From a review of a talk by Daniel Garber, (Chair of Princeton’s Philosophy Department):

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/...s-lecture.html
Explaining more fully his decision to not give in to theistic temptations, Garber seems to indicate that (unlike many arrogant believers and nonbelievers) his choice was not made to exhibit his rational intellectual superiority over his opposites. He explains that he chooses not to take Pascal up on his wager because by so doing, he is certain he would become a believer. But his belief would be founded upon self-deceit: he would be willingly subjecting his rationality to an entity he knows cannot be rationally proved to even exist. This last step he is unwilling to take. But in reducing the arguments of both theism and atheism to the great struggle of comprehending the interrelationship of reason and faith and truth, Garber certainly emphasizes the relevance of Aquinas and provides an excellent example of how atheists and theists should carry on their endless debate.

If we agree that either a good God exists and we’ll all (eventually) be okay in the afterlife, or we’re all basically screwed if an evil God exists, or it won’t matter if no God exists, then the issue becomes what’s best for us in this life.

So, in the framework of the theist/atheist debate, what Garber seems to be suggesting is that the issue isn’t so much about whether or not God exists, but instead that there are essentially two positions as to what leads to a happier, more fulfilling and more meaningful present life:

a) athiest – happier and more fulfilled living his life knowing he does not believe in something that cannot rationally (or empirically) be proved to exist.
b) theist – happier and more fulfilled living her life believing a good God exists.

(I do object to the manner in which the author, or Garber, conflates ‘not rationally provable’ with ‘self-deceit’. Clearly I know things, like subjective states, that are simply self-evident and not really provable in a rational, objective or empirical sense, so I don’t consider myself suffering self-deception just because subjective knowledge is not provable.)

I wonder why unbelievers object so much to the unprovability of subjective knowledge. It could be God granting people the mercy of privacy.

Poking and prying leaves a lot to be desired.

I have an invisible superpowerful friend who protects me, I know this is true because he talks to me. Give me £100 and he can be your friend too. Dont give me £100 and he will get very angry, you wouldnt like him when hes angry.

As noted in the review:

Either God is, or he is not. We exist in some form after death, or we do not. The normal atheist might view such decisions as irrational; Garber correctly posits that these decisions are prerational. And though his decision is to reject the existence of God, he does note that “in a very real sense, the secular scientific view is as much a question of faith as is the theistic mind-set insofar as it cannot be established at the most fundamental level by rational argument alone.”

Is there any validity in saying a logical approach is a step by step approach?

Logic cant prove logic, if that is what you are asking. As for step by step, yes it is true that most logical precepts that we accept operate in a discrete manner ala modus ponens but if you want to posit some other form of logical precept then please do so. Of course, human kind has yet to come up with a logical consideration, step by step or otherwise, that comes anywhere remotely close to proving anything like a deity so i suspect you have your work cut out for you.

Hmmm...I may have to start another thread so as to avoid a derail of topic.

[To somewhat stay within the confines of the review] I think what Garber is getting at with the term ‘prerational’ is what we think of as Sensus Divinitatis (Sense of Divinity), whereby we already know the conclusion prior to engaging the reasoning or rational process. Hence, a theist may feel his belief is perfectly rational, but he hasn’t arrived at that conclusion through a rational process, instead, it’s more the rationalization of a pre-existing belief (or pre-existing knowledge).

Sounds like the way I approach things. I oftentimes know the answer before the reasoning process. I wonder if it's related to the splitting of God's image:

‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (Mark 12:29, NIV)

Some people know with their heart and soul before their mind and strength.

To the mind, enlightenment comes as a shock. There is no hunch that is even remotely correct. Whatever you imagine, reason or believe about god is wrong.

That which knows before and after enlightenment is precisely not mind. The knowing is not logical. Mind may or may not get informed in its own language, in any case, not even Buddha's or Jesus' mind ever knew the truth, their mind only got informed about where the pointer is pointing (way outside the mind). Only the truth knows the truth.

Where did you hear this? How do you know God can't tell you over time?

I heard it when I wasn't listening. He told me when I didn't want to know.

pffft <jk>

Okay, but why pursue enlightenment to begin with? Is there not some hunch, intuition or some sort of reason why an aspirant believes the pursuit will eventually lead to whatever enlightenment is? It's that initial motive for pursuing the path, whether towards God or enlightenment, that I think Garber is referring to.

So your wrong?

There is no good reason to pursue enlightenment, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't, though it's helpful to be clear about the intentions. People have all kinds of hunches and reasons to justify their seeking. So they follow the hunch and a process starts at the end of which isn't a validation of the hunch, bur rather the collapse of the seeking.


About what?

I'm sorry I mocked you. You are precious to God.