Belief is not a choice.

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Belief is not a choice.

Am I the only one sick of Christians who assume what you believe (in terms of religion) is a choice? It isn't - it's based on how indoctrinated you were as a child, ability to think critically, information you have, etc. I can IMAGINE Christianity being true (int he same way I can imagine a fantasy or science-fiction novel or movie) but I know it could not possibly really be true. I can no more make myself believe it true than I could make myself believe that 2 + 2 = 7.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 In my lifetime, I

 In my lifetime, I converted from one religion to another...   choice.

 

Are you referring to the 'my god is the default god because it is my god' argument, then that's a different gripe entirely.  A valid gripe there, I would say.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
I would say you can't choose

I would say you can't choose to belive things that are rational. You can choose to not think rationally, but once you accept something on good evidence I don't think you can disbelieve it. Just like you can't un-see something.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I sometimes wonder how many

I sometimes wonder how many Christians out there really don't believe in that shit but pretend to - either only to others for social acceptance or even to themselves out of a lingering fear of hell.

 

I could try to make myself believe that 2 + 2 = 7. But it wouldn't work as 2 + 2 = 7 is just so obviously wrong. Also, the first time I tried to pay a bill for $7 by handing the clerk 2 $1 bills and then 2 more, he'd either think I was insane or an idiot. Same goes for a literal view of the Bible in a way - I know that the Earth being 6,000 years old is an extreme underestimate, as I know the "soul" is an incoorect concept of consciousness, that people do not ever come back to life after rigor mortis has set in and that it is not possible for every species of animal to fit on a ship that could be built out of wood and still float.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I

MattShizzle wrote:
I sometimes wonder how many Christians out there really don't believe in that shit but pretend to out of a lingering fear of hell.

I did for a few years.

 

MattShizzle wrote:

I could try to make myself believe that 2 + 2 = 7. But it wouldn't work as 2 + 2 = 7 is just so obviously wrong. Also, the first time I tried to pay a bill for $7 by handing the clerk 2 $1 bills and then 2 more, he'd either think I was insane or an idiot. Same goes for a literal view of the Bible in a way - I know that the Earth being 6,000 years old is an extreme underestimate, as I know the "soul" is an incoorect concept of consciousness, that people do not ever come back to life after rigor mortis has set in and that it is not possible for every species of animal to fit on a ship that could be built out of wood and still float.

Well, what about the beliefs in less concrete objects.  I believe eating meat is immoral (even though I eat it); I believe in Free Speech; I believe my sports team is better than your sports team.  Those beliefs very well may be wrong, but it's not so clear as incorrect math.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The problem with that is

The problem with that is it's 2 different kinds of "believe in." One is an opinion the other is based on fact. Actually when you say "I believe in X" It can mean either

1. You believe that X exists or

2. You trust X.

 

Someone who says "I believe in Psychics" means they believe psychics exist, but doesn't necesarrily trust them (1) while someone who says "I believe in president Bush means (2) - because someone whould need to be insane to not believe he exists (ok they'd have to be insane to mean it the other way too, but you know what I mean.) Interestingly, when someone says that they believe in God, they normally mean both.

As far as I'm concerned, believing the Bible is as incorrect as believing that 2 + 2 = 7.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote: In my

Balrogoz wrote:

 In my lifetime, I converted from one religion to another...   choice.

 

Are you referring to the 'my god is the default god because it is my god' argument, then that's a different gripe entirely.  A valid gripe there, I would say.

Maybe Matt's argument is that the perceived need for religion itself is the thing that is indoctrinated into people.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What I'm saying is you can't

What I'm saying is you can't really just decide "hmmm I think I'm going to be a Christian." Almost everyone is the religion they are raised in. People do convert - often to please a SO or because someone convinces them to believe what they do - or because they are rational enough and willing to admit that all religions are bullshit.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree many christians were

I agree many christians were raised in a religion and dont think about it much or they converted for a spouse.

I agree that about 80% of america may be christian in name but only about 2% of all christians would be seriously willing to bet their life on it if they had to. I think you are making too much out of fear of hell as a motivating factor. Most christians think about hell as much as most atheists. Athough, I would put the number of "pascals wager christians" at about 40% of christians in name. Others like the social aspect. Many want to appear like good people too. Thats probably 95% of all christians.

Since hell comes up so much here, I have a question. If Jesus saved everyone from hell and not just believers would that make christianity like 100 times more palatable for everyone here?  Is that really the biggest issue out there?  Besides the whole "unprovable" aspect to religion, is that really what people are upset about here? Hell? Because thats 80% of what I am hearing. Let me put it another way. Everyone here can find 1000 things wrong with the "buybull" and tons of contradictions in religion but is hell really the worst one? Or is that just low-hanging "irrational" fruit to pick first?

But you are right. Faith is not a choice. Once you have it, thats it. Another way to put it is: faith is a possible "reason" for strong belief. If someone has a strong belief due to something other than faith (like some irrational thought process) then it can be eroded. But people dont lose faith. It is neither rational or irrational. Faith includes experiencing God first-hand. So even if someone tells you the bible is true, it wont stick on its own. After you experience God, can you pretend you didnt? Can you forget you met someone? Maybe. But you can never say you never met them. You might say I dont want a relationship with that person. I could say yeah I really dont want to serve God anymore but I cant say I never did.

