The Argument From Nonbelief

[dizzle]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/links/skeptical_christian.jpg

THE SKEPTICAL CHRISTIAN (http://www.skepticalchristian.com)

The Argument from Nonbelief

By Kyle

The Argument from Nonbelief (or, the Argument from Divine Hiddenness) is commonly considered by non-theists to be a persuasive argument against the existence of God. More particularly, the Argument from Nonbelief targets the Christian God, who possesses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. As such, it is critical for Christians to respond to this argument in order to remain justified in belief in God.

How is the Argument Formulated?

Although there are multiple formulations of the Argument from Nonbelief, ranging from the layman to the scholarly, all formulations reach the same conclusion. I will therefore present a version of this argument here.

1. If God exists, He is all-loving, all-powerful, perfectly just, and He wishes for all to know Him personally.
2. If a person has reasonable nonbelief, then they are not given a fair opportunity to know God.
3. If God exists, He has both the power and motive to abolish reasonable nonbelief.
4. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

There is a second form of the Argument from Nonbelief which is quite different. Please see the second part of this article for Theodore M. Drange’s formulation of the argument (along with my response).

As preliminary commentary, it should be mentioned that the Argument from Nonbelief only applies to a God that is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, perfectly just, and has a wish that others know Him. These qualities happen to be attributes that I believe the Christian God possesses, but any God that does not possess all of the aforementioned qualities is not affected by the Argument from Nonbelief.

In any case, I think two separate refutations of this argument can be formulated.

Reasonable Nonbelief?

The simplest way to avoid the force of this argument is to question premise (4) and claim that reasonable nonbelief does not occur. This is quite offensive towards the atheist (as it basically claims that he/she is unreasonable with regards to the evidence for God’s existence), but it is nevertheless possible that it is true.

Now, it is apparent to me that God’s existence is obvious. I do not feel that God has provided me with too little evidence. If I were to deny that God existed, I would be irrational with regards to what I know.

What should I do when another individual claims that the evidence isn’t obvious to them? Is there any way I can know whether or not the individual is truly reasonable in his nonbelief? Of course not, because I would need to be them in order to understand their thought processes. Actually, this argument closely parallels another common argument used by Christians- Personal Experiences.

As I showed HERE (http://www.skepticalchristian.com/personalexperiences.html), Personal Experiences are something that can be known only to the individual who has the experience. It may be evidence for the person, but it cannot be evidence for another individual. Likewise, then, though the Argument from Nonbelief may be evidence for the individual who feels that they have not been provided with an opportunity to know God, it can never be considered evidence to another person. Therefore, the Argument from Nonbelief is totally useless as a means to disprove the existence of God to another person.

My critique could stop here, but for the sake of completeness I will offer a few reasons why nonbelief may not actually be reasonable.

1. Bias

Human beings tend to be biased towards a certain viewpoint. Sometimes, this bias can get in the way of an objective analysis of the evidence. Bias can occur for a number of reasons, but whatever the case it is quite possible that those who claim that they have been provided with insufficient evidence are merely biased with regards to the evidence they have.

2. Pride

Another malady that affects a great number of humans is pride. Pride can occur because someone thinks they are superior to others. In the case of atheism, pride could occur because the nonbelievers do not like the idea of being considered sinners that have fallen short of God. Or, pride could occur because an individual does not feel like being "under" a higher power. Whatever the case, pride is a very real factor and could possibly affect an objective look at the evidence for God’s existence.

3. Anger

Perhaps the most common factor, I think, which leads to a lack of belief in God, is anger. This anger could take many forms. Perhaps a person is unsatisfied with the way things are going in their life and they feel that, if God existed, He should do something about it. Perhaps they are upset that somebody they care for died. Anger can often consume an individual and get in the way of rational thought. This could lead to an unjustified rejection of the evidence for God’s existence.

4. Ridiculous Expectations

Many times atheists suppose God should write "Jesus Christ lives. Repent and be saved!" on the moon. They may expect God to come down and have a chat. In both situations, the expectation of evidence is much too high. The individual may unreasonably expect more evidence for God’s existence then they would require for other propositions. This is obviously unfair and is thus not reasonable nonbelief.

5. Wish to disregard theistic morality

Another possibility is that nonbelievers do not wish to change their lifestyles to accommodate belief in God. They may feel that Biblical morality is too strict. For example, many nonbelievers express distress with the expectation that Christians avoid lust, even if it is hands-off. Christianities rejection of pre-marital sex is also an issue that brings up quite a bit of indignation. The wish to live one’s life in a particular manner may lead to an unfair analysis of the evidence for God’s existence.

6. Insufficient Effort

The question of whether or not God exists is possibly the most important issue humans face. However, many people (theist and non-theist alike) don’t give the issue the attention it deserves. Therefore, those atheists who give only a cursory examination of the evidence cannot be considered to have reasonable nonbelief.

The Argument from Nonbelief is already thoroughly discredited. It can never be considered evidence for anybody but the individual who has the complaint. However, my analysis of the Argument from Nonbelief is not yet complete. There is another important issue to discuss.

Is Reasonable Nonbelief Always Unfair?

Premise (3), which claims that God has both the power and the motive to abolish reasonable nonbelief, is not at all obvious either. It is my contention that God may have benevolent motives for nonbelief as long as it does not last for the whole lifetime of a person.

In other words, God may allow a person to have truly reasonable nonbelief for a certain time period in his/her life, as long as He makes sure that the person does not die without ever having reasonable evidence for His existence presented to them.

The ironic thing about the Argument from Nonbelief is that the only way somebody can ever truly claim that they have unfair reasonable nonbelief is if they have lived out their entire existence and are now dead! Of course, dead men aren’t able to argue against the existence of God, so no man alive is able to fairly claim that the existence of God should be doubted because He would not allow reasonable nonbelief.

Once again, the Argument from Nonbelief is completely discredited, but for the sake of completeness I would like to offer a few possible reasons why temporary reasonable nonbelief may occur.

1. increased love and respect for God.

God knows that a state of complete love and respect between man and Himself is a very desirable thing. A person who has not been presented with enough evidence for a period of time may learn to love and respect God more than they ever would once they have such evidence. Ultimately, God’s decision to withhold evidence could actually be for the benefit of the individual.

2. Testimony

God’s ultimate goal is to get as many people as possible to know Him. The testimonies of former atheists are often very powerful in helping persons through periods of doubt or sowing the seeds of belief in an unbeliever. God may withhold the evidence from an atheist so that the person can later help hundreds of others to come closer to Him.

3. Inability to offer evidence.

Some individuals find themselves in positions where the offering of evidence is either impossible or dangerous. For example, a native living in the jungle could misinterpret any evidence God could provide and misconstrue it as a false religion (which could eventually mislead others as well). In this case, God may wait for a missionary to come until He provides the necessary evidence for the individual.

These three reasons are both possible and plausible, so we have every reason to believe that God may allow temporary periods of reasonable nonbelief.

Theodore M. Drange and the Argument from Nonbelief

In the article The Arguments from Evil and Nonbelief, Theodore M. Drange attempts to support the case for atheism. 1 The Argument from Evil is beyond the scope of this article and will be dealt with at another place. However, Drange’s formulation of the Argument from Nonbelief is quite different than the previous one, so I would like to offer my response to Drange. The following is the formulation of Drange’s Argument:

ANB: To formulate ANB, I put first forward these two definitions:
Set P = the following three propositions:
(a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe.
(b) That being loves humanity.
(c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife.

Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.

Using the above definitions, ANB may be expressed as follows:
(A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
(1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered;
(2) wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires;
(3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it;
(4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

(B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.
(C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
(D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).
(E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.


According to this formulation of the argument I would deny Drange’s A(1) and A(3).

With regards to A(1), which claims that it is possible for God to bring up a situation in which all or almost all accept salvation by their death, I must say that I find such impossible. God also, due to his benevolence, wishes to provide human beings with free will. It is thus logically impossible for God to make a situation in which all humans freely decide to follow God. Since even God cannot bring about a logically impossible situation, it is thus impossible for A(1) to be true. (Note: This is referred to as the Free Will Defense, and it is technically an objection to A(3). However, I believe it might be impossible for God to even theoretically create a world in which humans have no free will, as doing such would go against his benevolence.)

