Is there a 'default' stance on theism?

[Mithrae]

On consultation with the moderation team, I've learned that a recent thread intended to open up debate about certain views contained "pejerotive rhetoric" about those views in the title - unlike Why do Christians hate women? or Non-believers to BURN IN HELL!

As I read it I thought the thread had a lot of potential and was proceeding quite civilly, so I was a little disappointed when I reached the end. But since an offer has been made to 'consider' allowing an alternative thread to proceed with a new title and OP, I've taken the liberty of making a few small changes which I hope EduChris does not mind.

• EduChris wrote:
  Many non-theists have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves. So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, few arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."
  
  Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.
  
  However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.
  
  Question for debate: should this notion of a 'default' stance on the ultimate nature of reality be abandoned? Why should anyone be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?
  
  Isn't it time for these non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 26:

...
Chance is causal activity which cannot be reduced to pattern or purpose.
Necessity is causal activity which cannot be reduced to variation or volition.
Volition is causal activity which cannot be reduced to chance or necessity.

Of the three, volition is the only one which impinges itself on our consciousness in unmediated fashion. If we know what chance & necessity are, we have an even stronger case for knowing what volition is, since it is part of our inner mental conscious life.

Sure, there's a heap of volitioning going on.

Can anyone show there's a god doing any of it?

If'n some folk dinnae ken what he be talkin' about, that disn't be no fault o' his.

And if some other bunch can't understand that just claiming something is not proving it, it ain't the fault of the one rejecting these claims.

To what extent is it acceptable to use our childhood knowledge and the prevailing views around us as a starting point, requiring their falsification before rejecting them rather than their demonstration before acceptance?

Just right before it has us being bigots, or otherwise oppressing our fellow human beings?

[EduChris]

...What does this mean exactly in English?...what are you trying to say?...

From the standpoint of the major world theisms, there is no debate whatsoever regarding "gods" whose existence can be logically doubted; no one among today's world theisms is arguing on behalf of the logically contingent "gods" of theologically obsolete mythology. Curiously enough, all of the non-theists' arguments about the "existence" of God are aimed at precisely those obsolete theologies which theists themselves have rejected for centuries.

When today's major world theisms talk about "God," they are talking about Ultimate Reality--and UR cannot be logically denied. The only real argument is whether or not UR involves volition: theism logically requires volition, whereas non-theism logically rejects volition. My argument is that from the standpoint of epistemology (rules about how we justify our beliefs) arguments are required in order to eliminate possibilities. Chance, necessity, and volition are the only known possible causal mechanisms. Since non-theism logically requires the removal of volition from the mix, whereas theism does not require the removal of any of the three causal mechanisms--it follows that non-theism cannot be considered the "default position."

[Goat]

Then it seems that a crucial question, as far as you're concerned at least, is what constitutes 'proof' in any given context - when it comes to physics or biology, for example, or when it comes to history or sociology. But as we've seen often enough, what one intelligent person might consider blatantly obvious another may well believe to be very unclear, or indeed exactly the opposite of the first view! You gave examples of Yeti, Bigfoot, green aliens and a 'supernatural deity,' the latter of which you now say was a fundamentally invalid concept, and the other three of which are not even remotely comparable to EduChris' initial comments.

As far as I can see, the one thing they all have in common is THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for them. Not one of them passes the 'show me' test. Theoretically, yeti, big foot, and little green men from alpha centauri can be shown to be true .. or, in the case of the little green men from Alpha Centauri, false,.. if it can be shown there are no suitable planets for life in that system.

What EduChris, or you have not done is provide a methodology to actually test for a deity..,... or prove or disprove it. Rather than show evidence, an argument that is vaguely defined, and based on unprovable elements is often given as 'evidence'. However, arguments are not evidence. When someones arguments degenerates into vague , poorly defined terminology and double talk, it is word games.

Would you say that a fundamental character of the universe (the logically necessary 'Ultimate Reality' as Chris calls it) as being non-volitional (or purely random and/or deterministic) is something which can be shown to be proven? Or, being otherwise merely a presumption, would that be one of the 'word games' you're talking about?

Well, at this point, we can show that there are probabilistic and deterministic phenomena. At this point, those items can be demonstrable... even though at the moment there is a great deal of speculation about if some phenomena is spontaneous or if it has hidden variables. Those items can be examined. So , at this point in time, we can reasonable assume there is nothing beyond that. However, if someone can provide a methodology to show volition .. and we can make tests that can be repeated.. then by all means, show me. Right now, that is not the case, and provisionally, things can be accepted as non-volitional. Do you have any evidence otherwise? If so, show me, or come up with a methodology to test the issue. If you can't, well, then the explanations for what we can observe remains. Might there be an intelligence behind everything?? Can you show me? If not, then it is reasonable and logical to be skeptical of this said intelligence.

