Is belief in God a choice

[Violet]

The choice of the brainwashed is not choice, it is coercion.

[fr0d0]

No fr0d0, I never said that atheists or theists never change their minds, and that they stay in one stance forever...that would be ridiculous.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm telling you that it's not a matter of choice - because you couldn't exactly compare it for instance...to choosing a flavour of crisps or a drink to have...it's not like "Hmm, I think I'll believe THIS today"...and it's not like a long term process either ..where 2 years later you think "Yep...I think I'll believe in God/not believe in God anymore after all!

BTW How can you tell me? From what authority? Fair enough you can have an idea. Hopefully my idea should be more correct than yours, me actually having the belief Not that I claim to be right without question, so I'm happy to entertain your thoughts. Thoughts which I think are very good (not in a condescending way either).

Yes, like I said, belief isn't a superficial choice. However you could still have reason enough yet choose not to believe... proof of God, as Jon Paul explained from the Summa, is available after you believe, and not before. You could life your whole life having reasoned the logic for belief, but then never actually 'choose' to believe.
And even after experiencing the proof, it is possible to reject it and not believe, as I did.

---

I never choose to be an atheist. I simply realised that I don't believe in god. Most of my life the thought of god was never in my mind. Everytime I hear about it, I'd walk off and ignore it. It was only until I knew about the word "atheist" and it's meaning that I knew I was an atheist. I didn't choose, I simply do not believe in a god or gods. The god claim was too far fetched and arrogant for me to believe it.

Yes Ace, I think I underwent the same process. I think non belief is the default stance. My friends talked of basic atheist ideas and I agreed with them. I moved into atheism.

I had no choice until it was presented to me and I considered it in my mid 20's.

[Eilonnwy]

You believed without reasoning, this is counter to the requirement of Christianity/ Catholicism. The god you believed in could have been any god. Imagining some white bearded old guy sat on a cloud is not belief in God. Having a certainty beyond logic is not belief in God. That is not Christianity.

Please don't make assumptions about what I believed and why. I had a reason to believe in Catholicism, and that reason was I believed what I was taught. Furthermore, I know I was sincere in my belief when I did believe, Many adults believe for that very reason to this day. I simply managed to come to terms with what I was also taught about Evolution and science to decide what I was taught about religion was not true and I lost the conviction I once had. When I was child I was convinced, I had a reason, despite the fact that it wasn't a strong reason. Just because I never believed your version of Christianity does not mean I never truly believed mine.

It sounds here like belief in God does not require faith. Would you agree with that? In EvF's point, faith is ruled out, I suspect because EvF innocently cannot entertain the idea because it is outside of his understanding.
To gain or lose faith is different to a physical interpretation of belief. Having faith in the unknowable is different to belief in the truck about to run you down.
Here we lose connection with belief as an absolute knowledge. In religious terms belief is similar to faith in that it is not certain in the same way. Beliefin God does in no way imply absolute knowledge.

It depends on the person. I specifically chose the word convince for a reason. Being convinced doesn't mean you have to be convinced by evidence and reason. Many people can be convinced on the flimsiest of reasons. Some people are convinced and they are convinced by their faith, and that's it. Others truly believe they have logical valid evidence for God that meets the rigors of the scientific theory.

[fr0d0]

To the Christian, the arguments for God are rational, and they believe them; to the atheist, they aren't, and they disbelieve them.

It isn't the arguments that we believe in. The arguments aren't enough to believe. Belief takes one further step, the choice to believe. I could be convinced of the arguments yet stay living as a non Christian. To God I would be a non believer, as I would be denying him.

Likewise I could not believe yet declare that I did, and live my life like a Christian.

In all of this we're assuming God to be something that can be known, where it's a presupposition of the Christian faith that we cannot know. Or faith would be unnecessary, being the 'belief in that which is not known'.

So the correct way to address the issue would be that no one could believe as in actually know, but only be able to believe through faith.

So faith becomes the choice, which is actually less concrete that belief in something known, such as the truck.

---

Since when has indoctrination ever been a choice? And children are subjected to a great deal of preaching and lying from adults they trust, and therefore trust what they are told.

I totally agree. Adults are hoodwinked too.

How is there choice in that? There might be times when religion is a choice (adult conversion possibly), but it is a choice made without rationality, without sentience. The religious can only be made so by two methods: method a: indoctrination as a child. Method b: impulsively deciding without thinking rationally (indoctrination usually occurs too).

That is not a choice. I agree. But why dismiss the actual reason that choice is made with rationality and sentience?

How can theists possibly be as rational as atheists? One group is indoctrinated from a young age, being told constantly to not think, or to think in an illogical manner. The other group is stupid enough to convert to illogical belief as an adult.

