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?

[ChaosBorders]

If one is selling "hope" to those who need hope, I have no objection. I would prefer (and require for myself) that the promised reward be something more than imaginary.

In fact, I do not object to selling the "hope" of religion to the hopeless -- but question the legitimacy of selling "hope" to those who are not hopeless (particularly efforts made to cajole those who are not hopeless to accept possibly imaginary "hope" by attempting to denigrate their existing convictions and/or world view -- as we may see being attempted in these threads and elsewhere).

That is a rather unfortunate side effect. Hope is most effective when someone believes what they are going to get is real and certain (whether it is or not) rather than just a possibility. Unfortunately, though that may be personally of great benefit, actually ending up with that belief can result in the mindset of desiring to spread that belief to everyone, not just those who would actually benefit from believing it. This mentality in turn can lead to the thinking that the belief should be spread at all costs, including the denigration of people's existing convictions and/or world view. (In fairness, many of the opposite opinion do the same thing to believers).

An excellent business plan is to create a "need" and offer a solution -- for a price.

Certainly true.

[Dr.Physics]

If one is selling "hope" to those who need hope, I have no objection. I would prefer (and require for myself) that the promised reward be something more than imaginary.
In fact, I do not object to selling the "hope" of religion to the hopeless...

i would disagree

selling false hope to the hopeless is like giving false knowledge to the ignorant, its not only taking advantage of these peoples' condition if you benefit, but even if you dont benefit it stops them from finding the REAL hope, or the REAL information...

in other words, giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

[EduChris]

...giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

From the non-theistic perspective, this cannot be true, since evolutionary processes always sacrifice truth for selective advantage.

Given non-theistic presuppositions, blind evolutionary forces (for ensuring the organism's inevitable extinction later rather than sooner) provide the only possible absolute (however futile it ultimately turns out to be, since in the long run the entire universe will go extinct).

[flitzerbiest]

...giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

From the non-theistic perspective, this cannot be true, since evolutionary processes always sacrifice truth for selective advantage.

Perhaps you could provide an example of this so that we might better understand the point, if any.

[ChaosBorders]

...giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

From the non-theistic perspective, this cannot be true, since evolutionary processes always sacrifice truth for selective advantage.

Perhaps you could provide an example of this so that we might better understand the point, if any.

Optimism. Perfect example. And I don't think evolutionary processes sacrifice truth so much as don't take it into account. Sometimes a focus on truth in a situation provides an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Either way, I think evolution is a non-sequitur regarding this conversation. I also think that EduChris has made a hasty generalization given that there are non-theist philosophies that value truth quite highly.

That being said....

i would disagree

selling false hope to the hopeless is like giving false knowledge to the ignorant, its not only taking advantage of these peoples' condition if you benefit, but even if you dont benefit it stops them from finding the REAL hope, or the REAL information...

in other words, giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

What real hope? By the very nature of hope you can't objectively know whether or not what you are hoping for will become a reality. You may argue that someone should hope for something you perceive as being more likely attainable, but then if they don't attain it they will be crushed. The very act of having hope, especially in desperate situations, can be a huge advantage. Having it in something that is falsifiable though can be devastating if it turns out not to be the case.

And of what particular advantage is having real information if that information isn't useful to enhance well-being? I personally have quite a lot of information that I would rather not have and which is merely depressing to know and is without any real advantage to me or anyone else.

If the truth is that there is no objective purpose in life, and someone's mentality cannot handle the idea of creating a subjective one that is objectively meaningless, why would it be a step forward for them to know this?

[flitzerbiest]

...giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

From the non-theistic perspective, this cannot be true, since evolutionary processes always sacrifice truth for selective advantage.

Perhaps you could provide an example of this so that we might better understand the point, if any.

Optimism. Perfect example.

Optimism is truth? Perhaps you ought to define one or both terms.

And I don't think evolutionary processes sacrifice truth so much as don't take it into account.

Bingo, unless we define truth as "that which happens". Come to think of it, this might not be a bad idea. To paraphrase Zen Master Brad Warner, "God on his white throne is just an idea. That spot on your left buttock that itches is the truth."

Either way, I think evolution is a non-sequitur regarding this conversation. I also think that EduChris has made a hasty generalization given that there are non-theist philosophies that value truth quite highly.

I'm glad someone else noticed.

[ChaosBorders]

...giving someone false hope is a step backwards rather than forwards

From the non-theistic perspective, this cannot be true, since evolutionary processes always sacrifice truth for selective advantage.

Perhaps you could provide an example of this so that we might better understand the point, if any.

Optimism. Perfect example.

Optimism is truth? Perhaps you ought to define one or both terms.

No, optimism is an example of an evolutionary trait that disregards the truth in favor of other advantages. All else being equal, a pessimist will judge more accurately their ability to get something done, but the optimist (though overestimating their actual ability) will end up getting more done.

[EduChris]

...there are non-theist philosophies that value truth quite highly...

No argument there, unless you want to try to claim that such "values" are anything more than subjective. If subjective evidence and values provide justification, then theism again is no less justified than non-theism (and probably more so).

[ChaosBorders]

...there are non-theist philosophies that value truth quite highly...

No argument there, unless you want to try to claim that such "values" are anything more than subjective.

Yes.

If subjective evidence and values provide justification, then theism again is no less justified than non-theism (and probably more so).

I don't think you can actually show the more so part on more than an individual case by case level, thus the word probably is mostly rhetoric, but I do agree that it is no typically no less justifiable from a truly objective standpoint. And part of that is nothing can truly be shown as objective.

However, within many contexts, collectively verifiable and replicable subjective evidence is of considerably greater use towards justifying a position than unverifiable evidence.

For the sake of convenience, most people shorten 'collectively verifiable and replicable evidence' to 'objective evidence' because it is believed to be the closest approximation that humans can get.

[flitzerbiest]

How many cognitive backflips and handsprings will turn out to be proofs that theism is more rational than non-theism? Stay tuned...