Unfortunately, brainwashing can simulate faith as well. But that can be reversed. You can be hypnotized into believing you just met God. But it wouldnt last a month much less a lifetime.

Belief and trust are always changing, getting stronger in some areas, weaker in others. Desire is a choice, if you think you are in control of what you want. Faith is not.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I didnt see the

Sorry, I didnt see the Freethinkers forum name. It disappears after I start looking at the thread. Until after I posted it.


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

Sorry, I didnt see the Freethinkers forum name. It disappears after I start looking at the thread. Until after I posted it.

 

stickies in a forum have a purpose, please read them.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


TheHermit
TheHermit's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me, or is theists

Is it just me, or is theists posting in FA becoming more common lately?


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think a person

 I don't think a person believes things like math.  They know them.  Sometimes they are wrong. 

 

While it's difficult to conceive of someone believing that 2+2=7 it's not so hard to think of someone thinking that a hypotenuse is the square root of the square of the sum of the legs, which it is not.  But that is a more subtle error.

Notions of this nature are a priori in nature.  They are demonstrable without any reference to the natural world.

 

Claims about the world, on the other hand, are much more complicated.  Newton believed in a clockwork world.  The ancient Greeks believed most of the world was in the immediate area of the Mediterranean.  

 

For a working definition, I would submit that belief is any mental content intended to be true about the natural world.  This definition excludes easily disproved facts, and eliminates personal tastes (e.g. I like this thing better than that thing).

 

How does a person, then, assert truth about his belief?  I will warn now against the definition of knowledge as Justified True Belief.  For these reasons.  I would skirt the entire 'knowledge' issue completely and focus entirely on belief and its own justification.

 

For fodder:

  1. I believe my sports team is better than your sports team.
  2. I believe my car has a full tank of gas.
  3. I believe the current king of France is bald. (this one is especially tricky)

 

1. I believe this because my sports team has a better record than your sports team. 

You may counter such a claim:

  • My team has a winning record against your team, despite the inferior overall record.
  • Your team loses every time they play on Tuesday when it's raining in Miami, and those are the conditions of this game.

 

2. I believe my car has a full gas tank because I filled it up myself on Sunday.

Counters:

  • But your friend has a key to your car, and needed to run errands since then, so it is reasonable to believe that your friend used much of that gas.
  • I syphoned all your gas.  lulz.

3. Let's say I make this as a statement.  Go  ahead and counter.

 

 

So, I think that there are plenty of situations in which belief is held, justifiably.  It may even be that I am justified in those beliefs, despite their correlation to the actual world at large.  Showing a person those beliefs are wrong is usually more than name calling, it most often involves identifying the justifying principles (which the person may not even be aware of) and showing how they are incorrect.  In the case of my gas tank (2) it may be easily demonstrable, but in the case of my favorite sports team (1) -- then you are running into emotions that help to prop a belief.  That gets sticky.

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
I think this is one of the

I think this is one of the really, really interesting areas of epistemology.  I think I agree with George H. Smith here, in that a person has more choice over whether he or she will consider a particular argument or attempt at persuasion than whether, having considered the argument or persuasion, he or she will believe it.  People don't universally respond to the same types of arguments or persuasions (or else this atheism/theism business would have been concluded long ago), but many people will respond to certain categories of arguments or persuasions over their lives.

If the choice to consider certain arguments or persuasions is not given to someone, perhaps because they are very small children being lectured by parents or other authorities, I do believe the person will have very little choice but to believe in whatever is being put forward by his or her parents.  If, however, that person later decides to consider some new argument or persuasion, it may be possible for the new data to sway him or her to a new world-view.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 I agree.  I thought

 I agree.  I thought Smith's book was great, though I think many theists will reject it simply based on tone.

 

You're right, of course, that reason alone doesn't determine belief, and that fact has always troubled me.  I have less of an issue with parents teaching their religion to their children than I do with parents not teaching their children to think.  Religion will fall away naturally at some point when Truth is the objective of the individual.  I guess that's the very root of the problem being debated in courts today over teaching religious garbage as science to children.  Teach children to believe unquestioningly instead of teaching children to think.

 

My point was less in application than it was an experiment in reasoning.  I think that discussing how to change a belief, and what makes a belief are two different, important discussions.  Unfortunately, I am better at reason than I am at convincing people.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Passive or active teaching

Whether we teach children that there is a God, which Christians believe they should, OR

we teach children by what we say and do in front of them, we teach them values of one sort of other.

The first is active, the other is passive.

 

Please convince me that teaching a child to speak profanities, is good for them and the world in which they live.

