I am very belatedly commenting on this excellent post. In my first debate with William Lane Craig--1998, Prestonwood Baptist Church, Dallas--this question came up. Of course, the parallel question could be asked the theist: What could possibly happen that would convince you that God does not exist? This question was the basis of Antony Flew's classic essay from 1950, "Theology and Falsification." In the discussion time following the debate, I said that I could imagine a scenario. If all the galaxies in the Virgo cluster were rearranged so that when viewed from Earth they spell out "Prepare to meet thy God"--and we could be sure it was not a hoax or a delusion--this would probably do it. Norwood Russell Hanson, in his essay "What I Don't Believe," says that God appearing to us, "towering over us like a hundred Everests while lightning plays about his Michelangeloid face," and assuring us in thunderous voice that he does exist, would do the trick.
A commenter on Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea site said that in the debate I had declared that nothing would convince me. Victor, a man of integrity, corrected him and pointed out that I had in fact said what would convince me. Do you think I received an apology from the accuser? You get one guess. Such is the nature of Christian charity, and such is the sensitivity to the commandment not to bear false witness.
What about less histrionic evidence? Could any of the arguments for the existence of God do it? In the over fifty years since I took my first course in the philosophy of religion, I have heard many, many theistic arguments, including sophisticated refinements of the arguments by Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and others. I find these arguments, individually and collectively, to be very weak, even when compared to the usual metaphysical arguments. One and all, they rest upon assumptions and intuitions that their authors and like-minded believers might find plausible, but I certainly do not. For instance, Richard Swinburne thinks that it is more likely that the theistic God exists as the ultimate brute fact than that a physical universe will exist as an ultimate brute fact. That is, he thinks that there can be objective, purely a priori probabilities that are conditioned by no background information at all. What is the probability that God exists given....nothing? I cannot make any sense out of such "probabilities." If, on the other hand, we are talking about personal probabilities, then for me the prior probability of the existence of the theistic God is not zero, but pretty close. So, I have a right to demand very, very good evidence to change my mind, and not tepid arguments based upon highly dubious assumptions and intuitions that I do not share.
Any faith based belief requires by definition the suspension of reason, which includes having beliefs and opinions that are informed by facts, evidence, logic or reason. When a believer asks you to just "accept it on faith", that you have free will to accept or reject their belief, I ask in response, how does one believe something that is counterintuitive? I can choose where I want to live, what brand of coffee to buy, a course of study in pursuit of a career, etc., but I can't fall in love with someone where there isn't the right chemistry; believe that 2+2=5; or will myself to hate my children if someone put a gun to my head, said I had to do just that, and that the person had a meter that could detect if I was lying, and that he would kill them in front of me if I didn't do as directed. And no believer can use what they believe to be free will to change their beliefs if they are counterintuitive to him/her. That god has given us free will to accept something on faith alone has to be one of the weakest arguments of believers, yet they consider it one of their strongest.
I honestly don't know why so many religious people spend so much time trying to "witness to the heathen". They seem to believe they're somehow "winning souls for God".
Speaking as a Christian, I am NOT into "witnessing to the heathen" or "winning souls for God". Most people are on the paths they're on for very good reasons. For me to "witness" to them to get them to change their path doesn't benefit God in the least; and what it boils down to is me playing God.
I'm gay, and I'm 68. I've had more than my share of people "witnessing" to me to get me to stop being gay (as though being gay were a switch I could turn on or off). I have had the seven "clobber passages" quoted at me time and time again -- always completely of context, and in Scripture context is EVERYTHING. I'm aware that being gay (or straight) is neutral in God's eyes; but to these fundagelicals, getting me to "switch" to "normal" heterosexuality would be a big notch in their belt.
It never seems to dawn on these fundagelical religious people to look for areas of commonality with those they're trying to "convert". I don't try to convert my atheist and agnostic friends because honestly, the debate on whether there is or is not a God comes down to circumstantial evidence either way; and that circumstantial evidence for or against pretty much balances. We make a choice on what we believe based on that circumstantial evidence. I think the circumstantial evidence points towards a Power Greater Than Ourselves; but I also realize that someone could say that circumstantial evidence points away from any power greater than ourselves -- *and that's also a valid conclusion*.