It all comes down to a simple principle. Can you show a reasonable methodology to test what you claim to be true, and to the predictions it can logically make be born out through observation and testing?

Much as it pains me to admit it, EduChris answered this rather better than I probably could at the moment, having apparently given it considerably more thought

• Chance is causal activity which cannot be reduced to pattern or purpose.
  Necessity is causal activity which cannot be reduced to variation or volition.
  Volition is causal activity which cannot be reduced to chance or necessity.
  
  Of the three, volition is the only one which impinges itself on our consciousness in unmediated fashion. If we know what chance & necessity are, we have an even stronger case for knowing what volition is, since it is part of our inner mental conscious life.

If'n some folk dinnae ken what he be talkin' about, that disn't be no fault o' his.

-]

Those are the definitions.. Now, show the evidence. There is a big difference between making definitions, and providing evidence of the reality behind the definition, or how they are relevant.

Now, I don't see the relevence to 'Necessity' and "Volition' or 'Chance' to the request for evidence.

An argument is not evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 29:

I place this message within the thread in which the violation occurred in order to shine a light on this hypocrite, and to show that he has no real argument other than to insult others who don't accept his faulty and fallacious "reasoning".

I wonder whether you have evidence showing that 'lazy' and 'non-debate' are worse or more offensive terms than 'faulty' and 'fallacious'?

I wonder whether you can understand that "faulty" and "fallacious" were directly related to "reasoning", and not theists.

While I certainly don't approve of his incivility, I myself would suggest that since EduChris' actual arguments are quite valid, as far as I can tell, as to some extent are his concerns about some rhetorical methods employed by some non-theists, one pair of denigrating terms is more open to the charge of dishonesty than the other, at least.

So you agree. Great gumdrops from heaven for you.

Many others of us don't see his arguments as the least bit valid.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I've presented a charge of dishonesty.

Or is it you doing all the dishonestying?

This is, of course, my opinion. If you're proposing that all terms like 'fundy' or generalisations about religion being 'irrational' or the like should be subject to specific moderator intervention, along with disparaging remarks such as those made by EduChris, I'm not sure this is the place to do so. There's a report button for posts which you feel violate the forum rules - the thread itself does not.

Then why didn't you use that report feature here?

Hypocrite much?

[EduChris]

...hypocritically and continually slandering atheists with this "lazy atheists' non-debate club" term...

My apologies to any and all non-theists who do not rely on some imagined "default position," but who instead offer well reasoned arguments in defense of actual positions regarding debates that are actually occurring (as opposed to debates about logically contingent "gods" which have been obsolete for centuries).

In other words, "No offense intended to anyone who actually presents a valid argument within the context of a non-obsolete debate." To such folks I offer my respect and gratitude.

[ThatGirlAgain]

There is often a hidden default among theists, that the necessary existence of God automatically provides divine authority to their particular religion. This necessary God being put forth is the origin of the universe and the therefoer ultimate source of authority. But if we consider the age (some 13 billion years) and extent (around 10^30 cubic light years in the visible portion), alien nature compared to human expectations (general relativity, quantum theory, dark energy, dark matter) and its being generally inhospitable toward life throughout almost all of its volume, it is difficult to connect such a creator entity with any God worshipping religion or even with the idea of religion itself. Why should "worship" matter to such an entity and why should it care about the antics on one species out of millions crawling around the surface of one planet circling around one star out of hundreds of billions of stars in each of hundreds of billions of galaxies?

God? Could be.

Religion? Definitely NOT the default position.

Religious theists: Explain again why I need to attend your church? Or any church for that matter?

But that is all an aside. A more direct address of the OP issue coming up.

[Artie]

Artie wrote:

Of course atheism cannot be expected to provide any kind of proof that God doesn't exist. Atheism operates within the confines of logic, reason and common sense. Religion doesn't, it operates with belief and faith.

Atheism and Christianity operate upon the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non-existence of 'God' without evidence, and both must be expected to provide proofs in order that those claims be validly supported.

No they don't. A Christian can simply say "God exists because the Bible says so, and just look around you proof is everywhere." To a Christian that makes perfect sense. An atheist simply doesn't operate within those parameters and can therefore not be expected to provide acceptable evidence for the Christian. Who's the third party who's gonna determine which evidence is admissible?

[JoeyKnothead]

...hypocritically and continually slandering atheists with this "lazy atheists' non-debate club" term...

