My Philosophy of Religion Course: Am I too Skeptical?


Last semester, I took a 300 level philosophy of religion course. Now this may seem odd for an atheist, but I took it for entertainment purposes. Plus, I wanted a crash course on the more “sophisticated” arguments for a deity’s existence. I’m pretty certain that I was either the only atheist or just one of two or three atheists in the class. While the arguments presented were more sophisticated, it didn’t turn out to be that entertaining of a course.

Of course, most of the people in the class were both religious and philosophy majors, so I expected their arguments to at least be free of obvious fallacies. This wasn’t always the case, when they were arguing against atheistic arguments. In fact, fallacies were quite frequent, and it appeared-guess what-they didn’t like atheists. They also didn’t care for people who were “too skeptical.”

But, what is too skeptical? No, it wouldn’t do anyone any good to question their own existence every minute. It would be very tiring and pretty much pointless. Still, when dealing with the supernatural, I would think being skeptical is necessary. We can neither see nor audibly hear a deity. All we have are claims that God must exist, because of x, y, and z.

There could be an argument that is good enough to take seriously. There could, also, be an argument that implies that there has to be a deity. I, personally, have yet to find one, and yet, some people claim that problem isn’t with the arguments for God’s existence. The problem is with the skeptic’s skepticism. Well, I’ve looked into my “soul,” and it isn’t my skepticism that’s the problem. It’s the arguments.

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. Pingback: My Philosophy of Religion Course: Am I too Skeptical? | Christians Anonymous

  2. I define skepticism as “my confidence in the truth of a claim is proportional to the evidence supporting it.” The more extraordinary the claim, the tougher the standards for that evidence need to be. I don’t see how this should be a problem. Theists just don’t like being called out on B.S..

    And arguments aren’t evidence. Arguments are based on initial propositions, and if those propositions aren’t backed by evidence, the whole argument falls apart. You just can’t argue things into existence, no matter how hard the “philosophers of religion” try.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s