Yeah me too - I dont really argue with theists about their axioms. (People get really cross with NotReady from time to time and I think it's largely because they dont get this - they want to argue about his axioms and he's pretty good at arguing about theirs. )

Where I think debate is useful is in clarifying exactly what one's axioms are. We have a human tendency to think of our own starting position as 'logical' when, almost by its very nature, it really isnt. It's just what seems right to us. I think half the time the debates about logic are missing the mark because the two sides are adopting different starting points without being explicit about them.

Sometimes, when the other guy points out what you are taking as self-evident, you realise that there may actually be an argument to support your viewpoint. Other times, you may realise that a rock-solid argument does, in fact, rest on very shaky foundations.
The beauty of a Low Content thread. No expectations.
I think you should change your language. I think you should say intelligent design is more plausible to you, not more likely. In my mind, likelihood is about probability - a mathematical concept which requires precision, calculation and decent understanding of the situation. We're just not in a position to say whether laws of nature being designed is more or less probable (likely) than them being a random occurrence.

Plausibility is a more subjective and more appropriate term, in my view. If you say you find ID more plausible than naturalism, I think you are making essentially the same point but acknowledging the subjective, judgemental nature of that determination. Probability is a matter of fact - given what we know about a situation, there is an answer as to which of several options is more likely (quite distinct from what the actual state of affairs is - the least likely option may turn out to be the correct one, it just wont happen very often).

We can disagree about what is more plausible.

Very interesting read. To me personally, credo quia absurdum est always held some mesmerizing appeal. So I never really tried to "test" my growing belief. It's also very interesting to me that you found your belief through prayer, as that (or any of what you'd call pious/devout practices) never really held any appeal to me. I still can't really pray, tbh.

Thanks for the elucidation. Seems familiar to the Athenians that Paul interacts with in Acts 17:

I think your analysis is correct.

In this context plausible > likely.

I dig the rest of your post as well.

this surprises me. I dont see why you would care less about the unfortunate now. Suffering is still suffering whether you believe in god or not...still, kudos on continuing to support charities. To me, it doesnt really matter if you are sad or thinking about it so out of sight out of mind works just as well as being sad about it. Money helps more that thoughts...

Flippant answer: Satis ingenue, quod absurdum est rationem ad credendum. (I hope that worked)

More serious answer: I think any theist concerned about the rationality of their beliefs should consider the question "How do I know I'm not deluded?" or perhaps less confrontationally "What if I'm wrong?"

Personally, I dont think one's faith will suffer from that, but you may be able to avoid stoning heretics.

bunny,

How do you view your prayer experiences in retrospect? At the time, you concluded they were real, and evidence of a deity. But now that you've rejected those beliefs, how do you explain the seemingly-supernatural-at-the-time?

(no, I don't mean this as an a-ha moment; I find it completely justifiable that some judge these experiences as complete fabrications of one's neuronal activity.)

It's not that I care less - my moral viewpoint hasnt changed. It's had a practical impact - by not having the suffering of others so much at the forefront of my thoughts I've noticed we now donate less money than we used to. (And definitely put in less time in helping out - the church fundraising/charity work infrastructure is impressive).

I dont know, but I suspect it's purely some kind of artifact of thought which I imbued with religious overtones. I think it was pretty much self-generated, in other words.

Btw, it was very tempting to reply to this with "I came to realise that I only believed in religion due to childhood indoctrination. If only someone had pointed it out sooner."

PLEASEEEEEEE edit your post removing the first ten words and quote marks!

I'm more a hypothetical troll than an instantiation, I'm afraid.

Wouldn't that be a more accurate statement of your current position? Not that either is, of course.

It has occurred to me.

as far as being involved more with charity as a believer that could also just be, in part, the influence of your peer group.

Oh sure (I dont see any reason you cant be a selfish theist or a philanthropic atheist). It's just something I've noticed - a pronounced drop in charitable donations and volunteerism. Without that formalised, weekly consideration of "what needs doing" it's easy to become complacent. (Or has been for us, anyhow).

