Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?

[Unveiled Artist]

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Yes. Theism can be reached by evidence if depending on the religion, the opposite party stretches their criteria for evidence based on experiences and not just tangible things they can test with a microscope.

A lot of theist arguments (positions of where they stand of a topic against their opposing party) are logical, I would say, rather than reasonable. For example, it is logical why a five year old will think that Fall and Physical have different sounds F and Ph. However logical, the reason based on English grammar makes their answer incorrect. Religion has to do with morals not degrees of accuracy. This is another issue anti-theist aren't taking into consideration.

Being a theist doesn't equate to being a failure. You just have a different intangible means of finding and living truth in life which is reasonable by your or your god(s) criteria and logical. Someone who has failed is someone who did something that is not correct. Since religion doesn't work on right and wrong terms regardless of what some religions say (they don't speak for all) it's impossible for you to be a failure for being a theist.

Everyone has different views and they are all plausible for the people who work with them. To some, it is illogical that I do not believe a god-external entity and creator-exists regardless the religion but I do believe in people who have died exist as spirits such as my grandmothers and spirits in general. They aren't deities but they were humans not an invisible entity.

So, if you can find reason and logic behind your belief, it's not a failure and it is plausible.

 

[Looncall]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

I suppose that coming to religion can feel like using logic and evidence. Religion is an age-old con game that has been carefully nurtured over millennia to have just that effect.

Unfortunately, the logic offered is fraudulent in sometimes subtle ways (eg Aquinas' arguments) and the so-called evidences are carefully constructed so as to be unverifiable. Add to this cynical plays on the emotions and you have a very powerful scam indeed.

The victims of the scam can have a difficult time breaking free unless aided by outside forces. That can be one reason that home schooling can be such a disaster for youth. It is also why cults isolate their followers.

I think it a public duty for those not taken in to provide opportunities for victims to escape their misfortune.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My first question would be why "being convinced" is relevant to objective truth? Shouldnt it just be based on the logic? Second, is it not possible that atheism itself may be fueled by confirmation bias?

What is it that an atheist would be confirming? Lack of belief in God(s) is all we share (not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sinks in at this point). Other than that single thing any one of us may be as different as night and day than any other. We have no shared historic narrative, no common core set of beliefs, no community customs... not necessarily any "community" in the first place. So, the only thing that we could possibly have a bias toward, and therefore look for confirming evidence, would be disbelieving in God(s). And we all go about even that in drastically different ways.

Many theists are unconvinced by the arguments for atheism, does this give us good reason to dismiss atheism? If not, how would that not be special pleading?

You can remain as unconvinced as you like, but don't expect me, as an atheist, to believe what you tell me about your god(s) at face value. And don't expect me not to balk when you wag your finger in my face and tell me you're right because "reason and evidence", and then fail to produce the evidence, and (mostly because you have zero evidence) sound wholly unreasonable.

In what way is this not an argument from personal experience?

I can see where you're going with this... but it falls on its face the moment you recognize that BILLIONS of other religiously-affiliated people do not believe as you do. As an atheist, I simply believe as NONE of them do. So, not only do you have me, an atheist, to contend with when you make specific, extraordinary claims of knowledge about God(s), you also have EVERYONE ELSE who believes in something, but doesn't believe as you do... putting you in a rather stark minority. So, as an atheist I borrow a sort of "communal experience", in that I can join the ranks of anyone who would claim your beliefs are hogwash... I would just also turn around and tell those same people their beliefs are also hogwash.

 

[leibowde84]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

I would like to assume that theists can come to their worldview based on evidence and reason, but I've never been presented with any explanation as to how that happens and what evidence they use. If by evidence you simply mean personal experience and what makes sense to you, then that I've heard. But, I've never heard any verifiable, testable evidence. Mostly I hear nothing but God of the Gaps arguments (arguments from ignorance), falsely claiming that a current lack of scientific explanation somehow provides evidence for God's existence. Can you provide any?

 

[Skwim]

Many theists are unconvinced by the arguments for atheism, does this give us good reason to dismiss atheism?

I would certainly think so.

In what way is this not an argument from personal experience?

