A fun challenge: Try and justify Theism!

[0lly]

OK, I have often heard and read religious people (specifically Christians and Muslims since those are the believers to whom I've been most exposed) try and dispel atheism as being a stupid and badly reasoned stance to take; inferring that their religious beliefs are more tenable. They usually do this by saying things like the following:

-Explain how you get something from nothing?
-Explain why there is anything at all?
-Complexity must mean design and intent.
-Humans have morals, and morals must be absolute. Therefore morals must be divine in origin. (The most contemptible, insulting and badly reasoned of these popular "proofs").

And so people claim that, from observations of the state of the universe, they can deduce that the existence of God is a necessity. Well OK that's fine. I don't think that you can make that deduction; I think that even assuming the above points are valid is assuming an unjustified level of knowledge. But whatever. That's a thread for another day. The point I wish to make is this: the people who use those arguments often gloss over the fact that they are only making a case for Deism, not their religion.

Even if you were able to irrefutably reason that the Universe can only be explained by invoking God (Deism), I cannot think how you could then, by induction, reach Theism. That is to say, how is it possible to infer, from the deistic argument, any property of this God other than the property that it must exist? So how do you reach a God who wants to be worshipped, and who sets laws for us to live by? Heaven? Revelation? Prayer? How can you reach any of those theistic concepts without invoking Faith?

And so this is the challenge I lay down:

Try and reason the case for a theistic God (the God of the Old Testament, Allah, or any other you arrive at) without resorting to the deus ex machina of Blind Faith. Outline how you can reach Theism from a rational induction of Deism.

My rules for a rational justification of Theism:

-Blind Faith may not be invoked in your reasoning since it allows belief (to a magnitude close to or at the level of absolute certainty) without rational explanation or evidence, and in many cases even in the face of contrary evidence. If it were allowed, then I could equally state that "I have Faith that there is no God" is in and of itself a proof.
-Scripture is not valid evidence, since it relies on Faith in its authenticity. If scripture were to be allowed, then one could validly also use the scripture of a another religion to disprove it.

Further points:

-If you think you've completed this challenge easily, you've probably not done it successfully. Not even Thomas Aquinas or Descartes could do it, despite having a good stab at it.
-If you're religious, it's OK to admit that this challenge is impossible, and that your religion is Faith-based. Many religious people do; indeed they say that Faith is the whole point. However, inherent in this admission, is the acceptance that your religious stance is irrational. You therefore admit that harassment of homosexuals, atheists etc. on religious grounds is also irrational.
-If you are religious and you fail this challenge, you are in effect making the above concession.
-If you fail this challenge, you may never again use the Deist argument to back up your religion.

Edit. One further point:

Religious people reading this will be liable to think "bah, logic, reason, logic, reason; that's all atheists ever talk about, there's more to life than that; my religion's beyond all that." Well, this is just religious people throwing their toys out the pram in exasperation. They will often have tried to appeal with reasoning, then failing to do so, will deploy the real humdinger that religion transcends reason. 'Transcending' reason is to just abandon reason; this has serious ramifications not to be taken lightly, which may have the result contrary to what the religious person expects. Without logic, you can no longer claim there to be any objective difference between Allah and Mickey Mouse. You are lost in a flight of fancy without reason, and it means that religion can't be brought out into the real world, for instance you can no longer try and base legislation on religion if religion's prerequisite is abandonment of logic.

[wordscancutyoulikeglass]

Haha this should be fun to read

[Monroee]

Originally Posted by wordscancutyoulikeglass

Haha this should be fun to read

Indeed. I wonder how many theists are going to step forward.

[Rossy]

Not many unless they relise the truth.

[0lly]

Originally Posted by Monroee

Indeed. I wonder how many theists are going to step forward.

My prediction is that the only person who will have a decent attempt at this is fredbloggs02. And I predict that he will try and use some very esoteric ontological argument to prove that I don't actually exist or something.

[Recipe For Disaster]

My beliefs are based on deeply personal experiences. I don't expect that to be evidence for anyone else, in fact I think it would be silly for someone to base THEIR beliefs on MY experiences. However, my experiences provide plenty of justification for theism for me.

