Disproving theism

[Acumen]

Does the reality of suffering disprove theism?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Does the reality of suffering disprove theism?

Nothing disproves theism. 

An overwhelming lack of evidence, coupled with a different understanding that I feel explains the situation better leads me to the conclusion that theism (especially Christianity) is wrong. 

all

[jacknky]

We can't "prove" or "disprove" theism. Belief in gods is just that, belief, which doesn't have to abide by the normal rules of reason and science. Personally, I think each of us is genetically programmed to believe or disbelieve in supernatural beings. I know I tried as hard as I could to believe when I was growing up and I just couldn't do it.

[Thorolf]

Does the reality of suffering disprove theism?

Nothing disproves theism. 

An overwhelming lack of evidence, coupled with a different understanding that I feel explains the situation better leads me to the conclusion that theism (especially Christianity) is wrong. 

all

 A lack of evidence, even if true (it's about as true as the utter lack of evidence at the OJ trial), is hardly sufficient cause to reach and maintain a conclusion. At best, the honest analyst would have to claim agnosticism when the only empirical data is the absence of said data.

Incidentally, I think I know of quite a few people who can testify to more than sufficient evidence that theism has merit - and to single out Christianity is simply dishonest. This smacks more of anti-Christian opinion with questionable motivation than a well-considered rejection of theism itself.

[jacknky]

"At best, the honest analyst would have to claim agnosticism when the only empirical data is the absence of said data."

Good point. On the other hand it is the theists who are making the claims so whether we call the opposite position atheist or agnostic it should really be up to the theists to make their case. I think I've read it's a scientific maxim that the larger the claim the larger the "proof" required. If there really is an anthropomorphic super-Being out there he/she or it is keeping pretty hidden.

"Incidentally, I think I know of quite a few people who can testify to more than sufficient evidence that theism has merit - and to single out Christianity is simply dishonest. This smacks more of anti-Christian opinion with questionable motivation than a well-considered rejection of theism itself."

I'm new to the discussion but I imagine the "singling" out of Christianity has more to do with that being the predominant theistic religion in the US. Certainly the same shortcomings are available to any theistic religion. They require faith in the absence of "proof".

As for the "merit" of theism it seems to me that is the fact that, to the extent we can truly believe we'll live forever, we can live this life as though we'll live forever. Doesn't really matter if it's true.

[Acumen]

Jack,

First, welcome to the forum.

We can't "prove" or "disprove" theism. Belief in gods is just that, belief, which doesn't have to abide by the normal rules of reason and science. Personally, I think each of us is genetically programmed to believe or disbelieve in supernatural beings. I know I tried as hard as I could to believe when I was growing up and I just couldn't do it.

I agree and disagree.  You're right that theism doesn't abide by rules of science.  The religious experience is not restricted to materialism and naturalism.  However, I believe that theism indeed abides by the rules of reason quite well.  Genetic disposition aside, many great minds have put forth impressive arguments for theism in the various forms of the cosmological and teleological arguments. 

[jacknky]

"Genetic disposition aside, many great minds have put forth impressive arguments for theism in the various forms of the cosmological and teleological arguments."

Perhaps these arguments for theism are only impressive if one has a "genetic disposition" to believe. Since I lack the belief genes I find the arguments less impressive, usually about as persuasive as medieval arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Acumen]

Jack,

Perhaps these arguments for theism are only impressive if one has a "genetic disposition" to believe. Since I lack the belief genes I find the arguments less impressive, usually about as persuasive as medieval arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I have a philosophy background, it was my college major.  And I've heard plenty of atheistic professors who spoke of the arguments of Aquinas and other theistic philosophers as impressive, brilliant, or clever.  Of course, when it was all said and done, they disagreed with their conclusions.  I Don't think characterizing (and I'm not saying you are) all theistic arguments as the production works of superstition is fair.  I think we need to acknowledge that the theistic mind plays by the same rules of logic as the agnostic or atheistic mind.

[jacknky]

"I've heard plenty of atheistic professors who spoke of the arguments of Aquinas and other theistic philosophers as impressive, brilliant, or clever. 

I would agree. Theistic justifications can be very clever, as clever and impressive as the human mind can conceive. It appears to me though, that their mental gymnastics have little relationship to reality as expressed in the natural world.

"I Don't think characterizing (and I'm not saying you are) all theistic arguments as the production works of superstition is fair."

I never used the word "superstition" but since you did I'd be interested in your explanation of the difference between "superstition" and "religion". To be honest, I'm not sure of the difference.

"I think we need to acknowledge that the theistic mind plays by the same rules of logic as the agnostic or atheistic mind."

