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?

[EduChris]

...let's see if EduChris has the honor to retract.

Do you or do you not make the following explicit or implicit claim:

...if theism is in general unreasonable, then all particular theisms become automatically unreasonable as well...

If you do not make any such claim, whether implicitly or explicitly, then (upon receiving your assurances that you will stop hijacking virtually every thread with incessant demands for "evidence" of things which either you now believe are reasonable, or which you now admit may be reasonable despite being borne of things which are unreasonable) I will retract.

On the other hand, if you do make such claims, whether implicitly or explicitly, then perhaps you are the one who should apologize to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 89:

Do you or do you not make the following explicit or implicit claim:

...if theism is in general unreasonable, then all particular theisms become automatically unreasonable as well...

I will not be dragged into defending claims I've NOT made.

If you do not make any such claim, whether implicitly or explicitly, then (upon receiving your assurances that you will stop hijacking virtually every thread with incessant demands for "evidence" of things which either you now believe are reasonable, or which you now admit may be reasonable despite being borne of things which are unreasonable) I will retract.

I don't negotiate with folks who claim to speak for me without my permission.

I think your post here sufficient to settle the issue of honor, or rather lack thereof.

[EduChris]

...not all non-theists would place truth second to human flourishing...

That is true. Many non-theists hold to principles that are not reasonable (given their presuppositions). Same can be said for theists as well, but my point is that regardless of whether this or that person is reasonable, which view--theism or non-theism--is more reasonable?

...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?

You have hit the nail on the head. If theistic belief is false, then there is no absolute prejudice toward truth at the expense of flourishing. Evolutionary forces work for absolute adaptive advantage without respect to truth, and therefore reasonable non-theists have nothing more than this-worldly human flourishing as their highest reasonable goal. They might hope that truth and flourishing are not mutually exclusive, but the history of evolution shows that truth often takes the back seat to selective advantage.

[scourge99]

the history of evolution shows that truth often takes the back seat to selective advantage.

I don't even know what that means. Can you elaborate?

[Adamoriens]

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.

Hi EduChris. I was wondering: why do you think that the desire to postpone extinction is the only thing of real value in the non-theistic framework? In what way is it more fundamental than an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth? It doesn't seem to me sufficient to point to a deep-seated non-rational impulse and declare that it (and only it) has intrinsic value.

[EduChris]

...why do you think that the desire to postpone extinction is the only thing of real value in the non-theistic framework?...

There may be any number of things of subjective value--but we are discussing reason, not arbitrary aesthetics. That is the whole point of this thread; after all, if arbitrary aesthetics are all we need to consider, then theism is again shown to be as equally justified as non-theism.

...In what way is it more fundamental than an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth? It doesn't seem to me sufficient to point to a deep-seated non-rational impulse and declare that it (and only it) has intrinsic value.

If "an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth" is selectively advantageous, it will be selected via relentless and uncaring evolutionary forces. Liars would eventually be completely weeded out, and we would then all agree on everything. So far, none of that has happened (or seems likely to happen in the foreseeable future).

[EduChris]

the history of evolution shows that truth often takes the back seat to selective advantage.

I don't even know what that means. Can you elaborate?

Given non-theist assumptions, it would appear that evolutionary forces have caused the vast majority of humanity to believe in a God who doesn't exist, merely because it was advantageous for them to have hope and optimism and social support, etc., etc., etc.

Also, there was a recent article in Discover magazine which showed how we are all programmed to believe things and perceive things that aren't true. Humans are biologically incapable of pure objectivity--and that is to our benefit.

[Adamoriens]

...why do you think that the desire to postpone extinction is the only thing of real value in the non-theistic framework?...

There may be any number of things of subjective value--but we are discussing reason, not arbitrary aesthetics. That is the whole point of this thread; after all, if arbitrary aesthetics are all we need to consider, then theism is again shown to be as equally justified as non-theism.

But still: how did you endow evolutionary advantage with anything beyond instrumental value at all? Why should it be a basis for value?

...In what way is it more fundamental than an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth? It doesn't seem to me sufficient to point to a deep-seated non-rational impulse and declare that it (and only it) has intrinsic value.

If "an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth" is selectively advantageous, it will be selected via relentless and uncaring evolutionary forces. Liars would eventually be completely weeded out, and we would then all agree on everything. So far, none of that has happened, or seems in any danger of happening in the foreseeable future.

This is an interesting response. However, an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth could exist without providing any evolutionary advantage, so long as it has no malignant effects.

[EduChris]

...how did you endow evolutionary advantage with anything beyond instrumental value at all? Why should it be a basis for value?...

Given non-theism, there are no true absolutes at all, since even selective adaptation will end when all organisms inevitably become extinct sooner or later. But still, if you're going to have any basis for some "absolute substitute," you might as well "dance with the one that brought you" to where you are, and where you're inevitably headed.

...an aesthetic desire to apprehend truth could exist without providing any evolutionary advantage, so long as it has no malignant effects.

That's quite a big, "so long as." But still, even here all you have an aesthetic desire, and that sounds like as good a justification for theism as for non-theism, which is the topic of this thread.

[flitzerbiest]

the history of evolution shows that truth often takes the back seat to selective advantage.

I don't even know what that means. Can you elaborate?

Given non-theist assumptions, it would appear that evolutionary forces have caused the vast majority of humanity to believe in a God who doesn't exist, merely because it was advantageous for them to have hope and optimism and social support, etc., etc., etc.

I've think its time to put this pseudoscientific, evolutionary argument to rest. How long has Homo sapiens sapiens been in existence? 130,000 years, perhaps 150,000 tops. Two ticks of the clock in evolutionary timescales. The human genome is for all practical purposes unaltered since the Pleistocene. Nevertheless, you continue to suggest that evolutionary forces have been or should have been molding various complex cognitive constructs over the blink of an eye that is human history. Add to that a penchant for teleologic thinking and you have managed, in two days time, to spread an astounding amount of disinformation about evolutionary biology.

If you really want to know about the evolution of human thought, you need to put aside modern frames of reference and get really, really comfortable with megafauna, glaciation, competition and possibly interbreeding with other hominids, food scarcity and so on.