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?

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

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

Please don't post one-liners that don't add anything to the debate. Try to elaborate on your points so that other readers can understand what you were getting at with each post.

[EduChris]

...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...

Suppose during your sleep a wrinkle in the fabric of space-time transports you into an altered state of consciousness in which you all of a sudden know with objective clarity that theistic belief is false. In this altered state of consciousness, you have amnesia so you don't know who you are or what your belief system was when you went to sleep, but you do have an otherwise normal view of the world and culture. Given perfect objective knowledge that theistic belief is false, you can choose one of the following belief systems which will become your belief system once you return from this altered state. Once you awake, you will not remember what has happened to you. You will hold your newly chosen belief system, but only with the same degree of subjectivity as is common to all humanity (that is, you will no longer have the objective certainty you had during your altered consciousness). Here are your choices:

1) You may choose to adopt whatever belief system which best provides for truth, and only secondarily for this-worldly human flourishing.

2) You may choose to adopt whatever belief system which best provides for this-worldly human flourishing, and only secondarily for truth

Given non-theism, which choice is more reasonable? Operating strictly according to reason, you would have to choose option 2--and this option, in terms of evolutionary advantage, could go either way for theism or non-theism (since neither can be shown to offer any definite adaptive advantage over the other).

Now, repeat this exercise except that this time your altered state of consciousness informs you that theistic belief is true. You again have the same two choices. In this case, given theism, which choice is more reasonable? If you operate strictly by reason, you would have to choose option 1.

To summarize, given objective (but temporary) certainty of non-theism, the reasonable choice is for this-worldy human adaptive advantage rather than for truth (and here theism is no less favored than non-theism). On the other hand, given objective (but temporary) certainty of theism, the only reasonable choice is for truth (which will be theism, since theism is true in this scenario).

Thus, theism is objectively more reasonable than non-theism. This is not to say that theism is objectively proven true, but it is more reasonable since it is definitely favored under theistic assumptions, and no less favored under non-theistic assumptions. That theism is objectively more reasonable than non-theism is the best explanation for the fact that most people are theists.

Note: here is my working definition of theism:

The belief that there is an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent Reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal Divine response or by Divinely-established autonomic reaction.

[Board]

Correct me if I am wrong... but is this delving into Truth vs. Beneficial? As in a beneficial lie can be better than the truth?

I think that has its place in psychology and politics but when seeking truth it undermines the pursuit.

In this imaginary scenario, if you know what is true and do not adhere to the truth then you are being dishonest with yourself. I do not believe non-theists would inherently be dishonest.

Religion is beneficial to those seeking comfort, community, and even power. But the ends do not justify the means. If truth is our goal then we need to take our bruises in getting there rather than accept a beneficial lie.

[ChaosBorders]

To summarize, given objective (but temporary) certainty of non-theism, the reasonable choice is for this-worldy human adaptive advantage rather than for truth (and here theism is no less favored than non-theism). On the other hand, given objective (but temporary) certainty of theism, the only reasonable choice is for truth (which will be theism, since theism is true in this scenario).

Unless God was evil. In which case the pragmatic course of action may well be to completely ignore that, either by choosing not to believe or by choosing to believe that there is an even higher power that isn't a dick.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. General theism on average is not less reasonable than non-theism. But nor can it be shown to be more reasonable on anything more than an individual, case by case basis.

[ChaosBorders]

In this imaginary scenario, if you know what is true and do not adhere to the truth then you are being dishonest with yourself. I do not believe non-theists would inherently be dishonest.

That's a hasty generalization. Some non-theists may not intentionally be dishonest with themselves. But self-deception is a fundamental part of human makeup and I am certain that not all non-theists are as concerned about objective truth as you may be.

Religion is beneficial to those seeking comfort, community, and even power. But the ends do not justify the means. If truth is our goal then we need to take our bruises in getting there rather than accept a beneficial lie.

Whether the ends justify the means is a matter of opinion. The question there is why should truth be our goal if it turns out to be detrimental?