Why would it not be?

.

 

[Quintessence]

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

I don't see why not, but arriving at some particular variety of theism is caused by a whole host of factors. I'd wager that the initial cause is first and foremost upbringing, which only later in life is refined by things like reason and evidence. But there are also many other ways of human thinking: intuition and emotion, or perhaps aesthetics and values. It's very unfortunate that as a culture, we seem to do a poor job of appreciating non-rational ways of thinking (to the point of regarding them as straight up inferior). I find that particularly odd considering the vast majority of human lives are dominated by non-rational thinking methods. I blame the Enlightenment for this trend, and the failure of Romanticism to properly counter the bollocks aspect of that movement.

Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both?

Not even a little. Supposing this were the case, so what? Such things are hardly the be-all and end-all of human ways that are of value and worth, as alluded to above. If someone holds to their theism to honor the traditions of their ancestors, who cares if that is not in line with some gold standard of reason or evidence? If someone finds the narrative forms of a particular theology inspiring their lives in a positive way, what does reason or evidence matter?

What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausible?

Fundamentally? Either an inability to understand that view or a perchance for concrete thinking on the topic at hand. Put another way, being set in one's ways and unwilling or unable to explore beyond those ways. Often an assumption train is involved in some way. On the subject of theism, assumptions about what "god" means or what "god" is for, and about what "reality" is or "exists" means are at the top of the assumption list. Notions about knowledge, truth, and validity would be high upon the list too. If you only consider certain ways of knowing to be truth or to be valid, that puts limits on your thinking and can make you unable to consider another view plausible. Something worth noting - everybody has limits. Everybody is unable to understand some things, or set in their ways on some things. That's okay. It isn't something that needs to be "fixed" either. It's part of the diversity of life, and I wouldn't trade it for monotony of agreement.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

More to the point:

"Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?"

Of course it is for people who believe they've proven a negative and make similar irrational statements!

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I think most of that "you can't be (theological position intert here) through (intellectual reasoning)" is from structured religion. Many people don't seem to get out of the box much in terms of thought.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

No, if by evidence we mean that which is evident to any observer. I don't count subjective evidence as meaningful here, since we are presumably discussing that exists outside of the head.

If there were objective evidence that a god exists, there would be no debate here. There is objective evidence that the sun exists, and there is virtually no debate about that. Gods share the same status with angels, demons, heaven, etc..

rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is.

Because we cannot be convinced of what the theist believes however much we ask for their evidence, so naturally, we assume that such beliefs were arrived at without sufficient evidence.

Presumably, the first evidence for gods was natural phenomena. Ancients watched the sun moving above them and imagined an agent like Apollo and his chariot, and lightning wrath wrath of Thor. Today, we have no evidence for gods, which is why the arguments for them so often are god of the gaps arguments - "You can't show how life arose on earth, therefore God." This is fallacious.

It is also fallacious to say that everything around us is evidence for a god. That's one possibility, but not the only one. Evidence is that which makes one or more competing hypotheses more or less likely. Hubble's red shift data couldn't distinguish between the steady state hypothesis and the Big Bang theory, so it was evidence for neither. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background did, however, distinguish between the two and so served as evidence that one was correct and the other not.

What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

That's not the thought process. The thought process is that we should have a reason to believe before believing, that the reason should be empirical evidence properly evaluated (logically sound), that without these, one should not believe, and that no such evidence exists presently. That doesn't make the belief implausible, just unjustified.

Many theists are unconvinced by the arguments for atheism

There is no argument for atheism beyond the one I just gave. If those aren't your values, then with all due respect, rejecting that argument isn't meaningful to me. I think it needs to be emphasized that there is a difference between what we believe and how we believe. A person doesn't need to agree with me for me to be interested in his thoughts, but he does need to reason and process evidence the way I do to be interested in his conclusions.

If we decide what is true the same way, we can go back to our point of departure where we began to disagree, investigate why, and the issue is purely factual, probably come to agreement. If the conclusion involves a value judgment about which we disagree such as whether security or freedom is more important, or what the limits of religious liberty should be, then we can still probably agree that if we shared the other guys values, we would come to his conclusions.

