Does Romans 1:18-20 create doubt for atheists?

[AgnosticBoy]

Many Christians interpret Romans 1:18 to mean that deep down we all know that God exists.

Romans 1:19-20

19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21

In my view, the apostle Paul goes too far in claiming that non-believers know that the Christian God exists. However, if I'm to look for any validity in his statement, I find that I do have this feeling and/or need for something transcendent. That certainly is not enough to point to anything as specific as the God of the Bible, but it does point to spirituality, in general. One book that touches on this idea is The God Gene by Dean Hamer. Here's one review:

In Hamer's argument, spiritual experiences and religion are nearly universal human attributes. Hamer measures spirituality on a scale of 'self-transcendence', or the ability to see beyond oneself, a concept first introduced by psychologist Robert Cloninger. He draws a sharp distinction between spirituality, which is a personality trait that some of us have to a greater or lesser extent than others, and religion or belief in a particular god, which is a culturally transmitted expression of spirituality.

Hamer admits in his introduction that the volume is misnamed; he isn't talking about genes for being a god, but rather about those that predispose us to religion-neutral spiritual beliefs, experiences and interpretations. Spirituality is not controlled by the product of a single gene but is complex, involving many genes, each making a small contribution to the phenotype, combined with a very strong environmental influence.

I really want to know the following:
1. Did this feeling or sense or need for something greater play any role in leading you to religion or spirituality?
2. For the non-believer or atheist, are you aware of this feeling? Does it lead you to doubt atheism? (in my case, my doubt does not lead me to believe, but instead it drives me to search even more).

[Tcg]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

This passage creates amusement for this atheist.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Many Christians interpret Romans 1:18 to mean that deep down we all know that God exists.

Romans 1:19-20

19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21

To the contrary, that's one of the passages that helped confirm my atheism. According to Paul, God should be obvious. He's not.

That passage is part and parcel with 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, which I find funny in a Schadenfreude kind of way because of Paul's utter lack of self-awareness. Many Christians are uncomfortable quoting this one, but it cracks me up when they do. It strikes me as whistling past the graveyard:

Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith also is in vain. Yes, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead aren’t raised, neither has Christ been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

Preach it, brother Paul.

[TRANSPONDER]

Many Christians interpret Romans 1:18 to mean that deep down we all know that God exists.

Romans 1:19-20

19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21

In my view, the apostle Paul goes too far in claiming that non-believers know that the Christian God exists. However, if I'm to look for any validity in his statement, I find that I do have this feeling and/or need for something transcendent. That certainly is not enough to point to anything as specific as the God of the Bible, but it does point to spirituality, in general. One book that touches on this idea is The God Gene by Dean Hamer. Here's one review:

In Hamer's argument, spiritual experiences and religion are nearly universal human attributes. Hamer measures spirituality on a scale of 'self-transcendence', or the ability to see beyond oneself, a concept first introduced by psychologist Robert Cloninger. He draws a sharp distinction between spirituality, which is a personality trait that some of us have to a greater or lesser extent than others, and religion or belief in a particular god, which is a culturally transmitted expression of spirituality.

Hamer admits in his introduction that the volume is misnamed; he isn't talking about genes for being a god, but rather about those that predispose us to religion-neutral spiritual beliefs, experiences and interpretations. Spirituality is not controlled by the product of a single gene but is complex, involving many genes, each making a small contribution to the phenotype, combined with a very strong environmental influence.

I really want to know the following:
1. Did this feeling or sense or need for something greater play any role in leading you to religion or spirituality?
2. For the non-believer or atheist, are you aware of this feeling? Does it lead you to doubt atheism? (in my case, my doubt does not lead me to believe, but instead it drives me to search even more).

It is in fact the first appearance of the 'watchmaker' or intelligent design argument. It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy. Aside that this doesn't do a single solitary thing to tell us which god (or gods) made it all, we then got the watchmaker argument (when mechanism of nature became known) to see it all as the work of a divine engineer. However Paley's argument (still the basis of ID apologetics today) fails because one coming across a watch in the grass immediately recognises it as an intelligently designed mechanism. Thus when we become aware of the mechanisms of nature we see the evidence of a 'divine watchmaker'.

The flaw of course is that, if grass is intelligently designed, how does the finder of the watch tell the intelligently designed watch from the intelligently designed grass? The answer is that he knows the difference between the manufactured and the natural.

The Unexplained combined with the huge size of the natural world and a few other human instincts thus create this idea that 'a huge invisible human must have done it'. Which is a universal and understandable human delusion, but is essentially fallacious.

[historia]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'. If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

[David the apologist]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'. If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation for (just to name a few examples) the existence of anything, abstract objects, the fact that there is tractable order in the universe, the beginning of the universe's existence, the fine tuning of fundamental constants and initial conditions to a degree well beyond that required for intelligent life (initial entropy of the universe, anyone? We only needed a single supercluster at most, why is everything so un-entropic?), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective moral values and duties... the list goes on and on.

