Posted: Jul 06, 2010 6:04 pm
Hi Sophie! This is a pleasant surprise, I thought you wouldn't be around for some time. 
I agree that beliefs are not necessarily chosen. Religious belief in particular is usually acquired in childhood as something "natural" and self-evident, and it complicates matters further that it is tied with strong emotions, wishes and hopes.
It is also true that a deist god is practically "undefeatable"; indeed, a deist god is something that evades rational evaluation completely, since there is nothing that we could base it on (hence, I am willing to concede that deism may not be an irrational position). But as soon as this vague notion of a higher being acquires any specific attributes and is associated with specific events - in short, as soon as we move from a deist god to the particular deity of any religion - "defeaters" abound. And they are indeed felt as potential threats, as can be seen from attempts by many (most?) believers to shield their ideas from examination and criticism.
I find it interesting that followers of one and the same religion cannot agree amongst themselves whether their faith is/can be rationally held or not. I am aware that different varieties of Christianity have developed different theologies, but from what Will S said in one of the early posts in this thread it would seem that this is not a case of conflicting interpretations among different brands of Christianity, but a discrepancy internal to several of them. 
Sophie T wrote:I don’t think that we necessarily choose our beliefs. For example, if I was ordered to stop believing that I am more than a brain in a vat, I don’t think I could comply with such an order. By the same token, a person who has a strong belief in the existence of God can certainly think about his or her beliefs. However, I don’t think it would be irrational for that person to go on believing without first being presented with what Plantinga refers to as “a Defeater” for his or her belief.
I agree that beliefs are not necessarily chosen. Religious belief in particular is usually acquired in childhood as something "natural" and self-evident, and it complicates matters further that it is tied with strong emotions, wishes and hopes.
It is also true that a deist god is practically "undefeatable"; indeed, a deist god is something that evades rational evaluation completely, since there is nothing that we could base it on (hence, I am willing to concede that deism may not be an irrational position). But as soon as this vague notion of a higher being acquires any specific attributes and is associated with specific events - in short, as soon as we move from a deist god to the particular deity of any religion - "defeaters" abound. And they are indeed felt as potential threats, as can be seen from attempts by many (most?) believers to shield their ideas from examination and criticism.
However, many Christians don’t care if their faith is irrational. In fact, they pride themselves on it, with the old rhyme:
If faith and reason clash. Reason must go crash!
I find it interesting that followers of one and the same religion cannot agree amongst themselves whether their faith is/can be rationally held or not. I am aware that different varieties of Christianity have developed different theologies, but from what Will S said in one of the early posts in this thread it would seem that this is not a case of conflicting interpretations among different brands of Christianity, but a discrepancy internal to several of them.