But if that's not how the other guy thinks - if he's willing to believe without going from premises and evidence to sound conclusions using valid reasoning, then his what does and does not convince him is of no persuasive value to whoever does think that way.

Is there inherently less confirmation bias in atheism?

You'd have to argue that the atheist cannot see the evidence for gods due to a faith based belief that they cannot or do not exist. But that's not what we see. What we see is the atheist asking the theist for evidence and getting nothing that could be considered that, just fallacious arguments or less.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

I'm trying to stay open to the idea, but I haven't found a theist yet who I can say this is true for.

 

[1137]

No, it does not. But it is odd to attempt to present deities as subjects of reason and evidence, as if their existence were a matter of logic.

This seems to inherently imply that theism can never be a matter of logic, which happens to revert back to the question at hand. Is theism inherently illogical?

Is it just a concept that you choose a common vocabulary word to describe. . . or is it the second thing, a being that no rational human being could ever demonstrably confirm?

I'd say for me gods are closer to the former.

I suppose that coming to religion can feel like using logic and evidence. Religion is an age-old con game that has been carefully nurtured over millennia to have just that effect.

This is a possibility sure, but do you have any evidence to support that there is nothing more to religion this?

Unfortunately, the logic offered is fraudulent in sometimes subtle ways (eg Aquinas' arguments) and the so-called evidences are carefully constructed so as to be unverifiable. Add to this cynical plays on the emotions and you have a very powerful scam indeed.

Let's look at a solid example: a simple cosmological argument for a first cause. The logic is valid and plausible, the only problem is that it has not been shown sound. There's also the issue that atheism is also valid and plausible, two contradictory positions can be plausible at the same time, and remain possibilities until one or neither is proven sound. Likewise the evidence for cosmologicals - that cause and effect exist and permeate the universe- certain isn't constructed to be unverifiable, in fact I'd say it's quite easily verifiable.

I think it a public duty for those not taken in to provide opportunities for victims to escape their misfortune.

Are you not opened to the possibility that perhaps you are the one who is incorrect? Sure most religion comes down to brainwashing and faith perhaps, does this automatically mean that atheism cannot be incorrect for some reason?

What is it that an atheist would be confirming? Lack of belief in God(s) is all we share (not sure how many times this needs to be said before it sinks in at this point). Other than that single thing any one of us may be as different as night and day than any other. We have no shared historic narrative, no common core set of beliefs, no community customs... not necessarily any "community" in the first place. So, the only thing that we could possibly have a bias toward, and therefore look for confirming evidence, would be disbelieving in God(s). And we all go about even that in drastically different ways.

Well the non-existence of deities, or the likelihood of the universe as is without deities, along with alternative explanations.

You can remain as unconvinced as you like, but don't expect me, as an atheist, to believe what you tell me about your god(s) at face value. And don't expect me not to balk when you wag your finger in my face and tell me you're right because "reason and evidence", and then fail to produce the evidence, and (mostly because you have zero evidence) sound wholly unreasonable.

Well the point wasn't to defend any conception of god, but to ask if its even theoretically possible for those conceptions, at least some, to be reasonable. Should theists be expected to accept atheism at face value when the opposite should not be expected?

I can see where you're going with this... but it falls on its face the moment you recognize that BILLIONS of other religiously-affiliated people do not believe as you do. As an atheist, I simply believe as NONE of them do. So, not only do you have me, an atheist, to contend with when you make specific, extraordinary claims of knowledge about God(s), you also have EVERYONE ELSE who believes in something, but doesn't believe as you do... putting you in a rather stark minority. So, as an atheist I borrow a sort of "communal experience", in that I can join the ranks of anyone who would claim your beliefs are hogwash... I would just also turn around and tell those same people their beliefs are also hogwash.

This simply has not weight in an argument against a henotheist, it really only is an issue for exclusivist monotheism.

I would like to assume that theists can come to their worldview based on evidence and reason, but I've never been presented with any explanation as to how that happens and what evidence they use. If by evidence you simply mean personal experience and what makes sense to you, then that I've heard. But, I've never heard any verifiable, testable evidence. Mostly I hear nothing but God of the Gaps arguments (arguments from ignorance), falsely claiming that a current lack of scientific explanation somehow provides evidence for God's existence. Can you provide any?

