|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 6, 2015 15:30:45 GMT
It's very simple: this is a topic for the argument that have convinced and still convince you of your beliefs or not about God. You may interpret "argument" as broadly as you want and also include less formal reasons into it. Combined arguments are also welcome.
If you are a Christian or some other theist, what arguments do you think are persuasive in favour of your views?
If you are an atheist or other non-theist, what arguments convince you of your views, or lack of belief if you prefer?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 6, 2015 20:53:57 GMT
Belief in a deity is a natural human inclination (Oh yes it is). This does not establish his/her/its existence but that's kind of beside the point. If I believe in a deity and I think He's kind of benevolent and wants me to behave well towards others of my kind, then that does no harm and it pleases me. So on a utilitarian calculaton, best for me (and others) to be a Christian rather than an atheist (however a poor example I am of such)?
Being a Christian I am quite happy for people to be atheists, so long as they are nice to other people who may not call themselves atheists and are not like the atheists in the Stalinist Soviet Union, or modern North Korea, or Maoist China. Though an atheist still needs a convincing explanation of why we should be nice toward others.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 7, 2015 8:44:01 GMT
Though an atheist still needs a convincing explanation of why we should be nice toward others. My six year old nephew a few weeks ago: "If you aren't nice to other people, no-one will want to be your friend or help you with hard things." I'm amazed that many apparently intelligent and educated theist adults can't figure out something a six year old sees as self-evident. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 7, 2015 15:40:44 GMT
I'm amazed that many apparently intelligent and educated theist adults can't figure out something a six year old sees as self-evident
I am surprised that you did not put him in his place by pointing out some evident flaws in his thesis. In particular you could have replied that in a purely mechanistic universe, there can be no right and wrong, only what we prefer. You should have informed the precocious little chap that objective, universally binding morals cannot exist without an objective, moral lawgiver. You could have further challenged him by pointing out that his attempts at reasoning could be seen as extremely selfish. We should only behave well toward others with a view to them behaving well toward us, rather than because it is right to behave well? You could have asked whether this excuses us from behaving well when faced with no threat of retaliatory bad behaviour towards ourselves - is it morally acceptable to behave in whatever way we wish when others will remain ignorant of our behaviour or are unable to retaliate? May we torture animals and destroy the environment or murder someone if we are quite certain there is no danger of discovery? Or e.g. kill severely-brain-damaged babies on the grounds that they do not have personhood and their care will be inconvenient and expensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 7, 2015 18:23:03 GMT
Yes, Sandwiches is right with such a motivation being rather selfish. Psychologists often refer to Kohlberg's stages of moral development for this, wherein such self-focused moral reasoning belongs to the pre-conventional stage. It's typical for children younger than twelve, so I wouldn't advocate putting him in his place. It's normal and healthy for his age.
That does not mean it is unsophisticated. It does prevent altruism being anything on its own, though, so you get attempts to derive it from an individual's enlightened self-interest. Unsurprisingly, liberals and libertarians (of the latter only the ones who do not hate altruism, unlike the Objectivists) are rather fond of it, and those are exactly the ones who often push mechanisms like reciprocal altruism. But I'd prefer a more objective basis for altruism that is more in line with our evolved instincts.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 7, 2015 20:17:50 GMT
I'm amazed that many apparently intelligent and educated theist adults can't figure out something a six year old sees as self-evidentYou should have informed the precocious little chap that objective, universally binding morals cannot exist without an objective, moral lawgiver. I don't think I would have led the little guy into the fallacy that unless there is some intrinsic objective, external source of morality, no moral basis can exist. That's a philosophical cul de sac I've seen too many people disappear into, never to be seen again. To which, being a perceptive chap, he might have in his own innocent way noted that being nice to people isn't selfish. Further discussion with him explored the idea that not everyone you're nice to is nice back and examined if, therefore, his original statement was flawed. He noted that even if that was the case sometimes, overall being nice to people made more people happy than the opposite. And that this made the world a better place overall. Doesn't sound very "selfish" to me. I quite like young Liam's philosophy. So much so that I and millions of others have been living rich, full, happy, often selfless and altruisitc lives by it for many years, with no reference to invisible beings spoken of in contradictory terms via highly dubious ancient books. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 7, 2015 21:49:03 GMT
I don't think I would have led the little guy into the fallacy that unless there is some intrinsic objective, external source of morality, no moral basis can exist. That's a philosophical cul de sac I've seen too many people disappear into, never to be seen again. I quite like young Liam's philosophy. So much so that I and millions of others have been living rich, full, happy, often selfless and altruisitc lives by it for many years, with no reference to invisible beings spoken of in contradictory terms via highly dubious ancient books. Could you elaborate on these parts? You know most people here are not literalists, so how are biblical contradictions relevant? |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 8, 2015 8:35:15 GMT
I don't think I would have led the little guy into the fallacy that unless there is some intrinsic objective, external source of morality, no moral basis can exist. That's a philosophical cul de sac I've seen too many people disappear into, never to be seen again. I quite like young Liam's philosophy. So much so that I and millions of others have been living rich, full, happy, often selfless and altruisitc lives by it for many years, with no reference to invisible beings spoken of in contradictory terms via highly dubious ancient books. Could you elaborate on these parts? You know most people here are not literalists, so how are biblical contradictions relevant? A cul de sac is a dead end. And I said nothing about Biblical contradictions, just contradictions between the many and various ancient texts which talk about alleged deities. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 9, 2015 2:30:15 GMT
