Free Will vs Determinism

[Immanuel Can]

True, but the key word here is "Developing World", where the backwardedness of supersition and magic still have a foothold....The "Secularization Hypothesis", as you call it has long ceased to be a hypothesis in Europe where Christianity became established even before the end of the Roman Empire.

"The Secularization Hypothesis" isn't about the ancient world but the modern one.

I’m aware of that.

Oh, good. So you know it's a modern phenomenon. There was no "Secularization Hypothesis" associated with the printing press (invented by a devout church man, by the way) or anything prior to the 18th Century. That was all a "read-back," a bending of former history that has, in the later part of the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries, been proved wrong.

Is it ever too late to accept Pascal's Wager? Would it be less hypocritical doing it sooner than later?

One doesn't "accept" Pascal's Wager, any more than one "accepts" gravity. If it's true, then it's true. If it's not, then it's not. The Wager is not an evangelistic tool, far less an offer of anything. As has been so often pointed out, it's just a hard-headed facing up to facts.

One either recognizes the rationality of the Wager, or one refuses to see it. That's all. The Wager itself stops at that point.

Of course that leaves one with the question, "What do I do now?" And there are answers for that too. But they're not inherent to the Wager itself.

Just because we have larger craniums doesn’t exempt us from what all other life is subject to. The main difference being we can make up band-aid stories of an afterlife and of god’s great concern for us humans while all other creatures just live the life they’re given.

That we can make up stories is indisputable, of course. But the more important question is, "Is this just one of our 'made up' stories, or is it the hard truth?"

Truth discovered independently...

But truth, in an Atheist world, is not virtue.

Truth is truth; whether in your favor or not it never gets “personal” or “customized to beliefs! It took us a long time in the West to accept that brutal fact though still not universally accepted.

"Truth is truth" is a tautology, not an answer. What makes truth "more right" in any sense than a pleasant and consoling lie? That's the question for the Atheist.

After all, if I'm going to die and then...oblivion forever...why should any form of life or choice of action be "more right" than any other? Why not embrace whatever makes me happiest, be it truth or delusion? What's the payoff for being right, if being right makes me miserable? Either way, I'm dead when I'm dead. I may as well believe anything I wish, do anything I can get away with, and get all that I can get. The Big Silence is coming, and death is a long, long time.

Death is not in the least frightening...

Either you're the bravest of men or the least reflective, then. Plenty of others have thought it's actually the greatest of all terrors.

I know you would like to think of atheists as damned and miserable, even if they don’t know it themselves being too far gone along the path of perdition, but it just ain’t so!

I would NOT like to think of that. If I did, what incentive would I have for saying a word about it? Would I not just let it happen, and gleefully rub my hands together while others go to the black pit?

Instead, I do my best to persuade as many people as I can to choose God. They aren't always nice and pleasant in return, as you can easily see from this site. But it's not my welfare I'm concerned about here, so I persist...not out of any goodness in my heart, I assure you; but out of gratitude to God for his graciousness to me, and out of the consequent concern for others. What I would like to see is nobody "damned and miserable."

What's your reason for being here?

Yet neither atheists or agnostics feel out of place in a universe with no god at its center.

Oh, maybe you don't: but I assure you, many of them do. The wisest among them have been tempted to Nihilism by that realization. Thomas Hardy was a passionate firm-agnostic, and spent his life lamenting the death of God.

This statement is weird! If Hardy was such a “passionate firm agnostic” why would he be lamenting the death of god?? Could Nietzsche have been more convincing than god by destroying poor Hardy's faith in Him?

Hardy had his own issues. But being an agnostic, not an Atheist, he struggled (as he put it) "betwixt the gleam and the gloom," between a hope of something better and a reluctance to believe in any such. He spent his life dangled between the pit and happiness, in a lot of ways. He could never bring himself to believe in God, but He also found he could not embrace disbelief with any degree of confidence.

Maybe the best poem for that is "God's Funeral." Have a look. You'll see it.

Pascal was an opportunist hedging his bets on the bible...
Faith becomes a human strategy in an either/or showdown of probabilities.

