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).

[William]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

Do you have proof of that claim?

It's not about what kinds of evidence exist, it's about what kinds of evidence are universal enough that the other person really should accept it.

I've had experiences people would never believe if I told them. I know these things to be true but I won't try to convince others until I can replicate and control.

There has been a lot of bad press for reductionism and the Western scientific way as the only way to obtain knowledge and I admit that bad press is mostly justified. These are not the only ways to obtain knowledge but they far surpass as a mechanism for setting up a fair playing field for different ideas. If your ideas lose on that playing field that doesn't mean they are wrong or even likely to be wrong, it just means you haven't shown the other guy that they're right. It's about what he sees, and what he ought to accept.

Even religious people have said, yes, fine, you have a revelation, but that's a revelation for you.

Indeed yes.

I have even had religionists imply I am 'of the devil' or 'brain damaged'

"Brain damaged" of course, is primarily the argument materialists also use when they are faced with examples of subjective experience to do with things of the mind. Not to say that evidence for some of those types of experience are non-submissible, but that caution should be applied least one paints all with the same brush, which has been the tendency of most materialists I have encountered.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #58]

Until the existence of God is on the table it can't be used to explain anything.

The problem with this as I see it, is that it is ill-defined and can be seen to mean "The existence of the biblical idea of god" which itself is not clearly defined but comes across as a many-headed entity, else contradictions are apparent.

That is why I use the better definition of "Mind Behind" as it at least removes the religious overtones and can also be used to explain existence and thus is on the table.

This - unfortunately - doesn't bode well with the materialist mind-set because it obviously infers some kind of mindful creator which - in religious terms oft refers to "God" and is intolerable to those who battle hard to maintain lack of belief in anything to do with 'gods'.

It is somewhat circular to suggest that God must be some alleged first cause and then use that as confirmation of God's existence.

For the materialist, ANY implication of "a creator" is off the table from the onset. which is why they consistently argue for evidence that such an entity actually exists before they 'allow' such to be tabled.

Whereas an agnostic does not have that problem and agnosticism is capable of allowing such to be on the table and discussed as legitimate possibility.

It is just as 'somewhat circular' to suggest that there is no first cause and argue from that position - a position which is at least as equally valid as there being a first cause.

Perhaps the better approach is to do away with the idea of first cause at all, either for mind or for matter....

[Purple Knight]

I have even had religionists imply I am 'of the devil' or 'brain damaged'

Don't take this the wrong way but I see where they're getting that, though I don't agree. Some of your alternative explanations of things provoke the same reactions in people that some of my thoughts do, and for the same reasons. I read your hypotheses thoroughly, however, and to me, they are well-reasoned. It's probably more about the conclusions than the reasoning.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #58]

Until the existence of God is on the table it can't be used to explain anything.

The problem with this as I see it, is that it is ill-defined and can be seen to mean "The existence of the biblical idea of god" which itself is not clearly defined but comes across as a many-headed entity, else contradictions are apparent.

That is why I use the better definition of "Mind Behind" as it at least removes the religious overtones and can also be used to explain existence and thus is on the table.

This - unfortunately - doesn't bode well with the materialist mind-set because it obviously infers some kind of mindful creator which - in religious terms oft refers to "God" and is intolerable to those who battle hard to maintain lack of belief in anything to do with 'gods'.

It is somewhat circular to suggest that God must be some alleged first cause and then use that as confirmation of God's existence.

For the materialist, ANY implication of "a creator" is off the table from the onset. which is why they consistently argue for evidence that such an entity actually exists before they 'allow' such to be tabled.

Whereas an agnostic does not have that problem and agnosticism is capable of allowing such to be on the table and discussed as legitimate possibility.

It is just as 'somewhat circular' to suggest that there is no first cause and argue from that position - a position which is at least as equally valid as there being a first cause.

Perhaps the better approach is to do away with the idea of first cause at all, either for mind or for matter....

