"the plain truth of the matter is that people do this all the time... we make the same kind of choice that abraham made."

No, most of us never face the kind of choice that Abraham made - you are completely ignoring the gravity of his choice. To kill one's child because commanded to do so by a voice in one's head is not in any way comparable to a patient deciding to trust their doctor's prescription.

One of the fundamental aspects of rational behavior is differentiating between the significance of choices. Those with more significant consequences require more supporting evidence, whereas more trivial choices can be made with less support. Equating the level of evidence required for two choices of widely differing significance is not a rational approach.

Not only do you fail to take into account the difference in consequences of these two choices, but the level of evidence in the two examples is significantly different. The mere fact that evidence is available to the patient, whether or not they choose to pursue it, in itself gives support to a rational decision to trust, especially in a societal situation where such evidence is regarded as important (university degrees, second opinions from other doctors etc.). Of course the possibility exists that the doctor is a fraud or incompetent, but that does render the patient's decision irrational simply because they chose to not check the available evidence. In a society where the number of genuine doctors is vastly higher than the number of fraudulent doctors, where a high value is placed on genuine doctors, where medical fraudulence is policed, and where education for medical practitioners is held to a high standard, all these factors form evidence contributing to a rational decision to trust the doctor. You ignore all this contributory evidence and say "you didn't check the specific explicit evidence, so the choice is irrational". Simply not true.

Now compare this to Abraham's situation - no additional evidence is available to him. In fact, the only evidence he has is something which violates his experience of the world - a disembodied voice - so should rationally engender doubt, rather than trust. There is no evidence whatsoever to support him in making a decision with the gravest possible consequences.

To suggest that this bears any relation to the choices that most of us make without supporting evidence is astonishingly absurd.

Furthermore, your point about 'soft' atheism might carry more weight if you hadn't picked an example which is so directly identifiable as mental illness. Whether or not 'faith' in general terms should be classified as mental illness, Abraham's experience (a voice in his head, commanding him to commit murder) is entirely consistent with the symptoms of a specific mental illness (schizophrenia/delusions). You couldn't have picked a worse example to make your case.

How is 'faith' in 'truth' irrational? The honest heartfelt confession every sincere pilgrim, regardless of whether approaching as scientist, philosopher, physicists, artist, or mystic is: "I do not know". Isn't belief in the existence of "truth" the primary "leap of faith" that requires great courage and the starting point of all inquiry? The 'Truth' may be much 'greater' (for lack of a better word) than the discernible truth. This possibility does not mean that the discernible truth is trumped or ignored by what we do not, and possibly cannot know. It takes great courage and faith to believe in both the reality and concept of truth. It may be that 'certainty' itself is a deception and the ultimate false god.

Thanks

Hi David. You want find M. Solange O'Brien here anymore. She was part of a large purge of atheists about a year ago. You can find her over here:

http://outshine-the-sun.blogspot.com

However, You could say that there are only so many possible points of view. In this context, I think the idea follows through very well. Scientific materialism and atheism in this case are horses as well. Or maybe the truth is something we haven't even thought about. That is, if there is an absolute truth at all. It's always possible that we don't actually understand the true rules of racing and every horse wins, or maybe the horses that arrive in odd intervals win or the last one across the finish line is deemed victorious, or the horses stop racing and have a horse-party instead.

No, they are not correlated and it does NOT make sense to talk about them together. Atheism is a position on the existence of the divine (or lack of position in some cases). Evolution is a set of interrelated theories that explain biodiversity; they have no beRing whatever on the existence of god. Evolution is a sound set of theories whether or not god exists.

OK, so I offended all those atheists who reject evolution? We can play with words. If I am no longer talking about a belief that you subscribe to then say so. I am aware that not all these groups are in 100% correlation. Still the ideas are related.They make sense to talk about together.

I would distinguish between evolutionary theory and atheistic evolutionary theory. The ladder can only be random. The former would be guided in some way either by God or by some non-material thing like virtues. So saying "evolutionary theory" would not quite capture my thought either.

Thank you for the reply. I enjoy these discussions.

So, did the 16th century Catholic Church reject the conquistadors' claims that they prevailed in the New World proved that God was on their side?

In general success can be seen as sign of God's approval. Yet failure does not prove otherwise.St Thomas More failed to stop the English reformation. He was still right. It is more a subjective thing, when you feel God is helping you and providing miracles along the way then that is confirmation you are doing something right. So if the person involved already has credibility in your eyes then you you might accept this judgement. If they don't you can dismiss the claim pretty easily.