[0lly]

Originally Posted by Recipe For Disaster

My beliefs are based on deeply personal experiences. I don't expect that to be evidence for anyone else, in fact I think it would be silly for someone to base THEIR beliefs on MY experiences. However, my experiences provide plenty of justification for theism for me.

Then this is faith. Either it is faith or you have deduced a theistic God as necessary from evidence, personal or otherwise. The fact you describe it as personal either means it is sub par evidence and therefore you are using faith, or else you are choosing to keep private the most important logical deduction in history.

[Recipe For Disaster]

The fact that it is personal doesn't mean that it's based on faith, nor does it mean I am choosing to keep it private.

Example. Bigfoot. I don't believe bigfoot exists. However, if I personally encountered one, I might change my mind. However, I would not expect YOU to believe in bigfoot simply because I claimed to have encountered one. You need to see for yourself. My eye witness account might count for something in your viewpoint, but you definitely shouldn't base your whole viewpoint on it.

When it comes to understanding the nature of existence/God, you also should not rely on other peoples accounts. They can be very helpful (I am not saying you must ignore them) but ultimately, the nature of God is something that everyone must discover for themself.

[wordscancutyoulikeglass]

this is becoming entertaining as predicted

better get the popcorn

[Common Misconception]

This is funny, because yesterday I got a random text from a stranger saying (and I quote): "Voter #37521 Paul Ryan is secretly an atheist, Don't vote for a godless heathen! Get the facts Spread the word!" (my brother got the same message ><)

So...what ever happened to the separation of church and state? I started laughing though, and wanted to respond back saying ,"Oh cool thanks, now I'll vote for him!" But I don't really follow politics; to me that's just blind faith as well

[Quinn the Eskimo]

Outline how you can reach Theism from a rational induction of Deism.

could you clarify that line?

also, I don't think I would ever want to take on the task of proving the case for theism or deism.

however, your thread is titled "justify theism" and though I may not count myself as a theist (the term can be very broad and interpreted in different ways), I don't think it would be hard to "justify" it - just like it wouldn't be hard to justify "atheism".

they both don't need justification, for they are both two different viewpoints which can not be proven, therefore, it is equally reasonable for both to exist

[Soulsurvivor]

^ Its true what you're saying thats neither side can substatiate their position with proof, this being an untestable theory and whatnot. The thing is, though, that atheism doesn't require proof. It's not making any claims. Atheism is the stronger position from a starting point. The burden of proof is on those of a theist standpoint to prove THERE IS something.

That is a mean feat, of course, but mainstream religion has had several thousand years already to overcome this burden of proof and deliver the goods. A fair trial by anyone standards. But still nothing...

[ugh1979]

Originally Posted by 0lly

My prediction is that the only person who will have a decent attempt at this is fredbloggs02. And I predict that he will try and use some very esoteric ontological argument to prove that I don't actually exist or something.

[0lly]

Originally Posted by Recipe For Disaster

Example. Bigfoot. I don't believe bigfoot exists. However, if I personally encountered one, I might change my mind. However, I would not expect YOU to believe in bigfoot simply because I claimed to have encountered one.

I'm terribly sorry old chap, but you've failed the challenge by defaulting on it. This is because you have failed to provide justification, by saying that objective justification is a non sequitur; stating instead that person truth and justification based on person experiences of revelation is the whole point of religion.

Evidence that was only privy to one person is still evidence, and that person's assessment of the situation may still be considered objectively rational or irrational, regardless of how rational or irrational the individual considers it be. Clearly, in practice, such personal truths often can't be subject to any degree of objectivity, however the point still stands.

Example. If I was cooking a pop tart, and my pop tart overcooked and became burnt, I may genuinely believe that to be good enough evidence from which to conclude the existence of a kitchen demon who goes about causing my food to overcook. Objectively, this appears to be a very hasty and irrational conclusion from a flawed application of logic, but I would still consider it a truth. To argue that a personal assessment of a situation is valid whether rational or not, is to wonder into the territory of the Cartesian 'self,' which is very far from the position that religion traditionally assumes, because it allows no objective difference to be drawn between a religion and a 'false' religion; it would mean Christianity could no longer say it was any different to the belief that the characters in the Twilight books are really real.

