“I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
– excerpts from the book
People almost always come to their beliefs not on Based on evidence, but based on what they find attractive.
—Blaise Pascal
Author and speaker James Sire organizes an interactive seminar for university students and universities across the country, which will really open their eyes. The seminar is called ‘Why should anyone believe anything at all?’ Thanks to such an interesting name, this event usually attracts a large audience. Sire begins by asking the participants the question: ‘Why do people believe what they believe?’ Despite the wide range of answers, Sire shows that every answer it receives falls into one of four categories: sociological, psychological, religious and philosophical.
Reasons Why People Believe What They Believe
| sociological | psychological | religious | philosophical |
| Parents Friends Society Culture | comfort mental peace meaning in life purpose hope identity | font pastor/priest guru rabbi imam church | coherence compliance completeness (best explanation of all evidence) |
Sire goes through the reasons in each category and asks the students, ‘Is this a good reason to believe something because…?’ If he has bright students, the dialogue can take place, for example, as follows:
Sire: I see that many of you have mentioned sociological factors. For example, many people have certain beliefs because their parents have the same beliefs. Do you think that in itself is a sufficient reason to believe something?
Students: No, parents can be wrong sometimes.
Sire: Okay, what about cultural influences? Do you think people should believe something just because it’s culturally acceptable?
Students: No. The Nazis had a culture that accepted the murder of all Jews. That certainly didn’t mean it was right!
Sire: Okay. Some of you have mentioned psychological factors such as comfort. Is that reason enough to believe something?
Students: No, we don’t feel ‘comfortable’ with that! Seriously, comfort is not a measure of truth. We may be reassured by the belief that there is a God who cares for us, but that does not necessarily mean that it really exists. Likewise, a drug addict can be temporarily calmed down by a certain type of drug, but the drug can actually kill him.
Sire: So you’re saying that the truth is important because if you’re wrong, it could have consequences?
Students: Yes, if someone is wrong about the medicine, they can take too many and die. Likewise, if someone is wrong about the thickness of the ice, they can fall into it and freeze.
Sire: So, for pragmatic reasons, it makes sense that we believe only things that are true.
Students: Of course. In the long run, the truth protects and the mistake is harmful.
Sire: Okay, So sociological and psychological reasons alone are not reason enough to believe something. What about religious reasons? Some mentioned the Bible, others the Koran, others gained their beliefs from priests or gurus. Should you believe something just because some religious source or holy book says it?
Students: No, because the question arises: ‘Which Scriptures are we to believe?’ After all, they teach conflicting things.
For example The Bible and the Koran cannot be both true because they contradict each other. The Bible says that Jesus died on the cross and three days later rose from the dead (1 Cor 15:1-8), while the Qur’an says that Jesus existed but did not die on the cross (Suras 4:157). If one of them is true, the other is false. On the other hand, if Jesus never existed, both are false.
Sire: So how can we decide between the Bible and the Koran?
Students: We need some evidence outside of these so-called scriptures to help us find out which one is true, if any.
Sire: From what category could we derive such evidence?
Students: All we have left is the philosophical category.
Sire: But how can one’s philosophy be proof? Isn’t it just someone’s opinion?
Students: No, we don’t mean philosophy in this sense of the word, but in the classical sense of the word, where philosophy means the search for truth through logic, proof and science.
Sire: Excellent! With this definition in mind, let’s ask the same question about the philosophical category. Is it worth believing something if it is rational, if it is supported by evidence and if it best explains all the data that is collected?
Students: That definitely seems right to us!
When we discover that some beliefs do not have sufficient evidence, the path opens to us to find the adequate evidence. This is the task of the apologist. an apologist is someone who shows, How good reasons and evidence support or disprove certain beliefs. That’s what we’re trying to do in this book, and that’s what Sire is doing in his seminar. – uses Socrates’ method. –withdire interrogation is a dialogue based on dialogue and asking a series of carefully formulated questions to bring the participant To discover the truth independently, Knowledge or Revealing contradictions in one’s thinking. The teacher or interviewer does not provide ready-made answers, it helps the other person to ‘give birth’ to his own thoughts, explore the assumptions and come to a deeper understanding.
Sire’s Socratic approach helps students realize at least three things:
First, any teaching—religious or otherwise—worth trust only if it points to the truth. Indifference to the truth can be dangerous. In fact, a belief in error can have fatal consequences, both temporal and, if any of the religious teachings are true, eternal.
