The Problem of Belief
11 February 2006 by Bob
Just came across this stuff from Puccetti’s classic article, “The Loving God” (Religious Studies, April, 1967). He’s dead now — and that sucks — but he still lives on with this excellent shit (sorry about the length):
Theists sometimes talk of the “problem of unbelief” in our time, but to the unbeliever there is a parallel problem of belief. Why does the theodicist, when his proffered reasons for the existence of evil in a God-oriented world have been examined and shown lacking, retreat to “unexamined reasons?” Why does he not simply lay down his arms and go home to better things? For…there would be nothing left to defend. God is truly unique in the sense that if he is “guilty” – even of indifference only – then he disappears. He is a loving God, after all.Perhaps the solution to this problem of belief can be found along lines suggested by [Nelson] Pike. At the end of his essay he concludes that when the existence of God is accepted, as it is by most theologians, “prior to any rational consideration of the status of evil in the world,” then the traditional problem of evil “…reduces to a noncrucial perplexity of minor importance.” That may be a philosophical overstatement…. But it may be psychologically valid, for there is no doubt most theists remain singularly untouched in their faith by self-confessed failures to understand God’s tolerance of innocent suffering.
One gets the image, indeed, of two classes of people interested in the philosophy of religion. On the one hand there are skeptics, like myself, who move from the world to a God-hypothesis which they feel compelled by reason to dismiss. On the other hand there are believers who move from a God-postulate to the world, prepared to endlessly explain away, or even leave admittedly unexplained, whatever the world contains that cannot be logically entailed in that postulate. Thus it is that in the final analysis theodicists retreat either, as in the case of [John] Hick, to “divine mystery,” or, in the case of others, to “unexamined reasons” for God’s indifference.
But it is important to note that at just these points theists cease to be theodicists at all. They are no longer “explaining” evil in the world: they are either “explaining it away” or saying it cannot be explained. And in both cases they are in effect admitting they have no rational defense to offer. Which means that despite appearances they really are abandoning the battlefield.
God bless Roland Puccetti. We miss you, dude.
12 February 2006, on 4:07 am
One of the most prominent characteristics of man is his susceptibility to addiction whether to drugs, alcohol, ideas, such as Theism, gambling, exercise or almost anything that elicits the internal chemicals that contribute to the so called high. Like gambling, Theism is an addiction and one way or another the addictive person will always rationalize when questioned about their addiction. The answer is usually: “I know it is stupid or has a highly improbable outcome, but it makes me feel good.” Now knowing how difficult it is to cure drug, alcohol, or gambling addiction we must conclude that Theism cannot be altered nor influenced by other than complete brain washing. Thus I think we are blowing in the wind when we attempt to persuade them with reason. I say this because I am weary of hearing the same detailed account of Theism verses Atheism, over and over again; it is a blind alley and a waste of words and energy to think that we are effective in inspiring their conversion. Perhaps some day we will have a drug or vaccine that will wash away the “selfish genes that favor blind obedience to authority.”
13 February 2006, on 11:11 pm
Something about fear and guilt. There is hope for us.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060213091147.htm
I know this only represents the tip of the iceberg so to speak. But it is a start. There is an article at science daily that goes into addiction and new medications that cure it. New use, old med. that is.
JIM
22 February 2006, on 1:53 pm
But, of course, as many religious philosophers have noted, the lack of rational foundation is not (for them) any refutation of God’s existence. Hence, it’s hardly a criticism to say that “in both cases they are in effect admitting they have no rational defense to offer.” To say that religious belief is philosophically indefensible doesn’t really confront the nature of belief. I think the point is, instead, about the utility of religious belief: once people get to thinking that the existence of a deity is a “fact” like chairs and tables are facts, and in turn think that this “fact” implies moral duties, and that these moral duties are obligatory not just for the believers but by non-believers, well, then, Houston, we have a problem. But to attack religion because it’s “irrational” is simply to call it by its name. It’s irrational. Big deal. So what.