With regards to A(3), I would counter that there are a few things that may interfere with God’s wish for all to accept Salvation.

a.) Free will. God wishes to allow humans to have free will. If humans didn’t have free will, then they would be nothing but automatons. Since God created man in his image, it is essential that humans possess the important attribute of free will.

b.) Love and respect. If God made people know that He exists and He offers Salvation, they may accept that belief. However, they would not necessarily love God. They could hate him with a passion, despite knowledge that He exists. This situation would be even more disastrous than nonbelief. Therefore, God does not wish to overly coerce people because knowledge of Him does not mean respect of Him. It must also be mentioned that knowledge of Salvation is not sufficient for Salvation anyways. I person who goes through the motions but is not sincere in his/her repentance will not achieve eternality in heaven anyways. So it is not at all obvious that God would wish to make himself known just so that individuals could hate him and not receive eternal life anyways.

c.) Justice. If God made or overly coerced individuals to believe in Him, then they may accept Salvation not out of love and respect for God, but out of self-motivations. This is not justice at all, and in any case it is not certain that such individuals would attain eternal life anyways.

Concerning Drange’s Defense of Proposition A(1)

In his article, Drange mentions a variety of means God could use to convince all or almost all that they must receive Salvation. Unfortunately, none of these ideas would necessarily guarantee much of a success rate.

First he suggests merely implanting belief in everyone or implanting a "belief gene" inside the human genome. Of course, this would be flagrant violation of free will, so I see no reason to suppose that God would have motivation to do such a thing. However, Drange does suggest numerous things that would not impede free will.

For example, Drange supposes that God could perform spectacular miracles such as speaking with a thundering voice from the sky. However, there is no guarantee that certain individuals might complain that such an event was in their head, or that it was some vast conspiracy. As is shown with organizations such as the flat earth society, overwhelming evidence doesn’t always sway the mind of people who are not receptive towards a certain idea.

Drange also supposes that Jesus Christ could have appeared to millions. Of course, individuals today would probably claim that such was merely legendary development and not historical fact. Individuals living in the time of Christ could make up all sorts of excuses as well. Perhaps the Christ was an impostor, perhaps Christ never died on the cross. Whatever the case, absurd rationalization is certainly not an uncommon happening in humanities history.

Next up, Drange offers the suggestion that God could send millions of angels disguised as people to preach to humans the Gospel in a manner so convincing that all or almost all accept Salvation. Obviously, there is no evidence that such persuasive reasoning is even possible. Does Drange suppose that "persuasive reasoning" could sway the opinions of those who hold to the theory of the flat earth?

Drange also suggests that fantastic prophecy could be in the Bible causing all or most to believe. However, having strange and inconceivable (at the time) prophecies in the Bible could conceivably lead to many ancients rejecting Salvation. In any case, there is no way to know whether or not the prophecies would be rationalized away by a large majority of the population.

Finally, Drange suggests that God could use the Internet to sway nonbelievers. How this could work I am not sure. If Drange supposes that evidence is enough to turn one’s mind, I will again mention that such does not seem to have much of an effect upon the flat earth society.

Of course, Drange could see the above as mere nitpicking. The fact of the matter is, he may claim, that the above would cause a significant portion of the population to accept repentance. Although I do not necessarily think that is true, I will go ahead and agree with that claim for the sake of argument. Therefore, I will go on to proposition A(3) and see if it holds water.

Drange’s Defense of Proposition A(3)

Firstly, Drange critiques the Free Will Defense. Drange claims that showing people miracles does not interfere with their free will. This much is true. By merely showing a miracle God leaves it up to the human as to whether or not such will be accepted as evidence.

However, Drange goes even further and claims that inserting belief in God into every human being would not be in violation of free will. I believe Drange has gone a bit too far here, for I cannot imagine a more fragrant violation of free will at all. If you force someone to love you by inserting a gene in their brain, you are, by definition, interfering with their free will to choose whether or not they have love for you.

"Even direct implantation of belief into a person's mind need not interfere with his/her free will. If that person were to want true beliefs and not care how the beliefs are obtained, then for God to directly implant true beliefs into his/her mind would not interfere with, but would rather comply with, the person's free will."

Even assuming Drange is right about this, there is certainly no way to know whether any humans who don’t already accept Salvation really do wish to know the truth. In any case, forcing someone to love you is perhaps the most flagrant and obvious violation one can think of. If that doesn’t qualify as interfering with free will, then I don’t know what does.

Next up, Drange claims that there is nothing wrong with God interfering with free will in this case to "straighten them out". This just begs the question of the importance of free will to God. There is no conceivable way that anything could be more important than free will because the lack of free will takes away the very thing that makes us humans.

"FWD seems to claim that God wants people to believe the propositions of set P in an irrational way, without good evidence."

Free Will Defense implies no such thing. In fact, FWD requires rationality. That is the whole point. To believe something because that belief is part of your very anatomy would not be a belief that is arrived at rationally. By God demanding that we accept His existence without forcing us, He is requiring us to be rational in order to come to that true belief.

From what I’m aware, the other two factors that I claimed could interfere with God’s wish for all to achieve Salvation are not addressed in Drange’s article. I have, however, found a response to it in another article.2 This response, however, is not very substantive:

"One objection to this defense, among others, is that a person's immediate response to theistic belief may not remain fixed. People could come to believe in God and at first respond inappropriately, but after some time has elapsed, they may come to modify their response."

This response is useless, because certainly God knows when or if a person will respond appropriately. Those who would never respond appropriately, therefore, are the concern of God, and probably the main reason that He does not provide a ridiculous amount of evidence for his existence. It is certainly better for a person to be ignorant of God’s existence than it is for them to hate God. (It must be mentioned that it is my contention that God does provide everyone with enough opportunity to come to know Him, as I explained previously. The rejection of that evidence could be due to the various factors I listed earlier in this article). Therefore my propositions (b) and (c), along with my defense of the Free Will Defense (a) are all still valid and thus the Argument from Nonbelief is invalid.

Conclusion

The Argument from Reasonable Nonbelief fails on two fronts. It is completely discredited as a rational objection against the existence of God. In addition, the Argument from Nonbelief as formulated by Theodore M. Drange is also a complete failure. The Christian remains fully justified in his or her belief in God despite the Argument from Nonbelief.

NOTES

Theodore M. Drange, The Arguments from Evil and Nonbelief, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html

Theodore M. Drange, Nonbelief as Support for Atheism, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliDran.htm
300

The Skeptical Christian is dedicated to a logical defense of the Christian faith. It features original articles, book reviews, critiques of non-Christian writings, and debates. The Internet is an extremely accessible information source, and it is often used to perpetuate the false notion that Christianity is a rationally indefensible belief system. The primary goal of The Skeptical Christian is to provide a counter to this claim, in order to
increase the intellectual convictions of believers and remove the
intellectual barriers of unbelievers.

Visit The Skeptical Christian at:

http://www.skepticalchristian.com

Contact me at:

cobra_snake31@hotmail.com

300

Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials artictulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)

[dizzle]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate for a. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Vorkosigan]

Therefore, the Argument from Nonbelief is totally useless as a means to disprove the existence of God to another person.

Quite true. Most people are convinced by complex social and personal experiences.


1. Bias
2. Pride
3. Anger
4. Ridiculous Expectations
5. Wish to disregard theistic morality
6. Insufficient Effort


Kylie, this is a highly ethnocentric view of atheism. Vast quantities of nonbelief in gods occurs as the belief in some religious or ethical system in which there are no gods, yet your analysis applies to a particular subset of apatheist westerners. For example, certain forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, pan-psychism, ESP, etc. The vast majority of people in history have lived and died without ever being exposed to Christianity. So how can their unbelief be unreasonable? The existence of some unreasonable unbelief does not imply that all unbelief is unreasonable; anymore than the higher average educational backgrounds of American atheists implies that atheism is somehow more rational.

Another possibility is that nonbelievers do not wish to change their lifestyles to accommodate belief in God. They may feel that Biblical morality is too strict.

Really, you fail to confront the most obvious reason: that many of us who reject Biblical morality do so because we believe it is both erroneous and evil.

The question of whether or not God exists is possibly the most important issue humans face. However, many people (theist and non-theist alike) don’t give the issue the attention it deserves.

You know this because......?

Vorkosigan

[Alien]

It is certainly better for a person to be ignorant of God’s existence than it is for them to hate God.

