should a true argument float to the top?

[Anonymous]

I just said, in another thread, something which I thought deserves it's own thread.

I admitted to taking a rather inductive approach to judging the likelihood that a God really does exist, and I've simply not yet been exposed to the good arguments that justify and demonstrate this. That is, I've been open-minded about the existence of God for quite some time, and have been exposed to quite a few arguments, from quite a few different religions, and in my judgment these have all failed. I therefor conclude that the probability that diving ever deeper into the sea of apologetics will likewise fail to produce convincing evidence or arguments of God is low. [edit: I meant to say the probability that apologetics will fail to produce good arguments for God is high, not low]

Part of my approach to this is an assumption that if there was a good argument out there, I should have seen it already. And why do I assume this? That's a good question. I think at least part of the answer is the notion that a good argument by definition would be demonstrably true, and convincing, and would therefor spread amongst the population of people eager to prove and demonstrate the existence of God. There is such a population, and I have witnessed a reasonably large sample of the kinds of arguments and logic this population produces, and as far as I could tell, the arguments all fail.

So, why am I wrong to assume that true knowledge, and valid, demonstrably correct proofs, or evidence of the existence of God, if they were really out there, would have "floated to the top" as it were, and been visible to me and others on this board already?

[_moksha]

When I was young, I remember asking about floaters in the Jordan River and what told that they contained trapped gas. Likewise my experience with the truth, is that it has the ability to languish in obscurity or stay hidden until discovered. Even when it is there for all to see, it is not always recognized.

[_Bond James Bond]

I just said, in another thread, something which I thought deserves it's own thread.

I admitted to taking a rather inductive approach to judging the likelihood that a God really does exist, and I've simply not yet been exposed to the good arguments that justify and demonstrate this. That is, I've been open-minded about the existence of God for quite some time, and have been exposed to quite a few arguments, from quite a few different religions, and in my judgment these have all failed. I therefor conclude that the probability that diving ever deeper into the sea of apologetics will likewise fail to produce convincing evidence or arguments of God is low.

Part of my approach to this is an assumption that if there was a good argument out there, I should have seen it already. And why do I assume this? That's a good question. I think at least part of the answer is the notion that a good argument by definition would be demonstrably true, and convincing, and would therefor spread amongst the population of people eager to prove and demonstrate the existence of God. There is such a population, and I have witnessed a reasonably large sample of the kinds of arguments and logic this population produces, and as far as I could tell, the arguments all fail.

So, why am I wrong to assume that true knowledge, and valid, demonstrably correct proofs, or evidence of the existence of God, if they were really out there, would have "floated to the top" as it were, and been visible to me and others on this board already?

I agree Seth. I've never been particularly impressed by any Biblical truth arguments because they almost always require compromise of the original text. In regard to the Bible the arguments to explain any criticisms of the Bible I see (both on message boards but especially in real life among regular Christians) usually fall into four categories:

1) Supernatural intervention by God or appeal to personal emotional witness used as a Trump card. (example: Personal testimony)

2) The biblical passage is an allegory meant to teach a lesson and not meant to be read literally. A corollary of this is the watering down of the story so that it might have some plausible scientific explanation (example: Noah's flood was local or Noah's flood was about a re baptism of the collective earth).

3) The events basically happened but the details shouldn't be looked at too closely because the events happened a long time ago. (example: stories about the conquest of Israel after the 40 years of wondering, particularly fanciful events like the capture of Jericho via French horn section.)

4) Presentism is bad and we should ignore all the harsh Old Testament language and focus on Jesus's message in the New Testament. Basically ignore the Old Testament, focus on the New. (example: ignore any rules in Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy/etc that require execution of offending party)

All of these arguments are pretty weak in my mind and like you I'm left thinking, where are the good arguments? In my mind we're left with a group of allegories that are somewhat horrifying if they were actually carried out by a God on one hand and a general grouping of decent moral stories on the other. The decent stories provide morals that could easily be arrived at independently because of sheer pragmatism of maintaining good relations with neighbors, like don't kill, steal, lie, and sleep with another man's wife (to use Old Testament sexist sentiments).

[_Sethbag]

But the question is, should we expect the good arguments to float to the top? If we accept the existence of a marketplace of ideas, is there something about good arguments that should inevitably cause them to gain marketshare, and become visible to those watching the market with some sufficient care?

I agree that in the end this is related to the argument from unbelief. Please, someone contradict that argument.

