3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]
Well, I am just saying that degrees of faith are required for everything.If one desired, he or she could find ways to doubt everything (senses, perception, etc). Doing this won’t get anything done of course and is rather impractical.

My point to all of this is simply that some people seem to hold themselves in higher regard than theists because they don’t believe something based on a sort of blind faith. However, the belief of the nonexistence of God requires the same sort of blind faith (and arrogance, I think).

Science is also not exempt from requiring these degrees of faith.

To believe in only what one sees and can physically touch in front of them combined with the disbelief of anything intangible seems rather arrogant. Though X-rays were discovered in 1895, they had existed since the beginning of time. Therefore, just because things are not available to be perceived in the current state (for example, X rays before photostimulable phosphors or photographic plates were easily accessible) doesn’t mean they don’t exist. This analogy with X rays can be applied to the existence of the supernatural.

322

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

[/quote]

I’m okay with not knowing, it makes things more interesting. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
When I mentioned tentative belief before, I did so because statements like these already sound much like it - basically tentative belief is holding a belief and understanding that you may be wrong so you are being open to other beliefs and ideas. It is understanding your shortcomings so to say. (Again, it is from “Religious Diversity and Religious Ambiguity” by Robert McKim).

323

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]
Well, I am just saying that degrees of faith are required for everything.If one desired, he or she could find ways to doubt everything (senses, perception, etc). Doing this won’t get anything done of course and is rather impractical.

My point to all of this is simply that some people seem to hold themselves in higher regard than theists because they don’t believe something based on a sort of blind faith. However, the belief of the nonexistence of God requires the same sort of blind faith (and arrogance, I think).

Science is also not exempt from requiring these degrees of faith.

To believe in only what one sees and can physically touch in front of them combined with the disbelief of anything intangible seems rather arrogant. Though X-rays were discovered in 1895, they had existed since the beginning of time. Therefore, just because things are not available to be perceived in the current state (for example, X rays before photostimulable phosphors or photographic plates were easily accessible) doesn’t mean they don’t exist. This analogy with X rays can be applied to the existence of the supernatural.[/quote]

I didn’t realize I came off as arrogant.
Maybe you are to sensitive.
I said I don’t want to believe only know. Which means I am saying I have no idea if god exists or not. This is not arrogance. Saying I don’t know is not arrogance.

324

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

[/quote]

I’m okay with not knowing, it makes things more interesting. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
When I mentioned tentative belief before, I did so because statements like these already sound much like it - basically tentative belief is holding a belief and understanding that you may be wrong so you are being open to other beliefs and ideas. It is understanding your shortcomings so to say. (Again, it is from “Religious Diversity and Religious Ambiguity” by Robert McKim).[/quote]

Tentative belief is not wanting belief?
I am refusing to believe.
I will wait to find out for sure, if I can, and if not I’m okay with never knowing.

325

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

[/quote]

I’m okay with not knowing, it makes things more interesting. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
When I mentioned tentative belief before, I did so because statements like these already sound much like it - basically tentative belief is holding a belief and understanding that you may be wrong so you are being open to other beliefs and ideas. It is understanding your shortcomings so to say. (Again, it is from “Religious Diversity and Religious Ambiguity” by Robert McKim).[/quote]

Tentative belief is not wanting belief?
I am refusing to believe.
I will wait to find out for sure, if I can, and if not I’m okay with never knowing.
[/quote]
Tentative belief is basically Socratic Ignorance applied to religious belief.

326

Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread, but it seems like two issues are conflated:

(1) Is Christianity, or any religion, true?
(2) Is there a God?

I deny (1) - I think, strictly speaking, all religions are false in their historical claims, but believe in God and would affirm that belonging to a religious tradition is good, so long as one takes a critical stance. For instance, I am in some sense a Catholic even though I like birth control, deny Jesus’ divinity, etc. I belong to the Church because I think that Christ, as a concept, reveals the depths of God’s love; so are the sacraments. I can profit from the reflections of the religious that have gone before me. Similarly, Muslims, Hindus and Jews can gain something from studying their own theological traditions.

I used to be an orthodox Catholic (actually, a convert from Protestantism) but was convinced by critical scholarship on Jesus. The dominant view of mainstream New Testament scholars is that Jesus predicted a first-century apocalypse; it never happened. He was a failed prophet. The evidence is really overwhelming for this in Scripture. Christian apologists often attack groups like the Jesus Seminar, but the Jesus Seminar folks are not mainstream scholars; they are too easy of a target.