You say this more than once ... but why? It is my understanding (correct me if you disagree) that one is either saved or not and there are no serious divisions of "not savedness". Won't disbelievers and active "haters" all end up in the same place?

[Kyle]

Vorkisigan:

The vast majority of people in history have lived and died without ever being exposed to Christianity. So how can their unbelief be unreasonable?

Well, they could have given insufficient effort, for one thing. But for such persons that have never heard of Christianity, all I would claim is that they should come to believe in God based on natural theology and rational thinking. Moreover, I would suppose that persons who never hear of Christianity still have a chance for salvation. Therefore they are not really the concern of the Argument from Nonbelief, nor, consequently, for my objections to it.

The existence of some unreasonable unbelief does not imply that all unbelief is unreasonable

I never claimed it did. All I claimed was that I could identify some factors that could easily be construed as leading to unreasonable nonbelief. However, the existence of some unreasonable unbelief does at least provide the possibility that all unbelief is unreasonable. And it would seem that this could easily be the case, given all the factors I mention. Besides, the Argument from Nonbelief was refuted earlier in my article, the factors I mention are really only a suplement to my main point- which is that supposed reasonable nonbelief is akin to the personal experiences claims of Christians, and therefore cannot be taken as objective evidence (only as subjective evidence to the individual that claims reasonable nonbelief, if anything.)

Really, you fail to confront the most obvious reason: that many of us who reject Biblical morality do so because we believe it is both erroneous and evil.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. But "wish to disregard theistic morality" need not be the reason most, or even many, disbelieve in God. It is merely one factor out of many.

You know this because......?

First of all, to demand that I "know" something like this is much too ridiculous an expectation. When discussing the Argument from Nonbelief, we are unfortunately reduced to, at best, reasonable speculations. Is my speculation that some people offer insufficient effort to exploring religion a reasonable one? It would certainly seem so. I personally know a couple of friends who won't even discuss religion with me. They don't read books on the subject, they don't try going to church- nothing. I think it is very reasonable to suppose people like this offer insufficient effort with regards to religion.


Alien:

It is my understanding (correct me if you disagree) that one is either saved or not and there are no serious divisions of "not savedness". Won't disbelievers and active "haters" all end up in the same place?

That is true, however there are also degrees of suffering in hell and degrees of reward in heaven. Additionally, an active hate of God would probably lead to increased acts of evil while on earth. But, even if I am wrong about this and lack of knowledge of God and active hatred of God are equally bad, my objection to the Argument from Nonbelief is still valid- for there is no reason to suppose that God should reveal Himself if there are no advantages of such an action.

[scottatiwu]

[i]11-28-2003 @ 01:04 AM Now, it is apparent to me that God’s existence is obvious. I do not feel that God has provided me with too little evidence. If I were to deny that God existed, I would be irrational with regards to what I know.


However, you are here using as proof of existence what the atheist uses as proof of non-existence; "it is apparent to me... I do not feel" You pointed to this of course when you stated that one cannot know the others experiences. My question is then, if both of us believe we have come to our conclusion rationally, how do we lead the other person to Christ without simply shouting "You're being irrational! You're being irrational! Faker!"?


Likewise, then, though the Argument from Nonbelief may be evidence for the individual who feels that they have not been provided with an opportunity to know God, it can never be considered evidence to another person. Therefore, the Argument from Nonbelief is totally useless as a means to disprove the existence of God to another person.


Ok, but it still disproves the existence of God for the person presenting the argument. How do we help them?


My critique could stop here, but for the sake of completeness I will offer a few reasons why nonbelief may not actually be reasonable.


I'm not sure that what follows is anything more than an ad hominim which could just as easily be leveled against any Christian. I still wonder, is reason the basis of our faith


In other words, God may allow a person to have truly reasonable nonbelief for a certain time period in his/her life, as long as He makes sure that the person does not die without ever having reasonable evidence for His existence presented to them.


Sure, but now your asking the atheist to trust that a diety which he doesn't believe in will provide Him with the evidence to believe later on in life, whereas he could just as easily believe that he will never be provided with the information. It isn't reasonable to believe either.


The ironic thing about the Argument from Nonbelief is that the only way somebody can ever truly claim that they have unfair reasonable nonbelief is if they have lived out their entire existence and are now dead! Of course, dead men aren’t able to argue against the existence of God, so no man alive is able to fairly claim that the existence of God should be doubted because He would not allow reasonable nonbelief.


But, can it not be argued that the atheist refuses to believe because, up to this point, God has not assisted Him. This isn't "rational non-belief," but it can be based upon a persons rational process, it simply takes the ultimate end, belief, out of the field of reason, where I'm not sure it belongs anyway, faith being a "choice" (perhaps) and not a "law." Can a person believe without having firm rational evidence?

[Kyle]

Scottatiwu:

However, you are here using as proof of existence what the atheist uses as proof of non-existence; "it is apparent to me... I do not feel"

Not really. I didn't use the "reasonableness" of my belief as God as evidence that He exists. Rather I merely claimed that I have no first-hand experience of nonbelief that I considered reasonable. So, how can I evaluate the claims of the atheist? I really cannot, for to do so would be to presume that I have knowledge of his/her experiences and thought processes.

My question is then, if both of us believe we have come to our conclusion rationally, how do we lead the other person to Christ without simply shouting "You're being irrational! You're being irrational! Faker!"?

That is definitely not my approach. You must realize that the intent of my article was merely to refute the intellectual "Argument from Nonbelief". I am not laying out an evangelistic method here.

Ok, but it still disproves the existence of God for the person presenting the argument. How do we help them?

Right, this is where we mention that there are several factors that could be holding them back from God. We should then provide evidence that Christianity is true to the individual. Just ask them to keep their minds open, and assure them that you will do the same.

I'm not sure that what follows is anything more than an ad hominim which could just as easily be leveled against any Christian.

It is not an ad hominem at all, and I never claimed that the same factors do not also at least potentially apply to Christianity. Besides, how else are you going to respond to the Argument from Nonbelief, other than to list some factors which refutes the idea that their nonbelief is truly reasonable?

I still wonder, is reason the basis of our faith

If it's not, then what is? "Unreason?" Reason is a very broad topic. I would say that the foundation for faith is reason, based on both evidence and personal experience.

But, can it not be argued that the atheist refuses to believe because, up to this point, God has not assisted Him.

Sure it could be, but what is the difficulty with that?

Can a person believe without having firm rational evidence?

Of course they can. A more important question is "should" they believe without rational evidence? I could just as easily follow Buddhism or Zorastrianism if I disregarded the evidence. Faith isn't a lucky guess, a shot in the dark. Faith is a reasonable belief (trust) in God based on evidence and personal experience.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[scottatiwu]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325958#post325958)
Kyle:

Rather I merely claimed that I have no first-hand experience of nonbelief that I considered reasonable.


And so the atheist claims that he has no first hand experience of belief that he would consider reasonable, so you are both starting from the same point, trapped within each own's personal experience. If your intent was to place both of you on the same level, then fine, I just wasn't sure if that was the point or not.


So, how can I evaluate the claims of the atheist? I really cannot, for to do so would be to presume that I have knowledge of his/her experiences and thought processes.


So, if you can not experience his thought processes the way he does, and he cannot experience your thought processes the way you do, where do you lead him?



That is definitely not my approach.


Yeah, sorry, I was just exagerating, no offence intended.


You must realize that the intent of my article was merely to refute the intellectual "Argument from Nonbelief". I am not laying out an evangelistic method here.


Obviously. Actually, I liked most of the article, I was just asking what I thought was the next logical question, what do you do next?



Right, this is where we mention that there are several factors that could be holding them back from God.


Of course, they could be, but they also might not be. I'm just not convinced that a rational weighing of the evidence is the surest way to make converts.


We should then provide evidence that Christianity is true to the individual. Just ask them to keep their minds open, and assure them that you will do the same.


But what does it mean to keep your mind open? Can a person seperate themselves from their personal experiences? Should they when the matter they are considering is such a personal one in the first place?



It is not an ad hominem at all, and I never claimed that the same factors do not also at least potentially apply to Christianity. Besides, how else are you going to respond to the Argument from Nonbelief, other than to list some factors which refutes the idea that their nonbelief is truly reasonable?