I find this type of claim hard to believe, considering theists present arguments and evidence consistently, over the course of thousands of years. If you were saying that their reasons didn't convince you that would be a totally different story from saying that you've literally never heard anything valid/plausible in defense of theism. It's a concern specifically because it suggests a serious bias towards a certain line of thought., Can a position rooted in such a bias really be considered inherently more rational than the opposition. Further, when you hold something non-material to the standards of material science, how is that not fallacious?

No, if by evidence we mean that which is evident to any observer. I don't count subjective evidence as meaningful here, since we are presumably discussing that exists outside of the head.

If there were objective evidence that a god exists, there would be no debate here. There is objective evidence that the sun exists, and there is virtually no debate about that. Gods share the same status with angels, demons, heaven, etc..

There is still debate on evolution v. creationism, do you believe that we therefore cannot call evolution rational and evidenced since not everyone accepts it, or does this logic only apply in specific situations, such as theism v. atheism?

Because we cannot be convinced of what the theist believes however much we ask for their evidence, so naturally, we assume that such beliefs were arrived at without sufficient evidence.

This seems to state that you find theism inherently wrong no matter what is presented. Do you believe that to be the proper way to address philosophical problems?

I'm trying to stay open to the idea, but I haven't found a theist yet who I can say this is true for.

You've never even seen something like a person convinced by the cosmological or fine tuning arguments? I find this extraordinarily unlikely.

 

[LuisDantas]

This seems to inherently imply that theism can never be a matter of logic,

That is indeed my stance. Or rather it would be, if we had the means to establish a consensual understanding of what is that deity that theists believe in. A major problem with theism is that it is often presented as if it had a shared core of belief, when it in truth doesn't.

which happens to revert back to the question at hand. Is theism inherently illogical?

Not so much illogical as, I suppose , a-logical. Theism at its best is an expression of very personal aesthetical inclinations. At its worst it is indeed illogical.

 

[1137]

That is indeed my stance. Or rather it would be, if we had the means to establish a consensual understanding of what is that deity that theists believe in. A major problem with theism is that it is often presented as if it had a shared core of belief, when it in truth doesn't.



Not so much illogical as, I suppose , a-logical. Theism at its best is an expression of very personal aesthetical inclinations. At its worst it is indeed illogical.

So how would you then address the existence of logically valid/plausible theistic arguments not based in aesthetic preference?

 

[LuisDantas]

So how would you then address the existence of logically valid/plausible theistic arguments not based in aesthetic preference?

All that I have met so far are, in essence, declarations that entities of undeniable existence are considered deities by someone.

They do not constitute arguments as such.

 

[ChristineM]

There is no reason behind me believing cats are the coolest beings in the world though..

There is every reason

 

[Looncall]

This seems to inherently imply that theism can never be a matter of logic, which happens to revert back to the question at hand. Is theism inherently illogical?



I'd say for me gods are closer to the former.



This is a possibility sure, but do you have any evidence to support that there is nothing more to religion this?



Let's look at a solid example: a simple cosmological argument for a first cause. The logic is valid and plausible, the only problem is that it has not been shown sound. There's also the issue that atheism is also valid and plausible, two contradictory positions can be plausible at the same time, and remain possibilities until one or neither is proven sound. Likewise the evidence for cosmologicals - that cause and effect exist and permeate the universe- certain isn't constructed to be unverifiable, in fact I'd say it's quite easily verifiable.



Are you not opened to the possibility that perhaps you are the one who is incorrect? Sure most religion comes down to brainwashing and faith perhaps, does this automatically mean that atheism cannot be incorrect for some reason?



Well the non-existence of deities, or the likelihood of the universe as is without deities, along with alternative explanations.



Well the point wasn't to defend any conception of god, but to ask if its even theoretically possible for those conceptions, at least some, to be reasonable. Should theists be expected to accept atheism at face value when the opposite should not be expected?



This simply has not weight in an argument against a henotheist, it really only is an issue for exclusivist monotheism.



