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?

[Cathar1950]

...if one accepts Pascal's wager in any form and to any degree, they have [a] major [hurdle]:

1) Chose the right "god" to worship from the thousands available and/or promoted -- with a chance of being right being 0.0005 (1 in 2000). Many "gods" are said to be mutually exclusive.

Interesting.

Thousands of gods are available/promoted in today's world?

Sticking with a present day world model, I'd be hard pressed to name just 5 gods that warrant any serious discussion.

Once just Yahweh and Allah are eliminated, modern day gods are already reduced to the elephant-headed gods and flying snakes of Hinduism, Korean dictators as gods, some pagan gods from Greek mythology, and silly ideas like Earth or other planets as gods/goddess. There are certainly not thousands of them and almost none of the gods/goddesses once you get past the few major religions, are taken seriously by any but a few fringe groups.

Ya think maybe the quoted statement above is exaggerated just a wee bit?

Not if you consider the many variations of the supposed one God and depending on what kind of theist.
He is not presenting an apology for theism and really offer none that doesn't suffer from one of more fallacies which he claims he doesn't even see.
It is clearly an attack on some straw man Non-theist unspecified non-conception against "all human flourishing".

[hatsoff]

Sticking with a present day world model, I'd be hard pressed to name just 5 gods that warrant any serious discussion.

If by warranting serious discussion you mean "somewhat more likely to exist than most other gods," then I must disagree. A friend of mine has the favorite example of the god who insists that everyone clap their hands at least five times per day. So if you clap your hands five times on enough days of your life, this god will reward you with eternal life in Heaven. If not, he'll send you to the great abyss.

I submit that the hand-clapping god is no less likely to exist than the Christian god, or the Muslim god, etc.

[EduChris]

...This isn't fair: you pose a question about what would be the rational choice given non-theism, but then you choose an answer that isn't even a conscious choice. If it isn't a conscious choice then calling it "the only rational choice" is fairly dubious...

The conscious choice is to choose between option #1 and option #2. Which option would a rational person choose under the circumstances of the thought experiment? There is no rational basis, within the non-theistic scenario, to choose option #1.

...truth-seeking (rather than feel-good-believing) has objectively positive benefits. You seem to be conveniently hand-waving that away here...

Actually, you are not comprehending the thought experiment. If truth-seeking in the non-theistic scenario will have sufficient positive benefits, then option #2 will be indistinguishable from option #1. On the other hand, if truth-seeking will not provide sufficient positive benefits, then there is no harm whatsoever in sacrificing an irrelevant truth. This is precisely why the rational person, given the non-theistic scenario, will always choose option #2.

...It might not be practical to believe something that causes more harm than believing a lie, but it is rational to believe the truth. Again, you are seriously equivocating the word "rational" with the word "practical."

Again you misunderstand the thought experiement. The person isn't being asked to believe something she knows isn't true. Rather, she is temporarily given a "window" into ultimate reality, and then given a choice of what she would prefer to believe after the "window" of truth closes and everything returns to ceteris paribus--except for the choice of option #1 and #2. Once the "window" closes, she won't remember anything about her epiphanous experience, and she won't remember what the actual truth is--she will return to the common human condition of doubt, uncertainty, and ambiguity.

...it would still be rational to acknowledge the existence of the lump of clay. It would be practical to deny it...

The point is that the rational person will choose practical advantage over irrelevant truth. It's not the case that the rational person would be choosing to believe something she knows isn't true. Once the epiphany is over, she won't know the actual truth at all; she will return to her original human condition of uncertainty. The rational choice is whether an irrelevant truth trumps pragmatic gain, or not. Nothing you have said provides any basis for a rational person, within the non-theistic scenario, to choose option #1.

[JoeyKnothead]

Seems some clarificatin' is in order...

Let's suppose that there is a particular lump of clay on the other side of Mars, and let's suppose (just for sake of argument) that we know about this lump of clay. Let's also suppose that we somehow know that propagating this truth will cause WW3 to ensue. There is absolutely nothing special about this lump of clay, either in its composition or characteristics or position or consequences; but yet somehow knowledge of it causes pandemonium and slaughter on earth. In such a case (admittedly contrived) the pursuit of an irrelevant truth in the face of possible human extinction would be utterly absurd.

To which I reply...

"A lump of clay and organized religion sound a lot alike."

Does anyone else not find it odd, to downright goofy, that a Christian would make this argument - what with all the pandemonium and slaughter claimed to have been wrought by the Christian God, and some of them Christians themselves? And then to think there's a whole heap of 'em hell-bent on making an Armageddon in Israel actually occur, and it is my contention that what we have here is possible human extinction based on an irrelevant "truth".

But of course, that's "utterly absurd".

[EduChris]

...If by warranting serious discussion you mean...

I mean three things:

1) explanatory scope

2) general congruence with other scholarly disciplines

3) internal coherence

Leprechauns, hand-clapping gods, etc, have none of the above, and that is why intelligent, educated, people of good will do not raise those issues when engaging in serious theological discussion.

[hatsoff]

I mean three things:

1) explanatory scope

2) general congruence with other scholarly disciplines

3) internal coherence

Leprechauns, hand-clapping gods, etc, have none of the above, and that is why intelligent, educated, people of good will do not raise those issues when engaging in serious theological discussion.