You make a good point if you intend to say that non-belief is a choice made independent of reason, but this argument potentially could sour rather easily if you intend to make the case that belief is a choice which is more "reasonable." As you point out later reason is a broad term, so I could be missing the mark; however, taking reason to mean how I think you are using it (the practice of lableing fact something which is represented by evidence), I would have to say that both non-belief and belief are choices made independent of reason and are rather based on a "rational" concerned solely with personal experience, need, and desire. Here evidence may help to confirm, solidify, or "rationalize" a choice, so that it may be helpful, but in order to be helpful it must be interpreted, and interpretation seems to always occur through a personal lens.



If it's not, then what is? "Unreason?" Reason is a very broad topic. I would say that the foundation for faith is reason, based on both evidence and personal experience.


If by reason you mean simply a logical process, then fine, I'm willing to go with you that far. But, faith is always dependent upon the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. This occurs in the realm of experience and demonstrates for us our need. That is the issue I believe faith pivots around. All humans are in need of a right relationship with God. I would have better stated myself, but I probably would have misrepresented you, if I had said that I'm not sure that our faith is dependent upon evidence in the way that we normally think of it (primarily historically).



Of course they can. A more important question is "should" they believe without rational evidence? I could just as easily follow Buddhism or Zorastrianism if I disregarded the evidence. Faith isn't a lucky guess, a shot in the dark. Faith is a reasonable belief (trust) in God based on evidence and personal experience.


Is evidence the primary basis. What I'm asking could be summed up hypothetically; if you woke up tommorow and the news came that evidence as strong as, or stronger even than, that which supports the ressurection had been discovered which refutes the ressurection, would you still believe? Why?

God Bless,
~Scotty

[The Typist]

Ok, God would have the motive of abolishing such nonbelief, and he if were corrupt as man, he would have done so. But perhaps his will, put simply, was not to play with Barbie Dolls and put them in funny poses and plastic houses, but to build AI creatures and lovingly watch them run around as his own, calling them to him, and comforting them.

[Athanasius]

Also, belief can seem unreasonable to a man because God has given him over to delusion due to persistent sin and rejection of the truth about God. This is a form of divine judgment. Sigmund Freud, for instance, heard arguments for the existence of God by one of his University professors that He indicated, in letters to a friend, he could not refute or deny. But after wavering, he persisted in his unbelief, and later in life his unbelief seemed very reasonable to him. (The Question of God, Armand Nicholi, pages 17-19).

There are scriptures that indicate God even sends delusion upon men who stubbornly persist in sin and pride:

2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

2 Thes 2:11-12 and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie,
12 that they may be judged—all who did not believe the truth, but were well pleased in the unrighteousness.

Why would God do this? Several possible reasons occur to me. He may do it in mercy, so that He will not have to judge those who stubbornly persist in sin as harshly. At other times, He may do it so that He may send upon men punishments He has set:

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

His Spirit does not always strive with man. There is a point at which the promptings of the Spirit of God become dimly perceived, if at all. This is indeed a very fearful state for a man to fall into. If a man recognizes this as his condition, he should beg God for mercy and the chance to repent again.

Blaise Pascal wrote regarding God:

It is invariably true, that He conceals himself from those who tempt Him, and manifests Himself to those who seek Him.

What is there about the nature of God that causes Him to do this? What does this tell us about the creatures that He chooses to bestow His unmerited favor on? Perhaps it tells us that His nature is such that He chooses to force His love on none (by, for instance, continuing to force the truth on unwilling listeners). Neither does He, in one sense, force his wrath on them. It is simply all that remains for those who persist in rejecting His love.

On the other hand, more truth is given to those who embrace the truth:

Mark 4:24 Then He said to them, "Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given.
25 "For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.

There is a Divine separation here. This is how wheat grows to become recognizable as wheat, and tares as tares.

Of course there are other reasons why belief may seem unreasonable to a man, particularly, as Kyle said, prior to God making truth evident to a man. But delusion as a result of persistently rejecting truth regarding God is, I think, one of them.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

I urge anyone reading this who once could hear God calling, but no longer does, to beg God for mercy and the ability to repent again, even if you have to pray for days and ask others to pray for you. Perhaps He will grant it to you again.

[Kyle]

Scottatiwu:

If your intent was to place both of you on the same level, then fine, I just wasn't sure if that was the point or not.

Yep, it sort of is the point- because if the Argument from Nonbelief is shown to offer no evidence for atheism, it is soundly refuted.

So, if you can not experience his thought processes the way he does, and he cannot experience your thought processes the way you do, where do you lead him?

Good question, but I suppose it depends on the individual. You need to find what you believe is keeping them from recognizing God, and do your best to change that.

Yeah, sorry, I was just exagerating, no offence intended.

None taken. It is hard to convey tone on the Internet, I have the same problem quite often.

I'm just not convinced that a rational weighing of the evidence is the surest way to make converts.

Good point- in fact it is probably usually not. That is what I mean when I say that you must locate the thing that is keeping the individual from God. It may be that they have intellectual doubts, or it could be that they have emotional problems with Christianity. Probably the majority of unbelievers fall into the latter category. For those individuals a different method for convincing must surely be employed.

However, I am still convinced that rational apologetics are very useful. First of all, there are some unbeleivers who have intellectual doubts that are at least part of their reason for rejecting Christianity. Second of all, I think a lot of Christians are troubled by the false notion that Christianity is not rational to believe, or is not confirmed by the evidence. I think rational apologetics can prevent apostasy and even increase their faith significantly.

But what does it mean to keep your mind open? Can a person seperate themselves from their personal experiences?

I'm not recommending that people separate themselves from personal experiences- because personal experiences are part of the overall rationality of a belief system. However, it is possible that personal experiences are misleading- and this possibility should sometimes be considered.

I would have to say that both non-belief and belief are choices made independent of reason and are rather based on a "rational" concerned solely with personal experience, need, and desire.

First of all, personal experience, in my view, falls under the rubric of rational belief. Need and desire I would label as emotional reasons- and I think you are right that oftentimes beliefs are decided this way- although I don't think they should be.

But, faith is always dependent upon the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. This occurs in the realm of experience and demonstrates for us our need. That is the issue I believe faith pivots around.

I agree with you here- but once again I would consider the Holy Sprit's testimony to be a "rational" rather than entirely "emotional" reason to believe in Christianity.

What I'm asking could be summed up hypothetically; if you woke up tommorow and the news came that evidence as strong as, or stronger even than, that which supports the ressurection had been discovered which refutes the ressurection, would you still believe? Why?

Yes, I would still believe based on personal experience. However, I would have more reason to suppose that my personal experience was misleading.

Thanks again for your comments.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[Symphony X]

11-28-2003 @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319182#post319182)
Dee Dee Warren:

THE SKEPTICAL CHRISTIAN (http://www.skepticalchristian.com)

The Argument from Nonbelief

By Kyle


1. If God exists, He is all-loving, all-powerful, perfectly just, and He wishes for all to know Him personally.


Right away, your argument is flawed. For an argument to hold true, each and every premise must be true. There is no evidence that if god exists, that he must have all of these qualities. For your argument to be true, you must show evidence that this premise is true.


2. If a person has reasonable nonbelief, then they are not given a fair opportunity to know God.


Another questionable premise. What type of evidence do you have to support this premise?


3. If God exists, He has both the power and motive to abolish reasonable nonbelief.


Once again, another questionable premise.


4. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.


I have never seen the argument from nonbelief presented in the way that you have presented it. It seems more of a strawman.

[Symphony X]

11-28-2003 @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319182#post319182)
Dee Dee Warren:

THE SKEPTICAL CHRISTIAN (http://www.skepticalchristian.com)

The Argument from Nonbelief

By Kyle


According to this formulation of the argument I would deny Drange’s A(1) and A(3).

With regards to A(1), which claims that it is possible for God to bring up a situation in which all or almost all accept salvation by their death, I must say that I find such impossible. God also, due to his benevolence, wishes to provide human beings with free will. It is thus logically impossible for God to make a situation in which all humans freely decide to follow God.


It is actually not logically impossible. If God is truly omnipotent, then He would know exactly what would be necessary for each individual on this planet to change his mind. For example, he should know exactly what type of evidence I would need to be convinced of his existence. He could easily provide that evidence without interfering with my free will to choose. It would be no different than if I were a lawyer trying to convict someone of a crime. If I could read the minds of each member of the jury, I would know what evidence I would need to get them to convict the person. I could present that evidence, without having interfered with their free will to make the choice.

