Even if I came to believe that all of the theoretical arguments for God's existence were unsound (highly unlikely), I would still remain a theist for at least one pragmatic reason. Studies continue to show that those who pray and meditate live longer, healthier, and happier lives. I would appeal to the follow pragmatic argument:
1. All things being equal, one should believe in what brings about the most health and happiness. (Premise)
2. Belief in God brings about the most health and happiness. (Premise)
3. Hence, all things being equal, one should believe in God. (From 1 and 2)
4. There are no sound arguments against God's existence. (Premise)
5. Hence, theism and atheism are at least rationally equal on theoretical terms. (From 2 - 4)
6. Therefore, one should believe in God. (From 1, 2, and 5)
Of course, I do accept philosophical arguments for God's existence as demonstrative, so this is all a moot point. Nevertheless, people don't have to rely on philosophical demonstrations in order to be a rationally justified theist. Isn't it more rational to embrace what leads to a longer, healthier, and happier life than not?
1. All things being equal, one should believe in what brings about the most health and happiness. (Premise)
2. Belief in God brings about the most health and happiness. (Premise)
3. Hence, all things being equal, one should believe in God. (From 1 and 2)
4. There are no sound arguments against God's existence. (Premise)
5. Hence, theism and atheism are at least rationally equal on theoretical terms. (From 2 - 4)
6. Therefore, one should believe in God. (From 1, 2, and 5)
Of course, I do accept philosophical arguments for God's existence as demonstrative, so this is all a moot point. Nevertheless, people don't have to rely on philosophical demonstrations in order to be a rationally justified theist. Isn't it more rational to embrace what leads to a longer, healthier, and happier life than not?
I suppose, oddly enough, the person who believes materialist atheism is most likely to be true is in the worst position of having a reason to believe and act as if materialist atheism is true - because if the truth of the claim means that accepting the truth wouldn't matter anyway, why not believe what you'd ultimately prefer to?
ReplyDeleteYes, and of course, that assumes there are sound arguments for atheistic materialism. I'd adopt pantheism instead. That way I would believe in what I think is most likely true, but I would also believe in what makes me healthiest and happiest. Fortunately, I think there are plenty of sound arguments for classical theism.
DeleteAh, I just saw you reply in the other thread.
DeleteI agree about the sound arguments and reasoning, though I wonder if this couldn't actually be an apologetics approach as well. I mean, for someone who is currently wrapped up irrevocably in this kind of atheism, it could be an interesting wake-up.
Dear Doug,
DeleteIn the spirit of both your post and Crude’s comment, I might also point out that a pragmatic argument for theism is available from evolution. Now, very briefly, such an argument would take something like the following form:
Premise 1: Evolution is a fact.
Premise 2: If evolution is a fact, then, objectively, my only purpose in life is to survive, reproduce, and spread my genes to the maximal extent (this premise is taken, essentially, from the lips of Richard Dawkins).
Premise 3: Belief in God brings about the most health, happiness, and fecundity (after all, orthodox believers are much more fruitful than secular atheists).
Premise 4: Being healthy, happier, and more fecund increases my ability to survive, reproduce, and spread genes.
Conclusion: Therefore, I should believe in God rather than not.
And note that even if there were sound arguments against God’s existence, it would not matter to this pragmatic argument, for, given our status as evolutionary organisms striving to reproduce maximally, truth is less critical than believing that which would help us reproduce.
So the funny thing is that, just as Crude mentioned, these sorts of pragmatic arguments put naturalists in a bit of a bind: if they believe that naturalism is true, then they very likely hold that we have no objective duty to pursue and believe truth. In addition, such naturalists also likely hold that evolution is true. But if they hold that evolution is true and that we have no objective duty to believe truth, then they should have little objection to theistic belief, given that theistic belief makes sense given our status and drives as evolutionary organisms.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Take care,
RD Miksa
www.idontgiveadamnapologetics.blogspot.com
Fascinating argument, RD.
DeleteCrude, that's pretty much what I'm thinking. Why would anyone even want to be an atheist? Some claim it's liberating, but the studies just don't support that idea.
DeleteDoug
DeleteI cannot speak for other atheists, but I most certainly don't want to be an atheist. If it were just a matter of liberating I would be a liberal theist.
The fact is that I, and I suspect this is true for other atheists as well, am an athiest because the very idea of a God makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe that is, as Plantinga puts it, a mental disorder, but in any case, there is simply nothing I can do about it.
So, whether I should belive in God or not, I simply cannot do so.
Needless to say that I of course do think there are sound arguments against God's existence.
RD Miksa
You say
"Then they should have little objection to theistic belief"." Well, I don't have any objection to theistic belief provided it doesn't interfere with my life. I am convinced that theistic belief is not true, but indeed, nobody has any objective duty to believe truth. In the end, if we do in fcat have a choice in what to believe, we may just as well choose what makes us happy. And even though it may be true that on average belief in God brings about the most health and happiness, this is not necssarily the case for everybody. I know that I am much happier right now than when I was still a Catholic. So, under that scenario, my "choice" for atheism was what I should have done..
Walter, just to clarify: Plantinga refers to atheism as a "cognitive dysfunction," not a mental disorder. There is a difference. Truth is, I've never bought the idea that one cannot choose what to believe. All you have to do is pray and outwardly profess your belief in God. Very soon an internal change will take place. I know this from experience, having intentionally changed my mind about affirmative action some years ago. Now, when you say you believe there are arguments against God's existence, are they really arguments against theism proper, or are they simply arguments that if correct only establish that God is not maximally great, e.g. the argument from suffering?