In summary, you have failed to prove that a position of Theism is rational, because all you have done is say that one needs to find God personally. In other words you have said that a Theistic God may not be subject to rationality.

Originally Posted by Quinn the Eskimo

could you clarify that line?

also, I don't think I would ever want to take on the task of proving the case for theism or deism.

however, your thread is titled "justify theism" and though I may not count myself as a theist (the term can be very broad and interpreted in different ways), I don't think it would be hard to "justify" it - just like it wouldn't be hard to justify "atheism".

they both don't need justification, for they are both two different viewpoints which can not be proven, therefore, it is equally reasonable for both to exist

To clarify: explain how you might logically conclude, from deductions of the state of the universe, not only the existence of a Deity, but furthermore a personal Deity (Theism).

People generally try and do this by saying that God must have intent and must, by interaction and revelation, influence the created universe. A teleological argument in other words. These arguments are always very weak; even the one put forth in the quinque viae by Aquinas is quite laughable.

Clearly, even if you could prove a Theistic God, there is now no way to further differentiate it between the various different religions without having faith in their scriptures.

Atheism simply assumes a ground state of un-knowledge. Theists claim to know something about the universe, and that the truth may be know to them and them alone; that is they assume a position of greater knowledge. To move from atheism to theism is a purported increase in knowledge. The preacher at the pulpit, the cleric in the Madrasah; these are people who claim knowledge that they do not have and cannot justify, and yet they continue to dictate and subjugate. The burden of proof is on them.

[AwkBoy]

What's the point of trying to debate anything spiritual with someone who's just going to say, "Nope, doesn't exist. This physical, third density world we live in is all there is, and not even a deistic god exists. Physicality is all there is to existence!" :-P

[0lly]

Originally Posted by AwkBoy

What's the point of trying to debate anything spiritual with someone who's just going to say, "Nope, doesn't exist. This physical, third density world we live in is all there is, and not even a deistic god exists. Physicality is all there is to existence!" :-P

Immateriality may well exist. I don't claim to know either way. The reason that the existence of the immaterial realm is posited, is to provide a realm which cannot be probed by knowledge and logic. It's therefore obviously illogical to claim any knowledge of it.

[fredbloggs02]

I wish this had existed a year or two ago. I would today enjoy reading what I would've written at that time! I know coaching other people spiritually would have been worth it, talking myself into it in the process too without a doubt; it's kind of unwitting. I'd have probably found myself speaking the language of the divine I justified in this thread without realizing it in the end lol. There you go though, don't count me out of the running just yet; my philosopher king status and syntax have been proven time and again to be of the utmost importance to me lol.

I don't accept some of the final points you made, that you can't do or claim certain things because they are irrational or unjustified, I think that is disproved most concisely in America where most politicians are religious, it doesn't seem to stop them or prevent them justifying themselves whether you say they abandon reason, that the real world dictates they have abandoned reason or not.. That sounds almost Don Quixotic to me: the unreason you provoked in me has been the usurper of my reason, and for that reason my unreason has been my undoing, that I confess with the remainder of my reason left to me. They still make an effort to appear reasonable it would seem, I'm not heavily into posturing like that though, it doesn't come naturally to me. Also interesting that you say Descartes and Aquinas didn't do it, not sure enough what you mean by that, or why those two particularly should stand as the highest representatives of theism? Didn't do what? What it is to prove God to you I don't understand I confess..not that I found them particularly convincing hearing them out. I'm not so concerned about what..others reason anymore pointing away from themselves, what others believe possibly... Justify ...interesting. That sounds almost..hmmm. I don't think many here expect theists to be able to justify themselves, not sure if many would enjoy hearing them try it particularly or not, some would more so than others without a doubt.