It's very simple: this is a topic for the argument that have convinced and still convince you of your beliefs or not about God. You may interpret "argument" as broadly as you want and also include less formal reasons into it. Combined arguments are also welcome. If you are a Christian or some other theist, what arguments do you think are persuasive in favour of your views?If you are an atheist or other non-theist, what arguments convince you of your views, or lack of belief if you prefer?For me, the most persuasive arguments have changed over time. When I was a teen, I think I was convinced mostly by the historical character of Jesus. Of course as I've read up more on what historians say about Jesus my understanding has grown and morphed a little, but I still find that argument persuasive. And just today I've seen a Catholic argue very persuasively for the Turin Shroud - I'm not persuaded (yet) but it is an interesting angle. For most of my adult life I have been impressed by the philosophical arguments - how did the universe start? why is it so "finely-tuned"? how can we explain ethics and rationality, free choice and consciousness if naturalism is true? etc. They are still important to me. But in the last few years I have become very impressed by the arguments from human experience, which are now backed up by large amounts of genuine data - religious experience, healings, visions, etc, perhaps NDEs though probably not, and the beneficial effects of good types of religion on wellbeing and prosociality. I think together those three groups of arguments are very very strong, but with the world containing so much evil, they'd need to if they are to keep countering the argument from evil. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 11, 2015 15:04:50 GMT
Could you elaborate on these parts? You know most people here are not literalists, so how are biblical contradictions relevant? A cul de sac is a dead end. And I said nothing about Biblical contradictions, just contradictions between the many and various ancient texts which talk about alleged deities. Sorry, I meant to ask for what reasons you hold those views, so now just why you think the idea of an absolute standard of morality is a dead end. And thanks for correcting me on what you meant with the contradictions. I understand it can be tedious to explain your views on fora with very different default views, so feel free to ignore my request if it's too much hassle. |
|
|
|
Post by chavoux on Jul 8, 2015 2:05:28 GMT
I think for me there have been (and still are) 3 basic reasons for my faith in (the Christian) God.
1. Stage 1. This was a purely intellectual "faith" and probably a good starting point, but didn't actually convince me... the philosophical "kalam type" argument of existence... where does everything (the universe) come from? The best (I.e. explaining most observable facts) I found, was that God created it as the ultimate cause and only uncaused cause possible (at least that I could think of). This was weak (then, when I was in my teens), since it was not a fully worked-out formal logical argument and had the one obvious weakness that just because "the God hypothesis" was/is the best explanation that I could think of or know about, does not mean necessarily that it is true or that there is no better (unknown) explanation. So this "intellectual faith" was simply an acknowledgement that it was the best current hypothesis I had (similar to my provisional acceptance of any scientific hypothesis) and I still had lots of doubts, both about the existence of God and if I was really a Christian (since my personal experience was at variance with the New Testament description most pf the time). Even in those times that I was most convinced of God's existence, He was distant, active in history in biblical times, but no longer active in the same way.
2. Stage 2. Biblical faith and personal experience. This entailed that I actually trusted God's Word (the Bible), <b>acted</b> on this faith, and then experienced the promise to be true. In my case it happened when I prayed for and was filled with the Holy Spirit enabling me to witness for Jesus (Acts 1:8). The immediate effect was that God became real to me now and here. Two points to make: I have tried to be obedient to Jesus's command to witness for Him (tell people about Him) before this, preparing myself as well as I could, but failed every time. I did not know how to answer any question for which I did not prepare (and these questions would always come up in any conversation about Jesus). I have prayed to be filled with the Holy Spirit before, waited for some experience and when nothing happened concluded that God did not answer my prayers. What was different this time was 2 things... I acted on my faith after the prayer for the Holy Spirit and actually went out to talk to people about Jesus afterwards instead of waiting for some experience. I did not trust in my own preparation or knowledge, but trusted God to be faithful to His promises in the Bible to fill us with His Spirit and to give us the right words. When I acted on this faith (but not before), that was exactly what I experienced. Since then, there is a continual process to grow in this faith. It consists of reading some promise and/or command in the Bible, acting on it by faith, and then experiencing it. Although God became real in this way, there are 2 reasons I still experienced doubt from time to time. If I sin (i.e. do NOT obey a command from the Bible), I also don't experience God any longer in my life. The result: I start doubting whether any of my previous experiences were real (and if God actually exists). Thus only convincing as long as you continue living by faith in obedience.
3. (Stage 3?) The evidence from the Messianic prophecies. After an intense period of about a year studying all Messianic prophecies I could find in the Tanach (Old Testament) I became thoroughly convinced that there is really no other way to explain their fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth, except for them being inspired by a living God. Of course, this is also confirmed by philosophical reasons and my personal experience, but for me personally, this remains the bedrock of my conviction. Although I have had ups and downs in my relationship with Jesus (my experience), I have never again doubted that He actually exists.
4. Interaction with atheists? Reading arguments against (and for) the faith (and personal conversations) have actually strengthened my conviction that the Bible is true and that the God of the Bible is the (only) living God.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 8, 2015 8:49:27 GMT
Thanks. Very interesting.
|
|
