Belief

[Valyza1]

It's like that story about the two wolves. You can't just believe anything you want instantly, but if you feed a belief it will grow stronger and if you starve it, it will grow weaker. It would take a lot of effort, maybe years worth, to get myself to believe one of the various versions of God is real, but if I was determined enough, I'm sure I could convince myself eventually. It would be much easier if instead of getting out of Christianity entirely I was just sort of 'lapsed' but still broadly and weakly a believer. I have a hurdle of overcoming all the things that combined to convince me that God is probably not real.

I suppose at a certain level of belief, it's more important to be true to what you believe than to make any serious effort to get into it or out of the state of believing it.

[FatAndFaithless]

It's like that story about the two wolves. You can't just believe anything you want instantly, but if you feed a belief it will grow stronger and if you starve it, it will grow weaker. It would take a lot of effort, maybe years worth, to get myself to believe one of the various versions of God is real, but if I was determined enough, I'm sure I could convince myself eventually. It would be much easier if instead of getting out of Christianity entirely I was just sort of 'lapsed' but still broadly and weakly a believer. I have a hurdle of overcoming all the things that combined to convince me that God is probably not real.

I suppose at a certain level of belief, it's more important to be true to what you believe than to make any serious effort to get into it or out of the state of believing it.  

Does the validity of that belief matter more? If a belief is demonstrably false, and one still holds to it and counts "being true" to it as more important than investigating and determining its validity...that sounds like a bad thing.

[Valyza1]

I suppose at a certain level of belief, it's more important to be true to what you believe than to make any serious effort to get into it or out of the state of believing it.  

Does the validity of that belief matter more? If a belief is demonstrably false, and one still holds to it and counts "being true" to it as more important than investigating and determining its validity...that sounds like a bad thing.

I agree. But what about beliefs that aren't demonstrably false?

[FatAndFaithless]

Does the validity of that belief matter more?  If a belief is demonstrably false, and one still holds to it and counts "being true" to it as more important than investigating and determining its validity...that sounds like a bad thing.

I agree. But what about beliefs that aren't demonstrably false?

Well, I think something should only be accepted as true or likely true once they can be demonstrated, or at least some way to address or measure or interact with a belief can be demonstrated.  If something isn't demonstrably false, sure, great... but that's not good enough grounds on which to just believe it - it should be at least somewhat demonstrably true or likely true.

[Valyza1]

I agree. But what about beliefs that aren't demonstrably false?

Well, I think something should only be accepted as true or likely true once they can be demonstrated, or at least some way to address or measure or interact with a belief can be demonstrated.  If something isn't demonstrably false, sure, great... but that's not good enough grounds on which to just believe it - it should be at least somewhat demonstrably true or likely true.

I agree with you regarding many kinds of beliefs, but with regards to the the kind of belief I have, I don't even think I ever actually decided upon having it, so "grounds" can't even come into consideration.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well, I think something should only be accepted as true or likely true once they can be demonstrated, or at least some way to address or measure or interact with a belief can be demonstrated.  If something isn't demonstrably false, sure, great... but that's not good enough grounds on which to just believe it - it should be at least somewhat demonstrably true or likely true.

I agree with you regarding many kinds of beliefs, but with regards to the the kind of belief I have, I don't even think I ever actually decided upon having it, so "grounds" can't even come into consideration.  

I don't think anyone "decides" to believe something.  It's a state of becoming convinced of something.  And you aren't 'born' with beliefs because as an infant you lack the mental capacity to consider and react to assertions.  If you're acknowledging that your belief is not able to be demonstrated...what reasons, or "grounds" do you have to believe it?

[Minimalist]

I asked this question in another thread but it seemed to get ignored amongst all the more attention-demanding argumentation that seemed to be galvanizing it, so I'll rephrase the question here, because I'm super curious about the various responses atheists may give.

Basically, can any belief be changed?   I know that most can, but I often wonder whether some people's belief in God is sometimes just unable to be changed, particularly since I've believed in God my whole life and nothing seems to have swayed me out of it.  I will qualify that by saying I was raised in a God-believing family and sustained a belief in God throughout my adult life even though my conception of God's nature/requirements of me have changed.  I've also found most Athiest arguments on God's existence to be far superior to most if not all Theist arguments.  Yet the superiority of arguments do nothing to convince me that my basic belief in God is a flaw.  At worst, it's just a seemingly permanent part of my psychological make up.  Neither good nor bad, just part of me.  So I'm wondering if sometimes, theism is just there permanently, like breathing.  Would be interesting to hear thoughts on this from an atheist's perspective.