Or behave just how they want without consequences etc. I'm prepared to be convinced.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would counter # 3 with the

I would counter # 3 with the fact that there is no current king of France. The only possible way would be if there was a fictional current king of France in a movie or cartoon that happened to be bald. Either way, this is equivalent to a claim that the tooth fairy has blue eyes.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Smith went over the

Smith went over the justified true knowledge bit in The Case Against God, and Why Atheism? as well.  Mr. Gettier seems to separating the justified and the true aspects of knowledge.  A justified belief is not knowledge unless it's true, and a true belief is also not knowledge unless it is justified.  Given the fallible nature of human knowledge, any rational person must couch a knowledge claim in degrees of certainty as well, which Mr. Gettier doesn't even touch on at that site.

For instance, if James believes that the universe contains an even number of stars, and Sally believes the number of stars is odd, one of them is right.  One of them holds a true belief.  However, it still does not count as knowledge, because neither of them can justify their belief.  Suppose furthermore that they both became astronomers and spent their entire adult lives counting stars (I'll ignore, for the moment, how many lifetimes it would take to count all the stars in the universe).  One of them would surely discover that his or her belief about the number of stars was true, at which point the belief would become justified.  However, the belief is still not infallibly certain.  Neither could know with certainty that he or she could have counted all the stars, as some may be too dim, or occluded by a planet right when James was counting that particular slice of the sky, etc.  That's to say nothing of the stars that would form or fizzle during the counting.

Wow, that was a longer threadjack than I intended. /threadjack

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Teaching children profane

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Whether we teach children that there is a God, which Christians believe they should, OR

we teach children by what we say and do in front of them, we teach them values of one sort of other.

The first is active, the other is passive.

 

Please convince me that teaching a child to speak profanities, is good for them and the world in which they live.

Or behave just how they want without consequences etc. I'm prepared to be convinced.

 

 

Teaching children profane language could easily be argued to be beneficial to the child.  There is nothing objectively wrong with obscene words, it is only our subjective attachment of meaning to those words which we find offensive.   Yet, even the meanings we attach to those words are not even consistently considered profane.  Every obscene word has a counterpart that one would happily share with the child (poop, heck, darn, etc). 

In terms of preparing the child for adulthood, teaching the child to use obscene words properly can equip the child to interact with other adults in appropriate ways.  For instance, it would be very hard to instruct a child that saying "fuck" in a board meeting is bad without mentioning the word in question.  Similarly, around the time the child is learning about sex, "fuck" becomes a useful word.

Furthermore I might argue that it could only be a good thing if our culture got over profane language.  There is no inherent harm in the words we shun.  We have attached negative meaning to the words that is completely unnecessary.  We could literally decide not to be offended by them, and rob them of all their power. I wouldn't actually argue that, because sometimes "FUCK!" is just the only word that conveys how much barking my shin on the coffee table hurts.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Belief is not a choice

Matt

I agree with you. Belief is not a choice.

I was brought up in a Christian home and now I call myself a Christian.

Not all children raised in a Christian family would call themselves Christian.

I didn't choose my parents nor the things they taught me.

Neither did I choose to be a Christian.

But the bias was heavily in favour of me becoming a Christian.

The Christian religion is full of the idea that we can choose God for ourselves.

However, it's quite the other way around. God chooses who He will to believe on Him.

John 15:16
(Jesus said) You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, . . . .

Conversely, He chooses some to be His adversary.

Romans 9:17
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Why does God choose some and not others?

I'm not God, so I don't know the answer to that question (or any question like it.)

Belief in the true God is a supernatural choice.

Don't ask me to prove it. I only believe it.

 


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:MattI

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Matt

I agree with you. Belief is not a choice.

I was brought up in a Christian home and now I call myself a Christian.

Not all children raised in a Christian family would call themselves Christian.

I didn't choose my parents nor the things they taught me.

Neither did I choose to be a Christian.

But the bias was heavily in favour of me becoming a Christian.

The Christian religion is full of the idea that we can choose God for ourselves.

However, it's quite the other way around. God chooses who He will to believe on Him.

John 15:16
(Jesus said) You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, . . . .

Conversely, He chooses some to be His adversary.

Romans 9:17
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Why does God choose some and not others?

I'm not God, so I don't know the answer to that question (or any question like it.)

Belief in the true God is a supernatural choice.

Don't ask me to prove it. I only believe it.

 

Please read the stickies.  This particular forum is for atheists.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:Please

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Please convince me that teaching a child to speak profanities, is good for them and the world in which they live.

Or behave just how they want without consequences etc. I'm prepared to be convinced.

 

Why would anyone want to do these things?

 

Quote:
I would counter # 3 with the fact that there is no current king of France. The only possible way would be if there was a fictional current king of France in a movie or cartoon that happened to be bald. Either way, this is equivalent to a claim that the tooth fairy has blue eyes.

Well, that's true.  But you miss the point.  What's the difference between believing something that is just wrong, something that could be wrong but has a shifting ground of justification, and something that was true but isn't now.  (also, the logical proof of that particular statement is incredibly complex.  It took Russell to come up with a new logic to do so.)

 

Kavis wrote:
However, it still does not count as knowledge, because neither of them can justify their belief.  

That makes justification an independent quality of knowledge.

