Quote:
|
Quote by: yarn Most people share the same worldview for how to find reality who care to debate in a religious forum. Where axioms are shared arguement via reason can ensue. |
Really? I have definitely not found that to be the case. In my experience, it is extremely rare that arguments between theists and atheists end in one or the other side admitting its wrongness. Granted, it is oversimplistic to say that theists and atheists can't argue through a common basis of reason. Obviously logic in a certain common form does get played on by both "sides." But why doesn't the argument that is more logical win over the members of the argument that is less logical?
There are two possible reasons:
1. The less logical side just does not understand that it is being illogical
2. Logic is not what the arguments are
really based on.
In my observation, #2 is the more common occurance, though #1 appears a lot as well. This is because almost all arguments between theists and atheists fall under #2 whereas just most of them fall under #1.
That is, it is not true that "most people share the same worldview for how to find reality." People interpret data in different ways, especially in areas of metaphysics. And to go further, no one interpretation is "provably" better than any other interpretation. This is because proof attempts are themselves interpretive, and therefore proving a method of interpretation is necessarily circular.
Now it is worth asking: If theists and atheists are going to fight for superiority, will they argue in "moral" terms or in "rational" terms? By moral, I do not mean what you seem to mean by moral when you state that humanism is more moral than religion. I mean: Which of atheism and theism is more morally utilitarian? Would the world be better off if everyone was an atheist or theist?
I think all atheist-theist "arguments"--that is, discussions where both sides are debating on a common ground and not just speaking past each other--are moral arguments. Moreover, I think atheists and theist activists basically understand this and therefore tend to argue in these terms when trying to convince the other side to switch over. Both sides say: Believe in a/theism because it is better to believe in a/theism, not because it is more likely true.
Even arguments which are explicitely about "truth" tend to have implicit moral components. Saying there is no evidence to believe in god, therefore you should not believe in god, contains the moral argument that one should not believe in that which a person has no evidence for (a good way to detect moral arguments is the presence of the word "should"). I think an intelligent theist could be convinced to agree that there is no data that an atheist activist would classify as valid evidence for the existance of god. The disagreement would be over whether it is "right" to believe that which lacks such evidence. No way to prove this logically. But you can offer moral arguments; i.e, believing in an all-knowing god will make you less likely to commit evil acts (stating implicitely that it is worth believing in god regardless of whether he truly exists). Or, believing in an all-knowing god will make you more susceptible for criticizing others for acts you consider evil but which actually are not (again stating implicitely that it is worth not believing in god regardless of whether he truly exists.)