[0lly]

Originally Posted by fredbloggs02

I wish this had existed a year or two ago. I would today enjoy reading what I would've written at that time! I know coaching other people spiritually would have been worth it, talking myself into it in the process too without a doubt; it's kind of unwitting. I'd have probably found myself speaking the language of the divine I justified in this thread without realizing it in the end lol. There you go though, don't count me out of the running just yet; my philosopher king status and skill have been proven time and again to be of the utmost importance to me. I don't accept some of the final points you made, that you can't do certain things because they are irrational or unjustified, I think that is disproved most concisely in America where most politicians are religious, it doesn't seem to stop them or prevent their justifying themselves whether you feel they have abandoned reason or not. They still make an effort to appear reasonable it would seem, I'm not heavily into posturing like that though it doesn't come naturally to me. I'm not so concerned about what..others reason anymore pointing away from themselves, what others believe possibly... Justify ...interesting. That sounds almost..hmmm.

I'm very sorry, but I'm not clever enough to unpack meaning from your delightfully florid paragraph. I'd be much obliged if you could perhaps bullet point your objections. As far as I can tell, you're just saying that you don't like having to explain yourself.

[0lly]

Originally Posted by fredbloggs02

I wish this had existed a year or two ago. I would today enjoy reading what I would've written at that time! I know coaching other people spiritually would have been worth it, talking myself into it in the process too without a doubt; it's kind of unwitting. I'd have probably found myself speaking the language of the divine I justified in this thread without realizing it in the end lol. There you go though, don't count me out of the running just yet; my philosopher king status and syntax have been proven time and again to be of the utmost importance to me lol.

I don't accept some of the final points you made, that you can't do or claim certain things because they are irrational or unjustified, I think that is disproved most concisely in America where most politicians are religious, it doesn't seem to stop them or prevent them justifying themselves whether you say they abandon reason, that the real world dictates they have abandoned reason or not.. That sounds almost Don Quixotic to me: the unreason you provoked in me has been the usurper of my reason, and for that reason my unreason has been my undoing, that I confess with the remainder of my reason left to me. They still make an effort to appear reasonable it would seem, I'm not heavily into posturing like that though, it doesn't come naturally to me. Also interesting that you say Descartes and Aquinas didn't do it, not sure enough what you mean by that, or why those two particularly should stand as the highest representatives of theism? Didn't do what? What it is to prove God to you I don't understand I confess..not that I found them particularly convincing hearing them out. I'm not so concerned about what..others reason anymore pointing away from themselves, what others believe possibly... Justify ...interesting. That sounds almost..hmmm. I don't think many here expect theists to be able to justify themselves, not sure if many would enjoy hearing them try it particularly or not, some would more so than others without a doubt.

OK I'll take this as being your final draft.

Firstly, I don't expect people here to expect theists to explain themselves; rather I hope the point of this thread would be to help clarify the reasonable objections that form the basis of atheism.

Secondly, you suggest that I don't know that people can claim irrational things. You say its the real world (by which I take you to mean the Zeitgeist) that dictates whether they have abandoned reason or not, and whether or not they should be held to account further. Well, pragmatically this may be so, and expecting otherwise may be quixotic. I agree with this. But what's wrong with a little chivalry eh? And while this is an astute assessment of how, for instance, politicians operate, it should not be considered logically sound unless you subscribe to a dogmatic application of some form of relativistic epistemology; a stance I could poke several holes in. Such a discussion on different theories of truth might be amusing, but your 'syntax' would probably make such a debate too painful (I don't mean that to sound petulant), so I don't really wish to go there.

I mentioned Aquinas and Descartes simply because they are famous people who have attempted a logical proof of a theistic God. I don't think finding a flaw in the logic of Aquinas should raise any more of an epistemological problem than finding a flaw in someone's long division; but to raise such a problem, is to drive towards so unworkable a system of relativism as to render human thought useless, and coherent ethics and societies impossible.

[AwkBoy]

Originally Posted by 0lly

Immateriality may well exist. I don't claim to know either way. The reason that the existence of the immaterial realm is posited, is to provide a realm which cannot be probed by knowledge and logic. It's therefore obviously illogical to claim any knowledge of it.

Well to answer your challenge seems neigh impossible. Personally, I believe in a higher force of a more deistic nature.