I find this type of claim hard to believe, considering theists present arguments and evidence consistently, over the course of thousands of years. If you were saying that their reasons didn't convince you that would be a totally different story from saying that you've literally never heard anything valid/plausible in defense of theism. It's a concern specifically because it suggests a serious bias towards a certain line of thought., Can a position rooted in such a bias really be considered inherently more rational than the opposition. Further, when you hold something non-material to the standards of material science, how is that not fallacious?



There is still debate on evolution v. creationism, do you believe that we therefore cannot call evolution rational and evidenced since not everyone accepts it, or does this logic only apply in specific situations, such as theism v. atheism?



This seems to state that you find theism inherently wrong no matter what is presented. Do you believe that to be the proper way to address philosophical problems?



You've never even seen something like a person convinced by the cosmological or fine tuning arguments? I find this extraordinarily unlikely.

Consider your example of a cosmological argument. What you describe is reasonable. However, you left out the fraudulent next step in the argument: "therefore god". That is the sort of cheap trick I am objecting to.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well the non-existence of deities, or the likelihood of the universe as is without deities, along with alternative explanations.

In that vein, I suppose any of us only really has personal experience/knowledge and interpretation of such to go on. I suppose that is true of nearly EVERYTHING. I can't say that I have ever ignored specific experiences in order to hold onto my atheism, which I would feel is part of confirmation bias - grasping at the things that support your world view, and casting aside those that don't. If anything, I have simply never had a single experience exhibiting indication of deity at work.

I do have to admit to immediately seeing the worth/wit/perceived-correctness in things that detract from supernatural or religiously-driven beliefs, and I also immediately search for (and usually find) fault in items brought to bear as overtly spiritual or supernatural in nature. I suppose this is probably confirmation bias, as the faults I find are, admittedly, not necessarily anything more than my opinion/intuition.

Well the point wasn't to defend any conception of god, but to ask if its even theoretically possible for those conceptions, at least some, to be reasonable. Should theists be expected to accept atheism at face value when the opposite should not be expected?

Without evidence, or anything to point to that isn't an intrinsically personal experience, I am not sure I can concede to god concepts being "reasonable." In any such concept, one is utterly bound to make some things up, fill in gaps where knowledge/experience won't suffice and generally ascribe attributes to the deity that are not based on any part of observable reality. I don't think it is possible not to have those elements in play when considering a belief in a god. And I am not so sure that atheism has those same sorts of issues.

This simply has not weight in an argument against a henotheist, it really only is an issue for exclusivist monotheism.

This is true. Someone who doesn't discount the existence of other deities would not be facing opposition to their beliefs from any other corner. Of course, this only further dilutes the actual possibility of deity in the first place in my eyes. Saying "all these Gods could be real" is basically the same as saying that all fairy tale creatures could have walked the Earth at some point. Is it possible that they all did, but there just isn't any evidence at all for the fact? I suppose... but at that point, what does it even matter if they did? If they no longer do, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support a claim, then why make the claim? What purpose does it serve? Hence the reason I think the descriptor "unreasonable" is often times used.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

I'm certain that there are plenty of theist who believe that they have reached their conclusions using reason and logic. However, I seriously doubt that I would agree that their methods are either reasonable or logical. For instance, I know a believer who said that they prayed on a daily basis that they would get a job that he really needed to help take care of his family. When he ended up getting the job, he felt it was logical and reasonable to conclude that this was 'evidence' that God answered his prayers. I on the other hand knew that the reason that he got the job was because he happened to be the most qualified applicant. I've yet to meet a theist who claims to have used evidence based on logic and reason to reach their conclusions that I agreed was actually logical or reasonable.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) 1137 in the O.P. asked : “So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?
I think this question is interesting, partly because, it applies to all types of beliefs.

A) Beliefs based on reason/evidence applies to all beliefs, not just religious beliefs

For example, I practice medicine and constantly deal with individuals who arrive to their appointments with erroneous beliefs and conclusions regarding their diagnosis/illness (non-religious beliefs).