 

A bit of history:  Plato is the guy that said 'Knowledge is justified true belief.'  That was considered a massive truth achieved by philosophy until Gettier.  In one weekend in a rushed paper to show that he had some publications and was therefore worthy of tenure this man *destroyed* epistemology.  The vast majority of american philosophy has been wrestling with this question ever since.  (In my opinion forgetting why philosophy needs to be done)  I wouldn't discount him quite so haphazardly. 

 

Also, you are citing examples as what knowledge may be.  I'll accept the example, and say that it seems that your definition of knowledge includes a component of mental content reflecting the actual world in which we live (I'll call this 'true').   The possession of such mental content could be 'belief'.  Justification you covered (well, I might add).

 

If that's not the common working definition of knowledge, I don't know what it is.  I'm willing to entertain alternate definitions.  (I'll even poke around and see if I can find any to offer -- though honestly I don't think I could construct a definition of the word that I would be happy with).

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
What's a stickie?

Please explain "stickie".

I'm all for athiests.

I don't believe there are any true athiests out there.

We all believe in a set of principles. It's our faith system.

And a system of faith makes us all religious.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That's bullshit and anyway

That's bullshit and anyway the entire "Freethinking Anonymous" forum is for atheists only.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Truth and justification are,

Truth and justification are, to a degree, independent aspects of knowledge.  However, they are related, in that neither can support knowledge by itself.  My objection to Mr. Gettier is that at that website, he seemed to treat them as wholly independent, as if a justified belief counted as knowledge, and a true belief counted as knowledge. Of course, neither a justified belief nor a true belief counts as knowledge, which he quite handily demonstrated.  I'm afraid I haven't read anything else of his, so perhaps he covers this ground elsewhere. 

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:Please

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Please explain "stickie".

I'm all for athiests.

I don't believe there are any true athiests out there.

We all believe in a set of principles. It's our faith system.

And a system of faith makes us all religious.

 

Ok, I'm going to do you a favor; I'm going to give you advice.  You're about to get reamed, if you keep posting here.  They're going to tear statements like that apart.  It's what we do. This is a friendly warning, 'cause I think Matt is about to blow you out of the water. 

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Free thinking?

Why is that BS?

I'm only thinking from my worldview, just as you are.

I'm no more a free thinker than you are.

We all think within the confines of our experiences and influences.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:Please

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Please explain "stickie".

I'm all for athiests.

I don't believe there are any true athiests out there.

We all believe in a set of principles. It's our faith system.

And a system of faith makes us all religious.

 

Many of the forums like FA has a thread that doesn't move from the top spot - it's stuck there so it's called a "sticky".

I agree we all believe in a set of principles - mine doesn't include God , your's does. Not all belief requires faith.

The only thing required in a religion is faith in a deity. Atheism has none so it's not a religion.

One could just as easily say there are no true theists either. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
OK. It seems we have to

OK. It seems we have to define our words. I've just lifted these definitions out of an online dictionary.

faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing

religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

Those are general definitions, but can be used to describe a belief in a deity.

That's likely to be the common understanding of religion.

If I asked you what you believe, with time, you could probably write a personal manifesto.

It would be a statement of your belief system.

That's exactly what all religions do.

 


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
If X, then Y, therefore Q.

If X, then Y, therefore Q.

Q does not follow Y.

 

Atheism is not a fundamental set of practices agreed upon by any number of people.  Each and every one of us disagrees with each other (and I'm sure someone will disagree with me on that) on a wide range of issues, including some pretty fundamental ones.  Atheism is a rejection of belief in a god or gods.  That's it.  Atheism does not establish any kind of moral code, set of beliefs, or social group.  Your attempt to define us into a religion is not unlike attempting to define Muslims into Christians by saying both groups worship a god.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

<stuff> 

Your topic is perhaps mature enough to deserve its own thread?

 

Quote:
Truth and justification are, to a degree, independent aspects of knowledge.  However, they are related, in that neither can support knowledge by itself.  My objection to Mr. Gettier is that at that website, he seemed to treat them as wholly independent, as if a justified belief counted as knowledge, and a true belief counted as knowledge. Of course, neither a justified belief nor a true belief counts as knowledge, which he quite handily demonstrated.  I'm afraid I haven't read anything else of his, so perhaps he covers this ground elsewhere.

Err..  I think it's best put this way for Gettier.  'Knowledge is justified truth and justified belief' (the and there is truth-functional 'and'). His examples show cases in which a person meets those criteria and does not possess knowledge, or possesses knowledge and does not meet those criteria.

 

I think for our purposes it is best related back to the OP.  Belief, I argue, is chosen.  I say this because I find myself in the unfortunate position of claiming that inherent to the understanding of belief is justification.  

 

A very interesting attack may be that justification is not chosen, so neither is belief.  I wonder, then, about unjustified belief (like religion).  One chooses the fallicies upon which they derive their belieflets.  If justification is required to reflect greater reality, is it reasonable to posit that all belief must be the same.  Can people hold differing beliefs that rest upon valid justifications each?

 

Hm..  This is why I try to keep my posts brief, when my mind wanders I tend to devolve quickly.

 

I think the problem here is justification.  And choice.  

 

can belief be chosen?

If justification must reflect the natural, observable world, can people reach justifications for competing beliefs?  Government, morality, tax codes...