Just like when we lose some battles over sexual morality. It does not mean what is right and wrong has changed. It means large majorities have chosen immorality. It has happened before. People said the Roman Empire would never accept Christian sexual morality. Eventually they did. It can turn around. It can also get a lot uglier for a long time before it does. You can't worry to much about it. It is between you and God. Do the right thing.

As for the explanatory power of random chance, yeah, it can be scary (which is why, even as an atheist, I continue to believe that it's a step too far for most people leaving Catholicism and other organized religious behind), but it has great merit in being the simplest (and often the least objectionable) explanation for the age old question of why bad things happen to good people.

It is no so much scary but inhuman. Asking why bad things happen to good people is human. Saying the question makes no sense, in fact the categories of good and bad make no sense, that is inhuman. We are wired to pursue what is good. That feels like a feature and not a bug. The non-explanation that human brains just invented the concepts of good and evil because they gave us a survival advantage at some point in our history. That seems weak. Something as complex and beautiful as love cries out for a more satisfying explanation.

You can believe it is all a matter of chance. It is a choice. It does give simple answers. You loved one dies in a car crash? They are just random chemicals. Your love for them is just random chemicals. Your questions are invalid. Your grief is meaningless. Have a nice day. You can go there.

There is the other choice. You can believe we were made for a purpose. That love and truth and beauty are signs of a deeper reality.That life and death matters. That God will forgive us and heal what is broken in our lives.

There is a book called Chance or Dance http://www.amazon.com/Chance-Dance-Critique-Modern-Secularism/dp/0898702291 . It really phrases things well. Either life is pure chance or life is a beautiful dance. Either nothing means anything or everything means everything. Really the half way points can be rejected based on logic. The two extremes of a purely physical on the one side and on the other side a reality where God is love and He sent His son Jesus to save us and He gave us His church and everything and every act and even every thought needs to be viewed in relation to Him.

(Thanks for taking the time to respond. Please do not take my vigorous sparring below to mean that I hold any antipathy towards you personally.)

So, did the 16th century Catholic Church reject the conquistadors' claims that they prevailed in the New World proved that God was on their side?

Of course natural success is no reason for accepting supernatural claims, but Catholics do it all the time. Something tells me that if Pope John-Paul II had been seen as a failure as pope, he wouldn't have been canonized with so much unseemly haste, even if he had led an otherwise saintly life.

While I understand why you have to believe that Catholicism will prevail in the end, all the evidence seems to be pointing in the opposite direction. Most of the free world has already resoundingly rejected the Catholic tenets of Natural Law when it comes to sexual mores and reproduction, even within much of what remains of the Catholic Church. Do you really believe that entire populations of nations will return to the fold except under extreme duress?

Atheism just tells us that there is no sound evidence for the existence of God. That's all. Naturally (no pun intended) that begs the question as to where everything came from, and why we are here, but those are questions separate from atheism. Atheism itself, being limited to the belief that there is no God or higher power, does not inform on those matters.

As for the explanatory power of random chance, yeah, it can be scary (which is why, even as an atheist, I continue to believe that it's a step too far for most people leaving Catholicism and other organized religious behind), but it has great merit in being the simplest (and often the least objectionable) explanation for the age old question of why bad things happen to good people.

Take car accidents, for example. How many Americans seek to answer the question "Why me?" every year, whether it was to ask why they were horribly injured, or a loved one was killed, or perhaps why they survived when everyone else involved was killed? People can spend the rest of their entire lives seeking an spiritual answer for that question, and there will be no shortage of people telling them that it was all part of God's plan.

Yet, when you zoom out and take an objective view of the car fatality statistics on a yearly basis, you will find that the number of people who died in car wrecks is remarkably consistent, with the only visible trend steadily downwards as car and road safety measures have improved. There is no evidence of divine providence in those numbers. They simply show that if you're a regular road user, then there is about a one in a million chance that you will die in a car accident within the next year.

Sure, telling someone they just got lucky (or unlucky) doesn't seem much of an answer, but those who can accept it can save themselves a lifetime of fruitless soul-searching and self-doubt.

At some level we know that is just not true.

Please don't project your thoughts into my head. I don't believe anything of the sort. I believe that evolution--of us as a species and as a society--is by far the best explanation for the mess of feelings and desires we experience on a daily basis. No, it's not an easy platitude like "God did it" but has far more real explanatory power for the way we act and feel than the tortuous rationalizations developed by the Catholic church over the last two thousand years

Actually, atheism tells us no such thing. Atheism and evolutionary theory are not the same thing. And indeed, evolution and the contingencies of history gave us those desires.