Second,, The many beliefs that people hold today are not supported by evidence, but are only the subjective preferences of the one who holds it. As Pascal said, People almost always come to their beliefs not based on evidence, but on the basis of what they find attractive. Truth however, it is not a subjective matter of taste – it is An objective matter of fact. And finally, so that one may find the truth, must be prepared to give up his subjective preferences in favor of objective facts. And the facts appear best through logic, evidence and science.
Western logic vs. east logic
Even if people try to tell you that logic does not apply to reality, or that logic does not apply to God, or that there are different kinds of logic (Western and Eastern) and so on, in reality There is only one kind of logic that helps us discover the truth. When they say such things, they use the very logic they deny. It’s like using the laws of arithmetic to prove that arithmetic can’t be trusted.
quarrel
The tactic of noticing and refuting self-destructive claims is so effective because it uses quarrel (Law of Non-Projection). This is a basic logical law saying, that a statement cannot be true or false at the same time.
The principle of dispute is a self-evident basic principle of thinking, which says that opposing statements cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. In short, it says that The opposite of truth is a lie. We all know this principle intuitively and use it every day.
Imagine meeting one day on the street a married couple – your friends – and asking your wife if it is true that she is expecting a child. If she answers ‘yes’ and her husband ‘no’, you think, ‘Maybe she didn’t tell him, or maybe they misunderstood the question (or maybe something worse!).’ You know one thing for sure: both of them can’t be right! The principle of dispute is clearly presented to you.
When examining any question regarding reality, including the question of God, the same principle of dispute applies. Either theists are right – God exists – or the atheists are right – God does not exist. Both opinions cannot be correct. Likewise, Jesus either died and rose from the dead, as the Bible claims, or not, as the Koran claims. One is right and the other is wrong.
In fact, a medieval Muslim philosopher named Avicenna proposed a reliable way to correct the opinion of someone who denies the principle of dispute. He said that Anyone who denies the principle of dispute should be beaten and burned until they admit that being beaten is not the same as not being beaten and being burned is not the same as not being burned! (Extreme example, but you understand what he was trying to express.)
While reasonable people have no problem with the principle of dispute, some very influential philosophers implicitly denied it in their teachings. Perhaps the most influential of them are David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Many people have never heard of Hume and Kant, but Their teachings have a great influence on modern thinking. Therefore, it is important that we take a brief look at each of them. Let’s start with hum.
Hume’s skepticism: Shouldn’t we be skeptical of him?
David Hume is perhaps more responsible than anyone else for the skepticism that prevails today. As an empiricist, Hume believed all meaningful Ideas are either true by their definition or must be based on empirical experience. Hume even argued that claims can only be meaningful if they meet one of the following two conditions:
• Claim about truth is abstract reasoning, such as mathematical equation or definition (eg ‘2 + 2 = 4” or “all triangles have three sides”); or
• Claims of truth can be empirically verify with one or more of the five senses.
Although Hume claimed to be a skeptic, he was certainly not skeptical in the case of the two conditions— He was absolutely convinced that he knew the truth.!!! In fact, he concludes his work (searching for human reason) In conclusion: ‘Let’s pick up any book – for example, on divinity or school metaphysics – and ask: ‘Does it contain any abstract reflections on quantity or numbers?’ existence?’ No. Then let’s throw it into the fire, because it can contain nothing but sophistry (deliberately misleading) and illusion.’ Do you understand the consequences of Hume’s two conditions? If he is right, then any book about God is insignificant. You can use all religious writings straight away for kindling!
Almost two hundred years later, Hume’s two conditions were transferred to ‘Empirical verifiability principle’ Philosopher of the twentieth century A. J. Ayer. the principle of empirical verifiability claims that A statement can only make sense if it is true by definition or if it is empirically verifiable.
In the mid-1960s, this view became very popular in philosophy faculties across the country, including the University of Detroit, where I studied (norm). I actually completed the entire course of logical positivism, which was another name for the philosophy held by Ayer. The professor of this course, a logical positivist, was a strange person. Although he professed the Catholic faith, he refused to believe that it made sense to talk about the existence of reality outside the physical world (i.e. metaphysics, God).