The hand-clapping god is quite coherent. As for (1) and (2), I agree that the hand-clapping god does not satisfy them. The problem is, no other gods satisfy them either.

I had also assumed for a long time that we should take the Abrahamic god more seriously than, say, the hand-clapping god. But it turns out that there's no good reason to do that. They really are on equal footing.

[EduChris]

...The hand-clapping god is quite coherent. As for (1) and (2), I agree that the hand-clapping god does not satisfy them. The problem is, no other gods satisfy them either...

You are entitled to your opinion, but most of the best minds the world have ever seen disagree with you. Moreover, non-theistic descriptions of Ultimate Reality fare no better than Leprechauns. Every non-theistic account of Ultimate Reality is nothing more than a "just-so story" dressed up in a laboratory apron.

...I had also assumed for a long time that we should take the Abrahamic god more seriously than, say, the hand-clapping god. But it turns out that there's no good reason to do that. They really are on equal footing.

If you're just here to be a smart alec, then you'll have to interact with others.

[hatsoff]

You are entitled to your opinion, but most of the best minds the world have ever seen disagree with you.

This is not surprising. Most of us are raised to take certain gods more seriously than others, and this tendency can last a long time. But once we start looking for reasons to support what we have been taught to believe, we find nothing of substance.

Moreover, non-theistic descriptions of Ultimate Reality fare no better than Leprechauns. Every non-theistic account of Ultimate Reality is nothing more than a "just-so story" dressed up in a laboratory apron.

Taken a certain way, I agree. But this doesn't help theism in the least.

If you're just here to be a smart alec, then you'll have to interact with others.

I take exception to that. I've been quite courteous to you the whole time. If you aren't interested in engaging this line of discussion, then fine. I can't force you to give up your beliefs. But I would appreciate it if you made your exit without firing off personal attacks on the way out.

[Meow Mix]

...This isn't fair: you pose a question about what would be the rational choice given non-theism, but then you choose an answer that isn't even a conscious choice. If it isn't a conscious choice then calling it "the only rational choice" is fairly dubious...

The conscious choice is to choose between option #1 and option #2. Which option would a rational person choose under the circumstances of the thought experiment? There is no rational basis, within the non-theistic scenario, to choose option #1.

You keep asserting so regardless of how many times I've demonstrated that there clearly is. We may just about be finished with this conversation if you insist on it being one-directional.

...truth-seeking (rather than feel-good-believing) has objectively positive benefits. You seem to be conveniently hand-waving that away here...

Actually, you are not comprehending the thought experiment. If truth-seeking in the non-theistic scenario will have sufficient positive benefits, then option #2 will be indistinguishable from option #1. On the other hand, if truth-seeking will not provide sufficient positive benefits, then there is no harm whatsoever in sacrificing an irrelevant truth. This is precisely why the rational person, given the non-theistic scenario, will always choose option #2.

I comprehend the thought experiment completely. By the way, you are still equivocating "rational" with "practical." I think I give up. Three times is too many to explain the same thing only to have it ignored. I'd like to engage in two-sided conversations, please.

...It might not be practical to believe something that causes more harm than believing a lie, but it is rational to believe the truth. Again, you are seriously equivocating the word "rational" with the word "practical."

Again you misunderstand the thought experiement. The person isn't being asked to believe something she knows isn't true. Rather, she is temporarily given a "window" into ultimate reality, and then given a choice of what she would prefer to believe after the "window" of truth closes and everything returns to ceteris paribus--except for the choice of option #1 and #2. Once the "window" closes, she won't remember anything about her epiphanous experience, and she won't remember what the actual truth is--she will return to the common human condition of doubt, uncertainty, and ambiguity.

I understand the thought experiment. There is still a difference between rational and practical, which you are equivocating.

...it would still be rational to acknowledge the existence of the lump of clay. It would be practical to deny it...

The point is that the rational person will choose practical advantage over irrelevant truth. It's not the case that the rational person would be choosing to believe something she knows isn't true. Once the epiphany is over, she won't know the actual truth at all; she will return to her original human condition of uncertainty. The rational choice is whether an irrelevant truth trumps pragmatic gain, or not. Nothing you have said provides any basis for a rational person, within the non-theistic scenario, to choose option #1.

No, the rational person would choose the truth by definition of what is rational, whereas the practical person would choose what is practical. You are equivocating the two terms and your argument is entirely irrelevant.

Besides, even given the thought experiment I don't think there would even be a difference in practical approach from either theists or non-theist. I understand your thought experiment -- I just also understand it to engage in equivocation and to be irrelevant. It does nothing to justify theism or to undermine non-theism in any meaningful way. Sorry.

[Meow Mix]

Every non-theistic account of Ultimate Reality is nothing more than a "just-so story" dressed up in a laboratory apron.

In what way are theistic accounts any better off? This is what I don't understand about you. Despite our past conversations about this you still seem to argue as if theistic accounts are somehow more explanatory than non-theistic ones. This is patently untrue, and I've already explained why.

If you've discovered something since then, please -- explain. Otherwise, I think we deserve an explanation from you on why you assert theistic accounts are more explanatory than non-theistic ones.

Otherwise we might as well stick out our tongues and retort "Every theistic account of Ultimate Reality is nothing more than a "just-so story" dressed up in robes and a fancy hat, so nyah!"