That's why, as I said, Pascal's Wager isn't per se an evangelistic item. It's just a decision-matrix, really, one with four possible quadrants assembled around two pairs of alternatives. The God-No God possibilities, and the Believe-Disbelieve alternatives. It's just calculation, not salvation.

But it's also rationally correct. And as such, it's a good starting point for deeper thought.

If belief becomes conditional with the intent of covering one's ass on a very low "just-in-case" possibility upon death then faith itself is merely a matter of expediency, an insurance policy.

It isn't. Faith has to be IN someone or something, and it can't simply be in rational self-interest or calculation. But the recognition of one's true best interests can be a first step to deciding to place faith in something better, just as a fire alarm can be the first incentive to leave a burning building. The alarm doesn't save one; alarms have never rescued a single person. Additional actions and choices are necessary for that.

Then why not simply call faith a methodology for calculating the odds.

Pascal is not "faith." Pascal's Wager is, as you say, "a methodology for calculating" the best interests of a person. But once you know what your best interests are, you have to decide to act.

This is why the ensuing objection:

But also as mentioned it forces belief based on a highly immoral motive; I don’t believe god would calculate the way Pascal has and which you so readily accept. It makes faith cheap. If knowing there was nothing in it relating to life or more purposely the after-life, God's existence would be of no concern to anyone and not even Pascal would have bothered to make his wager!

...is off point. Pascal's Wager isn't about faith. In fact, being a rational calculation that is logically verifiable, it requires no faith at all to see it. One does not need faith to see that 2+2=4.

But what it does is that it alerts one to the fact that one is not acting in one's own best interests, and invites one to look beyond. There it stops.

So finally we have your version of what faith is based on and relies upon; Pascal's Wager as a measure of pure rational practicality.

Again, it's same misunderstanding here.

And here I always thought that its absurdity is precisely what made faith believable knowing it to remain uncontaminated by any influx of rationality!

This is an old and common error among Atheists. They first assume, contrary to all the facts, that people who have "faith" must be doing something very devoid of rationality, and then dismiss them for being irrational. But the fault is in that presumption. Faith is not a gratuitous belief -- that's mere invention or imagination. Rather, faith is always IN something or someone. And because faith is always IN something or someone, there are always facts about that thing or person that are relevant to deciding the question of whether or not one is warranted in placing any faith in it/him/her.

The same is true of science, by the way. The scientists has to have faith that his methodology or test will yield for him the results he seeks. He also has to have faith in his own ability to understand and interpret the results. He has to have faith that when he has done enough trials (and there is no fixed number, of course) he will have done enough to warrant a conclusion. And he has to have faith in the scientific community that his results will be treated with respect.

Faith, then, is intrinsic to human knowing. The only question, then, is what are the suitable objects of faith. But everybody's going to have some.

But in what is your faith? In the words of other Atheists? In the pit of oblivion at the end of life itself? How do you get your faith that death ends all? For you assert it as if it is nearly certain...on what data have you built such a confident faith about what you have yet to undergo?

[Arising_uk]

...
One doesn't "accept" Pascal's Wager, any more than one "accepts" gravity. If it's true, then it's true. If it's not, then it's not. The Wager is not an evangelistic tool, far less an offer of anything. As has been so often pointed out, it's just a hard-headed facing up to facts. ...

Er!? No. It's a have your cake and eat it proposition.

That we can make up stories is indisputable, of course. But the more important question is, "Is this just one of our 'made up' stories, or is it the hard truth?"

If you mean theism then it's a made-up story as we can trace its historical roots.

"Truth is truth" is a tautology, not an answer. What makes truth "more right" in any sense than a pleasant and consoling lie? That's the question for the Atheist. ...

Still no idea what this "Atheist" is? But what generally makes something true to an atheist is evidence and more generally empirical evidence.

After all, if I'm going to die and then...oblivion forever...why should any form of life or choice of action be "more right" than any other? ...

It's all down to how you want your living to be.

Why not embrace whatever makes me happiest, be it truth or delusion? ...

You are already doing that.

What's the payoff for being right, if being right makes me miserable? ...

Why would being right make one miserable?