[Board]

In this imaginary scenario, if you know what is true and do not adhere to the truth then you are being dishonest with yourself. I do not believe non-theists would inherently be dishonest.

That's a hasty generalization. Some non-theists may not intentionally be dishonest with themselves. But self-deception is a fundamental part of human makeup and I am certain that not all non-theists are as concerned about objective truth as you may be.

I do not think I am the one who made the hasty generalization. EduChris stated that the non-theist position would place truth second to "human flourishing". To me that is a generalization. I simply stated that not all non-theists can be classified in that manner.

Religion is beneficial to those seeking comfort, community, and even power. But the ends do not justify the means. If truth is our goal then we need to take our bruises in getting there rather than accept a beneficial lie.

Whether the ends justify the means is a matter of opinion. The question there is why should truth be our goal if it turns out to be detrimental?

What a wonderful question! My take is, truth should always be our goal. If the truth turns out to be detrimental then we need to work towards the beneficial in light of the truth and not simply reject the truth for a new, false reality.

[ChaosBorders]

I do not think I am the one who made the hasty generalization. EduChris stated that the non-theist position would place truth second to "human flourishing". To me that is a generalization. I simply stated that not all non-theists can be classified in that manner.

He may well have made one too, but you didn't state that not all non-theists can be classified in that manner. You just stated that you "do not believe non-theists would inherently be dishonest." That makes it sound like you're saying that no non-theist would be inherently dishonest, which is inaccurate.

But thank you for the clarification. You are absolutely correct when saying that not all non-theists would place truth second to human flourishing. It seems to me that you're your own living example of that fact.

What a wonderful question! My take is, truth should always be our goal. If the truth turns out to be detrimental then we need to work towards the beneficial in light of the truth and not simply reject the truth for a new, false reality.

A fair opinion to have, though ironically it cannot be shown as objectively true that it is the most reasonable one to hold. My question would be, if it turns out that even when working towards the beneficial while knowing the truth, the benefit never becomes as great as when holding a falsehood, then why should the truth have mattered?

[Board]

What a wonderful question! My take is, truth should always be our goal. If the truth turns out to be detrimental then we need to work towards the beneficial in light of the truth and not simply reject the truth for a new, false reality.

A fair opinion to have, though ironically it cannot be shown as objectively true that it is the most reasonable one to hold. My question would be, if it turns out that even when working towards the beneficial while knowing the truth, the benefit never becomes as great as when holding a falsehood, then why should the truth have mattered?

I would agree with your statements and this is what leads us to what seems like an eternal dilemma for the human race.

Personally I have trouble coping with a blatant falsehood. I can never hold a straight face when joking. I call out co-workers on ethical issues constantly. (during the decision making process mind you so they don't ALL hate me... I think)

Now if someone can know the truth and still live in the lie then more power to them... as long as they do not speak out against the truth and promote the lie.

Is it right to allow someone to remain ignorant of the truth if it is beneficial for them live in the lie? Very, very hard question to answer...

And thanks for the correction. I should have added the "all" to my line.

[ChaosBorders]

Now if someone can know the truth and still live in the lie then more power to them... as long as they do not speak out against the truth and promote the lie.

Another hard question. If one knows the truth, but is aware that telling it will cause significant harm to innocent others, why should they not speak out against the truth and promote the lie?

The classic example here I think is those who hid Jews from the Nazis.

[EduChris]

...But the ends do not justify the means...

That is a moral value judgement which I, as a theist, support. But it is not a reasonable position to take if you know very well that the truth is irrelevant and the potential for harm is real.

...If truth is our goal then we need to take our bruises in getting there rather than accept a beneficial lie...

Given non-theism, irrelevant and potentially harmful truth cannot be a reasonable goal. Given non-theism, truth is only of incidental value, to the extent it supports the absolute value that humans go extinct later rather than sooner.

Now I do agree that relevant truth, truth which has as much potential of helping rather than hurting--that sort of truth is a very reasonable goal, but in the scenario I presented, such truth is only available if theism is true.