Not to get too semantic here but, IMHO, logic is mostly about the assumptions the logic is based on. I'd contend that theistic and non-theistic logic is totally different because the assumptions upon which they are based are different. It seems to be that logic based on a supernatural world is way different from logic based on the natural world.

That being said, of course theists are capable of using logic based on the natural world. It appears that they sometimes choose to set that aside when it comes to religious belief.

I'm enjoying our discussions. Thanks!

[Acumen]

Jack,

I never used the word "superstition" but since you did I'd be interested in your explanation of the difference between "superstition" and "religion". To be honest, I'm not sure of the difference.

By superstition, I mean just another form of irrational belief.  I've seen superstitious beliefs in medicine, so it need not only apply to religion (not saying you thought this).  By religious, I mean those beliefs grounded in experiences with the divine.  And as such, they are not necessarily superstitious; they are grounded in private experiences that are not duplicative.  Since they cannot be duplicated, the reproductive empirical evidence is lacking, but not non-existent.  These experiences are not irrational.   

Not to get too semantic here but, IMHO, logic is mostly about the assumptions the logic is based on. I'd contend that theistic and non-theistic logic is totally different because the assumptions upon which they are based are different. It seems to be that logic based on a supernatural world is way different from logic based on the natural world.

You and I have a different understanding of logic.  I've always understood logic as the rules of rational thought.  They are objective rules, some of which were discovered by Aristotle, that work irrespective of assumptions.  My logic professor once told me that logic was like a refrigerator; it may function the way it was designed, but if you put rotten meat in it, it won't make the meat fresh.  The rotten meat was meant to signify the information we plug into syllogisms upon which the forces of logic operate.  If the information is incomplete or false (rotten), even the appropriate logic cannot bring it to a true conclusion.  In my opinion, if religious conclusions are wrong, they aren't wrong because they use a different sort of logic (dysfunctional fridge), but rather they plug in the wrong sort of information (rotten meat), probably based upon the wrong sort of assumptions.

I'm enjoying our discussions. Thanks!

Hehe, it always starts that way.    

Right now, I'm trying to get a few others from Bnet to join in on the conversation.  I see they joined the forum, but no involvement yet.

[jacknky]

"By superstition, I mean just another form of irrational belief.  I've seen superstitious beliefs in medicine, so it need not only apply to religion (not saying you thought this).  By religious, I mean those beliefs grounded in experiences with the divine.  And as such, they are not necessarily superstitious; they are grounded in private experiences that are not duplicative.  Since they cannot be duplicated, the reproductive empirical evidence is lacking, but not non-existent.  These experiences are not irrational."

I looked up "superstition". Here's what the dictionary said:

 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 
2. a system or collection of such beliefs. 
3. a custom or act based on such a belief. 
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion. 
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion. 

It appears to me that, based on that definition, all religious belief is superstition and irrational. My guess is that theists use the word "superstition" to describe religions other than theirs. What do you think?

"You and I have a different understanding of logic.  I've always understood logic as the rules of rational thought.  They are objective rules, some of which were discovered by Aristotle, that work irrespective of assumptions."

I agree that logic is the objective rules of rational thought. What is objective or logical about belief in a Supernatural Being that exists outside the natural laws or that this Being sent his Son to redeem us? I thought the whole "mystery" of religions is that it is totally subjective. As far as I can see, the "logic" of religion is that it feels good to believe we're going to live forever or that we have some kind of control over our lives. The logic seems to be: "If it feels good, do it.".

"In my opinion, if religious conclusions are wrong, they aren't wrong because they use a different sort of logic (dysfunctional fridge), but rather they plug in the wrong sort of information (rotten meat), probably based upon the wrong sort of assumptions."

I can buy that. It seems like you're making my case using different words.

The only difference to me is that the dysfunctional logic of religion IS a different logic than one that is based on verifiable, duplicable events. The logic of theistic religions pretends that truly unknowable aspects of existence are knowable and that's illogical in my book. The truly honest thing would be to admit we don't know what happens after we die but theistic religions can't do that because then the whole house of cards falls down.

[Acumen]

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

It appears to me that, based on that definition, all religious belief is superstition and irrational. My guess is that theists use the word "superstition" to describe religions other than theirs. What do you think?

You're failing to take into consideration that religious belief can be both logical and evidence-based.

I agree that logic is the objective rules of rational thought. What is objective or logical about belief in a Supernatural Being that exists outside the natural laws or that this Being sent his Son to redeem us?