You were doing so well in your other post above. The problem is that again you are reversing the burden of proof. Even if atheism or creator -skepticism had some kind of bias against a 'god' - claim, the theist still has to make their case. You cannot pretend that you have made a case for a god on the basis that atheists don't like the idea. That's the cheapest kind of ad hom and proves or validates nothing at all. Of course you might be lining up to argue that the evidence that doesn't show a god actually does and it's the biased non believers won't see it. Well, what you would then be doing is throwing science and logic out the window and trying to do it a different way. I'm sure you don't want to do that, but provide an evidential or logical case for a First cause, cosmic mind, 'god' or whatever..

If so, let's see you do it. I am willing to counter any 'Interpretation' of the evidence or logic you want to try. Failing which, you have no evidence, no argument and no case.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #64]

I am willing to counter any 'Interpretation' of the evidence or logic you want to try.

I doubt that will turn out to be the case.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I already have a thread dedicated to this very thing, and anyone is welcome to contribute therein and critique the methods I have already mentioned in that thread - methods which can be replicated by anyone capable of doing so in order to test [do the science] for themselves and discover therein whatever reveals itself to them through said replicable processes.

Lets observe just how willing you are, shall we Transponder?

Search "Transponder"
transponder
/tranˈspɒndə,trɑːnˈspɒndə/

a device for receiving a radio signal and automatically transmitting a different signal.

Thread Mentioned:
Musing on a Mind Behind Creation

[David the apologist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

Let's boil it down to what I regard as the central argument. I expect a clear and concise (insofar as it is possible to be concise) response.

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

If God exists, why shouldn't we expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence? Is it just because God has inbuilt into its definition that it can't be observed?

Being immaterial, impassable, and transcendent... yes.

The imagination is very useful in creating loopholes to shore up religious beliefs.

Less "imagination" and more "deductive reasoning."

Until the existence of God is on the table it can't be used to explain anything.

Doesn't apply to dark matter. Shouldn't apply to God.

[David the apologist]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

The scientific method gives us the most reliable means of sorting the real from the imaginary. The religious try to discredit it in an way possible in order to sneak their unsupported claims, superstition and magic in through the back door. If you have any better methods please present them.

Not "better," just "alternative." Historical and deductive forms of reasoning spring to mind.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

The scientific method gives us the most reliable means of sorting the real from the imaginary. The religious try to discredit it in an way possible in order to sneak their unsupported claims, superstition and magic in through the back door. If you have any better methods please present them.

Not "better," just "alternative." Historical and deductive forms of reasoning spring to mind.

That's funny, cause errant and problematic come to my mind when discussing religious modes of thought.

We've got all this time with the religionists aswearing up and down this argument or that'n proves a god's existence. But what we don't have is any god capable of logging in to the site to confirm him any of it.

God lies in our hopes and dreams, purely within our own minds. He's a metaphor for our best and worst ideals. That's it. That's about all we can reliably know on the subject.

[David the apologist]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

The scientific method gives us the most reliable means of sorting the real from the imaginary. The religious try to discredit it in an way possible in order to sneak their unsupported claims, superstition and magic in through the back door. If you have any better methods please present them.

Not "better," just "alternative." Historical and deductive forms of reasoning spring to mind.

That's funny, cause errant and problematic come to my mind when discussing religious modes of thought.

We've got all this time with the religionists aswearing up and down this argument or that'n proves a god's existence. But what we don't have is any god capable of logging in to the site to confirm him any of it.

Why would we expect Him to? Half of us already believe in Him, and the other half (believing that He is imaginary and lives in the sky) don't make good company.

[JoeyKnothead]

That's funny, cause errant and problematic come to my mind when discussing religious modes of thought.

We've got all this time with the religionists aswearing up and down this argument or that'n proves a god's existence. But what we don't have is any god capable of logging in to the site to confirm him any of it.

Why would we expect Him to? Half of us already believe in Him, and the other half (believing that He is imaginary and lives in the sky) don't make good company.

I propose a god showing up'd go it a long way in supporting the theists' claims.

I propose if the theist could show their God exists, or if their God showed up, it might spur folks to try be "gooder company".