In other words, he admitted to being an atheist and told us he wanted to convert the whole class to his kind of atheism. (I once asked him: ‘How can you be a Catholic and an atheist at the same time?’ He ignored two thousand years of official Catholic teaching and replied: ‘To be a Catholic, you don’t have to believe in God – just follow the rules!’)
On the first day of the course, the professor assigned the students the task of preparing presentations based on chapters from Ayer’s book ‘Logic, truth and language’. I signed up to prepare a chapter called ‘The Principle of Empirical verifiability’. one must realize that This principle was the basis of logical positivism, and therefore of the entire course.!!!
At the beginning of the next lesson, the professor said: ‘Mr. Geisler, first we will listen to you. Please limit yourself to a maximum of twenty minutes so that we have enough time to discuss.’ Since I used the lightning tactic of refuting self-destructive statements, I had no time limit at all Problem. I stood up and simply said:
“The principle of empirical verifiability says that there are only two kinds of meaningful statements:
1) Those that are True by definition, and
2) those that are empirically verifiable.
Since the principle of empirical verifiability in itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.’ That was all and I sat.😂
There was a stunned silence in the room. Most students realized that The principle of empirical verifiability cannot be meaningful Based on your own standard. In the second hour, the base of the entire course was destroyed! What will the professor talk about for the next fourteen weeks?
I’ll tell you what he was talking about. Instead of admitting that his lecture and his whole philosophical perspective were counterproductive, and therefore wrong, the professor suppressed this truth, squirmed, and then threw everything that he failed at me for the rest of the semester. His devotion to the principle of empirical verifiability—despite his apparent fatal flaw—was obviously a matter of will, not reason.
Hume has many other ideas, especially his arguments against the miracles, which we will cover in Chapter 8. However, for now, this is important: Hume’s empiricism and also his followers A. J. Ayer are counterproductive.
The claim that ‘something can only make sense if it is empirically verifiable or true by definition’ is itself excluded, because this claim is neither empirically verifiable nor true by definition.
Instead of ‘throwing all the gods into the fire’ as suggested by Hume, you might want to consider using Hume’s books to start a fire.
Kant’s agnoticism: Shouldn’t we be agnostic towards him?
The influence of Immanuel Kant was even more destructive to the Christian world view than the influence of David Hume. For if Kant’s philosophy is correct, then there is no way to know anything about the real world, nor with empirically verifiable things! Why? Because According to Kant, you only know what your mind and senses will create for you. In short, you don’t know the real tree as such, you only know the tree, how it seems to you….
Unbelievable!!! Why does the average person on the street not doubt what they see with their own eyes, but the supposedly brilliant philosophers do? The more we study philosophy, the more we are convinced that if you want the obvious to appear unclear, it is enough to entrust it to the hands of a philosopher!
Yet we cannot avoid the study of philosophy because, as C.S. Lewis said, ‘good philosophy must exist, if only because it is necessary to respond to a bad philosophy’.
Kant’s philosophy is a bad philosophy, yet it has convinced many people that there is an insurmountable gap between them and the real world, that it is impossible to gain a reliable knowledge of what the world really looks like, let alone what God is like. According to Kant, we are trapped in complete agnosticism about the real world.
Fortunately, there is a simple answer to all this – the tactic of refuting self-destructive claims. Kant makes the same mistake as Hume – breaks the law of dispute. He contradicts his own assumption when he claims that no one can know the real world while he himself claims, that he knows something about him, and that the real world is unrecognizable!
In the philosophy lesson I (norm) taught, I pointed out the shortcomings of Kant’s philosophy in this way. I said, “First of all, if Kant claims he can’t know anything about the real world (things about himself), How then can he know that the real world exists? And second, his opinion is self-destructive, because He claims that nothing can be known about the real world, and at the same time he claims to know that the real world is unknowable!”
One student blurted out, ‘No! It can’t be that simple, Dr. Geisler. You can’t destroy the central principle of more than a hundred years of philosophical thinking with just a few simple sentences!’
I quoted my favorite source and replied: ‘This happens when a beautiful theory meets a brutal group of facts. Besides, who said refutation must be complicated? If someone makes a simple mistake, a simple fix is enough to draw attention to it.”
Hume and Kant are wrong. And what else?