I suspect they can, but I'm having a hard time thinking of an example.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:OK. It

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

OK. It seems we have to define our words. I've just lifted these definitions out of an online dictionary.

faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing

religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

Those are general definitions, but can be used to describe a belief in a deity.

That's likely to be the common understanding of religion.

If I asked you what you believe, with time, you could probably write a personal manifesto.

It would be a statement of your belief system.

That's exactly what all religions do.

 

1. cite the dictionary

2. Again you are conflating the kinds of faith (but I think you know that). If my car starts 9 times in a row I have confidence (faith if you must) based on prior observations that the car will start a 10th time. You don't and can't have that kind of faith for God. Paul doesn't define faith the way you do. Don't you take the Bible seriously?

3. Religions don't do anything. The people in them not only just share common beliefs. They also proselytize and indoctrinate - something atheism doesn't do (because it's not a faith or a religion). It is a lack of a belief in a God - not a belief in no God.

and yes, any mods that can split this off to a new thread - please do.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Consider, then, the theist

Balrogoz wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Consider, then, the theist who believes in God on faith.  Not merely is his belief unjustified, but he can be shown to be wrong.  His beliefs are demonstrably untrue; for example, the Eucharist can be analyzed and shown to be a cracker, blessed or not.  His beliefs are not merely unjustified, but they are unjustified and untrue.  He makes a knowledge claim based upon his beliefs, but we, as skeptics, do not take his claim seriously. 

Does the theist change his mind about his beliefs? Shown the rational demonstrations and observational evidence against his beliefs, he may even admit that his beliefs are untrue and unjustified, but that by no means indicates he will discard those beliefs.  The justification of his beliefs is not something he chooses to consider. He has other causes (not reasons, I'd like to make that distinction) to believe what he does, that have nothing to do with justified beliefs.

I hope that's not incoherent.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok... once more for anyone

Ok... once more for anyone who didn't get the memo:

Belief is an automatic state that arises from the acceptance of evidence.  We can demonstrate this to ourselves easily by trying to "believe" something that is clearly false.  For instance, try to believe that you have no hands.  Obviously, I don't mean try to imagine that you have no hands.  I mean believe that you have no hands.

You are completely and utterly bound by the evidence, and you cannot choose to believe it.  Where people get confused is when evidence and strength of belief are not as strong.  Suppose I tell you that I have a cat who plays fetch with sticks, just like a dog.  Based on just that bit of evidence (my testimony) you may or may not believe me, but the fact is that you either do or don't believe my story.  You may choose to act as if you believe it even though you don't, but that would be based on your belief that you ought to do so.  See how it works?

If more evidence was presented -- maybe a video of me and my cat playing fetch -- your belief might change.  Suppose I invited you to my house and you got to watch me play fetch with a cat, and I showed you papers from the vet with my name, his name, and his picture.  Could you then choose to believe that I don't own a fetching cat?  Of course not.

Where people get hung up is that when a belief is tenuously held, it often changes frequently.  Also, the choice to act as if one believes something is often conflated with the actual belief.  Imagine that you are talking to a moderate theist, and you believe that he just goes to church out of habit or social pressure, not real belief.  How are you going to try to talk him out of going to church?  By reasoning with him, right?  You're going to try to talk him out of his belief that acting like he believes in god is good.  You're going to use evidence.  Perhaps you'll change his mind, and perhaps not, but the only thing you can do is present evidence.  (Then again, we have to realize that you might simply coerce him into acting like he believes you, because he believes that's better than acting like he believes in god... then you have someone who believes that acting in the way you want is better than acting the way the church wants, but still believes that in a perfect world, acting like the church wants would be better!)

(Oh, and after talking with this hypothetical theist, you might change your belief.  Maybe he really does believe...)

Someone posted that they chose to change religions.  That's because you believed that changing religions was the best thing to do.  You believed that because of some evidence you possessed.  Without someone offering you evidence to the contrary, you couldn't have chosen not to believe that changing religions was a good thing for you to do at that time.

I know nobody likes to think about this, but the reality is that the concept of free will is incoherent, or at the least, poorly defined.  Choice is also very poorly defined.  Our belief that we are free willed self-deterministic beings is technically false.  We obviously make choices, and we clearly do have control over our own actions, but that control is more superficial than most of us would like to admit.  People who don't grasp the full breadth of the disconnect between our choices and free will often think that if they admit that free will is an illusion, they will be giving people permission to descend into anarchy, but that misses an obvious point!  If people don't actually have free will, they will not descend into anarchy.  They will continue to act as if they have free will because that is the way our perceptual reality functions.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:Consider, then,

Kavis wrote:

Consider, then, the theist who believes in God on faith.  Not merely is his belief unjustified, but he can be shown to be wrong.  His beliefs are demonstrably untrue; for example, the Eucharist can be analyzed and shown to be a cracker, blessed or not.  His beliefs are not merely unjustified, but they are unjustified and untrue.  He makes a knowledge claim based upon his beliefs, but we, as skeptics, do not take his claim seriously.