Either way, I'm dead when I'm dead. I may as well believe anything I wish, do anything I can get away with, and get all that I can get. ...

These are the thoughts of the theist who believes that they are imperfect sinners.

The Big Silence is coming, and death is a long, long time.

You appear confused, dead is dead and there is no time involved.

Either you're the bravest of men or the least reflective, then. Plenty of others have thought it's actually the greatest of all terrors.

Dying can be fearful, infirmity then dying can be fearful, etc, etc but what is their to fear about death as you're dead?

Instead, I do my best to persuade as many people as I can to choose God. They aren't always nice and pleasant in return, as you can easily see from this site. But it's not my welfare I'm concerned about here, so I persist...not out of any goodness in my heart, I assure you; but out of gratitude to God for his graciousness to me, and out of the consequent concern for others. What I would like to see is nobody "damned and miserable."

Spare us from the born-again proselytizers.

Hardy had his own issues. But being an agnostic, not an Atheist, he struggled (as he put it) "betwixt the gleam and the gloom," between a hope of something better and a reluctance to believe in any such. ...

Agnostics are atheists.

He spent his life dangled between the pit and happiness, in a lot of ways. He could never bring himself to believe in God, but He also found he could not embrace disbelief with any degree of confidence. ...

Once more, atheists don't hold disbelief in the way that theists hold a belief. If there are atheists who do this then then are ex-theists still on their way to atheism.

This is an old and common error among Atheists. ...

Can't see how as there are no "Atheists".

They first assume, contrary to all the facts, that people who have "faith" must be doing something very devoid of rationality, and then dismiss them for being irrational. ...

No we don't. It's perfectly understandable why people would wish to believe in such a thing and the rational behind it. Ignoring of course that a large percentage who do believe such a thing do so because they were given believe before they could truly be said to be rational.

But the fault is in that presumption. Faith is not a gratuitous belief -- that's mere invention or imagination. Rather, faith is always IN something or someone. And because faith is always IN something or someone, there are always facts about that thing or person that are relevant to deciding the question of whether or not one is warranted in placing any faith in it/him/her. ...

By "IN something" do you mean a concept or an actual thing? If you mean an actual thing could you please point it out.

The same is true of science, by the way. The scientists has to have faith that his methodology or test will yield for him the results he seeks. He also has to have faith in his own ability to understand and interpret the results. He has to have faith that when he has done enough trials (and there is no fixed number, of course) he will have done enough to warrant a conclusion. And he has to have faith in the scientific community that his results will be treated with respect.

No they don't. They just have to have repeatable trials that others can repeat successfully. It's called proof.

Faith, then, is intrinsic to human knowing. The only question, then, is what are the suitable objects of faith. But everybody's going to have some.

If you mean by "faith" belief or conviction, etc then for sure everyone has such things and generally they are based upon some form of proof. Whereas if you mean "faith" in the sense of the sayings of a religion then proof does not seem to often be around.

But in what is your faith? In the words of other Atheists? In the pit of oblivion at the end of life itself? How do you get your faith that death ends all? For you assert it as if it is nearly certain...on what data have you built such a confident faith about what you have yet to undergo?

Seeing dead people and not seeing any sign of them returning nor any sign that they are somewhere else.

[Harbal]

How do you get your faith that death ends all? For you assert it as if it is nearly certain...

Surely that is the logical default position. If you look at a dead person they certainly have the appearance of finality so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that is the end of the road. To think otherwise it would surely be necessary to have solid proof of some kind.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you get your faith that death ends all? For you assert it as if it is nearly certain...

Surely that is the logical default position. If you look at a dead person they certainly have the appearance of finality so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that is the end of the road. To think otherwise it would surely be necessary to have solid proof of some kind.

Well... what if a Man were to be raised from the dead....? Would that do it for you?

[Harbal]

Well... what if a Man were to be raised from the dead....? Would that do it for you?

That's rather vague regarding exact circumstances but you would still be talking about life attached to a body. I believe what was in question was some kind of existence after the body is no more.

[Immanuel Can]

Well... what if a Man were to be raised from the dead....? Would that do it for you?

That's rather vague regarding exact circumstances but you would still be talking about life attached to a body. I believe what was in question was some kind of existence after the body is no more.