As for God? Well, I think there are arguments for theism and atheism and that neither side presents conclusive evidence. I suppose, however, that I just sense that God exists and has acted in my life; I don’t see why its obviously irrational for me to hold such a belief without proof anymore than its irrational for me to hold my belief that my memory is somewhat accurate (you can’t give a proof of that, because in giving the proof you’d be presuming your memory is accurate; the argument would be circular).

327

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:<<< Tentative belief is basically Socratic Ignorance applied to religious belief.[/quote]In relation to the almighty God tentative belief is unbelief.

328

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

[/quote]

I’m okay with not knowing, it makes things more interesting. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
When I mentioned tentative belief before, I did so because statements like these already sound much like it - basically tentative belief is holding a belief and understanding that you may be wrong so you are being open to other beliefs and ideas. It is understanding your shortcomings so to say. (Again, it is from “Religious Diversity and Religious Ambiguity” by Robert McKim).[/quote]

Tentative belief is not wanting belief?
I am refusing to believe.
I will wait to find out for sure, if I can, and if not I’m okay with never knowing.
[/quote]
Tentative belief is basically Socratic Ignorance applied to religious belief.[/quote]

I found this quote when googling Socratic Ignorance: that I do not think I know what I do not know.
Technically I am not really talking about religion as I do not study it. For me I was talking about science and how things came to be not religion, although some people think this means religion. I think religions are just theories about the god theory of how we came to be. Theories about a theory.

329

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:<<< Tentative belief is basically Socratic Ignorance applied to religious belief.[/quote]In relation to the almighty God tentative belief is unbelief.
[/quote]
Do you believe that He is understanding and wants you to learn more about him? Do you think that people are flawed and there have been many cases of corruption and lying to gain power over others? Are people perfect? (People have varying beliefs so I figure I should get some important things down first)

330

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
Of course, there is a problem with what one really knows anyway and what constitutes proof for something. If you take anything that you hold true, you can usually trace it back to something that you must take for granted. This is basically the origins for Descartes idea of “I think, therefore I am” (not that I am agreeing with him, he was just searching for something concrete).[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are saying all humans (believers and non-believers) are in the dark about everything. That we are all full of shit. That would include you and I. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Right, and i’m okay with that, aren’t you?
[/quote]

I don’t believe everyone is full of shit. Just the ones who disagree with me ;)[/quote]

I believe we all stumble through life clutching at straws trying to make sense of it all.

[/quote]

I’m okay with not knowing, it makes things more interesting. :slight_smile:
[/quote]
When I mentioned tentative belief before, I did so because statements like these already sound much like it - basically tentative belief is holding a belief and understanding that you may be wrong so you are being open to other beliefs and ideas. It is understanding your shortcomings so to say. (Again, it is from “Religious Diversity and Religious Ambiguity” by Robert McKim).[/quote]

Tentative belief is not wanting belief?
I am refusing to believe.
I will wait to find out for sure, if I can, and if not I’m okay with never knowing.
[/quote]
Tentative belief is basically Socratic Ignorance applied to religious belief.[/quote]

I found this quote when googling Socratic Ignorance: that I do not think I know what I do not know.
Technically I am not really talking about religion as I do not study it. For me I was talking about science and how things came to be not religion, although some people think this means religion. I think religions are just theories about the god theory of how we came to be. Theories about a theory.
[/quote]
Well, technically, science and religion do both explain how things came to be. They don’t necessarily conflict as one may think. This is because, technically speaking, science is supposed to describe “how things are” while religion usually focuses on “why things are”. However, sometimes they can seem to imply things that will conflict with each other. This can be unavoidable I think when they are structured as they are - science uses an objective approach while religion uses a subjective approach.

Therefore, if you are taking an objective approach, you must assume that you are not the focus of everything. However, with a subjective approach, you focus on how things relate to you. Consequently, in science, one has the assumption that we are not the central focus of everything and this can cause theories like the big bang, etc, imply that we are not special (most notably, the theory of evolution). This conflicts with the idea that we are special and “made in God’s image” (this emphasizes the focus on ourselves that comes from the subjective approach). This explains why the most difficult scientific concepts for some Christians can be the theory of evolution and the big bang theory - they use an objective approach and take the focus of everything off of ourselves.

Does that make sense? My biggest point is that the biggest function of religion (at least one of them) is to explain “why” and not “how” - “how” is the function of science. Science was actually non-secular in its inception, ironically.

331

[quote]One and Only… wrote:
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread, but it seems like two issues are conflated:

(1) Is Christianity, or any religion, true?
(2) Is there a God?

