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).

[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

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

I can agree that Paul's argument is too presumptuous, especially when he thinks that it points only to the Christian God. I had intended to focus just on the internal or subject aspect of feeling or wanting something transcendent but I now realize that's harder to do in connection to Romans 1 seeing that Paul attributes that feeling to "being understood by what has been made" (a variation of the teleological argument).

But what if we generalized his point more. We can take away God and just say that deep down we accept spirituality. We can even take away the reason that Paul gave for such acceptance (i.e. the teleological argument) or even broaden it to include any other reason. What remains as fact is that the feeling or need for accepting spirituality or something transcendent is there; I presume this is universal.

Has this feeling or need led you or any other atheist on this forum to doubt atheism?

[Purple Knight]

For the non-believer or atheist, are you aware of this feeling?

Yes.

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).

No. This is because I don't think anything anybody has proposed as god or gods fills this hole. The idea that there's a very powerful being that created me, the universe, and you, does nothing for me whatsoever, even if it cares about us.

Even if it cares deeply for us, that's just the idea that there's a cat breeder above me and I'm below it breeding cats and it's above me doing the same thing. I'm somebody else's cat. That doesn't transcend anything.

What I want this to be is like... if you ever played any old console games... one day finding that hole in the wall or passageway that opens up and you're suddenly in a huge secret area you never knew about, only, if that secret could go on forever, always opening up, always more to discover and always more being discovered. Reachable endlessness. Perhaps that's greedy, but that's what that void is shaped like, at least, in myself, and that's just the shape of the peg to go into it.

[Tcg]

What remains as fact is that the feeling or need for accepting spirituality or something transcendent is there; I presume this is universal.

It's not. Your presumption is wrong.

Has this feeling or need led you or any other atheist on this forum to doubt atheism?

Not this atheist which is why I can proclaim without question that your previous claim of universality is false.


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

What remains as fact is that the feeling or need for accepting spirituality or something transcendent is there; I presume this is universal.

It's not. Your presumption is wrong.

Has this feeling or need led you or any other atheist on this forum to doubt atheism?

Not this atheist which is why I can proclaim without question that your previous claim of universality is false.


Tcg

That means you're missing the God gene.. (joking of course).

My presumption comes from reading a few studies which find that we have a "predisposition" to accept God or spirituality and that this is widespread amongst the human population. I'm sure there are exceptions.

But then again, at least one member explained that having the feeling or need for something greater does not even point to God.

[TRANSPONDER]

What remains as fact is that the feeling or need for accepting spirituality or something transcendent is there; I presume this is universal.

It's not. Your presumption is wrong.

Has this feeling or need led you or any other atheist on this forum to doubt atheism?

Not this atheist which is why I can proclaim without question that your previous claim of universality is false.


Tcg

That means you're missing the God gene.. (joking of course).

My presumption comes from reading a few studies which find that we have a "predisposition" to accept God or spirituality and that this is widespread amongst the human population. I'm sure there are exceptions.

But then again, at least one member explained that having the feeling or need for something greater does not even point to God.

I think it's evidently undeniable that humans have a 'predisposition' to create gods in their own image and use those to explain what we can't (or couldn't) explain, quite apart from the use of religion for control and authority. But over the past 500 years, we have been finding that nature works fine by itself and does not need a god of any religion or none to make it work (1) and we have to understand that the 'spiritual feelings that we have about nature (which I find can be duplicated with hearing great music, or scientific discovery) is an innate quality of humans. The 'spirit' is the spirit of curiosity and discovery and is (I suggest) what makes us human and gives life meaning where desire to avoid ever dying or to win the divine lotto and sit in the celestial Maralogo while watching nontheists burn is not the only thing that makes life worth living.

(1) though the Cosmic origins gap is still open and you can get a knife blade in between the 'origins of Life' gap and there is the 'consciousness' gap , too.

[historia]

Unknowns are just that and evidence neither way and posit God as the default because no other explanation is known does not make God the default. That's the fallacy.

No one here has said that God is the "default."

Now I'm afraid you're the one committing a fallacy, in this case a straw man argument.

To cite the election, the evidence is known and does not support a claim that the democreats 'stole' it.

Right, in both cases the evidence is known.

David cited a number of things that we know about:

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

He is trying to explain why this evidence is the way it is.

Likewise, with Trump supporters, they are trying to explain why the election evidence is the way it is.

You and I may not agree with their explanations, or we might conclude that we don't know enough about the evidence to be certain their explanation is correct. But proposing an explanation for evidence is not, in and of itself, a "fallacy." An argument can be wrong or unpersuasive without being logically fallacious.

[TRANSPONDER]

Unknowns are just that and evidence neither way and posit God as the default because no other explanation is known does not make God the default. That's the fallacy.

No one here has said that God is the "default."

Now I'm afraid you're the one committing a fallacy, in this case a straw man argument.

The whole thread is about God being the default of 'what explanation is there for everything?' as in Romans. If you are going to say that the default of asking where everything came from is 'Unknown' then God is not the default, I would agree. Are you saying 'Unknown?'

To cite the election, the evidence is known and does not support a claim that the democreats 'stole' it.

Right, in both cases the evidence is known.

David cited a number of things that we know about:

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

He is trying to explain why this evidence is the way it is.

Likewise, with Trump supporters, they are trying to explain why the election evidence is the way it is.

You and I may not agree with their explanations, or we might conclude that we don't know enough about the evidence to be certain their explanation is correct. But proposing an explanation for evidence is not, in and of itself, a "fallacy." An argument can be wrong or unpersuasive without being logically fallacious.

The two cases are different because the parameters of the election are known even if one disagrees with the interpretation. With the question of cosmic origins, Constants and so on, the point is that the answers are not known - science has not yet got an explanation. So the default is 'unknown'. It is not 'God', and so Paul is mistaken and his argument fails. As the whole watchmaker argument fails, aside that science can explain quite a lot. If you are going to agree that Paul is mistaken and Cosmic origins (the unexplained aspect of where everything came from) is an Unknown and not evidence for a god of some kind, then we are in agreement.

[Purple Knight]

Not this atheist which is why I can proclaim without question that your previous claim of universality is false.

Well, 99.9% true is still logically false, but I still think he's onto something.

I test as a sociopath and even I still have this vague void that wants something transcendent.

What I think might be going on here is that people are very, very vulnerable to being told that no, this new religion is the thing that fills that void.

This is evidenced by the fact that Christianity and Islam have had such success converting large swaths of the world, despite the fact that often, the religions they displace are so dissimilar you wouldn't think there would be any basis for mass conversion.

For example, I would not expect that sex-positive Pagans could be flipped wholesale into conservative, repressed Christians like some tacky house someone doubles the value of by merely changing the wallpaper.

[Tcg]

Well, 99.9% true is still logically false, but I still think he's onto something.

Say what now? A universal claim which isn't universally true is false.


Tcg

[Tcg]

What remains as fact is that the feeling or need for accepting spirituality or something transcendent is there; I presume this is universal.

It's not. Your presumption is wrong.

Has this feeling or need led you or any other atheist on this forum to doubt atheism?

Not this atheist which is why I can proclaim without question that your previous claim of universality is false.


Tcg

That means you're missing the God gene.. (joking of course).

Yes, another humorous joke.


Tcg