Is the problem really theism? Or is it theists?

[ReliStuPhD]

With the full acknowledgment that there is a chicken-egg element to this post, I've been wondering of late if atheists truly have a problem with theism, or if it's with theists, and they then extrapolate to theism. I ask this because, as a theist (possibly deist), I am similarly annoyed to no end by the the weak "defenses" offered by a vast majority theists (e.g. Pascal's Wager), but when I consider a philosophically-robust argument for theism (e.g. the Moral or Cosmological Arguments), it's the difference between night and day. I also see this difference at play in the arguments I see atheists advance. They routinely engage the weak arguments for theism while apparently ignorant of strong arguments (or, if aware of them, do not appear to be able to articulate the argument correctly). This suggests to me that they're not arguing against theism, but ill-informed theists; that they're perhaps committing a form of the Fallacy Fallacy.

So, at the risk of starting a thread that will quickly degenerate into ad hominems and other sorts of fallacies, is the problem really robust arguments for the rationality of theism?* Or is it the weak, superficial arguments that seem to so commonly escape the lips of the theist, and that theism itself might not prove objectionable were it not for the fact that so many theists can't defend it well (but try to anyway)?

*If this, why do atheists so routinely ignore/misrepresent these robust arguments in their attempts to undermine theism?


PS Feel free to pose the question differently if the above formulation has stacked the deck. Just be sure to preserve the "it's the person, not the belief" form (even if it's only to answer in the negative).

EDIT: To be clear, I am not maintaining that all atheists have a problem with theists first.

[WanderingLands]

Or is it really the self? It could be that the suppression of curiosity is another factor in not entertaining any thought of God seriously, just as any other question.

[ReliStuPhD]

Or is it really the self? It could be that the suppression of curiosity is another factor in not entertaining any thought of God seriously, just as any other question.

You're saying that the "average atheist" (for lack of a better word) just isn't curious, so defaults to atheism out of a sort of intellectual laziness? That is, robust arguments for theism just take too much intellectual work to refute? (Please correct me if I've misunderstood your point)

[WanderingLands]

You're saying that the "average atheist" (for lack of a better word) just isn't curious, so defaults to atheism out of a sort of intellectual laziness? That is, robust arguments for theism just take too much intellectual work to refute? (Please correct me if I've misunderstood your point)

I believe you actually did misunderstand. I'm merely talking about questioning beliefs and thinking critically about them; not simply picking up paradigms that *strike* people, and then attach themselves to it dogmatically. I will say that this is intellectual 'laziness' on the point that I made, but on the idea that arguments for theism would be hard to refute (if you could step out to find flaws in them).

[ReliStuPhD]

I believe you actually did misunderstand. I'm merely talking about questioning beliefs and thinking critically about them; not simply picking up paradigms that *strike* people, and then attach themselves to it dogmatically. I will say that this is intellectual 'laziness' on the point that I made, but on the idea that arguments for theism would be hard to refute (if you could step out to find flaws in them).

Thanks for the clarification.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm merely talking about questioning beliefs and thinking critically about them; not simply picking up paradigms that *strike* people, and then attach themselves to it dogmatically.

I have talked with a lot of people about philosophy and religion...in fact, it's part of my job. I can honestly say I've encountered no group so prone to knee-jerk dogmatic belief as nominal, unthinking Atheists. They are abundant and often blissfully unaware of any evidence to the contrary at all. Thinking Atheists are often much more cautious, circumspect, deliberate, patient, undogmatic...and much more rare.

Honestly, I probably meet at least thirty self-declared Atheists of the unthinking variety for ever one Atheist I meet who has done any measure at all of thinking through the relevant issues. Most of them have no knowledge of religion, no experience with any religion, have read only fragments or nothing at all from a religious text, and have participated in no religious services, rituals or practices beyond a ceremonial visit to some place once a year or so. And yet these invariably profess the most strident, confident and dogmatic sorts of views about religion, and the most absolute trust in the air-tightness of Atheism -- usually expressed as "science has proved X or Y is a myth, and I'm scientific, so I don't believe X or Y."