Well, that's a debated question among world religions. Some people think a "soul" can be a disembodied entity, just kind of floating around on its own, like a ghost. Others see a more necessary link between that and the having of a body. Christians tend to be what we might call "incarnational" about that: they tend to believe that resurrection includes a body.

Still, the point is this: if there were nothing after death, there would be no way for a person to "come back" from anything. Alive would mean alive, and dead would be dead, and dead forever...especially after, say, three days, which is the specified period in the case I'm citing. So the question becomes, can a Man rise from the dead three days after his death, and walk around?

Biblically speaking, the argument reads like this:

"...Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

[Harbal]

So the question becomes, can a Man rise from the dead three days after his death, and walk around?

I would say no and you would, presumably, say yes, which is fine as long as neither of us implies the other is a fool for what they believe.

[Immanuel Can]

So the question becomes, can a Man rise from the dead three days after his death, and walk around?

I would say no and you would, presumably, say yes, which is fine as long as neither of us implies the other is a fool for what they believe.

No, of course. Nobody's a fool, unless they've actually considered the evidence on both sides and still come to an irrational or unsustainable conclusion. One can only "believe" what one feels one has sufficient evidence to believe. People who believe contrary to their evidence do qualify for the epithet you suggest.

[uwot]

...
One doesn't "accept" Pascal's Wager, any more than one "accepts" gravity. If it's true, then it's true. If it's not, then it's not. The Wager is not an evangelistic tool, far less an offer of anything. As has been so often pointed out, it's just a hard-headed facing up to facts. ...

Er!? No. It's a have your cake and eat it proposition.

Not really. The thing is, the odds in Pascal's wager are exactly the same for every god that has ever been proposed. The odds of anyone choosing the correct god are therefore vanishingly small. Given that worshipping one god generally pisses off all the others, the best bet is in fact not to worship any.
Comparing Pascal's Wager to gravity is is absurd, Mr Can; it is a category error. One is a logical argument, the other an empirical observation; you don't accept or deny the premises of gravity; you watch things fall.

[Dubious]

There was no "Secularization Hypothesis" associated with the printing press (invented by a devout church man, by the way) or anything prior to the 18th Century. That was all a "read-back," a bending of former history that has, in the later part of the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries, been proved wrong.

They were all devout in the 15th century and the first book to be printed could be non other than the bible. Their level of faith was even beyond your comprehension. It was nearly the ONLY reality.

Whether "Secularization Hypothesis" or process of secularization the God idea was already being closely scrutinized beginning in the 18th century only to get more tenuous as time went on. That doesn't imply it was an easy process. The momentum of faith built into the West for nearly 2000 years was not easily dispensed with...a transition which became considerably less traumatic during the last 100 years.

Why not embrace whatever makes me happiest, be it truth or delusion?

Can't argue with that! That's the reason why I say "enjoy your god" and don't think of it in terms of either truth or delusion. Just enjoy the relationship...while it lasts! That's actually one of the very few things you've stated I can agree with. Faith for some may be the ultimate epicurean delight!

He (Hardy) could never bring himself to believe in God, but He also found he could not embrace disbelief with any degree of confidence.
Maybe the best poem for that is "God's Funeral." Have a look. You'll see it.

...an excellent poem I read ages ago including many others by Hardy. But you have to consider the times in which it was written when the conscious dissolution of god was still a painful experience. Also consider Darwin's gradual and painful separation from the biblical god. The misery inflicted by nature on its creatures was only one of the causes for his reevaluations.

"Truth is truth" is a tautology, not an answer. What makes truth "more right" in any sense than a pleasant and consoling lie? That's the question for the Atheist.

...but not a question for the theist who's already chosen the "consoling Lie" which is hardly consoling to any thinking atheist.

After all, if I'm going to die and then...oblivion forever...why should any form of life or choice of action be "more right" than any other? Why not embrace whatever makes me happiest, be it truth or delusion?

...and so you have but why insist that it's all based on biblical truth and not merely on a theory which makes you feel better?

Either you're the bravest of men or the least reflective, then. Plenty of others have thought it's actually the greatest of all terrors.

