The Problem of Evil is a logical argument against God (at least against an omnimax God), not a faith belief. It’s a refutation of faith beliefs.
In this context I think switching from atheism to religion is a valid example though. The other way around probably less so.
It’s an argument against a benevolent God, and a strong one. But when you make the leap from “God is not benevolent” to “God does not exist” based on the Problem of Evil alone, I call that an act of faith. It’s as if I said “Dio has a 1976 Pinto”, you then pointed out that the Pinto wasn’t manufactured in that year, and I concluded that you don’t own a car. The Problem of Evil isn’t a logically sufficient basis for atheism any more than your statement that you don’t own a Pinto is sufficient basis for me to conclude you don’t own a car.
Occam’s Razor, on the other hand, slits God’s throat quite nicely. It isn’t used to argue against any particular characteristics of God - you just use it to point out that invoking God as an explanation for the universe is a far, far more complicated explanation than the Big Bang and evolution. After all, one assumes that a whole additional set of events would have been required to create God. Occam’s Razor can’t disprove God, of course - but it points out that, since belief in God introduces enormous complexity into our model of the Universe, and that model functions quite well without God, it doesn’t make sense to believe in Him absent strong evidence.
Atheism that flows from Occam’s Razor, then, I would describe as atheism rooted in logic. Atheism on the Razor’s Edge, if you like. The Problem of Evil can’t get you to logically rigorous atheism on its own, and it isn’t even necessary to get there - the argument from Occam’s Razor is complete and rigorous on its own.
That’s not the arument. The argument is that no omnimax God can exist, not that no other kinds of gods can exist.
[shameless plug] The Savvy Convert’s Guide to Choosing a Religion [/shameless plug]
Fair enough - I’d forgotten that “omnimax” includes omnibenevolence, not just omnciscience and omnipotence. My original point stands, though - a person who uses the Problem of Evil alone to conclude that there is no god at all (as opposed to no omnimax God), is reaching a conclusion that the Problem of Evil cannot support on its own. It’s not a logical conclusion - it’s a conclusion based upon faith.
(I’d like to take a moment to back up a second, and point out that while it’s great intellectual fun to shake the arguments and see what comes loose, I think you and I agree far more than we disagree. We agree that there’s no God, and that atheism is, at least in some cases, not a faith. Our sole area of disagreement seems to be whether or not a hypothetical person who becomes an atheist solely based upon the Problem of Evil is treating atheism as just another faith.)
My trajectory was more “PoE discredits the idea of God I was taught,” “idea of God I was taught was wrong,” “I don’t believe in the God I was taught,” “I don’t believe in a god I wasn’t taught,” “I don’t believe in a god.”
It’s a perfectly logical conclusion. I only ever believed in one God with characteristics X. I don’t have to stop believing in other gods because I never started.
It is clear that one can become an atheist through irrational means, or through faith. But that is true of anything. You can accept evolution because you have read and understood the evidence for it, or you can believe in evolution because hot biologist Olivia Judson says it is true.
I think the more interesting question is whether it is possible to choose a religion through purely rational arguments - correct ones. I’d say that 200 years ago yes (Tom Paine used some to justify his deism) but today, not so much.
Actually no hard evidence is accurate. If you want to count people’s subjective experiences as evidence, that’s okay as long as you understand the difference.
The religions that still practice cannibalism are fun, especially when the current high priestess says “Eat me!”
Dam! She arouses my evolutionary need to procreate.
Ah, I assume you’ve read Dr. Tatiana.
She is the world’s second hottest biologist. Second because I’m married to one, and I ain’t dumb.
OK - as for the first part paragraph - the branch of orthodoxy I was raised in and practiced as an adult would be more like some of the Jewish sects or pagan traditions and have more in common with them than it does many of the other Christian sects. But it one of those things that is tough to explain to someone viewing it all from outside.
Paragraph two - not really. The Abrahamic tradition (as I think you are using the term) runs the spectrum of viewing the Bible as the literal word of God to it being a method or tool God uses to speak to us today. To go from one denomination where it is the inspired word of God to something more Eastern such as Hindi would probably be easier for me than going from “inspired” to hard-shell Baptist or Pentecostal.
Paragraph Three – usually what you hear about it someone going from an Eastern or African religion to Christianity but the reverse path happens these days as well. During our (very) late sexuality debates, we lost as many members to non-Christian churches (including a lot to the Unitarian Universalist) as we did to “stricter” Christian churches. From what my friends in the Episcopalian Church (USA) have told me, they had the same kind of thing happen. So it may not get the press the old “cross and sword” technique does but its nothing rare enough to be a surprise either.
I know several UU pastors who would debate that point with you. Or that it is at least a religion, if not a faith.
They would not debate it at all. Religion doesn’t have to be theist, but atheism per se cannot be religious. The religious aspects of UU do not derive from atheism, and atheism is not a requirement of UU.
Were you raised Jewish, and at some point became an atheist? Doesn’t that answer your question? Sometimes another belief system makes more sense to us.
The problem is, if that’s evidence then the raving of some lunatic or LSD user that the walls are melting qualifies as evidence. It’s a standard so low that it renders the concept of evidence useless. Basically, it’s equating evidence with solipsism.
True. It’s evidence only in a personal way. We all have subjective experiences and we decide what that experience means to us and how we respond. It’s a universal human experience. If it’s called evidence at all it needs a qualifier to denote it’s subjective and personal nature. It should be clearly recognized that it’s not something that qualifies as evidence for anyone except that individual.
Another way I sometimes select my monthly religion is something passed down by abcient shamans. It goes like this
Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo,
catch a prophet by the toe
if he’s bogus let him go
My mother says that she had a vision and out goes YOU!
{repeat as nessecary}
Then there’s the Prophet over the top rope battle royal with my custom made action figures and my offical WWE ring.
I don’t use that one much because it seems unrelaiable. If you’re going to change your religion once a month you should take it kinda seriously. It is the most fun though. Surprisingly Jesus can kick some ass when he comes off the top rope with his pattened “Wrath of God” Still, Buddha is like the Yokozuna of religion.
They wouldn’t debate it? Never met an ordained atheist, I take it? I could fix that for you if you would like - or at least hook you into a couple blogs.
Virtually nothing is a requirement of UU; its one of the things I love about them even if they don’t fulfill my particular faith needs. But – if you go back into the history – before the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist churches, the Unitarians had basically been taken over by non-theistic and atheistic members; they formed the majority of the membership in this country and others. And they also set the ritual and theology although reasonable people can debate to what extent. When the merger happened back in the 60s atheism as a religion or faith/belief system was designed right in. That is one of the reasons it lacks/refuses both creed and dogma.
Actually, now that I think about it, a local UU church would be a good place for the OP to go to meet people like he/she is looking for. Lots of folks there have gone through major swings.