I deny (1) - I think, strictly speaking, all religions are false in their historical claims, but believe in God and would affirm that belonging to a religious tradition is good, so long as one takes a critical stance. For instance, I am in some sense a Catholic even though I like birth control, deny Jesus’ divinity, etc. I belong to the Church because I think that Christ, as a concept, reveals the depths of God’s love; so are the sacraments. I can profit from the reflections of the religious that have gone before me. Similarly, Muslims, Hindus and Jews can gain something from studying their own theological traditions.

I used to be an orthodox Catholic (actually, a convert from Protestantism) but was convinced by critical scholarship on Jesus. The dominant view of mainstream New Testament scholars is that Jesus predicted a first-century apocalypse; it never happened. He was a failed prophet. The evidence is really overwhelming for this in Scripture. Christian apologists often attack groups like the Jesus Seminar, but the Jesus Seminar folks are not mainstream scholars; they are too easy of a target.

As for God? Well, I think there are arguments for theism and atheism and that neither side presents conclusive evidence. I suppose, however, that I just sense that God exists and has acted in my life; I don’t see why its obviously irrational for me to hold such a belief without proof anymore than its irrational for me to hold my belief that my memory is somewhat accurate (you can’t give a proof of that, because in giving the proof you’d be presuming your memory is accurate; the argument would be circular).[/quote]
So, do you think that there is accuracy to all the religions? Or are they simply useful from a pragmatic perspective? Or moral perspective?

332

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
My biggest point is that the biggest function of religion (at least one of them) is to explain “why” and not “how” - “how” is the function of science. [/quote]

I usually get the impression that religions explain both “how” and “why”.

I think the reason why there is a “why” question to explain is; if it was all created by something/someone we assume there would have to be a reason, a “why”.

For me the question of “why” seems to be “jumping ahead of ourselves”, “how” is still a mystery.

333

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
My biggest point is that the biggest function of religion (at least one of them) is to explain “why” and not “how” - “how” is the function of science. [/quote]

I usually get the impression that religions explain both “how” and “why”.

I think the reason why there is a “why” question to explain is; if it was all created by something/someone we assume there would have to be a reason, a “why”.

For me the question of “why” seems to be “jumping ahead of ourselves”, “how” is still a mystery.

[/quote]
I had been oversimplifying the four causes developed by Aristotle. http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/aristotles-four-causes.php . It is rather apparent that the first 2 “causes” are pretty much entirely the subject matter (so to say) of science while the last one (and at times last 2) are more of the content of religion. Depending upon how you interpret the third one you could try to designate it to either science or religion.

Although parts of the Bible will cover the origins of the Earth (Genesis), this is certainly not the focus of Christianity. In the typical mass, Genesis usually is not the focus as is implied in the name, the focus is usually on Christ, salvation and God. Of course, we could open this question to the others on the forum - belief can be very individualized and I try not to tell people what they want.

Answering the question of “why” gives people purpose in their lives and can also function to give them an identity. In many cases it is more important than “how”. Giving life purpose and direction will generally affect someone more greatly than simply telling them the mechanics of some phenomena around them. That and the question could be raised that “Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” In other words, would answering the first two or three causes ever lead one to answer the fourth (from Aristotle’s causes) especially when the natural and supernatural may be disjoint?

If answering the first 2 or 3 causes never leads someone to the final cause, then it doesn’t necessarily seem to be “getting ahead of ourselves” - especially because “why” is not a consequence of answering “how”, don’t you think?

334

[quote]One and Only… wrote:
Admittedly, I have not read this entire thread, but it seems like two issues are conflated:

(1) Is Christianity, or any religion, true?
(2) Is there a God?

I deny (1) - I think, strictly speaking, all religions are false in their historical claims, but believe in God and would affirm that belonging to a religious tradition is good, so long as one takes a critical stance. For instance, I am in some sense a Catholic even though I like birth control, deny Jesus’ divinity, etc. I belong to the Church because I think that Christ, as a concept, reveals the depths of God’s love; so are the sacraments. I can profit from the reflections of the religious that have gone before me. Similarly, Muslims, Hindus and Jews can gain something from studying their own theological traditions.

I used to be an orthodox Catholic (actually, a convert from Protestantism) but was convinced by critical scholarship on Jesus. The dominant view of mainstream New Testament scholars is that Jesus predicted a first-century apocalypse; it never happened. He was a failed prophet. The evidence is really overwhelming for this in Scripture. Christian apologists often attack groups like the Jesus Seminar, but the Jesus Seminar folks are not mainstream scholars; they are too easy of a target.