Neither! It's "getting there" which causes terror, not being there. The greatest terror of all, by far, is what so many have to put up with in life. Had they known in advance do you seriously believe they would have chosen it?

What's your reason for being here?

Chemistry! I had nothing to do with it.

That we can make up stories is indisputable, of course. But the more important question is, "Is this just one of our 'made up' stories, or is it the hard truth?

The problem with a "faith-based" interpretation of the bible is the "hard truth" which makes it into a story.

Faith is not a gratuitous belief -- that's mere invention or imagination. Rather, faith is always IN something or someone. And because faith is always IN something or someone, there are always facts about that thing or person that are relevant to deciding the question of whether or not one is warranted in placing any faith in it/him/her.

This explains nothing. Of course faith is IN someone. Where else can it be! What's your point? It comforts those amenable to the belief that they have a relationship with God.

As YOU say, why not embrace that which makes you happiest! Who can argue with that!

The same is true of science, by the way. The scientists has to have faith that his methodology or test will yield for him the results he seeks. He also has to have faith in his own ability to understand and interpret the results. He has to have faith that when he has done enough trials (and there is no fixed number, of course) he will have done enough to warrant a conclusion. And he has to have faith in the scientific community that his results will be treated with respect.

It's amazing how many times theists use this argument forgetting, or purposely not including an essential fact namely that the faith of a theist is very different from that of a scientist no matter how much you attempt to equate the two.

Faith is the most a theist could accomplish and the beginning of what science can accomplish. One ends when the other begins. Among theists faith is final. In science it's incipient to an edifice built upon proof, evidence and evaluation; none of which remotely applies to theism. Faith in science is merely the credibility given to an idea or hypothesis.

But in what is your faith? In the words of other Atheists? In the pit of oblivion at the end of life itself? How do you get your faith that death ends all? For you assert it as if it is nearly certain...on what data have you built such a confident faith about what you have yet to undergo?

Logic, observation and the firm belief that the "physics" of nature trumps the "metaphysics" of religion...without exceptions!.

Btw, there are NO pits in oblivion. How we individually regard these questions and what makes all the difference hedges on simply this, that the likes of me see no reason to acknowledge differences between the oblivion which precedes life from that which follows whereas people like yourself depend upon there being a fundamental shift in that paradigm trusting that an "emergent" one will follow.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether "Secularization Hypothesis" or process of secularization the God idea was already being closely scrutinized beginning in the 18th century only to get more tenuous as time went on. That doesn't imply it was an easy process. The momentum of faith built into the West for nearly 2000 years was not easily dispensed with...a transition which became considerably less traumatic during the last 100 years.

No, quite so.

That's why so few Atheists live consistently with the implications of their Atheism. In fact, though I know and work with many Atheists, I have never met a single one would could manage it. It seems they need to hold onto the residue of religion -- especially the products of Judaism and Christianity -- in order to live at all. So they imagine there's morality, purpose, meaning, direction and identity in life, whereas according to Atheism, these can really be no more than comforting illusions. That's why a lot of Atheists remain decent folks, rather than complete selfish Nihiilists -- it shows them commendable as people, but rationally inconsistent as Atheists.

Why not embrace whatever makes me happiest, be it truth or delusion?

Can't argue with that!

Interesting.

Faith for some may be the ultimate epicurean delight!

Yes, it may be. I have no doubt that for some religious people, as for some Atheists, their ideology is nothing but a warm blanket to wrap in. But does that mean that it must be true of all? I would say no.

...an excellent poem I read ages ago including many others by Hardy.

I actually own all his obscure novels, in addition to compendia of his poems and his major works. I've always found him an interesting and stimulating read.

But you have to consider the times in which it was written when the conscious dissolution of god was still a painful experience.

Oh, I know it well. C.S. Lewis has said very wise things about this time they call "The Loss of Faith" period in Western Europe. The "faith" that was lost then was merely cultural, really; and for those with a deep personal faith, you'll find that they didn't lose it at all. The problem really was that for many people Catholicism, nominal Lutheranism or High Anglican liturgy had become a sort of thing "all good men" did, but it was not generally believed or put into practice with any degree of commitment. The resulting "faith" was a weak thing.