Thus, I don't think you have refuted Drange's argument.


For example, Drange supposes that God could perform spectacular miracles such as speaking with a thundering voice from the sky. However, there is no guarantee that certain individuals might complain that such an event was in their head, or that it was some vast conspiracy. As is shown with organizations such as the flat earth society, overwhelming evidence doesn’t always sway the mind of people who are not receptive towards a certain idea.

While such an event may not convince everyone, it certainly would convince more people that what would be convinced if God were not to do such a thing. This alone suggests God is not doing everything he can to convince everyone, and thus doesn't really want everyone to be saved as badly as Christians claim.



Drange also supposes that Jesus Christ could have appeared to millions. Of course, individuals today would probably claim that such was merely legendary development and not historical fact. Individuals living in the time of Christ could make up all sorts of excuses as well. Perhaps the Christ was an impostor, perhaps Christ never died on the cross. Whatever the case, absurd rationalization is certainly not an uncommon happening in humanities history.

Ditto on this one. If Christ had appeared to millions, maybe not everyone would be convinced, but definitely a lot more would have been.


Drange also suggests that fantastic prophecy could be in the Bible causing all or most to believe. However, having strange and inconceivable (at the time) prophecies in the Bible could conceivably lead to many ancients rejecting Salvation. In any case, there is no way to know whether or not the prophecies would be rationalized away by a large majority of the population.

But again, the fulfilling of a fantastic prophecy would definitely convince more people that what are currently convinced. God certainly isn't trying very hard.


Finally, Drange suggests that God could use the Internet to sway nonbelievers. How this could work I am not sure. If Drange supposes that evidence is enough to turn one’s mind, I will again mention that such does not seem to have much of an effect upon the flat earth society.

But the flat earth society represents a very small minority. The overwhelming evidence for a round earth obviously has convinced most of society. Thus, God would do himself a big favor if he were to present overwhelming evidence of the same nature. If such a God were to present evidence similar to what there is for a round earth, you would be seeing a lot more Christian believers out there.


The Argument from Reasonable Nonbelief fails on two fronts. It is completely discredited as a rational objection against the existence of God.


You claim to have discredited it, but you've discredited a strawman, in both cases.

[Kyle]

Symphony X-

I have never seen the argument from nonbelief presented in the way that you have presented it. It seems more of a strawman.

Well, perhaps you could offer your own form of the argument from nonbelief? I assure you that it was not my intention to set up a strawman, and I am not convinced that I have. I would like to see your own formulation, if that's alright.

It is actually not logically impossible. If God is truly omnipotent, then He would know exactly what would be necessary for each individual on this planet to change his mind.

Well, this assumes that every single person on the planet is capable of being convinced to follow God freely in any way whatsoever. However, my minor objections to A(1) were by no means my main objection to the Argument from Nonbelief as presented by Drange. In fact, I state so in my article:

"Of course, Drange could see the above as mere nitpicking. The fact of the matter is, he may claim, that the above would cause a significant portion of the population to accept repentance. Although I do not necessarily think that is true, I will go ahead and agree with that claim for the sake of argument."

You claim that I have presented a strawman, yet it seems that you may be guilty of the very thing you charge. My main objections to the Argument from Nonbelief have not even been challenged, so it seems as though my overall conclusion is still quite justified.

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[old_believer]

While I appreciate the variety of arguments atheists argue for the rational problems of Christianity, the biggest problem with all of them is the problem of rationality itself. On what grounds do atheists argue rationally?

If we were to take any kind of naturalism or materialism seriously, then we would have to find the basis for rationality in the natural or material universe. But such a universe, devoid of any supernatural power would have to account rationality on the principles randomness and apparent order.

If random by definition implies nonrationality, or even irrationality, how many nonrational or random events must transpire before a rational event occurs? Even then, how would you know it was rational, since there would be no way to have the same random events occur again in a predictable way?

The best one could say is that "it appears logical" or "it is possible," or "if you accept certain mid-level logical principles," principles that one cannot justify by his own world-view.

For atheism to make any claim to certain rational priniples is logically unjustified and disqualifies any "logical" argument they may make. To make a claim to "pragmatic logical principles" is not binding across cultures or others experience since it relies on unverifiable perceptions. For them to make a claim to "possible logical principles" is silly.

I was reading in the other threads about naturalism living off of supernatural ideas. This is never more true than in logic. The Stoics had the Logos. Even Aristotle had to borrow his language from Plato's forms.

For rationality to be reliable it needs an objective criterion. Christianity has one. Atheism does not.

[Caeristhiona]

Spiffy article...though I am not sure I understand why questioning the reasonableness of an atheist's disbelief is so very debilitating to their arguments. But then, I am sick and exhausted, so I may have just misunderstood the article. :o) All around, very cool and helpful. My hat is off to the dude.

[Symphony X]

12-19-2003 @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348556#post348556)
Kyle:
Well, perhaps you could offer your own form of the argument from nonbelief? I assure you that it was not my intention to set up a strawman, and I am not convinced that I have. I would like to see your own formulation, if that's alright.


After examining your presentation more closely, I was incorrect. You have formulated the ANB correctly. Your presentation is an alternative version of Philip Kuchar's:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/philip_kuchar/anb.html

Thus, you have not set up a strawman in this instance (with Drange, you have, but I will get to that later). However, you have failed to actually refute the argument.

First, you claim to have refuted part 4 (reasonable nonbelief occurs). Your refutation? Nothing more than a personal opinion and stating that it's "possible" that reasonable nonbelief does not actually occur.

It doesn't matter if it's "possible" that reasonable nonbelief does not occur. It's also possible that an invisible pink unicorn lives in the sky and leaves no trace of its existence. We're not concerned with what is possible...we're concerned with what is probable.

For you to successfully refute point #4, you need to demonstrate that reasonable nonbelief is either impossible, or at least highly improbable. For if there is only one human being on this planet who has reasonable nonbelief, then the ANB stands.

You then create a red herring by claiming that the ANB can never be considered evidence to another person, and is thus useless to disprove the existence of God to another person. First, whether the ANB can be considered evidence to another person is irrelevant to point #4, and thus it is a distraction from the true issue at hand and is a red herring.

Second, you made a claim that you cannot support and have no evidence for. You claimed that the ANB can never be considered evidence by another person. How do you know this? Because it's not considered evidence by you? How do you know that there is not at least one believer out there, who, after carefully reading the argument, might at least being to question the existence of God and start to seek out further evidence?

Even if the ANB cannot be considered evidence by another person, it's irrelevant. Claiming that the ANB is useless in disproving the existence of God to another person does nothing to actually refute the ANB. It is simply a red herring presented by you. It doesn't matter how many people can or cannot be convinced by the ANB. The ability of an argument to convince someone else has no relation to its validity. For you to successfully refute the ANB, you need to successfully refute its premises.

You then go on to list some reasons why you think that nonbelief may be unreasonable. The only thing that you've done is list some, not all, reasons why unbelief might occur. You've given no evidence that these are all the reasons for nonbelief. Thus, you have provided no evidence that ALL nonbelief is unreasonable.

In fact, your reasons probably apply to only a minority of atheists. Go over to the message board at infidels.org and read the testimonies of why people converted to atheism, and you would find that most of them have nothing to do with the reasons you've presented. Again, you've presented no hard, factual evidence that these are all the reasons for nonbelief. You've done nothing more than offer your opinion on why nonbelief occurs. So, you have failed to refute premise #4.

You also failed to refute premise #3. You offered up nothing more than personal conjecture on why you thought God might allow reasonable nonbelief. You then take this conjecture, and, in a non-sequitur, make it mean that reasonable nonbelief will never occur throughout an individual's lifetime. Certainly, the reasons you gave may be reasons why God might allow temporary nonbelief. But giving possible reasons why God might allow temporary reasonable nonbelief is not evidence that all reasonable nonbelief is temporary. You offered no evidence that all reasonable nonbelief is temporary, other than stating that it was so. For you to refute premise #3, you have to prove that all reasonable nonbelief is truly temporary.

So, until you actually provide hard evidence (not personal conjecture) refuting both premise 3 and 4, you have done nothing to refute the ANB.