As Hume and Kant violate the principle of dispute, their attempts to destroy all ‘religious’ truths fail. However, just because Hume and Kant are wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have positive evidence of, say, the existence of God. The tactic of revealing self-destructive claims can only reveal that the claim is false. does not provide positive evidence, that a specific statement is true. So is it true that the theistic god exists? Is there any recognizable evidence that would give us adequate certainty in this or that direction? Is there such a thing as knowable evidence for the invisible God? In order to answer these questions, we need to explore how the truth itself can be known.
How do you know the truth?
Let’s summarize what we have seen so far: Truth exists and is absolute and undeniable. To say that ‘the truth cannot be known’ is counterproductive, because this very statement is declared to be a well-known, absolute truth. In fact, every time we say something, we indicate that we know at least part of the truth, because any attitude on any topic presupposes a certain amount of knowledge. If you say someone else’s attitude is wrong, you need to know what is right.
But how does one actually know the truth? In other words, what process do we use to discover the truths about the world? The process of discovering the truth begins the obvious laws of logic, which are called First Principles. They are called the first principles, because there is nothing else behind them, they are not proven by other principles; They are simply the nature of reality, and are therefore self-evident. So you don’t learn these first principles, you just know them. Everyone knows these principles intuitively, even if they did not think about them explicitly.
the law of excluded third
Two of these principles are the principle of dispute and the law of the excluded third. We have already seen the reality and value of the dispute principle. The law of exclusion of the third tells us that something is either there or not. For example, either God exists or there is no. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not rise. There is no third alternative.
These first principles are the tools we use to discover all other truths.
logic can tell us that the argument is false, But by itself it cannot tell us which assumptions are true. We need more information to discover these truths. We obtain this information by observing the world around us and then drawing general conclusions from these observations.
When you observe something again and again, you may come to the conclusion that some general principle is true. For example, if you repeatedly drop an object from the table, you naturally notice that the object always falls to the floor. If you do this often enough, you will eventually realize that there must be some general principle known as gravity. This method drawing general conclusions from specific observations is called induction.
Process coming of age to a valid conclusion is called deduction (reasonable conclusion). And we did that in the above arguments.
You know most of what you know thanks to induction.
How do we learn the truth about God?
So what do observations and inductions have to do with discovering the existence of God? All. observation and induction (-logical procedure from specific cases to general conclusion) they actually help us explore the most fundamental religious question: ‘Is there a god?’
You may object: ‘Wait a moment! How can we use observation to examine an unobservable being called God? After all, if God is invisible and immaterial, as most Christians, Jews and Muslims claim, how can our senses help us gather information about him?’
Answer: We use induction to explore God in the same way we use it to explore other things that we do not see— by observing their effects. For example We cannot directly observe gravity; We can only observe its effects. Likewise, we cannot directly observe the human mind, but only how it acts. From these effects we make a rational conclusion about the existence of the cause.
In fact, the book you are reading is a typical example. Why do you assume this book is created by the action of the human mind? Because all your observational experiences tell you that the book is the result of some already existing intelligence (ie the author). You have never seen wind, rain, or other forces of nature make a book; You’ve only seen people do it. So despite not seeing anyone writing this book, you’ve come to the conclusion that it must have at least one author.
By inferring that this book has an author, you naturally combine observation, induction and deduction.
If we were to write down your thoughts in a logical form, would look like this deductive argument:
1. All books have at least one author (assumption based on inductive investigation).
2. The book ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist’ is a book (assumption based on observation).
3. That’s why the book ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist’ has at least one author (deduction-conclusion).
You know the argument is valid through deduction. And you know that the argument is true, because the assumptions are true – verified by observation and induction.
Now comes the big question: as the book requires existing human intelligence, Can we observe any impacts and effects that point to God?
The answer is yes and the first effect is the universe itself. Exploring its beginning is the next step on our journey.
However, before we look at the evidence of the beginning of the universe, we must deal with one more objection to the truth. And that is: ‘So what? Who cares about the truth?’
So what? Who cares the truth?
Sometimes we ask our students, ‘What is the biggest problem in the world today? Is it ignorance or indifference?’ Once one student replied: ‘I don’t know and I don’t care!’
Many of us are ignorant and indifferent to the truth – but not when it comes to money, medicine or other material things we mentioned earlier. We are very passionate about you.
But many people are apathetic when it comes to truth in morality and religion (we know you are not because you are taking the time to read this book).
How do we know that it is not good to be apathetic about the topics of culture and truth and that it is important to know the truth about morality and religion?
