Are Atehsits in a crisis about God Arguments?

Last week several atheists atheists said thing on carm that seemed to indicate they not only feel that some critical has been reached in their inability to disprove God arguments, but they seem willing to give up reason to get away from them. Francis Schaeffer would be vindicated (because he wrote a book called Escape from Reason). Don't tag me as a Schaeffer fan but it is ironic. Of course the atheits are not forthcoming about their inability to disprove God argument, no they couch iti n terms of Christian "inability" accept that there are supposedly "good responses to the God arguments."

It was all kicked off with Fleetmouse's post to me.

on my boards, Doxa Forums
Fleet Mouse gives new Meaning to the term
"incredulity" 9/6/11

Theist resistance to principles of reason

In several recent threads, theists have refused to answer simple questions dealing with principles of reason.

Here, Mathison attempts to demonstrate that in principle, cosmological arguments do not favor one conception of God over another.

Here, HRG attempts to formulate a heuristic that it is reasonable to assume the absence of something for which there is no evidence.

Why is there such resistance to confronting an analysis of the validity of these ideas? Why does this always go in the direction of "here are a bunch of other scarcely related ideas"? It is as if the theist, having leaned many assertions together into a bonfire of faith, mistakes the assertions as supporting each other in principle rather than merely supporting the particular and contingent bonfire of faith that he has constructed. One is simply not allowed to address or critique the individual "logs".

(edit: the restatement of the CA in Mathison's thread is on-topic but does not address the point of the OP - that even if the CA holds together, it doesn't support a specific God)

This first of all a totally unfair to charge that apologists never see things because I have not only refused to argue the tradition design argument because I think the argument has fatal flaws, but I also don't don't argue Kalam because I think the appeal to "beginning to exist" can't be demonstrated. I guess I'm an army of one but at least I am one disproof his statement. Of cousre he's just refusing to accept the converse of his argument, they never recognize that I have answers to their sloganeering. I've answered certain mantra-like dogmas of theirs used as excuses to block my God augments, answered them hundreds of times, with no recognition or response, each time we argue again they act as though I never said it.

Case in point is ironically the very argument fleet makes here. He says there were two I didn't answer that disprove some of my view point, but I did answer them, they never acknowledged my answers. Here is my account of those issues:

Here, Mathison attempts to demonstrate that in principle, cosmological arguments do not favor one conception of God over another.
that is not a problem. It's a none issue and I told you why. There is only one possibly that it could be. whatever is firs cause has to be God, it's a priori.

I keep telling you that you are reckoning the issues on religious traditions wrongly. that's not how you choose a tradition. why don't you listen?

Here, HRG attempts to formulate a heuristic that it is reasonable to assume the absence of something for which there is no evidence.
I beat the ever living fu out of it. you are whining because I argue back and disprove your assertions you think arguing back is some trick that proves we are rong. taht's a bizarre understanding.

Why is there such resistance to confronting an analysis of the validity of these ideas?

because they are wrong and I showed you they are wrong! why would anything think counter arguments are a sign of not being able to face truth. That's ludicrous!

Why does this always go in the direction of "here are a bunch of other scarcely related ideas"? It is as if the theist, having leaned many assertions together into a bonfire of faith, mistakes the assertions as supporting each other in principle rather than merely supporting the particular and contingent bonfire of faith that he has constructed.
man this is like argument from incredulity to the 10th power. you are saying "If you argue back against my assertion that proves you're wrong!" If that's the case then youk have to accept the existence of God when you post here because I was here before you. All my God arguments are the truth and your counter arguments prove that you can't face the truth!
you really expect to get away with pulling this kind of crap?

Then Donals gets into the game with a denial of reason:

The Problem With Reason

a post by Donals on CARM

A few weeks ago, I heard Michael Shermer being interviewed on the radio. He has recently written a book called (if I remember right) The Believing Brain. One of the findings in this book, he claims, is that people generally don't arrive at their beliefs through reason, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise. Rather, we form beliefs and retroactively justify them with reason. We seek out and almost always find some line of reasoning which will provide our beliefs with rational warrant, in our own minds at least.

Of cousre he wont believe me but I have seen empirical reflation to this research. I will have to look for it but I think I can find it. Be that as it may I don't its all that damaging as a fact anyway. First becuase it's also true of atheism or any other belief. When they say "I can't believe anything that's not proved" that's that tendency firing it's not a reasoned well argued heavily weighed decision based on intellectual deliberation, it's an ideological slogan that's part of their socialization process (aka "brain washing" in the popular parlance). This kind of limitation is true for all people. Why do they imagine they are exempt? The gimmicks of atheist thought, ECREP, and the default assumption of atheism, the fortress of facts, the whole ideological gambit is based upon the same tendency and is not thought out but thought up, an excuse for a decision already made subconsciously.

