Reason need not lead one to belief in God; if belief in God is already foundational to the rationality of our beliefs, then the skeptics attacks are misguided. To assume that the Christian (or theist) must first prove that God exists for their belief to count among their sets of beliefs which are rationally justified is putting the cart before the horse to the extent that belief in God is not an inferentially drawn belief of some type. It is basic, and is non-inferentially justified as a belief. Many epistemic renderings fall into this category.

If ever I need confirmation of just how repellent atheism is I need only look at the way its proponents viciously turn against one of their number who reaches the logical conclusion that God exists, i.e. conversion/reconversion must be due to mental or emotional issues.

Of course atheists are loveless. Anything they feel is merely a chemical/hormonal reaction in the body to encourage procreation and the passing on of DNA.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

Reason need not lead one to belief in God; if belief in God is already foundational to the rationality of our beliefs, then the skeptics attacks are misguided.

I think you're garbling the argument if you're referring to Plantinga's ideas about warranted Christian belief. I haven't heard it seriously argued that belief in God is foundational to its own rationality.

To assume that the Christian (or theist) must first prove that God exists for their belief to count among their sets of beliefs which are rationally justified is putting the cart before the horse to the extent that belief in God is not an inferentially drawn belief of some type.

It could in principle be an "inferentially drawn belief of some type." The usual argument is that belief in God might still be rational to hold even without getting there by a reasoning process, if God both exists and designed human minds to work that way.

It is basic, and is non-inferentially justified as a belief.

Even if Christian belief turns out to be warranted (because it turns out God exists and designed human minds in a certain way), this still isn't the same as claiming Christian belief as "justified." For justification in any strong sense, the truth of Christian beliefs would still need to be rationally determinable.

Otherwise you're not saying much more than "I could be right!" Sure. Lots of people could.

Originally posted by MooseOnTheLoose

If ever I need confirmation of just how repellent atheism is I need only look at the way its proponents viciously turn against one of their number who reaches the logical conclusion that God exists, i.e. conversion/reconversion must be due to mental or emotional issues.

It is extremely easy to point that right back at Christianity. After all, many Christians "viciously turn against one of their number who reaches the logical conclusion that God [does not exist], i.e. deconversion/re-deconversion must be due to mental or emotional issues."

Of course atheists are loveless. Anything they feel is merely a chemical/hormonal reaction in the body to encourage procreation and the passing on of DNA.

That is a common Christian belief about Atheism, not a common Atheist belief about the world.

Originally posted by Taran Wanderer

Timothy Larsen has written an article in the WSJ about secular intellectuals who have converted to Christianity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html

Just such a conversion has happened to A.N. Wilson, the 58-year-old British biographer, novelist and man of letters. He was once an observant Anglican and, later, a Roman Catholic, but in the 1980s he lost his faith and began skewering the supposed delusions of the faithful. His antifaith stance was expressed in books such as "God's Funeral" (1999) and "Jesus: A Life" (1992). A few weeks ago, however, Mr. Wilson confessed that Christ had risen indeed. He attributed this to "the confidence I have gained with age." He now says he believes that atheists are like "people who have no ear for music or who have never been in love."

---

© source where applicable

AN Wilson is the guy NT Wright argued against in What Saint Paul Really Said.

Here's Larsen's account of why such people convert:

Larsen

They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life. They came to realize that they could only tear down and thus were left intellectually with no habitable place to live. John Henry Gordon, who held the only full-time, salaried secularist lecturer position in England, came to believe that secularism was a creed of "mere negations."

---

© source where applicable

Thoughts? Has anyone here converted for these or similar reasons? How do the skeptics here react to the conversions Larsen discusses?

it is good to read that ANWilson has become a christian again.
i would look for events to explain this or anyone elses conversion to or from religion.The intellectual St Paul is an obvious example.ANwilson cites maturity.Darwin became cool on religion when his favourite daughter died.
We need a rational justification for our belief in christianity or atheism,but it is the decision to practise religion or refrain from doing so which is significant.
We should not fool ourselves that such rational justification is foolproof, making ourselves judge and jury.
we can however take some comfort that others have come tpo a similar view-(on that the idea that there is no God is,surely that of a tiny minority.)
If this is right, whilst i think religious truth is objective, the test we can apply to our religion (or lack of it) is whether it works for us,e.g. makes us happy and fulfilled, and optimistic for the future.
Of course old age is important for a religious person, as he or she makes peace with himself/herself and his/her God before hopefully going on to the next stage in the hereafter.(more or less on that i have recently enjoyed reading"the five people you meet in heaven" by Mitch Albom)

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

I think you're garbling the argument if you're referring to Plantinga's ideas about warranted Christian belief. I haven't heard it seriously argued that belief in God is foundational to its own rationality.

I am not referring to Warrant and Proper Function; I am saying that if our belief in God is a basic belief, then it has such and such an epistemic rendering that it will contextualize other beliefs since belief in God is not derived from other beliefs.

It could in principle be an "inferentially drawn belief of some type." The usual argument is that belief in God might still be rational to hold even without getting there by a reasoning process, if God both exists and designed human minds to work that way.

Maybe, but that's not the point I am making. My point -- and this is where I would draw from Plantinga -- is that belief in God, in order to be a rationally justified belief, need not first be proved before it is believed.

Even if Christian belief turns out to be warranted (because it turns out God exists and designed human minds in a certain way), this still isn't the same as claiming Christian belief as "justified." For justification in any strong sense, the truth of Christian beliefs would still need to be rationally determinable.

Otherwise you're not saying much more than "I could be right!" Sure. Lots of people could.