Ah!  Now we are at the heart of the matter.  By the definition we are working with for belief, the claimant here does not possess it.  We can collapse his 'belief' into the single thing he is using as justification..  faith.  If we were discussing such things with a person of fath, we could then delve into that topic.

 

Quote:
Does the theist change his mind about his beliefs? Shown the rational demonstrations and observational evidence against his beliefs, he may even admit that his beliefs are untrue and unjustified, but that by no means indicates he will discard those beliefs.  The justification of his beliefs is not something he chooses to consider. He has other causes (not reasons, I'd like to make that distinction) to believe what he does, that have nothing to do with justified beliefs.

I hope that's not incoherent.

I think that means he does not beleive.  He has faith.  Analogous, but different. This is the essence of dogmatism, and where I as an individual become unable to debate any further.  When I show somebody that their reasoning is faulty and they dismiss me with no explanation I can simply shrug and wonder what's wrong with that person.  This, however, is application again.

 

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
I'm happy to take this to a

I'm happy to take this to a new thread if there is a better place for discussion. (don't know how it's done)

Forgive me. I'm always falling into the trap of semantics.

But you're absolutely right.

What Paul talks about is quite a different faith. He describes faith as;

"the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

I can't prove God to you. Nothing I say can convince you, nor should I be so arrogant to think I can.

However, there must be truth out there.

Either the world is flat or it's round. Both can't be true.

So absolute truth must exist. We can't all be right (and I'm not saying I have it all right either).

Otherwise, the universe would be chaotic, which it clearly is not.

 


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You are completely

 

Quote:
You are completely and utterly bound by the evidence, and you cannot choose to believe it.

 

Well, that's a vote for 'no'.  But what of morality?  What of reasonable people coming to different conclusions?  For you, Ham, is knowledge and belief the same thing?

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Ok... once

Hambydammit wrote:

Ok... once more for anyone who didn't get the memo:

<snip>

 

I don't want to believe you, but I do.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, that's a vote

Quote:
Well, that's a vote for 'no'.  But what of morality?  What of reasonable people coming to different conclusions?  For you, Ham, is knowledge and belief the same thing?

Simple stuff first:

Belief - the acceptance of a perception as true and real.

Knowledge - justified true belief.

In other words, maybe I believe that I've been abducted by aliens.  Regardless of the empirical truth value, if I think that I was abducted by aliens, it is a belief.  For me to know that I was abducted by aliens, it would have to be externally objectively true.  In other words, belief requires only a mind.  Knowledge requires external verification, except in the case of axiomatic truths, which are self-validating, and the necessary deductions that can be derived from them.  (I think, therefore I am.)

Ok.  What of morality... morality is the box for organizing human interactions.  We possess moral instinct because of natural selection.  (You can read a little bit about that HERE.)  Our moral instincts are enormously malleable, and are shaped by our environment.  We believe that something is good or bad based upon the framework that has been shaped by a combination of nature and nurture.  Consider that when you try to talk someone into doing something you consider morally good, you are attempting to alter their mental framework sufficiently that they will also believe it to be good.  Of course, you might just coerce them into doing something, but then you are altering their mental framework sufficiently to believe that for their own well being, they ought to do what you want.

What of reasonable people coming to different conclusions?  Simple.  Different mental frameworks.  Different data pools.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ThusSaidYAH
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Free will

Your last paragraph is so true.

We're only free to act according to our human nature (in its broadest compass).

However, what if my rational thinking was faulty?

What if my emotional responses are broken?

What if my view of myself is completely whacko?

Why! I might even believe (even though I don't know everything) that my powers of reasoning are the final word on my view of the world.

Wow, I didn't choose to be born, didn't choose my sex, the country I was born in, my education, the colour of my skin and yet I can declare with all confidence that I won't believe in stuff I can't see or find reasonable.

"Give me the evidence".

I only have 5 senses and 70 years to live. How much evidence do you need?

Evidence is not enough. I need faith as well. And that kind of faith I have to find outside of myself.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:Wow, I

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Wow, I didn't choose to be born, didn't choose my sex, the country I was born in, my education, the colour of my skin and yet I can declare with all confidence that I won't believe in stuff I can't see or find reasonable.

"Give me the evidence".

I only have 5 senses and 70 years to live. How much evidence do you need?

Evidence is not enough. I need faith as well. And that kind of faith I have to find outside of myself.

Um... huh?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Belief - the

Quote:
Belief - the acceptance of a perception as true and real.

I don't think belief requires perception.  I believe moral things, which aren't perception at all.

 

Quote:
  We possess moral instinct because of natural selection.

 

 We believe that something is good or bad based upon the framework that has been shaped by a combination of nature and nurture.  Consider that when you try to talk someone into doing something you consider morally good, you are attempting to alter their mental framework sufficiently that they will also believe it to be good.  Of course, you might just coerce them into doing something, but then you are altering their mental framework sufficiently to believe that for their own well being, they ought to do what you want.

 

Well, saying that morality is collapsable to brain-state is arguably correct.  Your argument against freedom is as well.  

This begs the question of consciousness, then.  An accident of the brain?  Perhaps.  Useful at all?  No.

