POST ONE OF TWO
1) 1137 in the O.P. asked : “So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?
I think this question is interesting, partly because, it applies to all types of beliefs.
A) Beliefs based on reason/evidence applies to all beliefs, not just religious beliefs
For example, I practice medicine and constantly deal with individuals who arrive to their appointments with erroneous beliefs and conclusions regarding their diagnosis/illness (non-religious beliefs).
Almost all of these patients came to their erroneous medical conclusions based on what they think are objective facts gained from google searches and even from legitimate medical sites. The problem is often that they are quoting facts but do not have the underlying context and experience to correctly assimilate and apply their correct set of facts to create a correct conclusion. It is not usually stupidity itself that is the problem, but lack of appropriate information and context (experience).
I think individuals often come to beliefs about a lot of things in this way : They believe a certain car is best. They believe in a best way to deal with a recalcitrant child. They believe in a best way to invest their money for the future. They believe in a best way to fix governmental problems (and the broken medical care system). They believe that a specific thing is wrong with their cars’ motor. etc. etc. etc. We believe in a lot of things that are not religious beliefs.
While a master mechanic may possess enough facts and training and contextual experience to create an accurate opinion about a mechanical problem, most of us are not master mechanics. The same difficulty exists with religion. Both theists and atheist come to beliefs and conclusions with inadequate data and inexperience and thus we are all left to make the best judgment we can in a relatively ignorant and naïve state.
B) Arguments regarding religion are often motivated by personal reasons
Add to this naïve condition, the common defects of individuals such as pride, and an overestimation of our own abilities to tell what is truth from error on metaphysical subjects. Add in our tendency to misjudge others and the silly competitive desire to win arguments at all costs. Add in the desire to elevate ourselves above others and the desire not to be embarrassed in debates, etc. etc. Such defects of personality contribute to “…the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?” that 1137 asked about in the O.P. Sometimes religionists play the “I love you and want to save your soul, therefore I criticize you” game, when in reality, they do not see they are motivated by a feeling of superiority or pride. Sometimes, others really are trying to “help” and we are offended at them regardless of their good intentions.
2) Regarding reason and evidence, 1137 asked in the OP: “Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? “
No. There are often other principles at work in authentic historical religion if one uses Judeo-Christianity as an example.
A) The lack of context and personal experience with authentic religion
3) Leibowde84 “If by evidence you simply mean personal experience and what makes sense to you, then that I've heard. But, I've never heard any verifiable, testable evidence.” (post #24)
Leibowde84 is making a good point regarding personal experience but then applying it too broadly. I think authentic religion is often initiated and sustained by experiences with metaphysical events that are not something that can be shared and many individuals do not have them and, not having had them, discount them.
A) Authentic Revelation is a base example.
If revelations from God to an individual are a personal experience, they cannot be directly shared in their completeness.
Revelation often carries within it, the objective evidence that it is not a phenomenon generated by our own psyche. There are objective elements to revelation imbedded within it, as evidence that one is not crazy, and that they are not simply manufacturing the data.
Barring the fakers or the mentally unstable; The person who in actuality receives the witness of Gods existence by direct revelation from God, simply declares this personal experience from revelation rather than being left to quote scripture or to quote science or to quote logic or to quote tradition (etc) as their authority for declaring the existence of God. I believe the orientation and quality of data gained by personal revelation versus all other types of "witness" is different.
B) Examples of subjecting revelation to Logic and reasoning and the presence of objective components
1) "The first example applies to brothers, one living in Germany and one living in the United states.
The two Brothers formed detailed plans and commitment through regular written letters to attend a college in America. During almost two years of bi-monthly letters they plan in detail the specific college, timing of entry, courses of study and common living arrangement, etc. At one point, each receives a separate revelation on the same day regarding a drastic change to their plan. In separate revelations happening on the same day, on different continents and without the knowledge of the other, each receive a revelation where they are told NOT to do as they planned. Instead, are each told to take different paths than they planned for so many months.
Both brothers have the same revelations, concerning the same subject, on the same day, at the same time as it were. They each write a letter to one another on the same day describing their individual experience as the reason to change these plans. The letters cross each other when mailed to the different continents.
One brother starts his letter with the sentence:
"Dear Larry, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels he was told to do.
The other brother writes:
"Dear Gary, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels HE was told to do.
Each Brother reads the "identical" introductory sentence when they receive the letter. Both brothers complete re-oriented their lives away from a shared goal they’d spent months planning toward, based on the strength of their separate and distinct revelations.
If only one brother had experienced the “revelation” and had asked my opinion about HIS "revelation", then I might, as a medical clinician, have been tempted to label the experience as a possible, perhaps even a probable delusion.
However, once I understand the FULL circumstances, then I have a greater difficulty calling this a delusion. Once I know the FULL circumstances, the diagnosis of delusion is less probable. It's also difficult to label this as two separate delusions, on two separate continents, happening at the same time, on the same subject and against a shared goal. Especially since both individuals seem mentally normal and have never been prone to delusions.
Also, there are objective elements existing that I might consider as evidence that the experience actually happened as the brothers claimed. For example, there are diary entries in separate diaries, made on separate continents. The letters have date stamps to refer to (one letter to the U.S. and one letter in europe), etc.) It's this sort objective data that I am referring to that revelation may carry within it, as evidence that the phenomenon is not generated within the person - as a delusion, or hallucination is.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