Well, this assumes that every single person on the planet is capable of being convinced to follow God freely in any way whatsoever.


You don't need to assume that every single person is capable of that. Even if every person is not like that, there will surely be a large number of people who can be convinced. Yet they are not.

For example, I know what it would take for God to convince me that he exists and I should follow the Christian god. The things I would need would not be a violation of anybody's free will. Yet, these things have not happened. So there is one person that could be saved, yet is not because God isn't trying hard enough.



However, my minor objections to A(1) were by no means my main objection to the Argument from Nonbelief as presented by Drange. In fact, I state so in my article:

"Of course, Drange could see the above as mere nitpicking. The fact of the matter is, he may claim, that the above would cause a significant portion of the population to accept repentance. Although I do not necessarily think that is true, I will go ahead and agree with that claim for the sake of argument."

You claim that I have presented a strawman, yet it seems that you may be guilty of the very thing you charge. My main objections to the Argument from Nonbelief have not even been challenged, so it seems as though my overall conclusion is still quite justified.


Your conclusion is not justified because you only dealt with a small portion of Drange's argument, and then proceeded to declare that you had successfully refuted Drange. The part that you dealt with, you didn't actually deal with what Drange was saying, and thus you beat up a strawman. First, you quote Drange:


Even direct implantation of belief into a person's mind need not interfere with his/her free will. If that person were to want true beliefs and not care how the beliefs are obtained, then for God to directly implant true beliefs into his/her mind would not interfere with, but would rather comply with, the person's free will

Then you go on to say:


In any case, forcing someone to love you is perhaps the most flagrant and obvious violation one can think of. If that doesn’t qualify as interfering with free will, then I don’t know what does.


But in the quotation, Drange said nothing about loving god. He was talking about belief. You could easily believe in God and not love him. You could easily know he exists and have it not be a violation of your free will. The implantation of a gene that causes you to know that God exists would be no different from the other instincts that we all have...the desire for sex, the need to eat when we our hungry, the natural reflex an infant has to suckle, etc. For example, having the desire for sex is not a violation of my free will, because I could easily choose not to have it even if the desire is there.

So, no, you have not refuted Drange's argument.

[Symphony X]

12-20-2003 @ 02:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349579#post349579)
old_believer:

For rationality to be reliable it needs an objective criterion. Christianity has one. Atheism does not.

There is nothing more subjective than an "invisible" force that supposedly rules the universe. And since so many Christians disagree on many things (hence the many denominations), this is even more evidence that Christianity does not have a true objective criterion.

On the whole, your argument seems to be a version of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (the TAG)...basically, the viewpoint that logic cannot exist without God. However, this argument has been thoroughly refuted a number of times. Here are some articles by Michael Martin that refute the TAG:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/induction.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang2.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

[Caeristhiona]

There is nothing more subjective than an "invisible" force that supposedly rules the universe. And since so many Christians disagree on many things (hence the many denominations), this is even more evidence that Christianity does not have a true objective criterion.

I think, maybe, the reference was to the Bible, which is extremely objective, seeing as the various denominations haven't yet made changes to that.

[Symphony X]

Today @ 07:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353776#post353776)
Caeristhiona:



I think, maybe, the reference was to the Bible, which is extremely objective, seeing as the various denominations haven't yet made changes to that.

The Bible is hardly objective either, given that it is full of contradictions, both contradictions with itself and contradictions with actual history, and that no one seems to agree on how it should be interpreted.

[Kyle]

Symphony X-

First, you claim to have refuted part 4 (reasonable nonbelief occurs). Your refutation? Nothing more than a personal opinion and stating that it's "possible" that reasonable nonbelief does not actually occur.

Yes, but these claims were merely used to set up my later objection to the ANB, which I will defend below.

You then create a red herring by claiming that the ANB can never be considered evidence to another person, and is thus useless to disprove the existence of God to another person. First, whether the ANB can be considered evidence to another person is irrelevant to point #4, and thus it is a distraction from the true issue at hand and is a red herring.

It is not a red herring at all- I was merely pointing out the lack of an epistemic basis for even discussing #4 positively or negatively. I simply claimed that I am in no position to discuss whether or not someone else's nonbelief is reasonable. How could I have such knowledge? But, if #4 is unable to be either confirmed or unconfirmed, then the ANB fails. This is because the atheist who promotes the ANB shoulders the burden of proof. The atheist is unable to make his case if he cannot demonstrate the actual existence of reasonable nonbelief.

Second, you made a claim that you cannot support and have no evidence for. You claimed that the ANB can never be considered evidence by another person. How do you know this?

I mentioned my reason in the original article:

What should I do when another individual claims that the evidence isn’t obvious to them? Is there any way I can know whether or not the individual is truly reasonable in his nonbelief? Of course not, because I would need to be them in order to understand their thought processes.

Therefore, I stated that the ANB can never (or, perhaps I should say "should" never) be considered evidence to another individual because no individual can ever be aware of another person's thought processes.

Consider this scenario- suppose that you claim that you have not been provided with enough evidence for God's existence. Is there any way for me to prove you wrong? Of course not, I am not aware of your thought processes.

Now suppose the tables are turned. Let's say I claim that God has provided me with a personal experience of Him, and therefore you should believe that He exists. Should you be convinced by this argument? Of course not- for I could merely be deluded or confused. But, if you force me to believe you when you claim that God has not provided you with enough evidence, then why should you assume I am mistaken when I say that I have a personal experience of God?

You see, you are simply in no place to judge my claim to have a personal experience, and I am in no place to judge whether or not you have reasonable nonbelief. Therefore, I should not be convinced of atheism based on your testimony the same way you should not be convinced of Christianity based on mine.

How do you know that there is not at least one believer out there, who, after carefully reading the argument, might at least being to question the existence of God and start to seek out further evidence?

Another person may very well be swayed by the Argument from Nonbelief. I will admit that it has much polemical force. The real question, however, is whether or not the ANB should be considered evidence against God's existence. Based on my objections, it seems that the answer to this question is that it should not.

You then go on to list some reasons why you think that nonbelief may be unreasonable.

What would you have me do? What else should a Christian do in response to the ANB. You make it sound like it's a bad thing that I merely claim that some of the reasons may cause unbelief. Would you rather me be dogmatic about it?

The only thing that you've done is list some, not all, reasons why unbelief might occur. You've given no evidence that these are all the reasons for nonbelief. Thus, you have provided no evidence that ALL nonbelief is unreasonable.

Consider the ridiculous burden you put on me. I am supposed to provide evidence that ALL nonbelief is unreasonable? How would I go about doing this, even theoretically?

In any case, you are clearly wrong about the burden of proof here. All I need to do is show that it is reasonable to suppose that all unbelief is unreasonable. By providing multiple reasons for nonbelief, I have at least shown that it is reasonable to assume that nonbelief is always unreasonable (especially considering my other arguments against the ANB). However, you object to that claim when you continue:

In fact, your reasons probably apply to only a minority of atheists. Go over to the message board at infidels.org and read the testimonies of why people converted to atheism, and you would find that most of them have nothing to do with the reasons you've presented.

Do you actually expect the atheists at infidels.org to cite "Pride" or "Anger", etc., as their reasons for rejecting Christianity? Of course not!

You also failed to refute premise #3. You offered up nothing more than personal conjecture on why you thought God might allow reasonable nonbelief.

Well, "personal conjecture" is about all we can use when dealing with the ANB. A rational evaluation of it simply revolves around finding out whose "conjectures" are more reasonable.

For you to refute premise #3, you have to prove that all reasonable nonbelief is truly temporary.

Not true. You, as the one supporting the ANB, are required to demonstrate that the ANB is probable or at least reasonable. I am only required to show that it is somewhat plausible to assume that it is false. (Otherwise, consider how impossible it would be for me to provide evidence that ALL reasonable nonbelief is temporary. It's impossible even to identify reasonable nonbelief in the first place, so I don't see how I could identify "temporary reasonable nonbelief". Clearly, the burden of proof is on you as the one supporting the argument.)

But in the quotation, Drange said nothing about loving god. He was talking about belief.

True, I should not use words so fluently. But, as I point out in my article, it is unlikely that God is concerned with mere "belief". In any case, it seems like it would still be a violation of free will even if it was mere belief. Consider your example:

For example, having the desire for sex is not a violation of my free will, because I could easily choose not to have it even if the desire is there.