I'm not sure it wasn't a good time for faith, actually. It kind of filtered out a lot of insincere religiosity, and drove people to decide more firmly what they would believe.

Now, interestingly, there are books now written about the failures of the Atheist Materialism that created the crisis. I would recommend McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism, and Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion: the former written by a double PhD, and the latter by an agnostic Jewish man.

Also consider Darwin's gradual and painful separation from the biblical god. The misery inflicted by nature on its creatures was only one of the causes for his reevaluations.

Yes. Darwin made what has been called, "the argument from evil." It's the idea that nature red in tooth and claw is incompatible with the idea of a merciful God, allegedly. It's simplistic, but for many it has a sort of instant appeal. Paradoxically, if the curative is Atheism, what it means is that suffering IS NOT evil at all! In other words, those who adopt that interpretation have logically cut off their own right to complain. What is, is...that's all Atheism can say -- it cannot justify calling anything "evil" at all. And that means that the Atheist has cut off his own basis of objection.

However, I still think the question of suffering and injustice is a good one. But lots of thinking folks, from Leibniz to Plantinga and beyond, have found more thoughtful answers than simple disbelief. I certainly think there are better responses to the problem of evil than Darwin ever knew.

"Truth is truth" is a tautology, not an answer. What makes truth "more right" in any sense than a pleasant and consoling lie? That's the question for the Atheist.

...but not a question for the theist who's already chosen the "consoling Lie" which is hardly consoling to any thinking atheist.

That's just a "Yeah, well what about you?" kind of response. Unfortunately for the Atheist, even if it were true that the Theist were guilty of a consoling lie, that would not prove that the Atheist was not also guilty of the same. This is the problem with Freud's "father figure" argument, for example: if it's possible to imagine that the Theist is merely deluding himself to get a cosmic "Father," it is just as easy to say that the Atheist is deluding himself that there IS no such Father, so that he can get away from moral responsibility and live his life the way he wants. Both are wish-fulfillment-fantasy critiques, but if it's unjust to accuse the Atheist of wish fulfillment, then it's equally unjust to jump to that conclusion with regard to the Theist.

It all comes back to the same fundamental question: is there a God or not? Until that's settled, it can't be decided who is guilty of embracing a consoling lie, and who is facing the truth.

...why insist that it's all based on biblical truth and not merely on a theory which makes you feel better?

Easy. Because at least initially, Christianity won't make you "feel better." At least initially, it makes you recognize you're worse than you imagine. Then it will show you you're under the Judgment of God. Then it will tell you to give up trying to make yourself righteous, and beg God's forgiveness and, in a further humiliation, accept your helplessness and need of rescue from Him.

Christianity will eventually make one "feel better," it's true; but when the disease is cancer (or one's own wicked selfishness), the chemotherapy or breaking down of self-confidence can be quite brutal. Anyone who knows what being a Christian really is is going to be able to tell you that. C.S. Lewis, the former ardent Atheist, described the pain of his own conversion this way:

“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”

The greatest terror of all, by far, is what so many have to put up with in life. Had they known in advance do you seriously believe they would have chosen it?

I don't think that's so. Except for the most miserable of sufferers, life is always preferable to oblivion. I have seen 90 year old people, on the verge of horrible diseases and with no prospect of a positive future, fight for life like tigers.

If life is all we get, then holding onto it is a desperate business, a losing business...and oblivion is what we fear.

This explains nothing. Of course faith is IN someone. Where else can it be! What's your point?

My point is simple: when faith is IN something, then there are facts pertaining to that "thing." Once trusts oneself to an elevator only because one believes elevators are trustworthy. One trusts oneself to a ship only if one believes it will remain floating in the midst of the ocean. Likewise, one trusts in an experiment because one believes in particular things like the scientific and empirical methods as adequate for the task in hand. And one trusts in a person only because of the facts one knows about that person.

Therefore, the idea that faith is believing in just anything, and contrary to facts, is ridiculous. For faith is (to use a grammar term) transitive: it always has an object, and facts are always relevant to the case. Faith is not about believing in the imaginary, but extending one's trust based on a body of facts.