Sure, they might be rational people on the inside... but that rational person is buried deep within their outer shell of ignorance and deception.

You built the strawman and now you knock it down.

---

I think belief in God being a choice really depends on circumstance. There are people who are born into a religion. When I say "born", I mean their parents spoon feed them the desired religion from the day they were born so it becomes a part of their life naturally.

Yeah.. Christianity says this isn't a Christian. Only God knows who is and who isn't, but the criteria is clear.

But I have seen some people who, for example, decide to become a Christian, and I have a friend like this, and he still is a very staunch (did I spell that right?) Christian. However, I know another who was raised in a buddhist family, one day started going to church with friends and eventually decided to become Christian and went to church and cell groups etc... on a regular basis. However, she eventually stopped both, though she still believes but isn't one of those staunch believers. In this example, both of them chose to become Christian so it was a decision on their part....though I reckon the staunch believer friend of mine would probably say "God created my path and meant for me to find him" blah blah blah....

Yes this is what I understand as the choice of Christianity... you make a conscious decision to believe.

---

Please don't make assumptions about what I believed and why. I had a reason to believe in Catholicism, and that reason was I believed what I was taught. Furthermore, I know I was sincere in my belief when I did believe, Many adults believe for that very reason to this day. I simply managed to come to terms with what I was also taught about Evolution and science to decide what I was taught about religion was not true and I lost the conviction I once had. When I was child I was convinced, I had a reason, despite the fact that it wasn't a strong reason. Just because I never believed your version of Christianity does not mean I never truly believed mine.

Right. I apologise. Of course I have no idea what you believed. I wouldn't call a child like belief an irrational belief. You think about what an adult presents to you, and make up your mind, given the choices. Yes children are vulnerable, and ideally treated with the utmost respect. Of course sadly this isn't always so. Thanks for making me think about that, and apologies for my insensitive words.

It depends on the person. I specifically chose the word convince for a reason. Being convinced doesn't mean you have to be convinced by evidence and reason. Many people can be convinced on the flimsiest of reasons. Some people are convinced and they are convinced by their faith, and that's it. Others truly believe they have logical valid evidence for God that meets the rigors of the scientific theory.

Well I think those that believe they have logical valid evidence are seriously misguided.

[Kyuuketsuki]

In fact being open-minded is about:

• Establishing exactly what claim is being made, what phenomenon is being tested or evaluated.
  
• Establishing all possible explanations to account for the phenomenon and, if possible ...
  
• Setting up and executing a series of strictly controlled tests or observations designed to systematically and rationally eliminate the wrong possibilities and establish which accounts for the phenomenon in question.

Precisely. Being open minded is being open minded using your own narrow definition of open mindedness. I could maybe live with that if you then didn't justify your worldview with some bullshit marginalist philosophy. You prove yourself that your limitations are not sustainable.

What's truly interesting is that you don't come up with your own definition. You see unlike you, I am prepared to consider other ideas if given a persuasive reason to do so (I even consider them, albeit briefly, when they aren't persuasive) ... that you didn't come up with a suggestion/modification demonstrates to me that you have no real comeback! IOW you're dodging just like you always do ... go on now Frodo, start whining like always, keep dodging!

I don't have to dismiss any of the above to hold my worldview. I just don't limit it to only those, as it's impossible to do so and remain rational

Or MAYBE (and here's a thought for you) you could actually come up with a more concrete responses and say something like ... not bad Kyu, but I think you need to include this (whatever that is)!

To quote Spock ("Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"), "An ancestor of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So you are, by allegiance with that statement, 100% certain there is no God. This is not what you've said before, a position regarded as the lunatic fringe.

It doesn't say that at all, doesn't even imply that because God is rejected by virtue of the scientific method! Outside of that, where have I EVER said I am 100% certain there is no God?

I may well end up believing in your god or some other but what it won't be is a choice! If you want to let your brains to fall out then be my guest!

LOL well I dismiss bullshit too Kyu. As well as your bullshit that science will somehow answer all questions it does not, by definition, address.

And as I have said to you before (a point you always seem to refuse to deal with), just because you can define something as being beyond science doesn't mean it is so.

Of course the absurdity you're claiming is that God will be scientifically proven. How illogical does this serious evaluation of facts let you be? Incredibly & extremely illogical it would seem. I don't think I'll be adopting that farcical POV any time soon thanks.

And I (and others) have given VERY good reasons why there would be evidence for a god if it actually existed as well as repeatedly pointed out to you that the amount of evidence existing for your god is exactly the same amount of evidence needed to explain nothing, the obvious corollary being that we need a method to distinguish your non-evidence supported god from a non-evidence supported nothing.