It's quite logical once the appropriate assumptions are put in place.  The existence of a supernatural being explains "why" we are here and "how" we began to be here.  Once this assumption is secured, then we can move on to a description of human nature that is murky, human conduct that is sinful, and therefore a logical need to be vindicated of our sin by someone who is sinless.  It actually makes a whole lot of sense.  We've come a long way from the world resting on the back of a turtle.

I thought the whole "mystery" of religions is that it is totally subjective. As far as I can see, the "logic" of religion is that it feels good to believe we're going to live forever or that we have some kind of control over our lives. The logic seems to be: "If it feels good, do it.".

There are certainly parts of religion that are subjective, but it's not appropriate to describe religion as an entirely subjective system.

I can buy that. It seems like you're making my case using different words.

Gee, I hope not, I'm a theist.  :-)

The only difference to me is that the dysfunctional logic of religion IS a different logic than one that is based on verifiable, duplicable events. The logic of theistic religions pretends that truly unknowable aspects of existence are knowable and that's illogical in my book. The truly honest thing would be to admit we don't know what happens after we die but theistic religions can't do that because then the whole house of cards falls down.

Well, we don't know what happens after death.  Such knowledge can only be determined by observation, unless it could be induced by logical premises.  However, we are certainly capable of believing something without knowing it's true without it rendering the belief irrational. 

[jacknky]

"You're failing to take into consideration that religious belief can be both logical and evidence-based."

That's because I see no evidence of religious belief that is logical and evidence based. As far as I can tell theistic religious belief and logic are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean.

"It's quite logical once the appropriate assumptions are put in place."

I agree theistic theology can make intellectual sense if you can accept the assumptions. Is that what you mean by "logical"? Somewhere in your previous posts you defined "logic" as objective and reproducible. Can you give me an example of how belief in your supernatural being is objective, not subjective?

What I hear from your statement above is we really don't know answers to "why" or "how" questions so we make up supernatural explanations. I can cite you reasons for that supernatural belief which can be more or less objectively verified, most having to do with the way the brain and societies work as well as the human need for certainty in an uncertain Universe. None of these objective reasons for supernatural belief reach the assumption that the supernatural Beings actually exist.

"There are certainly parts of religion that are subjective, but it's not appropriate to describe religion as an entirely subjective system."

Well, why not?


"Quote
I can buy that. It seems like you're making my case using different words.

Gee, I hope not, I'm a theist.  :-)"

Perhaps that's why you can't see that you made my point there for a brief shining moment. :-)
(my FIRST smiley face. Thanks for showing me how.)

"However, we are certainly capable of believing something without knowing it's true without it rendering the belief irrational."

Yes, we all are capable of believing something without knowing it's true. I certainly am very capable. But I try not to fool myself that my irrational belief is rational. BTW, I looked up "irrational":

1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. 
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments. 
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason. 

Now I suppose you could say #2 could apply to religious belief. I would contend that religious belief itself (belief in the existence of a supernatural being in a natural world) is irrational but that adherents are perfectly capable of using their "normal mental clarity or sound judgement" within their religious beliefs. After all, theists have to operate in the natural world so they need to more or less use objective reasoning to survive. Those who, for example, might take "God will provide" to its logical conclusion will probably starve. But some theists are VERY rational, probably more than me. I'll bet you're one of them and that's why you react when I say religious belief itself is irrational.

 
 
 
 

[SquirleyWurley]

Hey, nice to see familiar faces here!

You know, lots of good discussion, here.  I can relate to a lot of what people are saying, actually, at least to some degree.

Sure we all use logic and look at evidence to some degree or other, with differing degrees of errors/distortions/confusions -- we all have brains, that's what they do.  Our brains are also very imaginative, I think that's really a crucial thing to consider -- we naturally dream and day-dream and make up 'just-so' stories about things we don't really understand.

Tell stories around a campfire one night around one group of people, you're likely to be telling a tall tale to scare people just for laughs and people pretty much guess that's the case.  On another night, another group of people, maybe you've had some weird dream or vision.  And some people take the usefulness/meaningfulness/functionality of such storytelling in directions that are more or less helfpul/useful/accurate descriptions of reality.

Today, I don't think the theistic arguments are compelling.  Once I did.  Today all the religious stories don't float my boat or any particular roll in my life.  Once they did.  But I do get enchanted by all sorts of stories, all the time.  I get inspired all the time by music and art.  I don't see any reason to take stories as 'religious truth' and I don't see them as truth about reality except in the sense that sometimes fiction will depict situations and work with themes that might help us to understand or discuss important things.

