of external consistency and coherence?

Thus, even if non-theism were true (which we cannot know in an objective sense) we would still be justified in adopting an internally consistent and coherent worldview (theistic or otherwise) of sufficient explanatory scope.

So the belief that an insane monkey currently residing on Pluto created the universe in such a way that it would look exactly like this is as valid as Theism?

[EduChris]

...So the belief that an insane monkey currently residing on Pluto created the universe in such a way that it would look exactly like this is as valid as Theism?

Specific theistic beliefs must be judged on the relative merits of their: a) internal consistency, b) their overall coherence with other scholarly disciplines, and c) their explanatory scope. But the plausibility of any specific theistic belief is irrelevant to the more general question of theism vs. non-theism.

[EduChris]

...What of external consistency and coherence?...

Such knowledge is beyond the limit of human capabilities. We have no objective evidence for theism or non-theism, and no such evidence appears to be forthcoming.

[EduChris]

...But Non-Theism is a result of that until Theism can be proven in as objective a sense as would be necessary...

Non-theism is the equivalent of the position that the universe constitutes its own explanation. We have no objective evidence in either case.

If the question is, "Is there an Ultimate Reality to which we matter?" then non-theism may superficially appear to be the more defensible position in a debate (but this has absolutely no bearing on the objective truth of the matter). However, since theism can be shown to be either objectively true or else subjectively legitimate (and the converse does not hold for non-theism) it follows that the theistic view has better overall justification.

[EduChris]

...But if it were wrong we would not... I fail to see a point here...

Point #1) There is no downside to theism. Either you are objectively right or else you are subjectively okay.

Point #2) There is a definite downside to non-theism. If you are right, there is no upside. If you are wrong, there is a definite downside in having failed to recognize the force of Point #1, above.

Point #3) If you can find no specific theism which seems: i) internally consistent, ii) generally coherent with other scholarly disciplines, and iii) possessing satisfactory explanatory scope, then "general theism" is still more justified than non-theism.

[ChristShepherd]

Theism is justified if there is a God.
But since there is no evidence that a God exists, then theism is not justified.
It is just a waste of time and money. Unless you want to meet girls at church.

[Zzyzx]

.

There is no downside to theism. Either you are objectively right or else you are subjectively okay.

There certainly IS a "downside to theism" if one devotes time, energy and resources to worshiping a "god" that is nothing more than imaginary, all three are wasted in real life (the only life we are assured we have).

Note: Worshiping a "god" (itself) produces no positive actions in the real world.

There is a definite downside to non-theism. If you are right, there is no upside. If you are wrong, there is a definite downside in having failed to recognize the force of Point #1, above.

This is nothing more than a restatement of Pascal's Wager.

If you can find no specific theism which seems: i) internally consistent, ii) generally coherent with other scholarly disciplines, and iii) possessing satisfactory explanatory scope, then "general theism" is still more justified than non-theism.

Opinion noted. Lack of verification noted.