Theistic Reasoning

[bluegreenearth]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief. Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it. So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service. Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

[Divine Insight]

If your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service.

Isn't it unreasonable to even suspect that such a situation is possible?

I just created a post in General Chat that explains why this clearly isn't the case, nor could it be the case.

Why are theists unable to accept the truth?

Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Hardly. They know the truth. If they had anything compelling, Science, History, and Philosophy would already be standing behind it. But those serious disciplines are not standing behind Christianity as having any compelling evidence to support it.

So everyone, including the theists, know that there is no compelling evidence for arguments to be made for Christian theology.

Do you really think they don't know this? They might refuse to acknowledge it, but surely the must know it. The only way they could not know it is to be convinced that the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical communities are all irrationally refusing to accept compelling evidence. But is that truly a reasonable position to take?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I feel your frustration and do not expect the type of theist you've described to respond positively to my OP. However, having once been a theist myself, I suspect there are others out there who value intellectual honesty enough to appreciate a critical analysis of their reasoning process. Also, intellectual honesty compels me to remain doxastically open to the possibility, however unlikely, that there may be a theist out there with reliable reasoning. If so, I would like to know what that reasoning might be.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

A fairly simple epistemic argument can be made for the rationality of theistic beliefs. But firstly - and not really part of an argument but very important to note I think - it's misleading to talk and think in terms of 'belief' as a simple binary state; rather we all have (or should have) a continuum of speculation, hypotheses, likelihoods, opinions, 'beliefs,' axioms, general knowledge, personal experience and 'certainties.' Thinking in binary terms invites glossing over and ignoring uncertainties, for all perspectives.

Largely based on that binary perspective, the epistemic approach championed by most vocal atheists of refraining from belief pending 'sufficient' justification is both contrary to our natural tendencies (of using our current views as a heuristic framework to be modified, ideally, when facts and circumstances require it); and of extremely dubious if not non-existent pragmatic value; and even undermined by its own absence of sufficient justification.

Consequently, those who were raised as or are currently theists, who have found no factual or pragmatic compulsion for changing that perspective, should most rationally maintain that perspective unless and until they do find cause to modify it (whether to some other variation of theism, or to a non-theistic perspective such as materialism).

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]

I'm not fully understanding what your comments are intending to suggest. Was there something in the language of the OP that I should clarify?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 5 by bluegreenearth]

I'm not sure I can put it any simpler than that Perhaps with an example: Suppose Billy is a young lad who knows that his parents and teachers understand much more about the world than he does, and has been informed and therefore believes that there is a God who loves him. That's a belief with a rational basis, so abandoning that belief without cause would obviously be irrational. Yet that is precisely what many atheists advocate; that there is no burden of proof to falsify theistic beliefs, but rather we should try to imagine our minds as some kind of blank slate and refrain from believing in God unless we can find some kind of 'sufficient' justification for that belief. That is a highly dubious and problematic epistemic approach, as outlined in my second paragraph above.

If we instead continue with a more normal approach - using our existing views as a heuristic framework to be modified when facts and circumstances require it - then it would obviously be rational for Billy to continue believing in a God who loves him, unless and until he finds cause to change that perspective. Maybe he'll decide that God doesn't really 'love' him after all; maybe he'll decide that there is no God at all, or that some alternative such as deterministic materialism is more likely. But until he finds such causes to change his perspective, it's obviously rational for him to maintain his theistic beliefs.

[Tart]

It’s simple... reasoning is simple... it’s “have faith in God�... period... and If you’re not for it, you’re against it... this isn’t a compromise in reasoning, it’s a proclamation of faith through all things... through the worse of the worse! Through death! Faith in God! Let’s be set apart by the faithful, and let’s save those who aren’t faithful, through the miracle work of faith, love and healing. Rebuke the faithless...

[Tart]

Though I am a fan of reality. I’m just waiting for the body to be revealed, and I’m absolutely faithful through it... there is no reason whatsoever to not have faith in God... when you give up on faith you’re dead.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 6 by Mithrae]

Thanks for the clarification. Unless I am misunderstanding your comments, it would appear you interpreted the OP to suggest that theistic belief was irrational and must be abandoned until it met its burden of proof. If I may make a clarification, I have no expectation that theists abandon their belief. In fact, the approach I'm advocating can be mapped onto the heuristic framework you've described.

[bluegreenearth]

It’s simple... reasoning is simple... it’s “have faith in God�... period... and If you’re not for it, you’re against it... this isn’t a compromise in reasoning, it’s a proclamation of faith through all things... through the worse of the worse! Through death! Faith in God! Let’s be set apart by the faithful, and let’s save those who aren’t faithful, through the miracle work of faith, love and healing. Rebuke the faithless...

As the OP indicates, you must at least be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge where you might be mistaken in your belief regardless of the strength of your faith. If you are not prepared to be intellectually honest in this regard, then maybe your comments will be better received in the Theology & Doctrine thread. This thread is for those who are willing to cooperate in searching for errors in their reasoning process; not for those who are doxastically closed.