Secondly, atheists are scared to death of subjective thins. The slightest hint of "intuition" is anathematize to them. For us 90%, the norm who believe in God, intuitive notions are not a dirty work, nor is "subjectivity." The psychological theory of intuition that I've heard is that the subconscious mind does the reasoning in a split second. They want to admit that is possible but I think a thinking person would have to admit it's a possibility. Thirdly, there's a good likelihood, and one must check this against the actual research, that such decisions are based upon prior reasoning that's not inattentive but "normal reasoning" yet has been done before. No one just thinks about a complex issue like God for a couple of minutes one time then relys upon the power of intellect for that moment forever. No one solves the great questions in one moment of intense thought. We think a lot. The more important the issue the more we dwell on it. So probably people have thought before and it just jells at some moment.

Fourthly, one study flaw with that research might be the failure to consider complex long term issues vs. momentary problem solving. I don't know how the study was done, but if they don't mind this distinction they might conclude that a momentary problem solving exercise applies to ideas like belief in God when in reality it might not apply at all.

Now, I am very inclined to accept these findings. And I really think that anyone here who is capable of honest introspection would see that it does seem to be the case. And by "anyone," I don't just mean the theists. This presents a particular problem- if this is the case, then abstract reasoning would seem to be a very unreliable means of gaining knowledge about external reality. This is why things like the CA are so convincing to theists, while things like the Problem of Evil are so convincing to atheists; we formed our beliefs first, then set about to justify them rationally. And, seemingly, ANY belief can be justified in such a manner.

first of all, it's clear atheists do not respect theists at all. They assume from the outset that we don't think and that our arguments have to be stupid. Their self esteem is based upon those assumption as a body of empirical work has proved. Naturally they have a psychological motive to view God arguments as dumb and to ignore the answers given, and to weight their answer to a much greater extend. The amazing thing is that Don can't see the true important of his own argument. What he's arguing means that ratioanl decision making about issues like God doesn't work and we should and must and do base what we think upon subjective methods like experience. They are already using them when they become atheists and then again to deny god arguments, yet refuse to respect them in dealing with belief.

Thankfully, mankind has developed a method by which we can overcome this problem; science. By adhering to the scientific method, we can effectively eliminate this selective reasoning. I am unaware of any other method by which we can do so. As such, when it comes to truth claims about objective reality (please note that qualification, Metacrock), science really does seem to be our only reliable means of forming true beliefs.

This is such Pablum. The ideology wont let him give up propaganda, so the realities of the lack of reason must apply to theists but not to atheist! O we have science, we have the great fortress of facts. Every single time I have suggested that scinece is human that it is done like this other stuff which indicts reason (Thomas Kuhn since is a social construct, paradigm shifts and the like) they have become outraged. I point out that the selections of facts they acknowledge is totally based upon their biases. they react the 200 studies that prove religious experiencing is good, and they reject them on the weakest and most unscientific ground, but then turn right around and claim the fortress of facts gives them the solid support. It's totally obvious that if the things Donald argues above are true, then the fortress of facts is a house of cards. Another big point of contradiction is their answer to my TS argument, along the same lines. They argue that we just impose meaning on the universe. Now wait a minute! Don says reason fails and we don't really use it, then he turns around and says scinece will save us as though scinece doesn't' reason to interpret data, but he also says our language, organizing principles, our thought, the nature of logic, all rational coherent methods of human thought are merely the imposing of order upon a meaningless world, yet he still clings to the myth of scinece and the fortress of facts.

How is it that we have all this Derrida imposing of meaning upon the universe and Thomas Kuhn paradigm shift stuff when it's a God argument but somehow it's all snaps into shape magically and interprets the truth of reality properly for atheists when it's scinece and the fortress of facts!?? Can't have it both ways guys, time to choose one or the other.

I've never really been one of those "philosophy is useless" atheists- but I'm starting to come around. Not all philosophy, mind you- but I'm starting to see that HRG is likely correct when he points out that philosophy's purpose is clarification. I simply don't see how any philosopher has overcome this issue of confirmation bias. Any belief can be rationally supported through abstract reasoning; which tells me that no belief can be rationally warranted in this manner. It is through science- and science ONLY- that beliefs about objective reality are warranted.

This is so most ironic. they will give up anything to forestall the final realization of God's reality. the cognitive dissonance is so powerful from the realization (although false I think) that they are going to hell for rejecting God, that they will give up reason itself to avoid realizing it. Yet, there is on avenue to truth that I've been talking about for years and it fits like a hand in glove right about here. There is a method for allowing the sense data to suggest it's own categories of truth. So even if we do impose meaning upon the universe there are way to reduce our tendency to do that and to allow the sense data to spell out the universes own meaning apart from our imposing it. It is called "phenomenology." I suggest reading the link and go back and Google Metacrock's blog Phenomenology and read what I've said about it.

just to get you started:

God, bigfoot, Trotsky, signs along the way

Theology and Phenomenological Method part 1

part 2

the trick atheists do with the subject Object Dichotomy

phenomenology and method