For most of human history, most of the planet has believed in some sort of God or supernatural reality. Atheism-like views seemed to be restricted to the occasional outlier such as Lucretius or Democritus. Atheism only became widespread with the solidification of the theory of evolution.
So, lay aside questions of theodicy and of any particular religion. Assume for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution and modern scientific cosmology are true.
In a state of equivocal evidence, no strong proof for God and no strong proof against- is theism more likely to be true due to age and widespread acceptance?
Yes, it is true that people of the past believed in many things that we now know to be untrue- the miasma theory of disease, the humors, phlogiston, etc. Where science has indicated that these things are not true, we have rightly discarded them.
Sometimes traditions also turn out to be supported by science. The use of penicillin, for one, goes back to ancient Egypt where doctors prescribed moldy bread for fevers. And we have to remember that even many traditions and ancient explanations that turned out to be incorrect usually seem to have at least begun as honest attempts to explain something about the observed world. They were searches for truth in their own way. The Torah seems to regard pigs as unclean because they eat garbage. It was an attempt to maintain cleanliness whether ritual or in public health terms. It was an attempt to figure out the best way to live one's life. Geocentrism began with the simple, ground level observation that the sun seems to travel across the sky from east to west while the earth remains stationary.
So given that pre-modern people as a whole were not completely arbitrary in their adoption of traditions and given that some sort of theism seems to have been held by the majority of people throughout history, does that not give theism the benefit of the doubt over nontheism? Remember, we're using a state of equivocal evidence. No good proof for a God or supernatural reality and no good proof against.
I am not saying that age and widespread acceptance proves the existence of God or a supernatural reality. That would be two logical fallacies (appeal to tradition and vox populi). But in the absence of strong proof one way or the other, does age and widespread acceptance making theism more likely or count as evidence for it?
So, lay aside questions of theodicy and of any particular religion. Assume for the sake of argument that the theory of evolution and modern scientific cosmology are true.
In a state of equivocal evidence, no strong proof for God and no strong proof against- is theism more likely to be true due to age and widespread acceptance?
Yes, it is true that people of the past believed in many things that we now know to be untrue- the miasma theory of disease, the humors, phlogiston, etc. Where science has indicated that these things are not true, we have rightly discarded them.
Sometimes traditions also turn out to be supported by science. The use of penicillin, for one, goes back to ancient Egypt where doctors prescribed moldy bread for fevers. And we have to remember that even many traditions and ancient explanations that turned out to be incorrect usually seem to have at least begun as honest attempts to explain something about the observed world. They were searches for truth in their own way. The Torah seems to regard pigs as unclean because they eat garbage. It was an attempt to maintain cleanliness whether ritual or in public health terms. It was an attempt to figure out the best way to live one's life. Geocentrism began with the simple, ground level observation that the sun seems to travel across the sky from east to west while the earth remains stationary.
So given that pre-modern people as a whole were not completely arbitrary in their adoption of traditions and given that some sort of theism seems to have been held by the majority of people throughout history, does that not give theism the benefit of the doubt over nontheism? Remember, we're using a state of equivocal evidence. No good proof for a God or supernatural reality and no good proof against.
I am not saying that age and widespread acceptance proves the existence of God or a supernatural reality. That would be two logical fallacies (appeal to tradition and vox populi). But in the absence of strong proof one way or the other, does age and widespread acceptance making theism more likely or count as evidence for it?
Comment