Ironically, this is very similar to the scenario with Christianity. For, according to Christianity, God has provided us all with a tendency to believe- we all know it "in our hearts". However, we have the freedom to choose to reject this for whatever reason. And that, I suppose, is what people do when they reject Christianity.

[Symphony X]

Yesterday @ 03:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356637#post356637)
Kyle:

You see, you are simply in no place to judge my claim to have a personal experience, and I am in no place to judge whether or not you have reasonable nonbelief. Therefore, I should not be convinced of atheism based on your testimony the same way you should not be convinced of Christianity based on mine.


But this IS a red herring. Whether or not you are convinced of atheism, based on my testimony, has no bearing on the validity of the ANB. Even if the ANB failed to convince every single person on this earth, it would still not mean that it's not valid. It would mean that it's not useful for convincing anyone, but the usefulness of an argument in convincing people has no bearing on the arguments validity.


Consider the ridiculous burden you put on me. I am supposed to provide evidence that ALL nonbelief is unreasonable? How would I go about doing this, even theoretically?


You would need to provide some evidence to indicate that reasonable nonbelief is IMPROBABLE. You must show that the reasons that you gave are more probable than alternative examples of reasonable nonbelief (an example of which I will give you in a bit).



In any case, you are clearly wrong about the burden of proof here. All I need to do is show that it is reasonable to suppose that all unbelief is unreasonable.


But you have done nothing of the sort. Providing multiple reasons for nonbelief does nothing but give some reasons as to why some nonbelief might occur. You have not given any reasons as to why these reasons are more probable than other reasons. It is merely speculation on your part, and speculation cannot be used to falsify a premise of an argument.


By
providing multiple reasons for nonbelief, I have at least shown that it is reasonable to assume that nonbelief is always unreasonable


You have not shown that it is reasonable to assume that it's always unreasonable. You've only shown that it's reasonable to assume it's sometimes unreasonable. Even of the reasons you presented, you have failed to show why they are unreasonable. In fact, at least one of the reasons you've presented is quite reasonable.

"The wish to disregard theistic morality" can be quite reasonable, given that the entire basis of theistic morality is based on one principle...might makes right. However, one can have purely rational objections to this principle, objections that have nothing to do with simply "not wanting to follow God's orders." Instead, they are intellectual objections to the idea that God's orders must be followed simply because of his power over us. If whatever God wills is good because of his power over us, then, by logical conclusion, whatever a parent does to a child is good, including physical or psychological abuse, because the parent is more powerful than the child.

Also, there is nothing unreasonable about the expectations that you claim are ridiculous. For example, you claim that the expectation that God will come down and have a chat is ridiculous. However, in the Bible, God spoke to people all of the time on a regular basis. If it was reasonable for him to speak to people then, then it is reasonable for him to speak to people now.

There is nothing unreasonable about the evidence that is required by many atheists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you were to claim that you went to the grocery store and bought food yesterday, I would require very little evidence for such a claim (I would actually accept it at face value) since it is a regular occurrence that happens to many people. However, if you were to claim that you went to the grocery store and saw a sasquatch there, that is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence required to support it would be more than just your word that it happened.

The claim that there is a supernatural being, more complex than the complex universe yet invisible to all of us, is about as extraordinary of a claim as that there's an invisible pink unicorn in the sky. Both of these claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence.

In fact, contrary to your claim, many atheists require the exact same amount of evidence for God that they would need for other things, and that includes me. I am an ex-Christian, and, during my Christian days, I began to have some questions with the Christian belief system. So, I approached the problem as any scientist would....you develop a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis by attempting to falsify it. In my case, the hypothesis was that Christianity is representative of the truth and the Christian god is the true god. If that hypothesis is true, then a number of predictions would be made, such as:

1. The Bible would be historically accurate in every way since it is the word of God
2. The Bible would be free of contradictions

etc.

I began to test these parts by attempting to confirm or falsify these predictions. I read the best arguments for Christianity and its truth by the best Christian apologists, and then read counter-arguments. I examined documented history and compared it to biblical history. I read biblical criticisms and the Christian responses to it. Basically, if Christianity was representative of the truth, then the Christian apologists should present better, more logical arguments then their opponents, and their predictions should hold true. However, I found out that the apologists failed miserably. The predictions were easily falsified. The arguments by the non-believers were more logical and not full of holes like the arguments by the apologists. I saw errors in the thought process of the apologists, which I did not see in their opponents. I found that the only way the apologists could deal with the criticisms was through the use of all sorts of wild ad hoc explanations that were highly improbable, and would have required me to basically be intellectually dishonest with myself. So, I rejected Christianity. I rejected it based on a very methodical, scientific-like approach....hence, reasonable nonbelief.

Now, you might state that I somehow had some preconceived biases or anger against God or something else that I'm not telling you. However, you would simply be setting up a nonfalsifiable hypothesis (more on this later).

When I rejected Christianity, I did not become atheist right away. I became more of a deist. However, with deism I still saw problems intellectually. Eventually, atheism was the only hypothesis that fit all of the "data" which is why I accepted it.

In science, a theory is a model that explains some type of observed phenomena. Predictions are made from the model, and they are confirmed or falsified. If the predictions are falsified, then the theory must be modified to meet the new predictions, or completely thrown out. I found that Christianity, as a model, failed to explain all the data from the real world. Atheism for me was the only view that fit, and thus, my nonbelief is perfectly reasonable.

Later on in your discussion, you falsify your own argument, because you then claim that reasonable nonbelief can occur, but it's temporary. Temporary or not, you contradicted yourself, because first you claim that there is no reasonable nonbelief, but then you go on to assert that temporary reasonable nonbelief can occur. If temporary reasonable nonbelief occurs, then reasonable nonbelief occurs, period, and premise #4 is supported. However, if premise #4 is false and reasonable nonbelief does not occur, then your argument against premise #3 fails, because it is dependent on the existence of temporary reasonable nonbelief. Basically, by accepting the concept of temporary reasonable nonbelief, then you must accept that some nonbelief is reasonable.

The whole concept of "temporary reasonable nonbelief" creates even more problems for your argument, particularly for the "free will" defense. The problem is as follows. If God cannot interfere with the free will of humans, then he can have no way of controlling when I die, because my death can occur at the hands of other humans. For example, a murderer could walk into my house at this moment and kill me, and God would not be able to control it, because God will not interfere with the murderer's free will. Or, I could go out and drive in my car, and someone else could get drunk (by their own free will) and kill me on the road. In any case, I could easily die before I've been given the opportunity for my reasonable nonbelief to be abolished.

Now, if God is able to provide me with enough evidence before I die, then that indicates that he has control over when I die. However, if God has control over when I die, this indicates he has control over other people's free will. And if he has control over other people's free will, then there would be nothing wrong with God implanting a "love" gene and getting people to love him that way.

However, if God has no control over when I die, then he may not get the chance to provide me enough evidence before I die, and thus temporary reasonable nonbelief does not exist. No matter how you look at it, your argument creates many difficult logical hurdles.


Do you actually expect the atheists at infidels.org to cite "Pride" or "Anger", etc., as their reasons for rejecting Christianity? Of course not!

You've set up a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

Basically, if I were to present ANY testimonial of an atheist to you that fit the idea of reasonable non-belief, you would automatically resort to stating what you did above..."well, of course I wouldn't expect them to admit that pride and anger are their reasons for rejecting Christianity!"

You have hypothesized that anger and pride are main reasons for rejecting Christianity, and anything that doesn't fit this hypothesis, you hand-wave away with an ad hoc explanation by claiming that the atheist isn't really presenting their true reasons. No testimonial will ever work for you because you will always respond that the true motivations are not being presented. Therefore, you've created a non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is a fallacy.

Non-falsifiable hypotheses are found frequently in the realm of pseudoscience. For example, a lot of well-controlled research has been unable to support the existence of ESP. What is the response of ESP-believers? "The researchers don't have enough faith in ESP which is why they aren't getting any results." Thus, no matter how many well-designed studies fail to show the existence of ESP, believers will resort to this response, creating a non-falsifiable hypothesis that ESP is a real phenomenon.



Ironically, this is very similar to the scenario with Christianity. For, according to Christianity, God has provided us all with a tendency to believe- we all know it "in our hearts". However, we have the freedom to choose to reject this for whatever reason. And that, I suppose, is what people do when they reject Christianity.

