How obviously true is Christianity or Atheism?

[nightbringer]

I thought it would be interesting to see how "obvious" Christians find the truth of Christianity and how "obvious" atheists find the truth of atheism. "Obvious" here is quite an intuitive concept, you can't precisely quantify it. Something is obvious to you if it just seems like plain sense, like the truth of it is right before your eyes. Note that you might think your view has a 99% probability of being true and yet you might not think it's obviously true. You might think, for instance, that while all the facts point to your chosen conclusion, it takes a great deal of careful effort to see which way those facts properly point. The conclusion doesn't just jump out to anyone with a modest degree of intelligence, you think. Contrast to a case in which another person also assigns a 99% probability to the truth of the same view, but thinks that this conclusion ought to be plain to all - that it is just clearly the truth.

Please bear in mind that I couldn't fit all I wanted into the poll options themselves. I think it's helpful in locating our position on the certain map to recognise how we think about our ideological opposites. Thus consider the actual poll choices to be...

1. I'm a Christian and Christianity seems, to me, evidently true. I find it hard to understand how anyone could be an Atheist.

2. I'm a Christian and Christianity seems, to me, the strongest option. I sometimes struggle to understand Atheists, but I can sometimes see why they're convinced as they are.

3. I'm a Christian and Christianity seems, to me, to point in the right direction. But I often feel the persuasive force of Atheism too.

4. I'm an Atheist and Atheism seems, to me, evidently true. I find it hard to understand how anyone could be a Christian.

5. I'm an Atheist and Atheism seems, to me, the strongest option. I sometimes struggle to understand Christians, but I can sometimes see why they're convinced as they are.

6. I'm an Atheist and Atheism seems, to me, to point in the right direction. But I often feel the persuasive force of Christianity too.

You do not quality for, say, the “I can sometimes see why they're convinced” options if you have a “gross error” theory about their beliefs. If you, for instance, think that Christians only believe in Christianity because they've been culturally indoctrinated to do so, that doesn't count. Likewise, if you think the only motive for Atheism is the desire for autonomy before the God one hates, that doesn't count. Your understanding of the other side in both these case is that some sort of gross error is required for their belief to be adopted. Seeing why someone might be convinced of the other view, in the sense I'm searching for, is not having a theory as to why people believe this or that. It is finding oneself honestly pulled, to some extent, by some consideration in favour of the other side.

So, how about you? If you're atheist, is reading atheism from the facts of the world easy and natural? Does it seem pretty unambigously true?

If you're a Christian, what about your Christianity? Does it take some gross error not to see it's plain truth? Is it just evidently correct?

Are the people here for whom their conclusions are a bit more "embattled?"

I don't want to imply at the get-go that any one set of answers is more "sophisticated" than any others. It may very well be the case that we one of the answers ought to be obvious to all, or that we ought to be "torn" in our believings. We can discuss the implications as we go!

[Whag]

So, how about you? If you're atheist, is reading atheism from the facts of the world easy and natural? Does it seem pretty unambigously true?

Only in the sense that almost everything we see has a natural cause or explanation, no matter how hard it is to imagine. If God exists and wants us to know him through teleological proofs, he did a curious thing by comparing himself to an artisan; artisans are typically deliberate and interactive, where cosmic bodies and biological bodies follow a more random process, which is almost a bad word to Christians who fancy a more involved and active God.

[Jedidiah]

Neither are very obvious, evidently. There are many who reject one or the other.

[nightbringer]

Neither are very obvious, evidently. There are many who reject one or the other.

It might be possible to construct an argument, based on the widespread disagreement, that no-one should consider one or the other obvious. But I'm asking what it is that people do in fact feel, not what they ought to feel. And it is quite possible for someone to feel that their view is just evident, despite the disagreement (the disagreement often ends up handled by a "gross error" theory in these cases.)

(To be clear, I'm not saying here that gross error theories are automatically false. They might be true, as far as I'm concerned here.)

[nightbringer]

Only in the sense that almost everything we see has a natural cause or explanation, no matter how hard it is to imagine. If God exists and wants us to know him through teleological proofs, he did a curious thing by comparing himself to an artisan; artisans are typically deliberate and interactive, where cosmic bodies and biological bodies follow a more random process, which is almost a bad word to Christians who fancy a more involved and active God.

When I said "facts of the world" I didn't just mean "natural" facts (apologies for the ambiguity). I meant anything that could be construed as part of the world we deal with. So, with yourself Whag, obviously you find the arguments of natural theology (at least in as far as they approach science) to be weak. But do you feel a theistic "pull" in other areas/ways? Can you sometimes picture yourself as a Christian (without having first committed some gross error)? Is that a conceivable possibility to you or do you find the "appeal" largely unintelligible (at least, while still being sympathetic)?