The truth of the matter is, none of us will know for sure until about five seconds after we're dead, so it behooves us, so far as it is possible, to love each other as we love ourselves (realizing that we're going to encounter people who do their darndest to make themselves as unlovable as possible, and it's probably best to avoid those people).
I've said this before: you and I could debate circumstantial evidence for the existence of God and end up agreeing on 90 percent of the stuff -- at which point it's probably more productive to go out for dinner and a pitcher of Margaritas!
You're probably right about the 90%--but I agree with your comment closer to 100%, friend (though we've never even met, I'd sure be pleased if we could someday share dinner and Margaritas).
To inspire the incredible Massimo Pigliucci is something to be most proud of--and I am. Looking forward to his piece on this--and will share it with all my readers when I read it. Thanks, Massimo.
"I’ve had formal debates with dozens of theists about this—nearly all Christians (at least one Catholic among them) ...."
Really? Even though I'm nontheistic, this still sounds like an echo of the Fundamentalist claim that "Catholics aren't really Christians." Did I miss your meaning here?
Thanks for whatever clarification you might be able to offer, as I am more than willing to presume that I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to think clearly ... *chuckles*
"I’ve had formal debates with dozens of theists about this—nearly all Christians (at least one Catholic among them) ...."
Really? Even though I'm nontheistic, this still sounds like an echo of the Fundamentalist claim that "Catholics aren't really Christians." Did I miss your meaning here?
Thanks for whatever clarification you might be able to offer, as I am more than willing to presume that I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to think clearly ... *chuckles*
I only meant that most of my debate opponents have been Protestant Christians (various denominations) and I've only debated one Catholic plus a couple of Muslims. So, yes, you missed my meaning--or else I wrote ambiguously (not for the first time). I don't even claim to have a very well informed opinion as to whether Mormons--or Thomas Jefferson!--qualify as good Christians.
Finally got around to reading this (sorry Ed!). It's a provocative question, and Ed gives honest answers. He has inspired me to write my own version, coming out soon at Figs in Winter on Substack.
I am very belatedly commenting on this excellent post. In my first debate with William Lane Craig--1998, Prestonwood Baptist Church, Dallas--this question came up. Of course, the parallel question could be asked the theist: What could possibly happen that would convince you that God does not exist? This question was the basis of Antony Flew's classic essay from 1950, "Theology and Falsification." In the discussion time following the debate, I said that I could imagine a scenario. If all the galaxies in the Virgo cluster were rearranged so that when viewed from Earth they spell out "Prepare to meet thy God"--and we could be sure it was not a hoax or a delusion--this would probably do it. Norwood Russell Hanson, in his essay "What I Don't Believe," says that God appearing to us, "towering over us like a hundred Everests while lightning plays about his Michelangeloid face," and assuring us in thunderous voice that he does exist, would do the trick.
A commenter on Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea site said that in the debate I had declared that nothing would convince me. Victor, a man of integrity, corrected him and pointed out that I had in fact said what would convince me. Do you think I received an apology from the accuser? You get one guess. Such is the nature of Christian charity, and such is the sensitivity to the commandment not to bear false witness.
What about less histrionic evidence? Could any of the arguments for the existence of God do it? In the over fifty years since I took my first course in the philosophy of religion, I have heard many, many theistic arguments, including sophisticated refinements of the arguments by Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and others. I find these arguments, individually and collectively, to be very weak, even when compared to the usual metaphysical arguments. One and all, they rest upon assumptions and intuitions that their authors and like-minded believers might find plausible, but I certainly do not. For instance, Richard Swinburne thinks that it is more likely that the theistic God exists as the ultimate brute fact than that a physical universe will exist as an ultimate brute fact. That is, he thinks that there can be objective, purely a priori probabilities that are conditioned by no background information at all. What is the probability that God exists given....nothing? I cannot make any sense out of such "probabilities." If, on the other hand, we are talking about personal probabilities, then for me the prior probability of the existence of the theistic God is not zero, but pretty close. So, I have a right to demand very, very good evidence to change my mind, and not tepid arguments based upon highly dubious assumptions and intuitions that I do not share.