[_Bond James Bond]

But the question is, should we expect the good arguments to float to the top? If we accept the existence of a marketplace of ideas, is there something about good arguments that should inevitably cause them to gain marketshare, and become visible to those watching the market with some sufficient care?

I agree that in the end this is some variation of the argument from unbelief. Please, someone contradict that argument.

I think the best arguments do float to the top and they're to not take the story literally and to take the Bible as a moral guide of tolerance. You can't really argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible without getting pummeled with scientific arguments about creation, Noah's flood, etc or being beaten over the head as a bigot for believing the bigoted teachings of the Old Testament.

The problem you're identifying I believe is that even the best arguments aren't that compelling without a previous held belief in a deity to hold it all together.

[_malkie]

But the question is, should we expect the good arguments to float to the top? If we accept the existence of a marketplace of ideas, is there something about good arguments that should inevitably cause them to gain marketshare, and become visible to those watching the market with some sufficient care?

I agree that in the end this is related to the argument from unbelief. Please, someone contradict that argument.

If we leave religion aside for the moment, and look at the questions outside of that context, I think that it is fairly clear that, at least:

1. you have to agree on the definition of the "goodness" of an argument before you can determine if we should "expect the good arguments to float to the top". I'm not sure that the "notion that a good argument by definition would be demonstrably true, and convincing" is necessarily true
2. you need to look at the relationship between the truth and the goodness of the argument before you can tell if the true arguments should necessarily be good enough float to the top

In particular, you cannot divorce the idea of goodness of an argument from the intellectual and social context in which it is put forward. That is, an argument that is good in one environment might not be good in another. Otherwise we would all agree about everything all of the time, no?

[_Yoda]

But the question is, should we expect the good arguments to float to the top?

I don't think so. Not always.

Look at the discussions on this board. It is always the sound arguments that make sense that "float to the top"? No! it is the most controversial arguments that everyone wants to read and comment on which not only float to the top, but stay at the top.

An argument that is sound is not necessarily interesting.

[_brade]

Seth, I've been reading The Case for God by Karen Armstrong she presents the strongest case I've heard for religion. Or, it would probably be better to say "for spirituality". If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It sounds like I'm suggesting she doesn't really make a case for God, and in a sense that's true. She suggests that our preoccupation for discovering true propositions about God (i.e. the right beliefs) is misguided and that this wasn't the project of many ancient religious practitioners (e.g. there's evidence to suggest the authors of many biblical stories never intended them to be taken literally). Rather, they were more interested in the practice of religion as a means to experience God, whatever he/she is. And, whatever God is just isn't really important to the project of experiencing, because having that experience isn't a matter of having the right beliefs about his nature, but is instead about living the right kind of compassionate life.

Her book is interesting because even as it's a thoughtful defense of God, in the sense I've outlined, and a response to the famous new atheists, it's also a far more damning work against the same sorts of fundamentalist religions the new atheists often real against; I think she would lump Mormonism in with the sorts of religions that are on the wrong track.

Her book has encouraged me to take religion and spirituality more seriously even as it's solidified my conviction that Mormonism is, as we say on the internet, doing it wrong.

[_honorentheos]

+1 Brade. Great book suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Part of my approach to this is an assumption that if there was a good argument out there, I should have seen it already. And why do I assume this? That's a good question. I think at least part of the answer is the notion that a good argument by definition would be demonstrably true, and convincing, and would therefor spread amongst the population of people eager to prove and demonstrate the existence of God. There is such a population, and I have witnessed a reasonably large sample of the kinds of arguments and logic this population produces, and as far as I could tell, the arguments all fail.

So, why am I wrong to assume that true knowledge, and valid, demonstrably correct proofs, or evidence of the existence of God, if they were really out there, would have "floated to the top" as it were, and been visible to me and others on this board already?

Yes, you are wrong and "good ideas" (about god or anything) do not "float to the top" because, as someone once said, the so called "free" marketplace of ideas are only "mere episodes in the sphere of circulation in which competitors maul each other." And even that striking and gladiatorial turn of phrase doesn't half convey how rigged the battle is.

It will take a while to unpack the ideas here and as usual I don't have a minute to spare, as I now have to don my uniform and pack my tools to clock in for my shift at the ideological weapons factory. But, because I owe you a big one for recommending a book that has given me a crucial argument for my own work, I will return and take up my bow of burning gold and my arrows of desire.