DeleteBy the way, I'd be ecstatic if you chose to be a liberal theist. I'm obviously a conservative theist, but I think you'd be headed in the right direction.
DeleteDoug
DeleteBefore you can actually pray and outwardly profess your belief in God, you have to at least believe that God is possible. Since I don't think God is even remorely possible, my prayers and my outward professing would be a lie.
And by arguments against God's existence I mean arguments against theism proper, as well as arguments against maximal greatness.
My remark about liberal theism was a reply to what you said about atheism allegedly being liberating. If I ever became convinced that theism (proper) was true, I would return to liberal theism.
But right now, I am as happy as I could be, so there is no need for me to change my mind.
Walter, you don't think a Cosmic Designer is even possible? That would put you in a tiny minority of atheists. How about pantheism? I ask about the latter, since you might think it's impossible for anything immaterial to exist, and pantheism (as well as panpsychism a la Thomas Nagel) completely bypasses that objection. Of course, I don't know why you think theism proper is impossible. Could you elaborate?
DeleteDoug
DeleteNo, I don't think a cosmic designer is even possible.
As far as pantheism is concerned, if by that you mean that the universe is an awesome place, then I am a pantheist. If you mean anything more than that, I have the same objections as I have with theism proper, and the same holds for panpsychism.
As to my arguments against theism proper, I am afraid I don't have the time right now to expand on them. Maybe some other time. I don't think, BTW that it is impossible for anything immaterial to exist.
Fair enough. I look forward to reading your reasons to think theism proper is impossible.
DeletePutting it another way --
ReplyDelete1. All things being equal, one should expect it to be the case that those beliefs which most bring about health and happiness over the long-run are more apt to be true than the denial of such beliefs, especially if such denials tend to reduce health and happiness over the long-run. (Premise)
2. Belief in the reality of God tends most to bring about the increase of health and happiness over the long-run . (Premise)
2a. Denial of the reality God tends to bring about the reduction of health and happiness over the long-run . (Premise)
3. Hence, all things being equal, one should believe in God. (From 1 and 2)
Here's a different sort of "pragmatic" argument for "theism" --
ReplyDeleteAtheist: There is no Creator-God (as understood by Judeo-Christianity)!
Theist: If there is no Creator-God (as understood by Judeo-Christianity), and if there is a material/physical world, then *everything* reduces to mechanistic necessity (i.e. to "matter in motion").
Atheist: OK.
Theist: Thus, as *everything* reduces to mechanistic necessity, then, as I *am* proclaiming that God is and that the denial that God is is false, it logically follows that I cannot *not* proclaim that God is and that the denial that God is is false.
Atheist: Grrrrrrr!
Theist: If there is no Creator-God (as understood by Judeo-Christianity), then there is no transcendent morality, discoverable by human persons and binding upon all human persons at all times and in all places/circumstances.
Atheist: But, of course! Now we're talkin'!
Theist: You've convinced me: there is no Creator-God (as understood by Judeo-Christianity)!
[a minute or two passes]
Theist: God (as understood by Judeo-Christianity) is! The denial that God is is false!
Atheist: What's this!? You've just agreed that there is no God!!
Theist: I did?! Since when?
Atheist: It's right there, in black-and-white.
Theist: Dewd! I don't know what you're talking about.
Atheist: You Christians! You're all "liars for Jesus"!
Theist: And your point is?
--- my point being that the 'atheist' must appeal to God even to deny God.
This reminds me of Moreland's argument from consciousness, which is not discussed nearly enough in the philosophical literature as far as I'm concerned. It also has some presuppositionalist flavors.
DeleteWVdA: "Since I don't think God is even remorely possible, my prayers and my outward professing would be a lie."
ReplyDeleteAnd this matters, how? if God is impossible (or possible yet not there).
WVdA: "But right now, I am as happy as I could be, so there is no need for me to change my mind."
Ah! So, knowing the truth of the matter and living in accord with it matters only if the truth of the matter doesn't matter; but, if the truth of the matter does matter, then knowing the truth of the matter and living in accord with it doesn't matter, so long as one is "happy as could be" by ignoring the truth of the matter?
Ilíon
ReplyDeleteThis matters because premsie 2 of Doug's argument says, "Belief in God brings about the most health and happiness." It doesn't say, "Pretending to believe in God brings about the most health and happiness." And I have explained why in my case, belief in God would come down to pretending.
As far as the trith of the matter is concerned, it may be so that belief in God brings about more happiness regardless of whether there really is a God or not, but my point is that belief in God requires one to think that it is true that God exists. Since I don't think God is even possible, praying and outward professing my faith would be a lie.
That's how what a person thinks is the truth matters even though the truth itself may not matter.
Walter, could you at least provide a brief sketch of why you think theism proper is impossible? I'm really just curious, and I won't debate you on your argument's soundness.
Delete*I ask everyone else to refrain from debating Walter on his argument, assuming he's willing to present it.
Also, if anyone does attempt to debate Walter on his argument, I'll be deleting the post. It's nothing personal, but I'd ask that you respect my request.
DeleteDoug
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons why I think theism is impossible.
Firstly, creating something from nothing is logically impossible. Of course, you could adopt some kind of panenthiesm or have God create the whole universe from (parts of) Himself, but then the problem is that I don't believe time can be eternal in the past, which leaves us with a timeless being, but I don't think timeless beings can create anything. Another reason is that I in fact do accept the arguments for the simplicity of whatever first cause exist, which means the fist cause cannot be God.
Now, this is a very brief sketch. I don't mind if anyone comments on it, BTW, you don't have to delete the post. But I won't be responding to those comments.
Okay, well thanks for sharing. I realize this is just a brief sketch. If someone wants to comment, they may.
Delete