I have met many people who never "knew it in their heart" that Christianity was representative of the truth.

[Kyle]

But this IS a red herring. Whether or not you are convinced of atheism, based on my testimony, has no bearing on the validity of the ANB.

Still, you miss the point. I don't care whether or not people are convinced by your testimony. I care about whether or not they are EPISTEMICALLY JUSTIFIED in converting due to your testimony. The plain old fact of the matter is that they are not justified in doing so, in the same way that an atheist is not justified in becoming a Christian merely because a friend of his/hers offers their own testimony.

You would need to provide some evidence to indicate that reasonable nonbelief is IMPROBABLE. You must show that the reasons that you gave are more probable than alternative examples of reasonable nonbelief (an example of which I will give you in a bit).

Right, this would be a much more acceptable challenge. I want to point one thing out though.

My argument has two main points. My FIRST point is this-

1. Due to the inability of another person to experience another individual's thought processes, one is unjustified, even in principle, in being an atheist OR a Christian based on testimony alone.

That is my most important point. It is a fairly strong claim- obviously if I am right about point 1 then the ANB is completely refuted. Now, I offered a SECOND point later in the article, to wit:

2. There are a variety of factors which could be responsible for nonbelief which cause that nonbelief to be unreasonable, and it is plausible that there is little or no actually reasonable nonbelief in the world.

It is important to realize that point 2 is completely independent of point 1- such that even if you thoroughly smashed point 2, then the ANB would still be refuted by point 1. So far, your only argument against point 1 is that "whether or not an argument is convincing is irrelevant to whether or not the argument is valid." That's true, but as I have pointed out your argument does not address the point. For, my argument is not that the ANB fails because it doesn't convince anybody. Rather, my argument is that the ANB fails because it is invalid for another person to formulate a belief based on another's personal testimony alone. Therefore, the ANB SHOULDN'T convince anyone, wholly apart from the fact of whether or not it actually does. Obviously, persons can still be convinced by a faulty argument, and I feel that anybody who is convinced by the ANB is convinced by a bad argument, plain and simple.

But you have done nothing of the sort. Providing multiple reasons for nonbelief does nothing but give some reasons as to why some nonbelief might occur. You have not given any reasons as to why these reasons are more probable than other reasons. It is merely speculation on your part, and speculation cannot be used to falsify a premise of an argument.

Well, firstly there really is no reason for me to defend my factors to the degree you require, because Point 2 does not even have to be successful for the overall refutation of the ANB to be successful. In any case, I don't quite understand how I am supposed to give reasons for why the factors I mentioned are likely to apply to a large number of atheists. What sort of evidence do you want. The speculations are quite reasonable. Consider the factors I mention all fall under these 6 basic concepts:

1. Bias
2. Pride
3. Anger
4. Unrealistic Expectations
5. Immorality
6. Laziness

Now, are you going to tell me that these are uncommon ailments of human beings? It seems to me that these are all very reasonable suppositions. If not, why not?

"The wish to disregard theistic morality" can be quite reasonable, given that the entire basis of theistic morality is based on one principle...might makes right.

This is an entirely questionable interpretation of theistic morality, but even if it isn't you simply miss the point. Under the worldview of Christianity, certain things like lust, pre-marital sex, and blasphemy are considered evil even though secular persons may not think so. But if those secular persons don't look at the evidence fairly because they don't WANT to be morally responsible for those kinds of activities, then they are being unreasonable with regard to their belief.

Also, there is nothing unreasonable about the expectations that you claim are ridiculous. For example, you claim that the expectation that God will come down and have a chat is ridiculous. However, in the Bible, God spoke to people all of the time on a regular basis. If it was reasonable for him to speak to people then, then it is reasonable for him to speak to people now.

Just because God has spoken to persons in the past does not mean that such a revelation should be the standard for belief. It was "reasonable" for God to speak to them, but it is not "reasonable" for every Joe Shmoe to demand a personal visit.

There is nothing unreasonable about the evidence that is required by many atheists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Perhaps so, but you would first have to show that the existence of God is somehow "extraordinary" in the same way that the sighting of Sasquatch is. It must first be realized that God, if He exists, is an entity that exists outside of the physical universe which we inhabit. But, we have no experience of anything outside the physical universe, so that we don't have any standard of evidence to evaluate the existence of God in that realm.

But this is just nitpicking- let us suppose that God's existence really is extraordinary. Should we then expect God to have a chat with us in order to believe? That is not necessarily the case. If an abundance of evidence for Sasquatch were to be compiled (and to withstand scrutiny) then it would be reasonable to suppose that Sasquatch really exists.

[I]In fact, contrary to your claim, many atheists require the exact same amount of evidence for God that they would need for other things, and that includes me.

Wait a second- how is your claim contrary to mine. If you recall, my statement was:

Many times atheists suppose God should write "Jesus Christ lives. Repent and be saved!" on the moon. They may expect God to come down and have a chat. In both situations, the expectation of evidence is much too high.

That statement in no way conflicts with your claim that "many atheists require the exact same amount of evidence for God than they would need for other things". In fact, I agree with your statement. My argument is simply that SOME atheists (or perhaps "many") have unreasonable expectations of evidence for God's existence.

So, I rejected Christianity. I rejected it based on a very methodical, scientific-like approach....hence, reasonable nonbelief.

Now, you might state that I somehow had some preconceived biases or anger against God or something else that I'm not telling you. However, you would simply be setting up a nonfalsifiable hypothesis

I certainly wouldn't claim that you had preconceived biases, etc.- as it would be entirely unfair for me to psychologize you. All I would say is that it is possible that you have unreasonable underlying reasons for your nonbelief. Or, it is possible that your unbelief is currently reasonable but will be found by you to be unreasonable at some other point in time. Since both options are very possible, it is foolish for me to discard my own belief in God based on your personal testimony.

Later on in your discussion, you falsify your own argument, because you then claim that reasonable nonbelief can occur, but it's temporary. Temporary or not, you contradicted yourself, because first you claim that there is no reasonable nonbelief, but then you go on to assert that temporary reasonable nonbelief can occur.

If you read my article carefully, you will see that in no place do I actually dogmatically claim that there is no reasonable nonbelief. All I claim is that it is possible that such is the case. Then, later on in the article, I claim that temporary reasonable nonbelief MAY exist. Therefore, I do not falsify my own argument.

Basically, my overall argument against the ANB is that

1. Reasonable nonbelief either does not exist or is minimal

then there is:

2. Any reasonable nonbelief which may remain is not unfair because God will at some point in the individual's life provide sufficient evidence.

If God cannot interfere with the free will of humans, then he can have no way of controlling when I die, because my death can occur at the hands of other humans. For example, a murderer could walk into my house at this moment and kill me, and God would not be able to control it, because God will not interfere with the murderer's free will. Or, I could go out and drive in my car, and someone else could get drunk (by their own free will) and kill me on the road. In any case, I could easily die before I've been given the opportunity for my reasonable nonbelief to be abolished.

There are two problems with this argument. First of all, God's gift of free will does not mean that He can never interfere with the affairs of humans. Second of all, God could provide the evidence for His existence before a person's death (He would know right when to provide it for He would know when the person will die).

Basically, if I were to present ANY testimonial of an atheist to you that fit the idea of reasonable non-belief, you would automatically resort to stating what you did above..."well, of course I wouldn't expect them to admit that pride and anger are their reasons for rejecting Christianity!"

Non-falsifiable or not, it is nonetheless true. And, in any case, it is not important to my argument that I am able to "answer" all those atheist testimonies. Should you have to "answer" all of the personal experience testimonies of Christians?

Seriously, how are you going to go about refuting the Christian testimonies? You could claim that they are delusional- but then I could claim the same thing about the atheists. You could claim that they are not using their rational faculties- but then I could turn around and claim the same thing about the atheists. That's why it is utterly useless to "argue" about personal testimonies. Personal testimonies cannot be fairly used as evidence in favor of the ANB, one way or the other.

No testimonial will ever work for you because you will always respond that the true motivations are not being presented.

Precisely- no testimonial will ever work because testimonies are ineffective as evidence. You would have to resort to the same ad hoc rationalizations to discount theistic testimonies as well.

Sincerely,

Kyle.