Having at Efrique (2)

So here is the second part of Efrique's questions:

If you have some evidence, I'd like to know about it.

I think there is plenty of evidence if you are prepared to look. I've already mentioned some of the areas that I think theism makes more sense than atheism. I wouldn't claim any sort of proof, but I certainly think it is more reasonable to believe God exists than that he doesn't.

Do you have a stronger basis for it than liking to think so?

I don't think that wanting or liking was ever really a factor - more the difficulties that I had holding disbelief together. I constantly felt like the assumption of atheism painted me into a corner which would be more reasonably solved if I allowed for God - and that happening in a whole series of different areas. It was only later that I realized that it had any relevance to me personally.

I use those figures in the plot specifically because more countries are present in the Gallup data than for any other I have found.

Gallup is certainly a better source than Zuckermann (who seems distinctly dodgy to me - for example look at his Chinese numbers)...

I am guessing your parents aren't 60%-70% unbelievers.

No. My dad is an atheist, and my mother is Christian. 

I will note that we still have weekly religious classes in government primary school and the early years of secondary school.

I didn't have religious classes in primary school, and the early years of my high school were spent in an International School. I am actually disappointed that I didn't have these classes. I would have understood the literally thousands of references in our society a lot better.

 We now have chaplains in primary schools paid for by our taxes (yes, my taxes pay for a chaplain to proselytize to my children, any time they're vulnerable enough to need help. How this fits with sec. 116 of the Constitution is beyond my understanding). 

Chaplains are explicitly not allowed to proselytlize (point 9 of the code of conduct) and have to respect your wishes as a parent (point 2). I humbly suggest that attempting to isolate your children from people with beliefs different from your own is unrealistic. Most likely they will come into contact with lots of different beliefs, whether you like it or not.

I was a theist for quite a few years before I was an atheist, so quite possibly the same would have happened.

Tell me more. Any particular religion or denomination? Why did you stop?

I know numerous atheists of Indian origin, some I have met in person, a few via the Internet, so it seems like it's probably no harder, ceteris paribus to become skeptical of Hinduism than of Christianity, even if one is a believer in it originally.

Right. Christianity is growing in both Nepal and India too. And of course, if we want to compare with an atheist country, in China Christianity is exploding (to the point where there is a shortage of Bibles). So I'd say the attraction of Christianity is widespread as well.

Presumably you invited conversation because you have something further to say after the point at which conversation starts.

I've enjoyed it so far. I hope you have too!

To Jim

Jim commented on my earlier post "Ridicule is not a valid tool". I thought I'd take the time to reply as a post. This is that reply.

You couldn't find an answer to why there is something rather than nothing without a god? 

Right. I didn't find a good answer on atheism. Have you considered the same questions? What is your answer? What answer do you think was best?

I read many speculations about it. One claim in particular got me thinking - that whatever mathematically could exist actually does actually exist. If I were to accept that, it would mean believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, believing in literally everything, rather than God. It was after reading that that I started to wonder if skepticism about God had gone way too far. God's existence seemed far simpler, and straightforward than explanations offered on atheism.

Doesn't this raise even more difficult questions?

Yes, it leads to many more questions. What a God who can create the universe is like, for one! Answering one question almost always leads to more questions.

What [God] it composed of?

When you ask, what is God made out of, you seem to be assuming God is some type of physical object - insisting that he only be part of creation, rather than the creator of it. That's obviously quite a big assumption, which I don't share. Is that what you're asking, and if so how could any creator of the universe be composed of things which are part of the universe?

How did [God] come to exist?

Similarly, I'm not even convinced it is even logically consistent to ask for a God who is the creator of time who is not eternal. I don't understand God could have a beginning in time, which he himself created. Why assume God isn't eternal?

For me, it seems only logical to say that God is eternal, and that he is not made of material objects inside the universe. I cannot see how claiming the opposite makes sense at all. Of course there are people who believe that. There's long lists of literally thousands of pagan gods who do apparently have those properties. In contrast, what Christians, Jews and Muslims believe about God makes good sense to me.

Why did [God] create cruelty, dishonesty, and suffering?

I would say neither cruelty or dishonest are created "things", and that they are actions - our actions. We live in a world in which there is cruelty, dishonesty, and there is suffering. So, why is that? I think a straightforward answer is because we can be cruel, we can be dishonest - and that these things have effects which do cause suffering.

I'm no theologian, but I hope that any atheists stumbling through here enjoy reading the questions and responses so far. Feel free to ask any questions, especially from your own blog. I'm just an ordinary guy, but I'll do my best to respond. Get a conversion going with a real theist and stop talking the void of the faceless internet!

Ridicule is not a valid tool

Raging Rev suggests that the main reason for having a religion is fear. He asks of Christians:

Is [your belief] it the product of fear of hell? Disappointing god or your family? What drove you to believe what you believe and furthermore, do you think this is a good reason for you to hold on to belief?

I can only speak for myself. I was motivated because of a search for the truth. I was dissatisfied with the answers that my assumptions that atheism was continually pushing me to. It gradually became harder and harder to justify not seriously considering belief in God. Right across the board - from questions about the universe, why there's something rather than nothing, why the universe should be ordered the way it is, to the seemingly totally unrelated subject of identity and morality, where I found no good atheist answers. It seemed that belief in God provided far more substantive answers and made much more sense of the world.

For me, Christianity came after many, many sleepless nights of thought, reading, considering... I wasn't after religion or even God in particular, I was after the truth.

I think I share you dislike of trying to socially engineer beliefs (or disbelief). There is a much more commonly used tactic to socially condition people though. I humbly suggest that making fun of people, aggressiveness and rudeness are tools used to shortcut real consideration of the issues. It's hardly possible to stand there and calmly and carefully consider an issue if someone is launching into a tirade of aggressive and loud mouthed ridicule. The most likely response is to keep their mouth shut and their not mention their thoughts for fear of being laughed at or ridiculed.

Ridicule and overly aggressive rhetoric are not valid tools to use to persuade people. All they do is drive these real issues from people's minds - and socially condition them to avoid the topic. Unfortunately they are all too common, and I think both atheists and certainly Christians should not be using them.

Answering RickRussell's questions

I'm guessing RickRussell comes from Texas, and I'd link to his blog, if I knew which one it was. These are his questions and my answers:

When you do science, do you apply epistemological rules like falsifiability, reproducibility, parsimony, logical consistency and an assumption of natural causation?

Sure.

If the answer is yes, do you apply those same rules to spiritual claims? If not, what exempts spiritual claims from such requirements?

In general, I try to apply tools appropriate for the job. So, for example, reproducibility is not a particularly useful criteria for thinking about history, because Julius Caesar isn't going to invade England again today so we can watch him do it. Similarly, it would be wrong to demand "an assumption of natural causation" to questions like whether God exists, or how he acts, because would be blatant begging the question. So, even though I think scientific criteria are great in studying the natural world, I don't necessarily think that they are the best tools for all questions.

If I had to name some criteria for determining if something is a good worldview, I'd say (1) explanatory power, (2) internal coherence, (3) logical consistency, and (4) the degree to which that worldview makes correct predictions about what we will observe, and (5) fits with what we have already observed.

If we expect science to answer whether humans have any inherent value or not , we will both likely to be dead long before it provides an answer (even if it ever could). In the meantime we have to live. Just assuming that only what science has proved is the true, and rejecting everything else, could lead someone to even reject the value of human life. An attitude like that would lead us to reject many things which are in fact true, and potentially even lead to damaging actions.

Would you say that all your beliefs are purely scientific?