The properties attributed to god make a big difference.
For those who say they believe in god from a philosophical proof, first mover or whatever, I’d ask them
1) Must the god proved by that proof be conscious? Must it care about humans to the point that it communicates with them? Does that proof require a god who is a moral authority over us and if so how? That is, given a god proved by that proof, why should I care what he/she/it thinks I should do?
Ultimately for those who believe in a god from a philosophical proof, my ultimate question, how do I get from “we need a first mover” to “god didn’t want you to eat pork until Jesus was born, god didn’t want you to eat meat on friday until a few decades ago, god set up a nice hierarchy in Rome for mediating his interactions with us, God is all good and should be obeyed because it is right and just, not just because he threatens the crap out of us if we disobey.”
To the extent that any of them give any credence to the Bible, ask how the evidence for ancient forgeries of these books affects their estimates of the probabilities that they have various features right. Ask if there are other better explanations for the bible arising the way it does than it actually telling a true story, other ways such as the same mechanisms by which stories of the buddha, the hindu gods, the mohammedan, the mormon, the zoroastrian, etc etc etc came about.
I would ask them if they believe in god because they are afraid not to. This is certainly what the church was teaching me before I was 10 as the major reason to believe in god. Ask them how they would characterize the role of fear in determining the truth of things.
I would ask them if they believe that Jesus was more God’s son than is any other human (to avoid them waffling away in “we are all god’s children.”) If they do I would ask them for their evidence for this in particular and their estimates of the probability that they are right in their opinions that 1) Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, 2) Mary was a virgin when she died, 3) Jesus walked on water 4) Jesus turned water into wine 5) Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
I would ask them what the price they believe is paid by you for your presumably mistaken atheism. Is it hell? Just being a bit wronger on moral questions through your life than a believer would be? Or is their no real price, this is just a matter of historical accuracy, like learning how castles were really build in the 1100s or how the pyramids were built.
If they had any kind of nuance view of the theological facts on the ground at all, that maybe Mary wasn’t without sin uniquely , that maybe she didn’t go bodily to heaven, that maybe Lazarus wasn’t quite dead yet, or any of these, I would ask them how they reconcile supporting or being members of the Roman church with their beliefs, and if they can pick and choose on these details is is possible to know that the ability to be subtle in belief might extent to accepting atheists into the church?
The properties attributed to god make a big difference.
For those who say they believe in god from a philosophical proof, first mover or whatever, I’d ask them 1) Must the god proved by that proof be conscious? Must it care about humans to the point that it communicates with them? Does that proof require a god who is a moral authority over us and if so how? That is, given a god proved by that proof, why should I care what he/she/it thinks I should do?
Ultimately for those who believe in a god from a philosophical proof, my ultimate question, how do I get from “we need a first mover” to “god didn’t want you to eat pork until Jesus was born, god didn’t want you to eat meat on friday until a few decades ago, god set up a nice hierarchy in Rome for mediating his interactions with us, God is all good and should be obeyed because it is right and just, not just because he threatens the crap out of us if we disobey.”
To the extent that any of them give any credence to the Bible, ask how the evidence for ancient forgeries of these books affects their estimates of the probabilities that they have various features right. Ask if there are other better explanations for the bible arising the way it does than it actually telling a true story, other ways such as the same mechanisms by which stories of the buddha, the hindu gods, the mohammedan, the mormon, the zoroastrian, etc etc etc came about.
I would ask them if they believe in god because they are afraid not to. This is certainly what the church was teaching me before I was 10 as the major reason to believe in god. Ask them how they would characterize the role of fear in determining the truth of things.
I would ask them if they believe that Jesus was more God’s son than is any other human (to avoid them waffling away in “we are all god’s children.”) If they do I would ask them for their evidence for this in particular and their estimates of the probability that they are right in their opinions that 1) Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, 2) Mary was a virgin when she died, 3) Jesus walked on water 4) Jesus turned water into wine 5) Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
I would ask them what the price they believe is paid by you for your presumably mistaken atheism. Is it hell? Just being a bit wronger on moral questions through your life than a believer would be? Or is their no real price, this is just a matter of historical accuracy, like learning how castles were really build in the 1100s or how the pyramids were built.
If they had any kind of nuance view of the theological facts on the ground at all, that maybe Mary wasn’t without sin uniquely , that maybe she didn’t go bodily to heaven, that maybe Lazarus wasn’t quite dead yet, or any of these, I would ask them how they reconcile supporting or being members of the Roman church with their beliefs, and if they can pick and choose on these details is is possible to know that the ability to be subtle in belief might extent to accepting atheists into the church?
Enjoy, sounds fun.