 

If it is true that all mental content is collapsible to brain state, and it is true that addressing such things subjectively is irrelevant because of this, then it begs the question: Why address any of it?

 

If I decide that eating meat is immoral, then it is (nearly) certainly reflected in some structures in my brain.  Stating that to others will not convince anyone.  Stating my reasons for such a belief very well may, however.  I don't believe (heh) that this discussion is how we as a race objectively possess morailty or belief, but how a person subjectively does so.

 

If the answer to this question ends with : Brain State, then how is any other question different?

 

Why does that person believe in God?

Brain State.

Why do the English drive on the wrong side of the road?

Brain State.

Why do we as people think it's wrong to murder?

Brain State.

 

Although this is objectively (most likely) true, it isn't helpful.  Don't take this as a criticism, the last thing I am trying to do is inflame the topic.  I think it's important not to dsimiss the topic because it's like trying to nail jello to a tree.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ThusSaidYAH wrote:Your last

ThusSaidYAH wrote:

Your last paragraph is so true.

We're only free to act according to our human nature (in its broadest compass).

However, what if my rational thinking was faulty?

What if my emotional responses are broken?

What if my view of myself is completely whacko?

Why! I might even believe (even though I don't know everything) that my powers of reasoning are the final word on my view of the world.

Wow, I didn't choose to be born, didn't choose my sex, the country I was born in, my education, the colour of my skin and yet I can declare with all confidence that I won't believe in stuff I can't see or find reasonable.

"Give me the evidence".

I only have 5 senses and 70 years to live. How much evidence do you need?

Evidence is not enough. I need faith as well. And that kind of faith I have to find outside of myself.

So you can walk perfectly well but you need a crutch anyway?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't think belief

Quote:
I don't think belief requires perception.  I believe moral things, which aren't perception at all.

You're confusing some ideas.  Our perception of our existence is our consciousness.  Anything that we believe is a mental representation of our perceptions.

Moral ideas are characterizations of interactions between beings, which must be perceived before being mentally represented.

Quote:
This begs the question of consciousness, then.  An accident of the brain?  Perhaps.  Useful at all?  No.

It certainly does prompt a lot of questions, but confusing philosophy with reality is a mistake.  The word "accident" cannot apply to consciousness because accidents require intent, which is meaningless in natural selection.

Philosophical systems can help us find ways to feel good about existence, but they don't really represent an objective reality -- just a perspective from which to view it.

Quote:
If it is true that all mental content is collapsible to brain state, and it is true that addressing such things subjectively is irrelevant because of this, then it begs the question: Why address any of it?

Oops... this is one of the mistakes I mentioned earlier.   Remember that I said that we clearly do make "choices" and have "self determination."  It seems paradoxical to say this, but choice and free will do exist and they don't exist.  The fact is, we are nothing but algorithms playing out through matter, and at a fundamental level, we don't ever really "choose" anything in the sense that we are always swayed to a decision by our collected empirical data catalog and our hardwired brain circuitry.  On the other hand, our hard-wired brain circuitry tells us that we are the masters of our own destiny, and we are powerless to perceive the world in any other way.  In other words, because our brains are "programmed" to make it patently self obvious that we control our actions, then for all practical purposes, we do.

When I mentioned the fact that people don't just descend into anarchy when they're told that free will is an illusion, I was trying to stave off the descent into nihilism.  Ants don't have any choice but to be ants and do what ants do.  Same for gophers, orangutans and koalas.  Same for humans.  We perceive what we perceive and our brains process that data -- quite beyond our control.  Like rats in a maze, when we come to a fork in the path, we go down one or the other, or we turn around, or we stop moving.  Because life is linear, we are faced with possible options.  When these options present themselves, we opt for one of them.  We cannot help but perceive them the way we do, and that is in the context of self determination.

Quote:
If I decide that eating meat is immoral, then it is (nearly) certainly reflected in some structures in my brain.  Stating that to others will not convince anyone.  Stating my reasons for such a belief very well may, however.  I don't believe (heh) that this discussion is how we as a race objectively possess morailty or belief, but how a person subjectively does so.

Of course you don't!  That's because you can't.  You cannot make the choice to believe me because the unavoidable circuitry in your brain has processed all the available information, and rejected a model that seems contradictory to your perceptions.

Quote:
If the answer to this question ends with : Brain State, then how is any other question different?

Brain state IS the answer to all questions of human behavior.  Where you're getting hung up, I think, is that it's not the ONLY answer to the question.  You're creating a kind of weird false dichotomy.  That's what I've been trying to explain to you.  The objective reality that free will is incoherent and that choices are not what we perceive them to be doesn't change our perception.  More importantly, it doesn't change the fact that we have no choice but to continue to make "choices" in our day to day existence.

Why do the English drive on the wrong side of the road?  Brain state.

Why do the English drive on the wrong side of the road?  Because that's what the traffic laws dictate.

Why do the English drive on the wrong side of the road?  Because they're weird.

Why do the English drive on the wrong side of the road?  Because it's the way it's always been.

Why do the English drive on the wrong side of the road?  Because they had to choose one side or the other, and it really doesn't matter.