They're like people who show up at a book club to discuss whether or not Anna Karenina is a great Russian novel, even though they haven't read a single page of it -- or of any other Russian novel, for that matter.

What I'm saying is no slam on any genuinely thinking Atheists, though I still think they're wrong; but it sure does eloquently testify that religious people are not the only ones prone to the phenomenon of which you speak...not by a long shot.

[Dalek Prime]

Immanuel, what a ridiculous notion that someone has to read and be involved in religion before they may reject the premise. By your standards, one would have to have read and practiced every religion before finally being allowed to come to an alternative decision on the whole subject.

[Dalek Prime]

And then, by your own admission, you'd reject their conclusion as wrong, anyways. So, you are the definition of the thing you despise; the unthinking (a)theist.

[Dalek Prime]

One does not have to read any religious text to argue its inspiration was other than divinely inspired, thus negating its authority from the get-go, and placing it amongst all the other great works of fiction.

And before you reply, read my intro; I am not an atheist.

[thedoc]

Immanuel, what a ridiculous notion that someone has to read and be involved in religion before they may reject the premise. By your standards, one would have to have read and practiced every religion before finally being allowed to come to an alternative decision on the whole subject.

Not really, I have studied several religions before coming back to the Lutheran church, not because this particular church got it right, but because I saw the similarities, and decided that this was the most familiar and comfortable. I don't claim to have studied or practiced all religions, but I have considered several including Atheism and agnosticism. Sometimes you don't need to study a religion very long to discover that it just doesn't suit you. The religion you end up practicing, or not practicing, should coincide with your beliefs to some degree.

[thedoc]

One does not have to read any religious text to argue its inspiration was other than divinely inspired, thus negating its authority from the get-go, and placing it amongst all the other great works of fiction.

And before you reply, read my intro; I am not an atheist.

Agreed, Jesus taught in Parables, made up stories to teach a lesson. The Old Testament is almost entirely Mythology, fictional stories to teach a lesson. None of this proves that God does not exist, what it does prove is that men screwed up trying to write down what God was trying to teach them. I once heard the author reading from a section of "The Satanic Verses", it was a real eye opener, I should get a copy and read it. The Bible stories may have been divinely inspired but it was screwed up men who eventually wrote it down, and their errors are painfully obvious. As far as the New Testament, the 4 gospels were written by 4 different authors with 4 different audiences in mind, so of course the content and focus was different in each.

[ReliStuPhD]

Immanuel, what a ridiculous notion that someone has to read and be involved in religion before they may reject the premise.

But this wasn't what he said, was it?

"...no knowledge of religion, no experience with any religion, have read only fragments or nothing at all from a religious text, and have participated in no religious services, rituals or practices beyond a ceremonial visit to some place once a year or so."

That's a far cry from how you've summarized it. I think we can all agree that rejecting an idea without having decent knowledge of the idea is what's ridiculous.

[Dalek Prime]

Well Doc, I don't believe God was trying to teach man anything, because I reject the divine inspiration of all religious texts. It's man that messed up, believing he was divinely inspired in the writing, and then putting it down on paper. The texts obviously exist, there's no denying that. What is deniable is the assignation of authority.

[thedoc]

Immanuel, what a ridiculous notion that someone has to read and be involved in religion before they may reject the premise.

But this wasn't what he said, was it?

"...no knowledge of religion, no experience with any religion, have read only fragments or nothing at all from a religious text, and have participated in no religious services, rituals or practices beyond a ceremonial visit to some place once a year or so."

That's a far cry from how you've summarized it. I think we can all agree that rejecting an idea without having decent knowledge of the idea is what's ridiculous.

I had to go back and find the original post because your post wasn't quite as clear as it could be. Just who didn't have knowledge, experience, read or participated?

[Dalek Prime]

Rell, I'm not about to study parapsychology before I dismiss the idea that my outhouse is infested with ghosts, and not raccoons. So, no, some things really are that obvious.