Faith in atheism
Thanks for the response,
I think you might have misunderstood me. See no one has disproven God’s existence, last i checked, so you must take it by faith that he does not exist. Just becuase there is no overwhelming evidence for his existence doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist. For example gravity seems to be a theory that we yet don’t understand but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In fact this is the very reason i believe God gave us his reasoning abilities, so we can come to know and Love him on our on accord.
I do beleive God exists but that is not my default position for i to was once an athiest. Over the last couple of years i have found overwhelming evidence for his existence through the metaphysics of Philosophy. It also seems to me that you might be taking the default position of athiesm, see we can go on in circles about this if we don’t have a basis of truth or at least a meeting ground, something we can agree on.
Also when i speak of morales i speak of a sort of necessity that needs be so for all rational thought to take place. A starting point so to speak “truth”.
Today there is a trend and a overuse of the word progress. In other words “those morales that worked yesterday no longer work today”. We might as well say “What i believed on monday no longer follows on tuesday.
Which brings my next inquiry what is “Truth”.
Again thanks for responding i’d apreciate another response if it isn’t to time consuming. Oh, and here is a quote you might not like “a little philosophy makes a man athiest but a lot will convert him back to religion”.
I don’t think I misunderstood you, but you may have misunderstood me. You are right that the existence of God has not been disproven, but I do not take it on faith that He does not exist. You are also right that there not being overwhelming evidence for His existence doesn’t mean that He doesn’t exist.
Look at it this way: right now, knowing what you know, would you say that you believe my twenty-foot-tall Uncle Fred exists? I assume you would answer “no” (since “I don’t know” isn’t a viable answer — you must know whether or not you believe something.) Is this because you have faith that Uncle Fred doesn’t exist? Or is it because you’ve never heard of anyone like Uncle Fred and find it unlikely that a twenty-foot-tall man exists? If I introduced you to Uncle Fred, would you believe that he exists, or would faith in his non-existence make you insist that he doesn’t exist?
To me, an all-powerful supernatural being is even more unlikely than Uncle Fred. I don’t need to have faith that such a thing doesn’t exist in order to not believe that it exists. But if you can show me I’m wrong, I’ll change my mind.
As for gravity — there’s certainly more we can learn about it, but it is clearly the most reasonable explanation for certain observations about how things move. Could it be that gravity is not a force but rather the motion of invisible fairies? Sure, but I find that highly unlikely and prefer the simpler explanation. This does not mean that I have faith that gravity fairies don’t exist.
You say that the existence of God is not your default position and that you used to be an atheist. Then I assume you would agree that if God is not the default then the burden of proof is on those who wish to prove that He exists. You say that you found overwhelming evidence that God exists. In that case, I do not fault you for believing in God, but I would ask that you share this evidence with me.
You are right that I am taking the default position of atheism. By Occam’s Razor, disbelief in things such as God, gravity fairies, and my giant uncle is indeed the default position, particularly when other explanations are available. I think that this is philosophically defensible.
You say, “when i speak of morals i speak of a sort of necessity that needs be so for all rational thought to take place. A starting point so to speak ‘truth.'” Off hand, I can’t think of any concept in morality that fits this criteria. The rules of logic, for example, are necessary for a discussion of morality, but they are not in themselves moral concepts. A definition of “truth” is also useful, but again this is not a moral concept in and of itself. Can you give me an example of the kind of thing you have in mind?
Your mention of “what worked yesterday no longer works today” makes me wonder what you mean when you use the word “morals.” For example, you seem to be saying that morality is unchanging. If this is the case, would you say that a) a woman who wears a skirt that exposes her knees is immoral, b) those who believe that it is immoral for a woman to show her knees are wrong, or c) that whether or not a woman’s clothing reveals certain parts of her flesh is not a moral issue?
Personally, I think it is very difficult to make specific moral rules (e.g., “Women should dress decently”) that are both universal and unambiguous. I think it is better to develop a system of moral thought and general principles that can be applied to moral situations as they arise.
You ask how I would define “truth.” I would say that something is true if it agrees with reality.
As for the quote you ended with, Bacon also said, “I had rather believe all the Fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.” I’d say that anyone who needs religion that badly would have trouble discussing the topic neutrally.