What, if there actually is no evidential difference, exactly is the point of your god and how do we distinguish it from something that isn't there?

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

In EvF's point, faith is ruled out, I suspect because EvF innocently cannot entertain the idea because it is outside of his understanding. .

What exactly do you mean by 'ruled out'?

Now - I accept that some people do of course believe 'on faith', IOW - without evidence!

Okay, and so - if by I 'rule it out' you mean that I don't consider "Faith" to be in any way rational, and nor can it be...you would be correct.

Because I think it's irrational to believe without reason...and evidence is a reason to believe, because it's a reason to believe that a belief is true, the reason outside just a placebo effect - it actually deals with the truth of the matter!

And so to believe without evidence is to believe without a reason to believe that the belief is true, because that's what evidence is - that which gives credence to beliefs...

So Faith is indeed ruled out in the scope or rationality IMO - because as I have hoped I have clarified here....it's not rational - it's irrational!

Oustide of my understanding? I understand that perhaps it could be 'wise' to believe something untrue if the placebo effect of the belief is great enough for it to be worthwhile! But since it's against the truth, insofar as we can ever possibly 'know' the truth - through evidence, then I think it could never be said to be 'rational'. I think to say it can be is to engage in an irrational judgement

I say Faith is irrational by defininiton because it's the opposite of evidence which is how we actually deal with 'the truth' to the best of our ability as humans.

As I said on another thread, one that I started a while back - the term 'rational faith - is an oxymoron!

No fr0d0, I never said that atheists or theists never change their minds, and that they stay in one stance forever...that would be ridiculous.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

No problem.

BTW How can you tell me? From what authority?

Not authortiy...appealing to authority is fallacious anyway, it's not evidence in and of itself

I'm saying there's no evidence that beliefs are voluntrary in any way, are somehow a 'choice'...we know that you're either convinced or not, and you may say that you choose them...but that's not evidence that you do...just that you think you do. To say it is in any way evidence that you do, would of course be circular reasoning, and not be evidence. It would be invalid therefore - evidence=reason to believe, it gives credence to a belief, no evidence/faith...=no reason to believe, because there's no credence given to the belief. K? Lol.

How do you choose a belief? We have evidence for beliefs, and we have evidence for beliefs changing to other beliefs (that's all obvious) - but do we actually have any evidence that we in any way 'choose this' - is that belief required? I need evidence for to believe that additonally.

If we choose a drink to order at a bar, we can mull it over and think 'I'll have X drink please'...that's a 'choice', that's voluntary but when it comes to beliefs...

....how about this: just try forcing yourself into a belief.....force yourself to believe that the moon is made of cheese, right now!

Can't do it? Well, at least I hope not! So when is there an exception to this then....when do we ever actually 'choose' a belief? And why after 'mulling it over' and your belief changes...would that in anyway be more of a 'choice' simply because it wasn't immediate? How would time make a difference to immediately trying to force yourself? Isn't that merely self-evidence of taking longer to be convinced...? Where's the evidence that just because you took longer and thought it through...that you then somehow 'chose to believe' ?

We just have evidence that we have beliefs and that they change, right? Where does choice come in?

???

So how can beliefs ever be a choice? Because [b]believing you choose, believing that you think you 'thought it through' and then voluntarily 'chose' to believe in God... - is not evidence that you did....that's circular!!.

Hopefully my idea should be more correct than yours, me actually having the belief

How does this follow in any way, shape, or form? How does having a belief make a belief any more reasonable?

My answer?: Well, no evidence that it does, is there?

If a million people believed that Goblins exist literally, would that be evidence because more believe? No. Belief is not evidence for a belief being true! That's circular! So what are you on about?

Not that I claim to be right without question, so I'm happy to entertain your thoughts. Thoughts which I think are very good (not in a condescending way either).

Okay lol...if you think my thoughts are 'very good', I don't see how that's condescending :S...

And I'm glad that you are seemingly genuinely interested in my difference of opinion

You could life your whole life having reasoned the logic for belief, but then never actually 'choose' to believe.

Choose not to? If the logic doesn't convince you...then it just...does't convince you! - that's all that is known to me...where is the evidence that you somehow choose to 'not be convinced'...you're not convinced already...how are you choosing the state you are already in???

And even after experiencing the proof, it is possible to reject it and not believe, as I did.

Well if you reject it, then you in other words... already dont' believe it right? So you're unconvinced...so it's not 'proof' to you...if on the other hand it convinced you, then you would in other words - believe it! So it was then 'proof' to you.

So where does the choice part come in??

EvF

[fr0d0]

BTW How can you tell me? From what authority?