Almost all of these patients came to their erroneous medical conclusions based on what they think are objective facts gained from google searches and even from legitimate medical sites. The problem is often that they are quoting facts but do not have the underlying context and experience to correctly assimilate and apply their correct set of facts to create a correct conclusion. It is not usually stupidity itself that is the problem, but lack of appropriate information and context (experience).

I think individuals often come to beliefs about a lot of things in this way : They believe a certain car is best. They believe in a best way to deal with a recalcitrant child. They believe in a best way to invest their money for the future. They believe in a best way to fix governmental problems (and the broken medical care system). They believe that a specific thing is wrong with their cars’ motor. etc. etc. etc. We believe in a lot of things that are not religious beliefs.

While a master mechanic may possess enough facts and training and contextual experience to create an accurate opinion about a mechanical problem, most of us are not master mechanics. The same difficulty exists with religion. Both theists and atheist come to beliefs and conclusions with inadequate data and inexperience and thus we are all left to make the best judgment we can in a relatively ignorant and naïve state.

B) Arguments regarding religion are often motivated by personal reasons

Add to this naïve condition, the common defects of individuals such as pride, and an overestimation of our own abilities to tell what is truth from error on metaphysical subjects. Add in our tendency to misjudge others and the silly competitive desire to win arguments at all costs. Add in the desire to elevate ourselves above others and the desire not to be embarrassed in debates, etc. etc. Such defects of personality contribute to “…the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?” that 1137 asked about in the O.P. Sometimes religionists play the “I love you and want to save your soul, therefore I criticize you” game, when in reality, they do not see they are motivated by a feeling of superiority or pride. Sometimes, others really are trying to “help” and we are offended at them regardless of their good intentions.



2) Regarding reason and evidence, 1137 asked in the OP: “Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? “
No. There are often other principles at work in authentic historical religion if one uses Judeo-Christianity as an example.

A) The lack of context and personal experience with authentic religion



3) Leibowde84 “If by evidence you simply mean personal experience and what makes sense to you, then that I've heard. But, I've never heard any verifiable, testable evidence.” (post #24)

Leibowde84 is making a good point regarding personal experience but then applying it too broadly. I think authentic religion is often initiated and sustained by experiences with metaphysical events that are not something that can be shared and many individuals do not have them and, not having had them, discount them.

A) Authentic Revelation is a base example.

If revelations from God to an individual are a personal experience, they cannot be directly shared in their completeness.

Revelation often carries within it, the objective evidence that it is not a phenomenon generated by our own psyche. There are objective elements to revelation imbedded within it, as evidence that one is not crazy, and that they are not simply manufacturing the data.

Barring the fakers or the mentally unstable; The person who in actuality receives the witness of Gods existence by direct revelation from God, simply declares this personal experience from revelation rather than being left to quote scripture or to quote science or to quote logic or to quote tradition (etc) as their authority for declaring the existence of God. I believe the orientation and quality of data gained by personal revelation versus all other types of "witness" is different.

B) Examples of subjecting revelation to Logic and reasoning and the presence of objective components

1) "The first example applies to brothers, one living in Germany and one living in the United states.

The two Brothers formed detailed plans and commitment through regular written letters to attend a college in America. During almost two years of bi-monthly letters they plan in detail the specific college, timing of entry, courses of study and common living arrangement, etc. At one point, each receives a separate revelation on the same day regarding a drastic change to their plan. In separate revelations happening on the same day, on different continents and without the knowledge of the other, each receive a revelation where they are told NOT to do as they planned. Instead, are each told to take different paths than they planned for so many months.

Both brothers have the same revelations, concerning the same subject, on the same day, at the same time as it were. They each write a letter to one another on the same day describing their individual experience as the reason to change these plans. The letters cross each other when mailed to the different continents.

One brother starts his letter with the sentence:
"Dear Larry, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels he was told to do.

The other brother writes:
"Dear Gary, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels HE was told to do.

Each Brother reads the "identical" introductory sentence when they receive the letter. Both brothers complete re-oriented their lives away from a shared goal they’d spent months planning toward, based on the strength of their separate and distinct revelations.