In my experience, and what I've observed with others, religious belief seems to involve ignoring the fact that we don't have enough evidence to say certain stories are true for sure, ignoring inconsistencies and rational objections and illogical things, and building a story into our life regardless of such objections.  The problem is when we shut out reality to the point that we harm others, don't listen well to others, treat others unfairly, can't see a natural solution to a pressing problem, etc.

[Acumen]

Hey, nice to see familiar faces here!

Yep, this is a quaint alternative where bnet posters can relax with the comforts of knowing there are no "drive-by posters" telling us we're going to hell, or vicious ad hominem attacks.

Anyway, after Bnet had it's melt down the other day, a bunch of bnet members crossed over to check this place out, mostly to feed their addictions.  I think it's generally a good idea not to put all your eggs into one basket anyway.  I was a bnet member since it began, and I got burnt out a few times over there.

Allthegoodnamesweretaken hasn't posted here in a while, perhaps you could get his butt back in here.  :-)  I think he felt he was the only non-Christians in these parts, but it looks like that has changed a little.

[VLinvictus]

Logic and reason can, depending on how one chooses to interpret evidence, lead one to conclude the existence of sort of mechanical impersonal Aristotelean god or perhaps a Deistic god or a god as the "gound of being" or "principle of existence."

Acknowledging such a god is not really "belief" or "faith." It is accepting a particular theory to explain observable phenomena.

The trouble, though, is the jump from such gods of reason to the personal revelatory gods as espoused by traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

All of these religions are predicated essentially on faith that a given set of events of divine intervention actually took place and that the record preserved describing these events -- the Torah, the Gospels, and the Qur'an respectively -- are reliable and trustworthy.

To hold one of these faith positions in their traditional forumulations, one must decide to believe -- absent of any objective evidence -- that YHWH did speak from Mount Sinai, that Jesus really was God Incarnate, and that Muhammad really did receive revelations from the angel Gabriel. The only testimony we have to these events is the Torah, the Gospels, and the Qur'an respectively -- together with the traditions of the community of believers that surround these texts. There is nothing objective about the texts themselves that make them any more or less believeable or reliable in themselves. It is a personal, subjective choice whether one chooses to find one text more convincing than another.

If one chooses to place one's primary faith in the Torah, one will see the Gospels and the Qur'an as complete incongruent and contradictory. If one chooses to put one's faith in the Gospels, then one can claim that the Torah prefigures the Gospels but is incomplete without them while the Qur'an is totally fictious. If one chooses to believe the Qur'an, then one sees the Torah and the Gospels as containing truth but being corrupted, inaccurate, and incomplete. There is no way to determine, logically, rationally, and empiracally, which of these texts -- if any -- is true.

So, theistic revelatory religion is predicated on a non-rational, subjective leap of faith. Deism or pantheism or panentheism or other impersonal non-revelatory conceptions of divinity can be adopted as a theories to explain observable phenonema, but whether these theories are valid or not is open for debate.

Atheism is the adoption of the theory that no sort of god exists as the best overarching system to explain observable phenomena and, like the theories that postulate the existence of a god it is likewise open to debate.

[VLinvictus]

Nice post but you lost me here.  "Non rational?"  Why is it such a common mistake by intelligent people now a days to believe (wrongly) that rational thought and logic are limited by the physical sciences?  Philosophy and theology are the pillars and foundation of reason and logic not to mention the parents of physical science, now the child has become an adult and wants a divorce from his parents.

Perhaps I used the term "rational" sloppily. A better distinction would be a prior vs. a posteriori. I was using "rational" for a posteriori. A posteriori conclusions are reached by rationally and logically combining observations and perceptions of phenomena and previous conclusions. A priori tenets must be accepted as true in themselves.

I did not intend "non-rational" to imply the pejorative "irrational." It merely means that the belief or conclusion is not the a posteriori result or conclusion of a process of induction or deduction from previous conclusions or assumptions.

There is no objective reason in themselves why one should accept the Torah, the Gospels, or the Qur'an as true. Apologist arguments can be made, but these are generally "preaching to the choir." It requires an acceptance of the text and the revelation it testified to as true in itself. It requires an act of faith.

I don't see how the acceptance of the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam can be considered "subjective" when it has impacted the majority of civilization over the past 1700 years.  How subjective can that be?

Did the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam impact the majority of civilization, or the believers in said God or gods? Enough individuals have accepted belief in these religious traditions for whatever reason -- family tradition, aesthetics, spiritual fulfillment, what-have-you -- and then their beliefs informed their actions. The actions they have performed are objective. The fact that they believe what they believe is objective. The truth of their beliefs, however, is subjective. In this regard, these religious beliefs are no different from any other religious, philosophical, or political ideology in history.