Not authortiy...appealing to authority is fallacious anyway, it's not evidence in and of itself

But we are talking about my belief. My authority is that I believe this stuff. Your authority is one of guessing what I think.

I'm saying there's no evidence that beliefs are voluntrary in any way, are somehow a 'choice'...we know that you're either convinced or not, and you may say that you choose them...but that's not evidence that you do...just that you think you do.

But how would you know, having no belief in the way I have belief, and admitting that it is outside your understanding? You're dismissing fact without considering it.

How do you choose a belief? We have evidence for beliefs, and we have evidence for beliefs changing to other beliefs (that's all obvious) - but do we actually have any evidence that we in any way 'choose this' - is that belief required? I need evidence to believe that additonally.

So you are talking about choosing between Buddhism & Christianity, for example? This is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the specific choice to believe in the Christian God. Perhaps you consider other belief systems on your road to rationalizing a particular belief, I certainly did that, but this is subsidiary to the process rather than being the focus of rationalisation.

....how about this: just try forcing yourself into a belief.....force yourself to believe that the moon is made of cheese, right now!

You're talking about belief in the actually known again, and I've explained why this doesn't apply.

Hopefully my idea should be more correct than yours, me actually having the belief

How does this follow in any way, shape, or form? How does having a belief make a belief any more reasonable?

We're not talking about the reasonableness of belief. I'm saying that because I have the belief I should know exactly what it is... more than you who neither acknowledges the possibility nor understands it.

You could life your whole life having reasoned the logic for belief, but then never actually 'choose' to believe.

Choose not to? If the logic doesn't convince you...then it just...doesn't convince you! - that's all that is known to me...where is the evidence that you somehow choose to 'not be convinced'...you're not convinced already...how are you choosing the state you are already in???

This is the crux. 'Choosing' can be independent of a reasoned position. You can choose not to believe even though your logical reasoning would support belief, and vice versa. How is that possible? The answer illustrates the point of belief being a choice.
Belief without action is no belief. If the truck bears down on me and I do nothing to save myself, then my belief is useless. (forget the actual belief in the truck, because like I said, belief in actual reality isn't like belief in the non temporal) The result of belief is action. Your actions reflect your worldviews. Belief in God affects your worldview.

And even after experiencing the proof, it is possible to reject it and not believe, as I did.

Well if you reject it, then you in other words... already dont' believe it right? So you're unconvinced...so it's not 'proof' to you...if on the other hand it convinced you, then you would in other words - believe it! So it was then 'proof' to you.

So where does the choice part come in??

No, you essentially believe it but you deny it. Reasoning that belief is correct does not equal actually believing. Believing is the choice to act on your reasoning. To plant a flag. To adopt the position.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well, since you've apparently decided to ignore my post, I'll say it straight ...

You're talking shit Frodo, you just ain't smart enough to know it!

You've talked shit since you came here! Nothing you believe (the belief itself) has ever had any consequence or impact on the human race even if the believers in that crap have! Belief in deity has no real value, does not advance the human race in any fashion and likely never will do. It's all bollocks, it will ALWAYS be bollocks until the day someone actually reveals some kind of testable, truly demonstrable evidence, and you belittle the human race by advancing it as any kind of truth ... some of us are trying to outgrow such childish nonsense!

The meek may well inherit the Earth but the rest of us are trying to reach the stars!

Kyu

[Tiberius]

If you believe in such things, Rhizomrph13, then you are probably an agnostic, and not an atheist.

Well ignoring the obvious flaw in this reasoning which is that believing in souls / reincarnation says nothing about belief in God, you make another fallacy by reasoning as if agnosticism dealt with the same things as atheism (like theism does).

Atheism/Theism deals with whether or not you believe in God or not. If you believe, you are a theist. If you do not believe, you are an atheist.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism deals with whether or not you make any claim to know of God's existence/non-existence, or to put in another way, whether you think God's existence can be proven/disproven. If you think God can be proven/disproven, you are a gnostic. If you do not think God can be proven/disproven, you are an agnostic.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and many atheists are both (including me )

[fr0d0]

Well, since you've apparently decided to ignore my post, I'll say it straight ...

Please don't be hurt Kyu, I was coming to you.

I wanted to give EV time to respond to my points to him, as we are discussing this. And EV is discussing the topic in hand, whereas you seek to digress.

You didn't really respond with anything concrete, I don't think you've come up with anything new, just a request to frame an answer in your way. You want me to come up with a point based presentation of my worldview. I'm up for that, but not right here, right now.

Here we're discussing the idea of a choice. I know you have opinions on that, I'd rather talk about that with you now, rather than go over our conflict over scientific philosophy.