As for God? Well, I think there are arguments for theism and atheism and that neither side presents conclusive evidence. I suppose, however, that I just sense that God exists and has acted in my life; I don’t see why its obviously irrational for me to hold such a belief without proof anymore than its irrational for me to hold my belief that my memory is somewhat accurate (you can’t give a proof of that, because in giving the proof you’d be presuming your memory is accurate; the argument would be circular).[/quote]
I see from the philosophy thread that as a contemporary philosopher you enjoy Plantinga and from your last paragraph that you have a working understanding of properly basic belief. However if I believe Jesus bodily resurrected from the dead; I wouldn’t ascribe to him the belief that he endorsed a first century apocalypse.

335

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:Do you believe that He is understanding and wants you to learn more about him? >>>[/quote]No. I belive He is holy and wanted me to repent and forsake my sin. Understanding and learning more about Him comes after that.[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:Do you think that people are flawed and there have been many cases of corruption and lying to gain power over others? Are people perfect? (People have varying beliefs so I figure I should get some important things down first)[/quote]People would never come up with what I believe. It is wholly unsuited to the manipulation of others. Do not throw Catholicism at me. Nobody abhors that church more than I do.

336

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:Do you believe that He is understanding and wants you to learn more about him? >>>[/quote]No. I belive He is holy and wanted me to repent and forsake my sin. Understanding and learning more about Him comes after that.[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:Do you think that people are flawed and there have been many cases of corruption and lying to gain power over others? Are people perfect? (People have varying beliefs so I figure I should get some important things down first)[/quote]People would never come up with what I believe. It is wholly unsuited to the manipulation of others. Do not throw Catholicism at me. Nobody abhors that church more than I do.
[/quote]

But it does come.

337

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< But it does come.[/quote]I don’t know what you mean Chris.

338

Yeah, I’m familiar with Plantinga and respect him greatly. If he’s remembered in 200 years, I don’t think it will be for his epistemology, though; I suspect it will be his free will defense against the logical problem of evil.

As for why I think Jesus was a failed prophet, I would point to the work done by E.P. Sanders and Dale Allison on the topic. They present the case very well. As a brief statement, I would look at the Olivet Discourse and 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul certainly expected a first century apocalypse, and he seemed, if the Discourse is any indication, to get it from Jesus.

Do I think all religions have truth? Maybe all the great ones have some truth. Do I think they are all equally true? No, I wouldn’t say that. There is a difference between considering God to be three persons and a singular person. There is a difference between thinking the Atman is reincarnated continuously until it attains moksha and thinking the soul enters Hell, Purgatory or Heaven immediately after death. They can’t all be right. I’m not sure I’m in a position to say which is right. That said, I do think each perspective is useful. The concept of karma and the concept of Hell, etc both are fruitful in meditating on divine justice; moksha and Heaven on divine love; etc.

There are some common themes to theistic religions. Notice how most hold that the highest good is some sort of perception of God - exactly what the perception is like can’t be known to us, but nevertheless its a perception. That’s a powerful thought. For what does the lover want to but know and be known by the beloved? Sex is a common analogy for that state, although it is not, of course, grossly material.

339

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

It matters which school of thought you are in, Augustine or Aquinas. Or, as their intellectual forefathers correspond Plato or Aristotle.

If it comes as faith then reason or reason then faith. However, Aquinas agrees with Augustine that it is faith then reason when it comes to Catholicism because of certain attributes that are given to us through revelation. Nevertheless, Aquinas does disagree with Augustine on reasoning that a god exists. I say a god because Aquinas does say that we can reason deductively that there is an eternal, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, and personal intelligent mind or god. Now, as Catholics we do call this ‘G-d’ but an incomplete vision of G-d. Comparatively all views of G-d are incomplete as we look through a ‘dim mirror’ at G-d on earth and will only see G-d clearly with a beatified vision in Heaven.

340

[quote]One and Only… wrote:
As for why I think Jesus was a failed prophet, I would point to the work done by E.P. Sanders and Dale Allison on the topic. They present the case very well. As a brief statement, I would look at the Olivet Discourse and 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul certainly expected a first century apocalypse, and he seemed, if the Discourse is any indication, to get it from Jesus.
[/quote]

I’m sure I’d think the same thing if I was standing in your place. And, it is understandable to have that position. I personally haven’t dealt with this argument in a while.

I’ll give you this clue, if anything is to be determined one has to look at the author and authority on the subject, the Catholic Church. All other interpretation goes against the Bible itself and is contradictory: 2 Peter 1:20.