In order to try and approach the seemingly endless debate from a different angle, I have one question for theists and one for atheists.
If you are a theist, I ask you what state of affairs, i.e. what type of existence or world, would have to be the case for you to instead come to atheistic conclusions?
Conversely, I ask the atheists what state of affairs would have to be the case for you to come to theistic conclusions?
Perhaps some of the answers will serve to establish key presuppositions and their consequences, and then maybe show whether one or either side of the beliefs could not conceivably switch to the other side due to logical boundaries generated by such presuppositions
I don’t intend it as a trick question. My query aims not simply at seeing what fundamental differences of states of affairs could yield such conversion, but what they imply. If neither side can envision such belief-altering objetive circumstances, then perhaps the inability to agree stems from deeper factors, e.g. essentially different ways of thinking (if that’s even possible), after which all arguing merely seeks to affirm.
I think that both the theist and the non-theist will both have to admit emotional, or intuitional foundations for their assumptions when pushed hard enough by one another’s logic. Given that the logic is consistent and equally applied in both directions. You can “prove” logically the consistence of both arguments to a certain extent, but neither of them has a real answer for first cause, or non-first cause arguments. Religious people are just emotional wrecks trying to assert a foudational principle, whether it be positive or negative as something that is logically deductable.
Absolutely. For me, a vision of god wouldn’t be enough; modern psychology has seen too much hallucination for that. I would need a vision of god that accurately predicts a future event. It wouldn’t have to be major, but it would have to be something that couldn’t otherwise be known by me. I would also probably need a couple such events.
For an all powerful god, this requirement isn’t asking a whole lot.
By “theistic conclusions” do you mean the conclusions that say a Christian has come to, or the conclusions that the ancient Egyptians or the ancient Greeks came to?
Or are you referring to the general possibility for any number of deities.
Whatever the actual state of affairs are in this reality is kind of irrelevant when it comes to accepting them as true.
Your question I would assume is easier to answer for the atheist than the theist because the atheist does not have the burden of proof.
It probably wouldn’t take a whole lot for me to say “Oh, well how about that. There IS a god/s.” All they would have to do is come down and prove they exist. Based on my preconcieved notion of what sort of perks a god gets (like powers and what not) all they would have to do is demonstrate them. Sounds pretty simple to me. The first step would be to appear. That seems to be the hardest thing for a god to do. I mean like ACTUALY appear like on the street somewhere shakin hands with the locals turning their water into wine and stuff.
Great question, it really stirred some thought in me as to why I am a theist (believer in God) and why I have the particular version of theism that I believe.
I guess what makes me the type of theist that I am (or more accurately that I became, because to me TRUE theism is chosen, not indoctrinated) was that I came across a system of belief that I knew deep inside corresponded with the way I had perceived reality to work.
I guess, roughly speaking, you could say that it made my life and my perceptions of life make sense. And when I do the things that the teachings that I embrace espouse, they work for me. I also get that “feeling” that I am simply “rediscovering” something deep inside because the teachings - I know/feel the truth of certain statements because of their relevance to my life.
So, I guess to reverse that, if I could find nothing that fit into my life experience and/or explained the way things were in my own experience, then I would have no reason to believe in God.
No, that thought would not linger. There is no explanation of a godlike creature coming down and telling me to believe in which it would be more beneficial not to believe. Doesn’t matter whether I’m crazy, or the “god” is really an alien. It’s still the best thing to believe anyway.
[size=150]The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. [/size]
For me to come to theistic conclusions, several events throughout history would have to occur that are beyond natural explanation, that are witnessed by several people, and cannot be “debunked.”
When mankind began to discover out the power of the brain, many of the seemingly inexplicable occurances, such as visions, miracles, etc., suddenly had a natural explanation.
Initially I was referring to the three main monotheistic religions. But since you’ve mentioned it, I guess I should be referring simply to any view which considers an intelligent entity necessary for all that is (from deism to personal gods).
I don’t follow what you mean. Isn’t the actual state of affairs the only thing relevant when coming to such decisions?
Interesting. The atheist may well be in an easier position. But the more I think about it, don’t both sides have the burden of proof? Proving the non-existence of something may certainly be more demanding but, ultimately, when the theists “prove” God’s existence, don’t they simultaneously have to ensure no other higher power (which would not be classed as God in our terms) remains over and above “God”, thereby flipping burden of proof on to themselves?
…a sort of answer many other people have been giving when it comes to believing in God. Yet if such events “really” happened, how can you be sure you wouldn’t sooner construe it as hallucination over reality, insanity over divinity? Moreover, wouldn’t it seem suspiciously coincidental that it was the very powers your mind presupposed He had which displayed themselves?!
Maybe the point is, should such experiences occur, the theist is more inclined to take them to be objectively true, whereas the atheist is more inclined to take them only subjectively true!
I understand and empathize with what has led you to your conclusions. However, I’d like to ask a couple of questions or make a couple of points.
You say that “TRUE theism is chosen, not indoctrinated”. I couldn’t agree more. But then hearing you say you “do the things that the teachings that [you] embrace espouse” makes me uneasy, because since you have embraced a particular system already on offer, for me that doesn’t completely escape indoctrination, as you have simply selected from a menu, so to speak. I think that in order to minimse indoctrination one has to come to their OWN conclusions (of course by necessarily using existing concepts and terminology, at least (but you could even start you own!)). This belief has led me to oppose organized religion, replacing it ideally with individual belief systems only (with inevitably crossing/shared views being down to individually reached conclusions, as opposed to individually choosing allegiance to the same systems i.e. a religion). But if you really are utterly convinced that your belief system corresponds “with the way [you] had perceived reality to work”, who I am to object?
Another query is whether coherence alone should be enough to label something as true. This can easily be undermined by the fact that the reversed versions of anything are also coherent! Science must be both coherent and subject to experiments, yet even its theories of the universe may change. I become cynical once I hear people say that just becuase something works for them (particularly in a moral sense), it must (wholistically!) correspond to reality. In my view, this is making a false assumption that whichever system of beliefs one is most content with must therefore also be true/known. Is it not possible that the universe is not constructed in a manner agreeable to our wishes or morals?
Lastly, and sorry to go on, but can you honestly imagine a state of affairs in which you could not find anything which “fits”? I ask you this because I do not think any state of affairs could lead theologically inclined people to not posit an intelligent entity as the cause and sustainer of the universe. Supposing this were true, all belief systems would simply be reconciliation projects of whatever universe one inhabits, aimed essentially at deriving some gain, promise, reward, meaning, etc., from existence (a project best exemplified by monotheistic religions, yet unfortunately aimed at assuring believers only, rather than mankind as a whole, regardless).
Good point. As I said to Airex, perhaps the difference is that theists are more likely to believe its God, while atheists are more like to subscribe to insanity.
Whether you are crazy or whether it is God, one can could believe in either case. So we have four possible scenarios!:
God exists - you believe it’s God
God exists - you believe you’re crazy
You’re crazy - you believe it’s God
You’re crazy - you believe you’re crazy
I guess 1 and 4 are the correct states to be in.I’d like to hope I never become 3 or 4. Supposing God does exist and I get to experience Him, I cannot predict whether I will be 1 or 2. Whichever I be, I could in theory switch to the other and back indefinitely.
I suppose the atheists would mourn that there are lots of 3s, whereas the theists would celebrate their fellow 1s.
I like to occupy the all-too desolate land found at 2.5.