Any faith based belief requires by definition the suspension of reason, which includes having beliefs and opinions that are informed by facts, evidence, logic or reason. When a believer asks you to just "accept it on faith", that you have free will to accept or reject their belief, I ask in response, how does one believe something that is counterintuitive? I can choose where I want to live, what brand of coffee to buy, a course of study in pursuit of a career, etc., but I can't fall in love with someone where there isn't the right chemistry; believe that 2+2=5; or will myself to hate my children if someone put a gun to my head, said I had to do just that, and that the person had a meter that could detect if I was lying, and that he would kill them in front of me if I didn't do as directed. And no believer can use what they believe to be free will to change their beliefs if they are counterintuitive to him/her. That god has given us free will to accept something on faith alone has to be one of the weakest arguments of believers, yet they consider it one of their strongest.
I honestly don't know why so many religious people spend so much time trying to "witness to the heathen". They seem to believe they're somehow "winning souls for God".
Speaking as a Christian, I am NOT into "witnessing to the heathen" or "winning souls for God". Most people are on the paths they're on for very good reasons. For me to "witness" to them to get them to change their path doesn't benefit God in the least; and what it boils down to is me playing God.
I'm gay, and I'm 68. I've had more than my share of people "witnessing" to me to get me to stop being gay (as though being gay were a switch I could turn on or off). I have had the seven "clobber passages" quoted at me time and time again -- always completely of context, and in Scripture context is EVERYTHING. I'm aware that being gay (or straight) is neutral in God's eyes; but to these fundagelicals, getting me to "switch" to "normal" heterosexuality would be a big notch in their belt.
It never seems to dawn on these fundagelical religious people to look for areas of commonality with those they're trying to "convert". I don't try to convert my atheist and agnostic friends because honestly, the debate on whether there is or is not a God comes down to circumstantial evidence either way; and that circumstantial evidence for or against pretty much balances. We make a choice on what we believe based on that circumstantial evidence. I think the circumstantial evidence points towards a Power Greater Than Ourselves; but I also realize that someone could say that circumstantial evidence points away from any power greater than ourselves -- *and that's also a valid conclusion*.
The truth of the matter is, none of us will know for sure until about five seconds after we're dead, so it behooves us, so far as it is possible, to love each other as we love ourselves (realizing that we're going to encounter people who do their darndest to make themselves as unlovable as possible, and it's probably best to avoid those people).
I've said this before: you and I could debate circumstantial evidence for the existence of God and end up agreeing on 90 percent of the stuff -- at which point it's probably more productive to go out for dinner and a pitcher of Margaritas!
You're probably right about the 90%--but I agree with your comment closer to 100%, friend (though we've never even met, I'd sure be pleased if we could someday share dinner and Margaritas).
To inspire the incredible Massimo Pigliucci is something to be most proud of--and I am. Looking forward to his piece on this--and will share it with all my readers when I read it. Thanks, Massimo.
"I’ve had formal debates with dozens of theists about this—nearly all Christians (at least one Catholic among them) ...."
Really? Even though I'm nontheistic, this still sounds like an echo of the Fundamentalist claim that "Catholics aren't really Christians." Did I miss your meaning here?
Thanks for whatever clarification you might be able to offer, as I am more than willing to presume that I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to think clearly ... *chuckles*
"I’ve had formal debates with dozens of theists about this—nearly all Christians (at least one Catholic among them) ...."
Really? Even though I'm nontheistic, this still sounds like an echo of the Fundamentalist claim that "Catholics aren't really Christians." Did I miss your meaning here?
Thanks for whatever clarification you might be able to offer, as I am more than willing to presume that I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to think clearly ... *chuckles*
I only meant that most of my debate opponents have been Protestant Christians (various denominations) and I've only debated one Catholic plus a couple of Muslims. So, yes, you missed my meaning--or else I wrote ambiguously (not for the first time). I don't even claim to have a very well informed opinion as to whether Mormons--or Thomas Jefferson!--qualify as good Christians.
Finally got around to reading this (sorry Ed!). It's a provocative question, and Ed gives honest answers. He has inspired me to write my own version, coming out soon at Figs in Winter on Substack.
I have republished this superb piece on my website. Thanks Ed!
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/what-would-change-your-mind-about-god/