Belief in God is Properly Basic.

[Immanuel Can]

Is this the sort of historical fact I lack the integrity to appreciate?

I was responding to your assertion, actually, agreeing with you. I made no assertion of my own on the point of your integrity.

what are the key references?

I'm recommending Vishal Mangalwadi's book, The Book That Made Your World. You will find therein a systematic and winsome treatment of the relationship between things like the progress of politics, science and technology and their relation to specific postulates generally agreed upon by Christians. You will find it a rewarding read, I promise you.

And referring to Manglawadi's expertise gives us both an important advantage; that no one can any longer attribute partisanship to anyone else. One can simply consider the relevant data and the merits of Dr. Mangalwadi's argument, rather than becoming unnecessarily personal about the issue. That's a significant asset.

You'll enjoy it, I promise.

[SpheresOfBalance]

http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.co.uk ... basic.html

Summary: Most people would say that evidence for a view is a pretty critical part of any justification for it. Alvin Plantinga would disagree when it comes to belief in God, and would say that it's perfectly acceptable to believe in God with potentially no evidence. Why? According to his argument to properly basic theistic belief, if God created our cognitive faculties with (partly) the specific purpose of believing in the spiritual realm - if that was completely true, and we could all know that - then belief in God would be completely justified. He then says that the chance of this God existing is the chance belief in God is totally justified, and that this chance survives Occam's razor as long as there are no really good arguments against this kind of God. Therefore, belief in God is probably reasonable, commensurate with this chance.

Discuss?

Most religions that I am familiar with, are based on the faith that certain things are true, without proof. Flailing against a belief that lacks proof, but is based on faith, is a particularly silly argument, and yet this is the mainstay of most atheist's arguments against the existence of God.

In what way? I'm not sure you can be right. Unless god is proved in some way, any argument against it is not faith based but a refutation on the claim itself. If all you have is faith in an argument, then there is no counter argument required in any sense.
a claim about an existence requires an argument. A claim that such an argument is false only requires to counter that argument.

Atheism is not about faith because it does not involve a belief; it is literally based on nothing.

The only thing I've ever come up with, is the odds, or probabilities argument for a creator. Not that I'm a betting man. It was all because of a book I'd read titled, "God Is." It was written by a biologist that had been working with recombinant DNA. His argument was the odds of all the things that had to come together in one place for life to exist. Distance from star, type of star, atmosphere, magnetosphere, water, oxygen, moon, ionosphere, elements present, iron core, etc, etc, etc. He also stated that an amino acid can't exist without a protein and vise versa. Considering all that he had to say, made it seem possible. To some, I'm sure, probable. One could even say that for the physics of this universe to allow for such a complex thing, such as life, to exist as it does, seems to point to it being a mindful creation, much like our mindful creations. Relative to our creations, we seem to be gods, no?

[uwot]

I'm recommending Vishal Mangalwadi's book, The Book That Made Your World...You'll enjoy it, I promise.

I'll give it a go. Not sure when, things are a bit hectic right now. (And it's only going to get worse.)

[Wyman]

I tell you that merely as a preliminary to saying the same thing about Christianity. You can *think* you know what Christians believe, but if the version you're telling yourself is so simple that a child could dismiss it, then you have to be suspicious. After all, it's a belief system with at least 2,000 years...and I would argue longer...behind it, during which time it has given thought-fodder to countless men and women of high intellectual calibre, spawned works of art and of technology, produced advances in science, and generally occupied philosophers ever since it first appeared. If the version you're imagining looks too simple to do any of that...perhaps it is.

- I. Cant

Best quote I've read on this site yet. It goes for understanding any way of thinking. I'm not religious, but I have never found atheists particularly intelligent, on average, although I have frequently found them intellectually arrogant. When I want to read anti-Christian polemics, I read Nietzsche, because he is best I've read. However, hearing the millionth diatribe on how all injustices of the past several thousand years stems from religion and how stupid and wrong theists are, gets, to put it mildly, old. Atheistic diatribes too often suffer from extreme unoriginality, which, coupled with arrogance, is among the greatest sins in my book.

[thedoc]

The only thing I've ever come up with, is the odds, or probabilities argument for a creator. Not that I'm a betting man. It was all because of a book I'd read titled, "God Is." It was written by a biologist that had been working with recombinant DNA. His argument was the odds of all the things that had to come together in one place for life to exist. Distance from star, type of star, atmosphere, magnetosphere, water, oxygen, moon, ionosphere, elements present, iron core, etc, etc, etc. He also stated that an amino acid can't exist without a protein and vise versa. Considering all that he had to say, made it seem possible. To some, I'm sure, probable. One could even say that for the physics of this universe to allow for such a complex thing, such as life, to exist as it does, seems to point to it being a mindful creation, much like our mindful creations. Relative to our creations, we seem to be gods, no?

While this is true, that the odds of all the details coming together to make life possible, are exceedingly high, it is also true that there is a very large number of planets in the Universe and the odds are very favorable that somewhere a planet would meet all those requirements. If the earth hadn't been quite right, or this Universe quite right, just give it time and somewhere and somewhen it would happen. This very discussion could have happened, or could happen again, somewhere else in this Universe. To get all provincial thinking that the Earth is so special, is really just a bit silly.

[uwot]

I tell you that merely as a preliminary to saying the same thing about Christianity. You can *think* you know what Christians believe, but if the version you're telling yourself is so simple that a child could dismiss it, then you have to be suspicious. After all, it's a belief system with at least 2,000 years...and I would argue longer...behind it, during which time it has given thought-fodder to countless men and women of high intellectual calibre, spawned works of art and of technology, produced advances in science, and generally occupied philosophers ever since it first appeared. If the version you're imagining looks too simple to do any of that...perhaps it is.

- I. Cant

Best quote I've read on this site yet. It goes for understanding any way of thinking.

Really? If Christians have no distinguishing beliefs, what makes them Christians?

[Immanuel Can]

I'll give it a go. Not sure when, things are a bit hectic right now. (And it's only going to get worse.)

Fair enough. There's no hurry. And I do think you will find it a worthwhile read. We can talk later.

[Ginkgo]

I'm recommending Vishal Mangalwadi's book, The Book That Made Your World. You will find therein a systematic and winsome treatment of the relationship between things like the progress of politics, science and technology and their relation to specific postulates generally agreed upon by Christians. You will find it a rewarding read, I promise you.

And referring to Manglawadi's expertise gives us both an important advantage; that no one can any longer attribute partisanship to anyone else. One can simply consider the relevant data and the merits of Dr. Mangalwadi's argument, rather than becoming unnecessarily personal about the issue. That's a significant asset.

You'll enjoy it, I promise.

You don't think there is a bit of cognitive bias operating within the title?

Shouldn't it read:

"The Book that Helped Make Your World"

After all, the "soul" of Western civilization is only one side of the coin.

[Immanuel Can]

Ginkgo:

With all due deference to the axioms about books, covers and judgments, you may feel welcome to begin your skeptical exercise from the first page to the last, covers included.

We have our first criticism: the title could be hyperbolical.

But on we go...