Actually, many philosophers do use "warrant" and "justification" interchangeably. I don't think Plantinga does, but I am not getting into his ideas on warrant and proper function. "Rationally determinable", whatever you mean by that, seems open to interpetation; the foundationalist and coherentist, for example, may not agree on what constitutes justification.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

My point -- and this is where I would draw from Plantinga -- is that belief in God, in order to be a rationally justified belief, need not first be proved before it is believed.

Actually, many philosophers do use "warrant" and "justification" interchangeably.

I've noticed. I think it's worthwhile to reserve some term to a belief held after applying a critical process. I use "justified" for this. It's also worthwhile to have a term for a belief which does not violate reason. I use "reasonably held" for this idea. Also a term for a belief which happens to be the result of external reality. "Warrant" for the last.

So far as Christian belief goes, I disagree that it is justified...agree that it can be reasonably held...and its warrant depends on it happening to be true.

Originally posted by Taran Wanderer

Timothy Larsen has written an article in the WSJ about secular intellectuals who have converted to Christianity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355313058264477.html

Just such a conversion has happened to A.N. Wilson, in the 1980s he lost his faith and began skewering the supposed delusions of the faithful. His antifaith stance was expressed in books such as "God's Funeral" (1999) and "Jesus: A Life" (1992). A few weeks ago, however, Mr. Wilson confessed that Christ had risen indeed.

---

© source where applicable

Here's Larsen's account of why such people convert:

Larsen

They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life. They came to realize that they could only tear down and thus were left intellectually with no habitable place to live. John Henry Gordon, who held the only full-time, salaried secularist lecturer position in England, came to believe that secularism was a creed of "mere negations."

---

© source where applicable

Thoughts? Has anyone here converted for these or similar reasons? How do the skeptics here react to the conversions Larsen discusses?

I can't say that I really care what mister Wilson does.
He doesn't give intellectually reasoned explanation for his return to the fold. From what he's written it sounds like he's just drifted back to something he finds comforting.
Like a long term prisoner who upon being free reoffends because he can't handle the outside world.
He doesn't seem to have come up with any reason for Atheism to be wrong apart from that he no longer likes it.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

I took that to mean he doesn't have any critical reason for going Christian; it feels good to him. For other people, another religion feels right for them. It's a matter of personal taste.

No much different from identifying with a particular political, technological, or artistic movement.

Cmon Sea,

Did you read the article. Larsen clearly said that he changed back because he didn't find the answers to life within atheism also. Read it again.

Originally posted by Larsen

They gradually decided that their rationalistic method was too narrow: It could pick holes not only in Christianity but in any attempt to distinguish between right and wrong or to articulate the meaning of life.

Originally posted by Darth Ovious

Cmon Sea,

Did you read the article. Larsen clearly said that he changed back because he didn't find the answers to life within atheism also. Read it again.

That goes along with what I'm saying. He prefers to be told the things Christianity tells him, as opposed to determining that Christianity is true.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

That goes along with what I'm saying. He prefers to be told the things Christianity tells him, as opposed to determining that Christianity is true.

The article briefly outlines two important points in his conversion: 1) That the skeptical approach is too narrow, and 2) that atheism is an incomplete, and unsatisfactory stance since it is a creed of "mere negations". I agree with both points; Christianity offers answers to both points by offering a broad metaphysics as well as offering positive reasons for its truth.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

That goes along with what I'm saying. He prefers to be told the things Christianity tells him, as opposed to determining that Christianity is true.

Maybe he determined it to be true because he realised that he was just picking holes for the sake of picking holes because his viewpoint was too narrow to determine if anything was true or not.

Originally posted by Socratici Viri

The article briefly outlines two important points in his conversion: 1) That the skeptical approach is too narrow, and 2) that atheism is an incomplete, and unsatisfactory stance since it is a creed of "mere negations".

Again, that's all a matter of taste. He would prefer a religious position which comes with specific answers in x, y, and z areas. I'm not surprised someone would find Atheism too open ended. Many people crave structure. Traditional religions do offer that.

Christianity offers answers to both points by offering a broad metaphysics as well as offering positive reasons for its truth.

If Wilson agrees about 'positive reasons', I'd like to hear them.

Originally posted by Darth Ovious

Maybe he determined it to be true because he realised that he was just picking holes for the sake of picking holes because his viewpoint was too narrow to determine if anything was true or not.

If the truth can't be determined in some area, why not admit it? Why pick one of many contradictory answer frameworks just so you can feel like you have an answer of some kind?

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

Again, that's all a matter of taste. He would prefer a religious position which comes with specific answers in x, y, and z areas. I'm not surprised someone would find Atheism too open ended. Many people crave structure. Traditional religions do offer that.

It's not a matter of taste, the article also outlines one of Wilson's objective reasons for adopting Christianity, namely the resurrection, which Wilson feels is best explained by accepting a supernatural view as accounted for in the Biblical records.

Further, for many theists, belief in God is evidenced and conditioned by their epistemic view regarding the rationality of beliefs, and, therefore, regard belief in God as knowledge. As mentioned in a previous post, if belief in God is among our (theists) sets of basic beliefs, then it is not first required for us to meet the skeptics burdens of proof that they may require for belief in God for us to be rationally justified in our belief of God. Skeptics seem unable or unwilling to see this perspective, and want to impose a double standard when it comes to the issue of God, or belief in God. I see no reasons why I am obligated to maintain your standards of evidence and acceptability of beliefs, or, why your line of credit in regard to ascertaining the "truth" is better.

Originally posted by Seasanctuary

If the truth can't be determined in some area, why not admit it? Why pick one of many contradictory answer frameworks just so you can feel like you have an answer of some kind?

Because everyone (even agnostics) adopts some criteria or standard by which they precede to judge all other frameworks by.