There is something to be said about practicality and making sense out of existence in everyday life, and this is what "revelatory" religion accomplishes for the most part for most people.

Non-revelatory religions (such as Buddhism, Daoism, etc.) provide the same for their adherents. Likewise, so do non-religious philosophies. The efficacy of a philosophy in meeting the needs of its adherents is not evidence of the absolute truth of that philosophy.

I for one am a believer for multiple reasons.  1. Because it makes more sense to believe in the philosophy of Catholic Christianity in my own life and 2. it also makes sense to believe that it is the foundation for all mankind.

That is wonderful. Yet, there are many people who disagree on equally sound rational and logical grounds. You are the supreme expert on your own life, and so you are fully empowered to say that Catholic Christianity (as opposed to Orthodox, Anglican, or Protestant Christianity or Judaism or Islam etc.) is the most "sensible" to you. That is a subjective decision. It is also a standard human practice to universalize our own experience: if someone is right for me, then it must therefore be right for everyone else. That is likewise a subjective assesment.

Can I make rational and logical arguments to support my belief?  You bet your a** I can. Can I make everyone UNDERSTAND this rational and logic?  Well, that question can answer itself.

Arguments are fine and they can be fully logical and rational. But the key to any argument is the premises on which it is based, the assumptions that one makes before applying logical principles. If the assumptions are subjective, then while others may follow your reasoning they cannot be expected to accept your conclusions. This is why assumptions based on observable objective evidence are preferred because then everyone has access to the same premises.

Now, if you have such evidentiary premises upon which to base arguments that 1.) the Christian Scriptures are not only reliable and true but uniquely so and 2.) the Catholic tradition of interpreting these scriptures is not only correct but uniquely so, I'd love to read them!

[Acumen]

I did not intend "non-rational" to imply the pejorative "irrational." It merely means that the belief or conclusion is not the a posteriori result or conclusion of a process of induction or deduction from previous conclusions or assumptions.

There is no objective reason in themselves why one should accept the Torah, the Gospels, or the Qur'an as true. Apologist arguments can be made, but these are generally "preaching to the choir." It requires an acceptance of the text and the revelation it testified to as true in itself. It requires an act of faith.

Right, but despite the fact there is an obvious rational component to the texts, there are also private supernatural experiences among respective members regarding the text and various services in a synagogue or church.  Like in the NT, miracles still have a voice in the validation of one's beliefs -- as they should.

[VLinvictus]

There is no objective reason in themselves why one should accept the Torah, the Gospels, or the Qur'an as true. Apologist arguments can be made, but these are generally "preaching to the choir." It requires an acceptance of the text and the revelation it testified to as true in itself. It requires an act of faith.

Right, but despite the fact there is an obvious rational component to the texts, there are also private supernatural experiences among respective members regarding the text and various services in a synagogue or church.  Like in the NT, miracles still have a voice in the validation of one's beliefs -- as they should.

How does one convince another that one's private supernatural experience is valid? If I had a private supernatural experience and believed that God had revealed His will to me that everyone wear purple on Tuesdays, would you go along with it? On the one hand, it's absurd -- but is it any more absurd than God prohibitting the wearing of linen and wool together or mandating the application of fringes to one's garments? There is precedent -- and an omnipotent being can do pretty much whatever He wants.

If communities are to endure, there must be objective standards upon which everyone agrees and these standards alone must be the basis for decisions.

The Talmud contains a famous case of a dispute between a Rabbi Eliezer and his colleagues on a superficially trivial detail of Jewish law. The rules laid down in the Torah hold that the sages in each generation are empowered to make decisions and that one must follow the majority vote. Moreover, "the Torah is not in heaven" but in our hands to implement. The majority ruled against Rabbi Eliezer and refuted every legal argument he made. Finally, he resorted to miracles: if he was correct, he order a tree to uproot itself, for the walls of the building to bend inward, and for a voice from heaven to say so. All of these things occured, yet the majority vote was upheld because "The Torah is not in heaven." The legend has God smiling and saying "My children have defeated Me!"
Hmm.

[VLinvictus]

Does the reality of suffering disprove theism?

To get back to the original point (not that I'm not enjoying the other discussion!).

The so-called "problem of evil" does argue against a theistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Yet God need not be all or any of these things. The assumption that God is a personal being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving is not necessarily true. Moreover, our notions of what "all-powerful," "all-knowing," and "all-living" need not be correct or applicable to the Deity.

This ties into the point I've made above that logic and reason are all well and good, but the premises which one submits to reason and logical analysis have just as much to do with the validity of the conclusion. If the assumptions one makes to frame the argument are invalid, the rest of the argument will be, too.