And this is what makes it so akin to science. For science, though limited to the material world, still requires a particular object of study, and makes all its conclusions only probabilistically -- which is to say, on faith.

It's amazing how many times theists use this argument forgetting, or purposely not including an essential fact namely that the faith of a theist is very different from that of a scientist no matter how much you attempt to equate the two. Faith is the most a theist could accomplish and the beginning of what science can accomplish. One ends when the other begins.

This is typical among Atheists, I'm sorry to say. They "define down" faith to equate to "unsupported belief" of some kind, then ridicule it. And in that move, two things happen to them: firstly, they fail to create a reasonable critique for all those Theists who have a real faith -- one premised on particular facts about particular entities -- and at the same time create in themselves a blindness to the faith required for them to hold their own position.

The better way to go is to see all of us as faith-possessing creatures; and our difference to be over the nature of what facts are relevant to the case. Then we can speak to each other without being dismissive, and critique each other's views without shooting wide of the mark all the time.

Among theists faith is final. In science it's incipient to an edifice built upon proof, evidence and evaluation; none of which remotely applies to theism. Faith in science is merely the credibility given to an idea or hypothesis.

This would be a sample of what I was just saying. And then you call your own belief...

Logic, observation and the firm belief that the "physics" of nature trumps the "metaphysics" of religion...without exceptions!.

...and in so doing you forget that "logic" and "observation" work very well for both; and that you have a "firm belief" (as you say) that "the physics..trumps the metaphysics." Now, how would one acquire this "firm belief"? From whence would it spring but from a first assumption? But what show that assumption necessary?

Btw, there are NO pits in oblivion.

True. For even a "pit" is in something, and has an edge. Something exists there. But oblivion....? That is truly, to borrow a Biblical coinage, "the blackness of darkness forever."

[Arising_uk]

That's why so few Atheists live consistently with the implications of their Atheism. In fact, though I know and work with many Atheists, I have never met a single one would could manage it. It seems they need to hold onto the residue of religion -- especially the products of Judaism and Christianity -- in order to live at all. So they imagine there's morality, purpose, meaning, direction and identity in life, whereas according to Atheism, these can really be no more than comforting illusions. That's why a lot of Atheists remain decent folks, rather than complete selfish Nihiilists -- it shows them commendable as people, but rationally inconsistent as Atheists. ...

You're talking about ex-theists but I can understand how it is inconcievable to you that a person can live and act morally without your 'God' as your faith as taught you that we are inherently sinners and evil, we're not. Well you might be.

[Dubious]

Also consider Darwin's gradual and painful separation from the biblical god. The misery inflicted by nature on its creatures was only one of the causes for his reevaluations.

Yes. Darwin made what has been called, "the argument from evil." It's the idea that nature red in tooth and claw is incompatible with the idea of a merciful God, allegedly. It's simplistic, but for many it has a sort of instant appeal.

No he did not make any argument from evil; he made it out of pure observation and you have to admit he was a great observer! What he noticed through a long process of studying nature and not least, personal experience, is that there is no such thing as a kindly god ruling the universe and therefore not likely to be a god at all. This came from his nature studies not from any superficial argument from evil.

Darwin was not a philosopher or one intent to separate good from evil as provided by religion. Nature confirmed to him that within its realms and despite its incredible cruelty, there exist no such distinctions. It was as simple as that with NOTHING corresponding to evil involved.

Paradoxically, if the curative is Atheism, what it means is that suffering IS NOT evil at all! In other words, those who adopt that interpretation have logically cut off their own right to complain. What is, is...that's all Atheism can say -- it cannot justify calling anything "evil" at all. And that means that the Atheist has cut off his own basis of objection.

This statement is paradoxical in itself; made by all the ways and means verbal subterfuge is capable of! The only thing that could explain its inherent nonsense is one of desperation to justify your conclusions.

What it asserts and not merely implies, is that atheism and consequently atheists are in a complete state of limbo regarding what is good or evil and therefore wouldn’t even have the right or means to declare which is which! That would be a judgment duly reserved for theists only as provided in their bible! Theists, as is evident, never falter in claiming the high ground of morality as revealed in your holy book.