All of these considerations should lead us to the following conclusions:

1. There is a fundamental "Source" of reality as we know it.
2. That Source is extremely different from the things in our experience.
3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Unless, of course, you have an explanation for the above listed data that has equal explanatory power and can provide the same unificatory power as God. If you have to write uncashed checks for half the stuff on the list ("science will explain it eventually, it always does"), use a multiverse for fine tuning, reverse the arrow of time at at the point of minimum expansion to get a "big bounce" instead of a geodesically incomplete "big bang," and declare everything else to be "brute facts," then it's pretty obvious that your position doesn't have the same level of explanatory power and scope that Theism does.

[historia]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'.

That is irrelevant. Just because you don't think an explanation is the best one doesn't change the form of the argument.

An inference to the best explanation is a type of argument.

If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

That is simply confused. Just because an explanation lacks sufficient support does not, in and of itself, make it a "fallacy."

There are lots of explanation out there that I don't think are the best or I think are ill-founded. For example, the explanation that Donald Trump lost the 2020 U.S. presidential election because Democrats stole it is a very poorly supported explanation. Nevertheless it is not a "fallacy."

[JoeyKnothead]

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation...

Where data doesn't support firm conclusions, "better" is a subjective term, dependent on how proud one is of that explanation.

"I don't know" is then, the "better" explanation.

...for (just to name a few examples) the existence of anything, abstract objects, the fact that there is tractable order in the universe, the beginning of the universe's existence, the fine tuning of fundamental constants and initial conditions to a degree well beyond that required for intelligent life (initial entropy of the universe, anyone? We only needed a single supercluster at most, why is everything so un-entropic?), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective moral values and duties... the list goes on and on.

Stuff acts according to its properties, and that's how such stuff comes to be.

All of these considerations should lead us to the following conclusions:

1. There is a fundamental "Source" of reality as we know it.
2. That Source is extremely different from the things in our experience.

Why must it be "extremely different"?

3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Why must this be the case?

Unless, of course, you have an explanation for the above listed data that has equal explanatory power and can provide the same unificatory power as God.

This site doesn't require anyone present any form of counter to your above assertions, but does kinda expect the claimant to support their claims.

Given that none can show a god exists, the "better explanation" then is we lack sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.

If you have to write uncashed checks for half the stuff on the list ("science will explain it eventually, it always does"), use a multiverse for fine tuning, reverse the arrow of time at at the point of minimum expansion to get a "big bounce" instead of a geodesically incomplete "big bang," and declare everything else to be "brute facts," then it's pretty obvious that your position doesn't have the same level of explanatory power and scope that Theism does.

Lomfpoc

When "God did it" is the "better explanation", we might as well shut down all scientific inquiries.

That you find theism the "better explanation" explains only the faultality of your concluder.

But then again, that's kinda the point of theism. It allows one to feel comfort in any explanation, without ever having to show that explanation reflects reality, or truth.

"I don't know" ain't such a shameful thing to say. What man is so wise they can tell what their pretty thing's gonna be upset about in the coming days and weeks?

[David the apologist]

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation...

Where data doesn't support firm conclusions, "better" is a subjective term, dependent on how proud one is of that explanation.

"I don't know" is then, the "better" explanation.

I hate to break it to you, but "I don't know" isn't an explanation, it's an admission that you don't have one.

Since IBE is one of the means we can use to reach firm conclusions - particularly in cases like this, where one position has all the explanatory power, and the other position has none - I don't see how you could possibly support the idea that "the data doesn't support firm conclusions."

...for (just to name a few examples) the existence of anything, abstract objects, the fact that there is tractable order in the universe, the beginning of the universe's existence, the fine tuning of fundamental constants and initial conditions to a degree well beyond that required for intelligent life (initial entropy of the universe, anyone? We only needed a single supercluster at most, why is everything so un-entropic?), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective moral values and duties... the list goes on and on.

Stuff acts according to its properties, and that's how such stuff comes to be.

What stuff? Which properties? You're the one who insists on everything having some kind of mechanism, so the burden is on you to show me how it happened.

All of these considerations should lead us to the following conclusions:

1. There is a fundamental "Source" of reality as we know it.
2. That Source is extremely different from the things in our experience.

Why must it be "extremely different"?

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Why must this be the case?

Because abstract objects, tractable universal order, fine tuning, the beginning of the universe, consciousness, and objective moral values/duties seem to demand an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion. The only things we experience that any philosopher of repute has considered to be "more than matter" are minds. The inference appears justified. Though, I can go into more detail for each line of evidence as to why this is the case.

Unless, of course, you have an explanation for the above listed data that has equal explanatory power and can provide the same unificatory power as God.

This site doesn't require anyone present any form of counter to your above assertions, but does kinda expect the claimant to support their claims.

Given that none can show a god exists, the "better explanation" then is we lack sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.

What do you mean "no one can show that God exists"? Were you expecting to be able to put Him in a test tube, take a tissue sample, give Him an X-ray, instruct Him to perform some arbitrary task in a contrived social environment, or some such? Because no intellectually serious theist of the past 2500 years would have predicted that such would be possible. How, then, does the confirmation of the prediction (nothing we can put in a test tube, etc. corresponds to God) raise the burden of proof on the people who have been insisting on it all along?

"I don't know" ain't such a shameful thing to say. What man is so wise they can tell what their pretty thing's gonna be upset about in the coming days and weeks?

It is when the entire raison d'etre of your philosophical position is that "science" has "eliminated" the "need" to invoke God.