In following from our discussion re axioms people hold

recent argument I heard for theism is as follows:

We "all" have a strong inate (sp?) sense of meaning in our life therefore life does have meaning (this is meant to be a clue that there is a creator).

Even when atheists concede life is meaningless they don't actually believe this. Atheists give intellectual assent to life being meanigless but secretly harbour that life does in fact still have meaning.

The idea that we have this built in overwhelming sense that our life matters is an indication that God exists and life has meaning.

Please comment.

(taken from "Reason for God" by Tim Keller)

Note: Please don't jump all over me for this post. I am not really saying the above, I am more just throwing this argument out there for discussion.

Note 2: Bunny not trying to derail your thread with random philisophical meanderings, you can reign me in as necessary.

I dont really understand it, to be frank. I dont think life is meaningless. Nor do I think that, due to that meaning, the existence of God is therefore a more reasonable proposition.

This just seems like begging the question to me - ie asserting that, if life has meaning there must be a god. Observing that we think life has meaning and then concluding that we must therefore think there is a god.

I dont see why life has meaning -> there is a god. Presumably he would then define "meaning" as something which requires there to be an eternal being. As we've discussed previously, I dont think that's essential at all - temporal meaning is still meaning. Proof: dictionaries exist in spacetime.

Meh. Still pretty baffled by the long thread where RLK was claiming the opposite (that atheists claim to find meaning but are deluded) and I think arguments where one proposes to know what others "secretly" believe are childish and not worthy of response.

Furthermore, every time I hear a theist talk about life having "meaning" it ends up being a weird definition of "meaning" that would be incoherent for an atheist to hold.

All that said, imo the atheist position is something like

1) Life has no "ultimate" meaning/significance (the universe doesn't care about us)
2) Life may or may not have a subjective, personal meaning (I value my experiences and my happiness and find meaning in those things)
3) Life may or may not have an objective, though temporal meaning (Martin Luther King will be remembered for a long time in the history books).

Until the frequent equivocations between sense 1 and sense 2 & 3 are resolved it seems fruitless to discuss the rest of Keller's argument.

Back on topic! (or a bit less off topic)

What was your wife's experience (if you/she are willing to share), and how yall negotiated your differences?

My wife was raised a devout Christian - she's from a conservative afrikaans-speaking family in South Africa where dutch reformed church (or dutch conservative church? I forget) was pretty dominant.

For her, belief in God is fairly ingrained, but she is also particularly brilliant and lives her life in a very evidence-based environment (she's a physician). She is troubled by the problem of evil (to the point of admitting that her belief in God is probably inconsistent with the world), but continues to hold the belief by not really thinking about it. She is rather disparaging of you lot and exactly what it is I do on these forums. She can't really see the point.

It's a total non-issue in our relationship (Australia is basically an atheist country, so churchgoing is something that hardly ever comes up). We started going to church at my urging and stopped once I started to have doubts about it all. I'd resume if she wanted to, but she hasnt ever really been that into it.

Wouldn't you say that anyone concerned about the rationality of their beliefs should consider these questions?

Of course. I think it's more important if you embrace the acceptance of a belief without supporting empirical evidence.

Many theists are happy to concede they believe various propositions based on faith. An atheist who makes the same concession should be equally concerned that he might be wrong.

Fair enough, but really the problem is that the sort of people that accept things on "faith" that you refer to are rarely the sort of people that are going ask these sorts of questions.

I also want to note that I feel a theist can just as much hold their beliefs on empirical evidence as an atheist can.

They should start.
I dont know if it's empirically testable one way or the other. My point was that, in contrast to theists, I dont know many atheists who embrace the need for accepting some propositions as true without empirical evidence. Having said that:

Aim: Support my theism
Method: ?
Results: There is a God

Are you able to fill in the blank for me?