First, while people may say that the truth of morality does not matter, in fact, it alone He doesn’t believe when someone deals with them immorally. For example, they may argue that lying is not bad, but watch their moral outrage when someone is lying to them (especially when it comes to their money!).
If everyone told the truth, there would be no fraudulent companies. There would be no scandals or frauds. The economy is directly influenced by morality! Morality is the basis of practically everything we do. It affects us not only financially, but under certain circumstances also socially, psychologically, spiritually and even physically.
The second reason why truth is important in morality is that Success in life often depends on the moral decisions a person makes. This includes decisions regarding sex, marriage, children, drugs, money, business relationships, etc. Some decisions bring prosperity, others lead to destruction.
Third, as we pointed out in the previous book ‘Legislative Morality’, all laws legislatively regulate morality. The only question is: “Whose morality will be enacted?’ Think about it. Each law declares one behavior to be correct and its opposite to be incorrect – That’s morality. Whose morality should be embedded in laws such as abortion or euthanasia? These are questions that have a direct impact on the lives and health of real people. If it is morally wrong to kill innocent people, shouldn’t this truth be enshrined in the laws? Likewise, whose morality should be embedded in laws regarding your health or finances? The answers we enshrine in the laws can dramatically affect the life, freedom and happiness of every citizen.
Do you think it is important that the Nazis believed that the Jews were inferior than the Aryan race? Does it matter today what we think about the moral status of people regarding racial or religious categories? Of course!
Truth in religion is important.
It is also important if any other religion is true….If atheists are right, then we can calmly lie, cheat and steal to get what we want, because this life is all we have, and there are no consequences in eternity.
But let’s forget eternity for a moment. Let’s consider the time implications of religious teachings around the world. In Saudi Arabia, some children at school learn that Jews are pigs and that non-Muslims should be killed (while fortunately most Muslims don’t believe it, but militant Muslims teach this type of jihad directly from the Koran). Does this religious ‘truth’ matter? Wouldn’t it be better to teach them religious truth that God wants them to love their neighbors?
The Saudis may be teaching the Jews are pigs, but In our country, through a one-sided biology curriculum, we teach children that there is actually no difference between humans and pigs. After all, if we are merely a product of blind natural forces—unless no divine being created us with any special meaning—then We are nothing but big brain pigs.
Does this religious (atheist) ‘truth’ matter? It depends when children put the consequences of their disbelief into practice. Instead of good citizens who see people made in the image of God, we will raise criminals who see no sense or value in human life. Thoughts have consequences.
on the positive side, Mother Teresa helped improve conditions in India by saying that questioned the religious beliefs of many people in Hindu culture. The Hindu belief in karma and reincarnation leads many Hindus to ignore the call of the suffering. Why? Because they believe that those who are suffering deserve their suffering for doing something bad in their previous life. So if you are helping suffering people, you are interfering with their karma. Mother Teresa She taught Hindus in India Christian principles of caring for the poor and suffering. Does this religious idea have meaning? unabled Ask the millions of people whose lives have been affected. What about the meaning of religious teaching about karma? – Ask the millions of people who are still suffering.
The conclusion is this: No matter what the real truth about religion and morality is, our lives are greatly affected today and perhaps for ages. Those who carelessly say, ‘So what? Who cares about the truth in morality and religion?’, ignore reality and blindly skate on thin ice. We owe ourselves and others to find the real truth and act according to it.
So in the next chapter we will start with the question: ‘Is there God?’
Summary
1. People often take their beliefs from their parents, friends, religion or culture of their childhood.
Sometimes they simply shape their beliefs based on their feelings. Although such a belief may be true, it is also possible that it is not true. The only way to be reasonably confident is verify beliefs using evidence. This can be achieved through reliable philosophical principles, including those found in logic and science.
2. Logic tells us that Opposites cannot be true simultaneously in the same sense.
3. Using the tactic of self-destructive claims, we will see that Hume is not skeptical about skepticism and Kant is not agnostic about agnosticism. Therefore, their opinions refute themselves. So it is possible to know the truth about God.
4. Through many observations (induction) we can draw reasonable conclusions (deduction) about the existence and nature of God (which we will do in the following chapters).
5. Truth in morality and religion has present for us as well as consequences for eternity. Indifference and ignorance can be fatal. What you don’t know or care about can hurt you.
6. So why should anyone believe anything at all? we should believe something when we have evidence and because What we believe carries with it.