You believe because you want to believe.

What's amusing is that you seem to recognize that your beliefs are unfounded but in your case that is insufficient to make you give it up.

I find it curious but not particularly dangerous.  I doubt you are the type of person who would run out and blow up an abortion clinic or fly a plane into a building because the god you aren't sure about wants you too.

Relax.  It'll be okay.

[Whateverist]

I asked this question in another thread but it seemed to get ignored amongst all the more attention-demanding argumentation that seemed to be galvanizing it, so I'll rephrase the question here, because I'm super curious about the various responses atheists may give.

Basically, can any belief be changed?   I know that most can, but I often wonder whether some people's belief in God is sometimes just unable to be changed, particularly since I've believed in God my whole life and nothing seems to have swayed me out of it.  I will qualify that by saying I was raised in a God-believing family and sustained a belief in God throughout my adult life even though my conception of God's nature/requirements of me have changed.  I've also found most Athiest arguments on God's existence to be far superior to most if not all Theist arguments.  Yet the superiority of arguments do nothing to convince me that my basic belief in God is a flaw.  At worst, it's just a seemingly permanent part of my psychological make up.  Neither good nor bad, just part of me.  So I'm wondering if sometimes, theism is just there permanently, like breathing.  Would be interesting to hear thoughts on this from an atheist's perspective.

It sure seems that way, doesn't it.  Yet all of us, believers and otherwise, routinely refine existing beliefs and acquire new ones all the time.  

I don't begrudge you your belief.  Enjoy.  However, I am puzzled by the way so many Christians jump from the primal experience of 'god' as most believers encounter it to embracing lock, stock and barrel all the dogma of the bible as dictated by their sect.  It is a wonder to me that more theists do not embrace the essential mystery of such a being and admit to the same healthy agnosticism most atheists embrace.  I don't mean agnosticism toward the existence of God, just agnosticism toward His attributes and intentions.  I respect the rare theist who is able to embrace faith in such humility much more than I do those who are forever boasting of knowing just what He is, what He wants and what's in it for them.

---

2)I should clarify that the main issue with this discussion, I think, and probably many similar types of discussions, is the lack of clarity in what is meant by "God" as it relates to what the theist believes.  It's always difficult to define something who's nature seems to be beyond definition, but I'll give it a shot for my case.  The best way I know how to define God is, very, very basically, as a central, singular source of all things.  In doesn't really get more specific than that without becoming open to re-evaluation, but there's something about the basic idea being illegitimate which seems anathema to me.  I use the word "all" here in an absolute sense, so the hope of actually finding evidence for or against the legitimacy of this idea seems incredibly small, probably non existent.

Well I'll give you some credit for trying to keep it general and not acting as if you know more than you do. However, I think there is still room for improvement. Tell me, how exactly do you experience God's "source of everything-ness". What about the mystery of god makes you so sure of this? If some day, somehow you had an encounter with God and He told you flat out, "no I am not the source of everything. Please stop saying such nonsense." Would that so undermine your belief that you would turn away? Or would you be grateful for the clarification? Even this thankfully general description of god includes inferences not inherent in the experiences which sustain your faith. I'm not trying to dissuade you from your faith. I'm trying to persuade you to be more openly faithful. I at least will admire you more for it. Though I don't believe in gods I have a great deal of faith in the mystery which we and the world we experience essentially are, I won't pretend to tell you anything about these mysteries since I myself don't know.

[brewer]

Val, what if you had been raised in a "non god" culture, not just non belief of a god, but one where a god(s) was never even a reference/thought/postulation. Would you have come up with a deity on your own to believe in, or question your belief in?

[Valyza1]

I don't think anyone "decides" to believe something.  It's a state of becoming convinced of something.  And you aren't 'born' with beliefs because as an infant you lack the mental capacity to consider and react to assertions.  If you're acknowledging that your belief is not able to be demonstrated...what reasons, or "grounds" do you have to believe it?

You believe because you want to believe.

What's amusing is that you seem to recognize that your beliefs are unfounded but in your case that is insufficient to make you give it up.