All of these answers, in context, are correct.  I could probably think of at least fifty more, and they, too, would be correct.  An answer only fits a question when it matches the context.  If I am in a psychologist's office for treatment of depression, and I ask what love is, and she replies, "It's when you don't have any score in tennis," she's correct, but she's not answering the question correctly.  Likewise, when a police officer asks a criminal, "Why did you break into the house," he isn't interested in knowing about brain states.  He's interested in the desire behind the action.  Was he after money?  Did he want to rape the woman who lives there?

"Brain State" is too simple an answer for most questions of human cause-effect.  While it's true that a criminal who steals a stereo is just as bound by his own brain state as a theist who believes in god, this reality does not absolve either the criminal or the theist of the real world consequences of their actions, any more than a worker ant who tries to supplant the queen is immune from being killed by workers loyal to the queen.

Quote:
Although this is objectively (most likely) true, it isn't helpful.  Don't take this as a criticism, the last thing I am trying to do is inflame the topic.  I think it's important not to dsimiss the topic because it's like trying to nail jello to a tree.

It isn't helpful for the questions you're trying to answer, but it is helpful.  For instance, it has extremely far reaching implications on childrearing.  It is a piece of data that can be incorporated into other brains that will change the physical actions of the people controlled by those brains.  If, for instance, it was widely known that morals are instinctive and programmed by the environment, largely before puberty, many parents who think it's a good idea to let their children figure out their own morality might change their minds (through no real "choice" of their own!) and take a more active role in programming the young minds.  They would do this, of course, because they cannot help it...

You see what I'm getting at?  Context is critical.  For the question of why theists believe, it is really, really, really important to understand that they don't have a choice but to believe what they believe.  Otherwise, we'll waste an awful lot of time saying things like, "Dude, just choose to be an atheist."  Of course that doesn't work!  It's not enough empirical data for their brain to alter their beliefs.  This also has significance in shaping our own attitudes towards theists.  I, for one, feel pity for theists because I know they are stuck.  That pity motivates me to write about science, in the hope that better information will change more perceptions.  I can't help believing that what I'm doing is right, and I know that.  It doesn't change the fact that I do it... and that's the big point I'm trying to make with you.  Knowledge that you are really more of an automaton than you would like to think doesn't change the fact that you still have to pick which sandwich you want to order when you look at the menu.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote: "accident" I

Quote:
Quote:
"accident"
 

I used that word..  emergent would have been better.  Though we needn't redress the point.

 

Quote:
It isn't helpful for the questions you're trying to answer, but it is helpful.

 

My point exactly.  While what you are saying is true, it isn't (quite) relevant.  It's entirely appropriate to discuss these things when planning objective-level concepts.

 

Quote:
..and that's the big point I'm trying to make with you.  Knowledge that you are really more of an automaton than you would like to think doesn't change the fact that you still have to pick which sandwich you want to order when you look at the menu.

 

Uh..  That...  uh..  That's the point I was trying to make with you.

 

 

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well then I'm completely

Well then I'm completely confused as to why you objected to what I was saying in the first place.  The fact that beliefs cannot be consciously changed is completely relevant to the OP.  It is in the title of the thread, for crying out loud.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
same ol crap

Is it just me, or does this thread reek of the old Determinism vs. Free Will debate all over again?


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Is it just

pyrokidd wrote:

Is it just me, or does this thread reek of the old Determinism vs. Free Will debate all over again?

It does, but it's a very important point nonetheless.  The reason these questions and problems recur is that they're part of the price of being human.  We won't resolve these problems until we, as a species, change.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:pyrokidd

Kavis wrote:

pyrokidd wrote:

Is it just me, or does this thread reek of the old Determinism vs. Free Will debate all over again?

It does, but it's a very important point nonetheless.  The reason these questions and problems recur is that they're part of the price of being human.  We won't resolve these problems until we, as a species, change.

 

well I do know there are several threads dedicated to this subject, mostly ending with the same conclusion: while the universe as we understand it appears to be deterministic, free will is an illusion so strong we have no choice but to live our lives as though it exists. that's the basic rundown, anyone interested in pages and pages more should look up the old threads.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
choice

Hey Matt...should we ever find ourselves in the same place at the same time, I'd love to buy you a beer. I say this all the time....Beleif is NOT a fucking choice...its the lie theists maintain to help justify the cruelty of of a god who allegedly loves us, but who would banish us to an eternity of torture should we guess the wrong version of his holy written rules & regulations...Hey, we had a choice, right? Deep down these bigoted jizzbuckets know its proposterous, they just need to rationaize.

When you make that kind of choice, the correct word is DENIAL...Beleif is what the acumen of our lifes experience tells us is the truth.

The next time some blundering oaf hits you with this lie, suggest to them that today they should chose to beleive in the tooth fairy. Tell them that they need to abandon their better judgment in favor of a deep seeded conviction that should they put a bi cuspid under their pillow before they slumber, that some twisted bitch in a tu tu will float on in and replace it with loose change.

Every time I hear some ignominious douche blather on about this it makes me want to throw a lighted match in their hair.