My apologies to any and all non-theists who do not rely on some imagined "default position," but who instead offer well reasoned arguments in defense of actual positions regarding debates that are actually occurring (as opposed to debates about logically contingent "gods" which have been obsolete for centuries).

In other words, "No offense intended to anyone who actually presents a valid argument within the context of a non-obsolete debate." To such folks I offer my respect and gratitude.

Notice in this 'apology' there's the continued insistence that one must provide an alternative argument, or they're "lazy non-debaters".

I would remind EduChris and the observer that site rules do NOT require alternative arguments, but do expect that those who make claims be willing to support / retract such.

Calling folks "lazy non-debaters" simply because they refuse to argue a position is no argument at all. It's nothing more'n the typical slander presented for the adherents' benefit within their own religious texts.

I propose if one could actually defend their own position, there'd be no need in expecting others to present any arguments of their own.

[Mithrae]

Much as it pains me to admit it, EduChris answered this rather better than I probably could at the moment, having apparently given it considerably more thought

• Chance is causal activity which cannot be reduced to pattern or purpose.
  Necessity is causal activity which cannot be reduced to variation or volition.
  Volition is causal activity which cannot be reduced to chance or necessity.
  
  Of the three, volition is the only one which impinges itself on our consciousness in unmediated fashion. If we know what chance & necessity are, we have an even stronger case for knowing what volition is, since it is part of our inner mental conscious life.

If'n some folk dinnae ken what he be talkin' about, that disn't be no fault o' his.

Those are the definitions.. Now, show the evidence. There is a big difference between making definitions, and providing evidence of the reality behind the definition, or how they are relevant.

Now, I don't see the relevence to 'Necessity' and "Volition' or 'Chance' to the request for evidence.

An argument is not evidence.

Y'see, this is why I can kind of understand the impatience of a Christian who actually seems to have a good deal of intelligence and learning to back up his arguments, yet they still apparently fly right over folks' heads and, worse, not realising this they still throw out denigrating terms like "faulty and fallacious 'reasoning'."

He has numerous times suggested that the ultimate nature of reality is, as it were, a 'black box' to which we have no direct empirical access, and this is (and no-one has denied) a basic truth of epistemology. But, based on the fundamental principles of logic and thought, we can to some extent understand the limits of the possibilities involved in that fundamental nature. A useful link for understanding the difference between the empiricism which you are promoting, and the rationalism which in times past dominated but nowadays I reckon should be considered complementary to it can be found here.

Right from the get-go Chris was talking about philosophy and some non-theist's unwillingness to comprehend the nuances of modern theistic arguments. In fact, they're not all that modern, because even I know that the foundations of the distinctions which Chris is making were spelt out at least as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas, a thousand years ago. Yet we still have folk here wondering what the difference is between Thor and Christian theology!

So yeah, while I dislike his incivility, it's not hard to see how his terms can be very much paired up against terms like 'fundy' and the many generalisations made against religious views which I've seen about the place.

As far as your questions go: What possible causal scenarios are there besides uncaused (chance), caused in the manner we observe externally, mediated by our senses (necessity/determinism/mechanism) or caused in the manner we observe internally without mediation (choice/volition)? It's not definition, it's logic.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

Atheism and Christianity operate upon the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non-existence of 'God' without evidence, and both must be expected to provide proofs in order that those claims be validly supported.

Artie wrote:

No they don't. A Christian can simply say "God exists because the Bible says so, and just look around you proof is everywhere." To a Christian that makes perfect sense. An atheist simply doesn't operate within those parameters and can therefore not be expected to provide acceptable evidence for the Christian. Who's the third party who's gonna determine which evidence is admissible?

Perhaps I should have said 'theists' instead of Christians because fundamentalist Christian truth claims as to the existence of the BibleGod can be shown by a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to be more probably untrue than true. But then I don't think the BibleGod has anything whatever to do with an actual, existing supernatural being of any sort.

In other words, I don't think BibleGod can be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the burden of proof is 'more probably true than not true' and the standard of proof is 'by a preponderance or greater weight of circumstantial evidence', I contend that the truth claim 'the BibleGod does not exist' is more probably true than not true.

But with that clarification as to the BibleGod, I stand by my original statement to you that atheists and theists stand on the same ground when either make truth claims about the existence or non existence of 'God' without evidence. Unless theists have discernible, verifiable proofs as to God's existence they should, in all honesty, refrain from making such truth claims. And if atheists likewise make truth claims that 'God' does not exist and they have no evidence to support that assertion to the point of proof, they too should, in all honesty, refrain from making unsupportable claims as to a supernatural being we cannot coherently define.