05 Aug 11
Originally posted by SuzianneI tried to convey that I don't think all Christians are scientifically illiterate by saying "more often than not" in my post at the top of the second page of this thread; thus, I'm only asserting that 50%+1 of all Christians fit the bill.
So please, lighten up on characterizing Christians as extras on the set of "Deliverance", okay?
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by pyxelatedPerhaps you should adumbrate your theist axioms, and also what you perceive to be the atheist's axioms.
I think this really boils down to where we have to accept "magical" thinking.
The little Chesterton essay I posted a while back makes an important point here. Nobody--theist, atheist, whoever--starts at an advantage in argument. [b]We all accept things without proof. No exceptions. If we made no assumptions we'd never be able to argue. Logical argum ...[text shortened]... e rationals are clearly a subset of the reals--and the difference is transcendental 🙂[/b]
06 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastI think what I intended to say is that axioms (and indeeed ratiocination) are artificial, and ex post facto, as regards belief.
Perhaps you should adumbrate your theist axioms, and also what you perceive to be the atheist's axioms.
Precious few of even the most intelligent of us believe what we believe for purely logical, rational reasons, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
And ultimately, that's not what decides. "In the end, what matters is love." (Thomas More to his daughter, at least in the movie "A Man for All Seasons." )
This is not to say that the theist's case is not as reasonable--it is in fact more reasonable--than the atheist's; just that reason, our best guide to truth, is less fundamental than love.
I really don't have any more time to contribute to this tonight. If you'd like to pursue it further, I can't do better than point you to some of the books I've recommended in this thread and others. (They will certainly present a more cogent case for my beliefs than I am capable of, at least at present. 🙂 )
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by pyxelatedWe are getting into the area of belief formation. A worthy subject, perhaps theistically neutral.
I think what I intended to say is that axioms (and indeeed ratiocination) are artificial, and ex post facto, as regards belief.
Precious few of even the most intelligent of us believe what we believe for purely logical, rational reasons, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
And ultimately, that's not what decides. "In the end, what matters ...[text shortened]... ent a more cogent case for my beliefs than I am capable of, at least at present. 🙂 )
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastIs there any need for God to be omnipotent and omniscient? Would it
That's a matter of the heart. I'd never pretend to know what's best to do next. If you're finding it problematic to "revert" to being an atheist, I'd wager that means you're not yet entirely convinced of the nonexistence of a god.
Perhaps some books relating to the subject are in order. The arguments on this forum, oftentimes good, are nonetheless in ...[text shortened]... ly have better recommendations.
Edit: this is a theoretical answer, of course. 😉
help you to believe in God if these claims about God were not made?
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by pyxelated"Love conquers all" is a nice premise for a sappy Disney movie, but I'm afraid it doesn't have legs in a debate about who's operating from the less fantastical set of axioms in concocting a model of reality.
I think what I intended to say is that axioms (and indeeed ratiocination) are artificial, and ex post facto, as regards belief.
Precious few of even the most intelligent of us believe what we believe for purely logical, rational reasons, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
And ultimately, that's not what decides. "In the end, what matters ...[text shortened]... ent a more cogent case for my beliefs than I am capable of, at least at present. 🙂 )
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by JS357Does this mean we're going to turn this into a debate—complete with incantations using sesquipedalian philosophical terms—about how believing 1+1=2 is no more justifiable than believing in magic elves making cookies in trees? Because I'm not buying into that one.
We are getting into the area of belief formation. A worthy subject, perhaps theistically neutral.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by pyxelatedTechnically the difference is irrational. Not all irrational numbers are transcendental numbers.
Math provides a good analogy here--every number that's rational is real, but the rationals are clearly a subset of the reals--and the difference is transcendental 🙂
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastMe neither. I think the psychological reasons for beliefs being formed are more interesting. Whether the beliefs correspond to facts, is less interesting. But I suppose it will go where it goes, which may be nowhere at all.
Does this mean we're going to turn this into a debate—complete with incantations using sesquipedalian philosophical terms—about how believing 1+1=2 is no more justifiable than believing in magic elves making cookies in trees? Because I'm not buying into that one.
06 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBeing a non-denominational, non-organisational Christian, can be too. Most Christians I meet are either genuinely concerned about me being on my own, or can become quite superior and challenging about such issues as submission, tithing, the 'work' etc. Most of the time I feel quite lonely spiritually, although I have no problem socialising with either theists or atheists.
Atheism is the absence of religion, and it can be awfully lonely.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastI just wondered if the wooga-booga stereotype was a underestimation of the contemporary "thinking" theist.
Not sure what "take the piss a bit" means, exactly.
My beloved Wooga-Booga's more sophisticated analog, the modern Christian, is more often than not only slightly more educated in the sciences. The modern Christian may accept volcanic eruptions as scientifically explainable, but still has a hard time stomaching other ideas with strong empirical data ...[text shortened]... them up, such as biological evolution, a planet over 4 billions years old, and the Big Bang.
I believe that science and Christianity/Bible are fully compatible. The presented evidence does not always support this at this time.
06 Aug 11
1 edit
Back to the OP:
I think it is easier for an atheist to become theist, than it is for a theist to become atheist. The first requires and acceptance of the possibility of a God (although some would say this is an agnostic position), whilst the second requires a rejection of a firmly held belief, firmly held without a rational, and therefore not susceptible to rational attack (?)
I cannot not believe in my God. I believe there is a reason for that, although the reason is not rational, nor is it something I have control over.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterThe first requires and acceptance of the possibility of a God
Back to the OP:
I think it is easier for an atheist to become theist, than it is for a theist to become atheist. The first requires and acceptance of the possibility of a God (although some would say this is an agnostic position), whilst the second requires a rejection of a firmly held belief, firmly held without a rational, and therefore not suscept ...[text shortened]... a reason for that, although the reason is not rational, nor is it something I have control over.
But the first requires more than just this, does it not? Merely accepting the possibility that God exists is still consistent with atheism. I am an atheist, and I certainly accept there is some possibility that God exists.
whilst the second requires a rejection of a firmly held belief, firmly held without a rational, and therefore not susceptible to rational attack
This seems like an overstatement. Why should I think all theists have positions that are not susceptible to rational attack?
You say that X --> Y is easier than Y --> X. But your argument is not convincing because you go on to understate the requirements for X --> Y and overstate the requirements for Y --> X.
06 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastAt the risk of begging the question, I would wager that a similar proportion of atheists are scientifically illiterate. - Then there are the masses of all persuasions who, like me, always risk taking functional literacy for knowing what's going on.
I tried to convey that I don't think all Christians are scientifically illiterate by saying "more often than not" in my post at the top of the second page of this thread; thus, I'm only asserting that 50%+1 of all Christians fit the bill.