Subjectivity and Defensive Reasoning

[Seasanctuary]

"along with natural theology generally [the teleological argument] must finally be judged unsuccessful. [...] the verdict must be that natural atheology is no more successful than natural theology." - from the Preface of God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga, Cornell University, 1967.

I don't think reason can be used to conclude there is -- or is not -- a God. Apparently Plantinga agreed when he wrote the Preface quoted above. So why all the focus on reasoning when skeptics and apologists get together? I suggest two explanations:

Defensive Reasoning

Seems like most reasoning is carried out defensively. The other side claims it is self contradictory to hold X belief, so reasoning is employed to show that X belief could be held consistently. In other words: I could be right as a Christian. Or: I could be right as an Atheist.

Defense is easier than offense. Pointing out that suffering might be justified for a greater good is easier than proving this could not possibly be the case. Pointing out that early Christians might have gotten their story wrong is easier than proving something else actually happened. People love to put the burden of proof on the other side because playing defense while making the other side play offense is usually an automatic win, or at least not a loss.

Subjectivity

Religious belief or lack of religious belief is predominantly the result of each individual's subjective outlook. Plantinga spends a lot of time defending subjective feelings that God exists as a justification for a person holding God beliefs. Of course some people lack those subjective feelings that God exists and -- since there isn't a way to show God exists through reason -- don't believe in God.

As a rule, neither side likes to admit that it all comes down to subjectivity. To feelings. To personal experiences which can't be removed from our minds and objectively measured. We all know feelings can be untrustworthy, so we try to rationalize our feelings. If we can get the other guy to admit to subjectivity while we deny it, we win!

[NeilUnreal]

Being a Zen/Poststructuralist, I admit to subjectivity right up front. It drives both sides crazy.

-Neil

[FlimFlamboyant]

I don't think reason can be used to conclude there is -- or is not -- a God. Apparently Plantinga agreed when he wrote the Preface quoted above. So why all the focus on reasoning when skeptics and apologists get together?

I would say that reason alone is insufficient. Some degree of faith must lead the way before a conclusion can be made, regardless of what the conclusion is. Of course, most skeptics poo-poo the idea of faith (even in themselves) playing any part in their rationalizations, but they would be mistaken. Assumptions must be and always are made at some point.

Nonetheless, many have convinced themselves that we're nothing more than fancy biological computers that can be manipulated to arrive at any conclusion if we just tweak the right inputs. This sort of "pocket calculator" type of reasoning is what I find to be prominent amongst most skeptics, and even some apologists that I run across.

Faith is the great equalizer. It allows anyone, regardless of intelligence, to travel beyond the boundaries of their natural limitations. It cannot be tamed by strict rationality, and this inability to be micro-managed scares a lot of people away. However, if entirely unrestrained by reason, it can run amok, and examples of this can be seen everywhere. There's something of a balance that needs to be struck.

Defensive Reasoning

Seems like most reasoning is carried out defensively. The other side claims it is self contradictory to hold X belief, so reasoning is employed to show that X belief could be held consistently. In other words: I could be right as a Christian. Or: I could be right as an Atheist.

Defense is easier than offense. Pointing out that suffering might be justified for a greater good is easier than proving this could not possibly be the case. Pointing out that early Christians might have gotten their story wrong is easier than proving something else actually happened. People love to put the burden of proof on the other side because playing defense while making the other side play offense is usually an automatic win, or at least not a loss.

Agreed; and this goes right back to the pocket calculator type of reasoning that I had mentioned before. People plug in the numbers, calculate the probabilities, and form a conclusion based upon them, insisting that "this is the best we have to go on"... Is it?

Subjectivity

Religious belief or lack of religious belief is predominantly the result of each individual's subjective outlook. Plantinga spends a lot of time defending subjective feelings that God exists as a justification for a person holding God beliefs. Of course some people lack those subjective feelings that God exists and -- since there isn't a way to show God exists through reason -- don't believe in God.

As a rule, neither side likes to admit that it all comes down to subjectivity. To feelings. To personal experiences which can't be removed from our minds and objectively measured. We all know feelings can be untrustworthy, so we try to rationalize our feelings. If we can get the other guy to admit to subjectivity while we deny it, we win!

Agreed again, with the caveat that some degree of rationality has to exist in order to keep things in check.

[TheologicalDisc]

It's hilarious that I was ridiculed(by some people) for this thread when so many people say almost the exact same thing, just in a different way. SS just reiterated what I was trying to say.

You basically just laid out the frame work of why militant atheism fails so hard.

[ENeGMA]

Yes, but where do we get to the part where it turns out that I'm right?

[Seasanctuary]

It's hilarious that I was ridiculed(by some people) for this thread when so many people say almost the exact same thing, just in a different way. SS just reiterated what I was trying to say.

You're right. The two posts are fairly similar. Don't sue me!

[TheologicalDisc]

You're right. The two posts are fairly similar. Don't sue me!

No, it's too late, you'll be hearing from my lawyers at any moment.

[Darth Executor]

As a rule, neither side likes to admit that it all comes down to subjectivity. To feelings. To personal experiences which can't be removed from our minds and objectively measured. We all know feelings can be untrustworthy, so we try to rationalize our feelings. If we can get the other guy to admit to subjectivity while we deny it, we win!

Not true. Everything I say is objective truth, even if it's an obvious logical contradiction.

[37818]

Logiic cannot prove the existence or the non-existence of God.

For example, on the premise that there is no God. How can logic show that premise to be false? It can not. There not being a God, making any kind of claim that there is one will never make such a non-existent God to exist. It is that simple.

Make the permise the other way - you have what has been proposed by Pascal.

Now the real answer is in one personally coming to know such a God. And the identity of who and what He really is would be a nice touch. And why there is the Son of God who is co-equal, co-eternal and so also being God with His Father.

Jesus made this claim, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself." -- John 7:16, 17.

So one can know the teaching is really from God. But one must be willing to do God's will. What is this will Jesus is talking about?

The Apostle Paul wrote, ". . . if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3.

Question: Is this gospel hid from just some of the lost or all of the lost? I believe the latter.

So what is God's will, to know what the real gospel story means. And why you should believe it to be true. And the meaning of Justice and grace for the believer (see Romans 3:23-26. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. John 1:12, 13; 2 Corinthians 5:11-17.)

And if you are not a believer: Ask yourself are you really interested in what is really true? Believers should do the same.