My response to both of these assertions is to re-assert what I've already stated about what seems to be the nature of my belief:

...that word ("convinced") seems to imply a process: I started out without the conviction, and then something or some things came along to cause me to have that conviction. This would seem to leave out the possibility of belief in God arising concurrently with my ability to believe anything at all. My childhood memory is just a big gradient blur getting more detailed with the age increase. There's no detailed specific memory of learning about God. My very faculty of belief, however quickly or slowly it is formed, may very well have been inclusive of God along with it's formation. Or it may not have. I don't know.

I have no accessible memory of having begun to believe in God, so I can't speak on what the grounds were for my initiation into the belief. At least in a way that isn't merely speculative. I've believed it longer than I can remember. Once you already believe something, you continue to believe it until such time as something makes you reject it. Even if that something is the belief that you ought to have a rational justification for any belief no matter how basic. Which itself is a belief without rational justification and thus rather paradoxical. I believe one ought to have a rational justification for beliefs that can be supported or cast into doubt by evidence, but I don't see the belief in God, at least how I defined God in the most basic sense, as being that sort of belief.

Relax.  It'll be okay.

I appreciate your concern but I'm not anxious at all. Just curious

...I am puzzled by the way so many Christians jump from the primal experience of 'god' as most believers encounter it to embracing lock, stock and barrel all the dogma of the bible as dictated by their sect.  It is a wonder to me that more theists do not embrace the essential mystery of such a being and admit to the same healthy agnosticism most atheists embrace.  I don't mean agnosticism toward the existence of God, just agnosticism toward His attributes and intentions.  I respect the rare theist who is able to embrace faith in such humility much more than I do those who are forever boasting of knowing just what He is, what He wants and what's in it for them.

I've never had the kind of enthusiasm and love for God that the best cases of that sort of Christian appear to have. It took me a great while to be able to cut through all the emotional baggage of my beliefs and just get to where I am now. I can only speculate, but I assume that the best cases are of those whose enthusiasm and love is so great, it can't be held back and who truly believe that to not spread the word is to cut other people short. I mean if you were truly convinced that you discovered the solution to eternal happiness, would you not be doing everything you can to spread the solution as far and wide as possible?

As for embracing dogma...Most of the faithful I know interpret and reinterpret dogma. I think it's only dangerous in the minds of people who mistake their interpretation as universally true. I imagine these people do that for other things in life as well. i.e. more of a personality thing than a religious thing. The Westboro Baptist Church is the biggest example that sticks out in my mind. But I think it's worth considering that there are at least two kinds statements for which we have reverence. Propositions, which tell us something about the world, and imperatives, which motivate us to action. I think religious dogma is just an imperative for someone practicing that religion. What you see me doing, in my "openness", is trying to limit the scope of the conversation to things that aren't inflammatory to either side. It doesn't mean I don't have any dogmas to which I hold. I do, however, constantly reinterpret dogmas.

Well I'll give you some credit for trying to keep it general and not acting as if you know more than you do. However, I think there is still room for improvement. Tell me, how exactly do you experience God's "source of everything-ness".

I don't know that I do. I experience my portion of "everything" and assume that there is far more of it than my portion. I assume everything has a source for the same reason I assumed that there are far more things than what I experience. It's just a basic operating assumption. Neither assumption is more substantiated than the other.

What about the mystery of god makes you so sure of this? If some day, somehow you had an encounter with God and He told you flat out, "no I am not the source of everything. Please stop saying such nonsense." Would that so undermine your belief that you would turn away?

I define God as the source of everything, so that's rather like asking what if my mother told me I wasn't her son. Well if it's true that I'm not her son, then she's not my mother, so the situation is impossible unless she's lying. If someone who I thought was my mother told me I wasn't her son, and I believed her and I believed I had a mother, than I would simply adjust my interpretation of who my mother is, not whether or not I have one. I believe a source of everything exists. If the something that isn't the source of everything, whom I previously thought was the source of everything, told me they aren't the source of everything, and I believed them, I'd say "oops. Sorry. Must have been thinking of something else."

Val, what if you had been raised in a "non god" culture, not just non belief of a god, but one where a god(s) was never even a reference/thought/postulation. Would you have come up with a deity on your own to believe in, or question your belief in?

I have no idea. Sorry.