Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age? | William Lane Craig vs. Jeff Hester

 

Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age? | William Lane Craig vs. Jeff Hester
https://youtu.be/PXE5lQW5RQw

Tim Stratton (Molinist) and Chris Date (Calvinist) Discuss Theological Determinism

 

Tim Stratton (Molinist) and Chris Date (Calvinist) Discuss Theological Determinism
https://youtu.be/8-OAlGL7cVg

Stratton vs Date Discussion Review
With Tyler Vela and Colton Carlson
https://youtu.be/gkcDVa6yEhc

Review of Tim Stratton and Chris Date on Determinism
With Dan Chapa and Turretinfan
https://youtu.be/0pEPP1N5PKs

Dr. Kirk MacGregor Vs Dr. Guillaume Bignon: Calvinism Vs Molinism: The Problem or Evil EP 239

 

Dr. Kirk MacGregor Vs Dr. Guillaume Bignon: Calvinism Vs Molinism: The Problem or Evil EP 239
https://youtu.be/1wtPCXv-BDk

Is It Worth Becoming a Nihilist?

 

Someone on Facebook posted the following on their wall:

If I deconverted from Christianity I would immediately become a nihilist.

Here was my quickly thought up response:

If nihilism were true, then nothing has objective meaning. It would also then be likely that moral/ethical nihilism would be true. In which case, it would be meaningless and [objectively] morally and rationally indifferent if one were to choose to pretend that a religious system like Christianity [or what have you] were true.

However, if nihilism is false, that best comports with a theistic religion. Because, while atheistic philosophers have argued for objective meaning on secular grounds, many theist and atheist philosophers think they fail or are weaker when compared to theistic options in providing ontological grounding for objective meaning.

In which case, it's most rational to hold to a religion that has the optimal balance between 1. the greatest stakes if one misses out in not subscribing to it [e.g. Christianity and Islam], 2. the greatest benefits in believing/practicing it [via INdirect doxastic voluntarism] and 3. has the greatest evidence in favor for it.

Universalism fails #1. because if true, it doesn't matter which philosophy of life you hold, you'll eventually end up in some kind of paradise and be "saved." Whatever that means in that worldview. For example, in some versions of Buddhism, the goal is actually "arriving" at Nirvana by passing out of existence to escape suffering. While if Universalism is false, then you could be in serious trouble if there's a hell.

Both Islam and Christianity pass #1 And (ostensibly) #2. Both pass #1. because both teach a doctrine of post-mortem punishment [i.e. hell] that a rational person would want to avoid. Both (ostensibly) pass #2 because of a doctrine of a blessed afterlife [i.e. heaven, paradise, Kingdom of God/Allah etc.].

However, of the two, Christianity has much more going for it in terms of evidence than does Islam. Islam is literally self-refuting [as per arguments like The Islamic Dilemma here: https://youtu.be/nNAS0aaViM4].

Therefore, opting for Christianity makes most sense of the options I'm inductively aware of. Maybe there's a competitor to Christianity that meets those three criteria as good as or better than Christianity. But I'm not aware of one.

Either there is ultimate meaning, or there isn't ultimate meaning. If there isn't then no matter what you do, you're not really missing out. But if there is ultimate meaning, then it's in one's best interest to find that meaning and align oneself with it.

Since ultimate meaning makes most sense in a theistic worldview, one would be most rational in examining which theistic worldview has the greatest evidences for it and subscribe to that. As a Christian I think Christianity has the most evidences when compared to all other theistic worldviews I'm aware of. Admittedly, my inductive investigation is limited. But that's the nature of induction.