The first of a series of essays on my conversion, starting with the biggest scalp there is: why the God of classical theism is unavoidable and inevitable and modern secular atheism logically fails
I don't think you need to condemn your younger self for his skepticism. Whether he was aware of it or not he held a valid intellectual position when confronted with something he couldn't see, hear, taste or touch, etc., but could only either accept as true from what others told him (like a child) or through ponderous mental exercise years later. Some of your readers might object to being labeled “childish” by implication because they haven't taken the leap of faith you have, however much they've considered the likelihood or however often they've encountered similar philosophical arguments in favor of a higher power’s existence. People who aspire toward “the Good” can disbelieve in God(s) or the notion that goodness stems from an innate godliness, and if “the Good” is what Christians mean by “God,” many of them might require a reminder. But that's true of so many religious people, no matter the dogma. Still, congratulations on reaching a point in your search for meaning worthy of embrace, from one stranger to another.
Thanks for this Erik! I agree was somewhat cultural in my case but the main thrust of the argument is that God is the assumption underlying reason and rationality so when you follow the argument no leap of faith is necessary! the God of classical theism is logically necessary to truth and knowledge. Atheism is childish in the sense that it ignores the impossibility of grounding reason and rationality without an assumed rational order and rational capacity of our minds, which you can't prove from materialism. It's counter intuitive this strange moment in time but for thousands of years was taken for granted as the basis of the search for truth and knowledge and inspired the scientific revolution. Most early scientists like galleo and isaac Newton were theists.
I don't think you need to condemn your younger self for his skepticism. Whether he was aware of it or not he held a valid intellectual position when confronted with something he couldn't see, hear, taste or touch, etc., but could only either accept as true from what others told him (like a child) or through ponderous mental exercise years later. Some of your readers might object to being labeled “childish” by implication because they haven't taken the leap of faith you have, however much they've considered the likelihood or however often they've encountered similar philosophical arguments in favor of a higher power’s existence. People who aspire toward “the Good” can disbelieve in God(s) or the notion that goodness stems from an innate godliness, and if “the Good” is what Christians mean by “God,” many of them might require a reminder. But that's true of so many religious people, no matter the dogma. Still, congratulations on reaching a point in your search for meaning worthy of embrace, from one stranger to another.
Thanks for this Erik! I agree was somewhat cultural in my case but the main thrust of the argument is that God is the assumption underlying reason and rationality so when you follow the argument no leap of faith is necessary! the God of classical theism is logically necessary to truth and knowledge. Atheism is childish in the sense that it ignores the impossibility of grounding reason and rationality without an assumed rational order and rational capacity of our minds, which you can't prove from materialism. It's counter intuitive this strange moment in time but for thousands of years was taken for granted as the basis of the search for truth and knowledge and inspired the scientific revolution. Most early scientists like galleo and isaac Newton were theists.