I tried to have a “reasonable” conversation but it wouldn’t feel right if I allowed you to continue debasing yourself in having one with an immoral clod like me. If the atheist has cut off his own basis of objection there is no point for the likes of me to either confirm or object to any argument made by such as yourself.

I’ll conclude with this.

It all comes back to the same fundamental question: is there a God or not? Until that's settled, it can't be decided who is guilty of embracing a consoling lie, and who is facing the truth.

It won’t ever be “settled” which requires a consciously derived conclusion. It will simply fade until the question itself disappears.

But oblivion....? That is truly, to borrow a Biblical coinage, "the blackness of darkness forever."

Once time ceases for all that exists there is no “blackness of darkness” to be encountered; even less is there a “forever” which requires the precondition of life to ponder. There is no calendar between the beginning and end of the universe even if it manages to recreate itself endlessly in a cycle of red and blue shift palpitations.

The blackness of darkness is simply a human expression of terror for an awareness, conscious of its fate in having to be “disrobed of time”, re-blending itself to that which was its source. Everything living is a “time island” coerced by the gravitational forces of oblivion back into a single point of zero time.

In summary, if I didn’t notice any blackness of darkness before I was born, I won’t notice it after I’m dead. Let the black go as dark as it likes...I won’t be there! When I get cremated and someone should accidentally, or not, flush my ashes down the toilet, I won’t be there either, though in life the “shit happens” scenario was rather common!

[Immanuel Can]

No he did not make any argument from evil;...

Actually, he did.

It reads,

‘If the truth of this conclusion be granted [i.e. that there is more happiness than misery in the world], it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind … .’ He then added that many sentient beings ‘occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action … A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?’

Now, that's the argument from evil. He thinks that "benevolence," to use his word, is incompatible with "the sufferings of millions of lower animals." That is, assuming evolution is true, he thinks that it would be "unbenevolent" of God to allow such a thing.

In other words, he was an ideologue who took Evolutionism for a fact, and then mounted an argument against God based on it, with the implication that God would be "bad" for allowing "survival of the fittest."

Paradoxically, if the curative is Atheism, what it means is that suffering IS NOT evil at all! In other words, those who adopt that interpretation have logically cut off their own right to complain. What is, is...that's all Atheism can say -- it cannot justify calling anything "evil" at all. And that means that the Atheist has cut off his own basis of objection.

What it asserts and not merely implies, is that atheism and consequently atheists are in a complete state of limbo regarding what is good or evil and therefore wouldn’t even have the right or means to declare which is which!

Yes, they are. The only knowledge of "good" and "evil" an Atheist can justify is a conception stolen illogically from Theism. As Hume decisively showed, Atheism itself can make no value judgments derived from a world of merely empirical facts. There is no "ought" in an "is."

I tried to have a “reasonable” conversation but it wouldn’t feel right if I allowed you to continue debasing yourself in having one with an immoral clod like me.

You misunderstand. I did not call you immoral. I called Atheism rationally amoral. And there's a world of difference. You may be a very nice bloke, for all I know...but you won't find any logical connection between Atheism and having an obligation to be a nice bloke. Atheism has no morality; and if Atheists (like presumably yourself) are moral people, it will only be by going outside of their Atheism for the values then need.

And I don't feel debased at all. I'm quite happy to talk to you. As I say, you may be a decent bloke. But if you are, it will not be because of anything in Atheism. For as Atheists themselves continually remind me, Atheism has no moral perspective to offer or to defend. In an Atheist, Materialist, Evolutionist universe, or as Richard Dawkins has put it,

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

[Arising_uk]

...
And I don't feel debased at all. I'm quite happy to talk to you. As I say, you may be a decent bloke. But if you are, it will not be because of anything in Atheism. For as Atheists themselves continually remind me, Atheism has no moral perspective to offer or to defend. In an Atheist, Materialist, Evolutionist universe, or as Richard Dawkins has put it,

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

So by this rationale when a good person gets hurt or bad things happen to them it's because 'God' wills it so? Nice.