If only one brother had experienced the “revelation” and had asked my opinion about HIS "revelation", then I might, as a medical clinician, have been tempted to label the experience as a possible, perhaps even a probable delusion.

However, once I understand the FULL circumstances, then I have a greater difficulty calling this a delusion. Once I know the FULL circumstances, the diagnosis of delusion is less probable. It's also difficult to label this as two separate delusions, on two separate continents, happening at the same time, on the same subject and against a shared goal. Especially since both individuals seem mentally normal and have never been prone to delusions.

Also, there are objective elements existing that I might consider as evidence that the experience actually happened as the brothers claimed. For example, there are diary entries in separate diaries, made on separate continents. The letters have date stamps to refer to (one letter to the U.S. and one letter in europe), etc.) It's this sort objective data that I am referring to that revelation may carry within it, as evidence that the phenomenon is not generated within the person - as a delusion, or hallucination is.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


2) A second example involves one of the same two brothers:

"The younger of the two brothers is asleep, in bed with his wife, having a dream that is "different" than the normal dream types. In his dream, he is in a house and his father is standing over a pile of the things and explaining that he is going to die and the son will inherit all these thing when the father dies. The son explains he does not want the "things" but rather he wants the father to stay. During the dream, the son realizes the father is going to die; is given some other details and then awakens.

The son awakens and describes the dream and the information he is given to his wife, he writes it in his diary and, being very early in the morning, he goes back to sleep with difficulty as he considers what happened. He is able to call his dad (who lives hundreds of miles away); discussed his love, respect, etc, but does not tell the father about the dream for reasons outside this discussion.

48 hours later, the father indeed dies suddenly of a heart attack while digging a post hole. He had no known heart disease.

Again, the brother's application of revelatory import to a dream itself could be considered delusional, except the concept of having been given information regarding a very specific future event which happened makes it more problematic to simply label it as a simple delusion.

Again, there are objective elements that exist such as: The wife being able to confirm her husband
awakening and telling her about the impending death. The diary describing the dream is
available for objective evidence, etc. Again, there is objective data to the person having the
dream, that is evidence to them that a phenomenon outside themselves is happening. For
example; An accurate; specific and correct prediction of a future even is not something that can
be generated inside the person's mind.

I can apply "delusion" to the exact same events in people as individuals who feel God tells them to change plans or who apply revelatory import to their dreams. However, it is the vast amount of other surround details to the event that make self-induced "delusion" less likely and an external source of communication more likely.

For example; When a single unusual event like I describe above happens. I can call it "blind luck" that one predicts a death, or unusual "coincidence" that letters cross. But, when such things happen over and over and over; and coincidence piles up upon coincident upon coincidence, at some point the constantly repeating pattern of similar correct revelations over many years containing things impossible for an individual to know, becomes indescribably impossible to remain in the realm of coincidence or blind luck.

No one continues to have a lifetime of “blind luck” describing deaths or other specific events
beyond their ability to know (such as the future) . The brother has normal dreams like everyone
else, and every once in a while, has a "dream-vision" that he feels is communication, and, it is
consistently correct in how it coordinates with actual events.

Does this make more sense as I describe it in this way?

How can one consistently maintain that such experiences (and their attending objective characteristics) that happen over a period of many years, are simple delusions (that are simply within the person's psyche) rather than something that is outside of the persons ability to produce? Telling the future, or involvement of other people is different than a simple delusion.

The brother is not deluding that he is a prophet. Instead, he feels that he is a regular person who puts his pants on like everyone else. He realizes he has no authority to tell others what they should do based on these experiences and, in fact, rarely shares them. The revelations simply give HIM information that applies to HIS life.

It is rational and logical that I cannot use a simple model of “hallucination” alone as a way to
understand what is happening. I hope that it makes sense that, over a lifetime of repeated experiences, the revelations themselves carry with them, objective and reasonable and logical evidence that the experience is not simply a delusion or a hallucination. (though not all revelations will have this evidence and some may be delusions...)

Even when revelations DO carry objective evidence, still the individual experience itself cannot be shared firsthand, but can only be described secondhand. Good luck in coming to your own models of beliefs in this life's journey.


Clear
δρφυνεω