[37818]

As to the question, Atheism would seem more so. As to the poll, none of the choices. Since for me Atheism is absurd, and Christianity is an absolute certainty.

See 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4. Romans 3:11. 1 John 5:9-13. John 17:3.

[Whag]

When I said "facts of the world" I didn't just mean "natural" facts (apologies for the ambiguity). I meant anything that could be construed as part of the world we deal with. So, with yourself Whag, obviously you find the arguments of natural theology (at least in as far as they approach science) to be weak. But do you feel a theistic "pull" in other areas/ways? Can you sometimes picture yourself as a Christian (without having first committed some gross error)? Is that a conceivable possibility to you or do you find the "appeal" largely unintelligible (at least, while still being sympathetic)?

Sometimes not knowing the complete story of the universe is a bother to me. At those times, I think of the religious people I know and wonder if I'd be content being certain of a joyous never-ending life. But my conversion would be Pascal's wageresque in the sense that I would not genuinely believe with passion, if at all. One must be genuinely moved and persuaded by story of god and the charcters in the bible, and I'm not that kind of person that is moved by oft-repeated stories and scriptures.

When I imagine myself as a Christian, I can only imagine myself as subscribing to the more liberal and skeptical variety. That seems the most possible because it doesn't have such a large belief burden (in the sense that one must hold to certain doctrines or dogmas).

[pancreasman]

Hmm, the poll kind of excludes vague people like me. I certainly think Christianity is unlikely in its fundamental metaphysics of how the universe works. I think strict materialism is certainly possible but I don't subscribe to it. I think ideas in both Christianity and Atheism have some merit and I'll happily borrow from either when I think they're being accurate.

[shunyadragon]

I believe neither is obvious, but Christianity like other individual ancient religions has the weakest argument for being true against atheism simply because it fails to appeal to the universal in human experience and atheism does.

[Whag]

I believe neither is obvious, but Christianity like other individual ancient religions has the weakest argument for being true against atheism simply because it fails to appeal to the universal in human experience and atheism does.

How do you think it fails to appeal to the universal human experience? Certainly, Christianity is globally adopted, for the most part. But then again so are many religions.

[Rolo megatheist]

I believe neither is obvious, but Christianity like other individual ancient religions has the weakest argument for being true against atheism simply because it fails to appeal to the universal in human experience and atheism does

It's interesting that you say that shunydragon. Interesting since if atheism truly does appeal to universal human experience then why has most of humanity throughout human history been theistic?

[robertb]

Why Christianity versus Atheism?

Wouldn't Theism versus Atheism make for a better comparison? One could believe that Christianity is incoherent, yet still believe that Theism of one sort or another is more evident than Atheism.

[Rolo megatheist]

If you're a Christian, what about your Christianity? Does it take some gross error not to see it's plain truth? Is it just evidently correct.

Personally and getting a little bit of inspiration from reformed epistemology, I think Christianity can be obvious at the same time it can't be. It could be obvious for example if someone sees a miracle or God's providence working through their lives. In other words, if the reason for belief is experiential then it could be obvious. It could be not so obvious when based on the philosophical and historical arguments since as you, I, and anyone else whose taken the time to investigate Christianity's historical and philosophical truth claims knows, that can be quite frustrating work. Even then, though, I would still say at least on the historical data that Christianity is by far the strongest opinion. A much better question is what do YOU think?

[Adrift]

"I find it hard to understand how anyone could be an Atheist." yet, I chose "I'm a Christian and Christianity seems, to me, the strongest option...", because I find the option "I'm a Christian and Christianity seems, to me, evidently true." goes too far. I think theism in general is evidently true, and that Christianity has some of the strongest arguments.

[shunyadragon]

It's interesting that you say that shunydragon. Interesting since if atheism truly does appeal to universal human experience then why has most of humanity throughout human history been theistic?

First, most people around the world are not necessarily theist. Only a small minority of Orientals are theist. Most throughout history have been at best Deist (maybe some Taoists), but most are agnostic/atheist and follow Confucian humanism.

Second considering the fallible, inconsistent. and at often questionable decisions humans make, human decision making abilities are questionable when determining the underlying truth of our existence at the universal level.

Human choices rarely appeal to the universal. Most of the time their choices appeal to the limited cultural nitch of the world they are most comfortable with.

If the shoes fit nicely and comfortable, they are not likely the right shoes.