"Faith Seeking Understanding"
Anselm said his was a "faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). I've said from the beginning that it's not about intelligence, it's not even always about being educated. It's about seeing things differently. It's about control beliefs.
Just like Anselm's Ontological Argument proceeded out of a desire to make sense of a faith he already had, so Christians argue from the same desire. All of your arguments are nothing more than rationally defending something you came to believe initially for less than adequate reasons. Most of you learned to believe before you even heard of any sophisticated argument for God's existence, or could defend the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But when you heard these arguments they confirmed what you needed to believe.
The control beliefs you adopted from that initial conversion experience led you to see all available evidence through the lens of those glasses. Now it's time to grow up and realize that the initial reasons you had for believing in the first place were inadequate.
Many Christians remind me of followers of Zeus who swore by the prophecies that purportedly came from him through the priests. There would be nothing I could say to change their minds...nothing. It's because the control beliefs they adopted from their culture and upbringing made them see the world that way.
Christians would be arguing for Mormonism to this day if they were raised to be a Mormon. Admit it. Be honest.
Christians would be arguing for Islam to this day if they were raised to be a Muslim. Admit it. Be honest.
Therefore the default position is agnosticism ("we don't know"). We must all admit this. Anyone moving off the default position has the burden of proof. The larger the knowledge claim is when moving off that initial position, then the more unlikely that claim becomes. The smaller the knowledge claim is when moving off the default position, then the more likely it becomes.
What's there not to understand about this?
Just like Anselm's Ontological Argument proceeded out of a desire to make sense of a faith he already had, so Christians argue from the same desire. All of your arguments are nothing more than rationally defending something you came to believe initially for less than adequate reasons. Most of you learned to believe before you even heard of any sophisticated argument for God's existence, or could defend the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But when you heard these arguments they confirmed what you needed to believe.
The control beliefs you adopted from that initial conversion experience led you to see all available evidence through the lens of those glasses. Now it's time to grow up and realize that the initial reasons you had for believing in the first place were inadequate.
Many Christians remind me of followers of Zeus who swore by the prophecies that purportedly came from him through the priests. There would be nothing I could say to change their minds...nothing. It's because the control beliefs they adopted from their culture and upbringing made them see the world that way.
Christians would be arguing for Mormonism to this day if they were raised to be a Mormon. Admit it. Be honest.
Christians would be arguing for Islam to this day if they were raised to be a Muslim. Admit it. Be honest.
Therefore the default position is agnosticism ("we don't know"). We must all admit this. Anyone moving off the default position has the burden of proof. The larger the knowledge claim is when moving off that initial position, then the more unlikely that claim becomes. The smaller the knowledge claim is when moving off the default position, then the more likely it becomes.
What's there not to understand about this?