involuntary lack of belief

[Slipg]

Hi all,

So for me the big stumbling block with all religion is this idea of belief.

Okay so I don't consider belief a choice. It's more a graduation point you reach when you're convinced of something. Like if I start telling someone about some idea which seems inplausible and they claim not to believe it off the bat because it falls outside the bounds of reason for example, but as I explain more and more, they gradually reach a point whereby they are convinced by the data, reason, or the evidence . So it's not like they chose to believe but rather they eventually found the proposition credible enough to be convinced of it after a certain point.

An example I've heard is this; if someone has a loved one of yours hostage, with a gun to their head, and they tell you that you must believe a fish can ride a bicycle or they will shoot them in the head, no amount of mental gymnastics is going to allow you to do that. You cannot chose to believe that because there is no good reason to believe that. There is no parallel or precendence for it, nothing about the anatomy of a fish that convinces you he is capable of such a feat and it's nothing you've witnessed or seen happen, ever. So even when the stakes are high you can't force a belief.

So you can't force yourself to believe something although you can pretend to yourself and others you do. That being the case, if the case for Christianity or any other religion or any God in general is not convincing to your brain, not matter how convincing it is to others, why does this result in you being punished for it? How can God punish you for an involuntary thing like lack of belief? That of course assuming that it's 100% necessary for salvation, and the lack of it will result in damnation.

Never heard a good rebuttal to this? So, interested what people think.

 

[paul1149]

That's a pretty good analysis, in my book, a pretty good description of how faith is birthed and grows. It can be a realization, as you say, but there normally is a decision component as well, when we weigh the amassing evidence and make the decision that critical mass has been reached and then respond accordingly. Paul puts it this way:

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. -Rom 10:9-10​

There are two elements - the believing and the confessing. The confessing formalizes the belief. It seals the deal. There is power in confession. And it's not an involuntary act. It's voluntary submission.

The Lord judges the heart, not mere outward confession. Some, perhaps many, who claim to be Christian are not. The Lord knows the light given, and whether it was received or not. He knows whether light has truly been sought, and if He has been made Lord of one's life.

 

[Slipg]

Thanks for the response Paul.

Confessing after the fact is a concious choice or voluntary submission as you say. But I was refering to belief not confession as being involuntary. I don't see how confessing is important in this sense. You already believe, confessing is just stating what is already obvious to you. Belief happens in the mind not once verbalised.

I don't think there is a decision component to it as you say. I think it's all realisation. You find yourself being in agreement or being convinced by something, either gradually or quickly depending on the strength of the argument/evidence and convinced to varying degrees of certainty. Your mind is assessing all this information and then finds itself in a position of disagreement, agreement or somewhere in between. But I think there is no concscious deciding that takes place. That doesn't actually make much sense to me, because if you're brain is convinced, it doesn't require "you" to intercede and say "i'm making the decision to be convinced", you already are.

Even if it were to be a choice to disbelieve, it would still be because you're not ultimately convinced for whatever reason. And to punish you for that is harsh and far worse if belief infact isn't a choice.

The larger life picture I see here, is that you're born into the world and then you're told that you'd better come round to the perspective that God x, y or z exists or, well, you don't want to find out what. Sometimes not put as menacingly as that but the jist remains. With billions of people, all with different mental health, I.Q's, emotional intelligence, cultures, traditions, external pressures, mindets, attitudes, conditioning, dispositions, and a whole lot of other varying factors, to think we should or would all come round to whatever one belief is supposedly correct out of the 1000's out there, well that seems unrealistic to say the least and again to punish someone for not getting through all of that and overcoming limiting factors and making the correct choice, especially when the correct choice is not evidently true, well jeez.

If you do find that all ok, i'd just ask, if upon death you awoke to find yourself in muslim hell. Would you accept that you deserved to be there? Or would you judge your then current state of affairs as unfair?

 

[paul1149]

Hi slipg,

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I was trying to note that decisions have a large part in shaping what we believe. For instance, I might believe a certain way and refuse to consider any alternative. That's a decision. And if that alternative is true, and what I believe is not, my decision keeps me in the dark.

Ultimately there is a secret place in the heart where these decisions are made. Where we decide whether we are going to accept the Light, even if that means we must yield place to a higher authority. It's the secret things of the heart, not the appearance, that the Lord judges.

As far as the demographic argument, it can hold some weight at times. This person is a Christian, or whatever, because he was born into that culture. But God is not looking for nominal, cultural Christians. He has children, not grandchildren, as the saying goes. He's looking for intimate personal relationship, whether it aligns with the dominant culture or not.

And many of us have become Christian despite, not because of the culture. And I'm not referring to non-Christian cultures exclusively. Many of us who came to Christ later on did so despite what we saw in the church.

As far "Muslim hell", I'll take my chances. I have examined the evidence and have made a decision on what I believe. Sometimes I just know I believe, a la your argument. But other times I remind myself that I have thought this through rationally as well. AISI, there is a decision component, of more or less importance at various times.

 

[Slipg]

With the muslim hell, you are taking your chances but the reason behind the question was to determine whether you would deem it unfair if you were sent there. Sent because you believed the wrong religion. I've never had anyone answer that either because if they think it would be unfair (which I guess alot would) then it would reveal to a theist how unfair we see it from an atheist perspective if were sent there and then maybe highlight how unfair this entire system appears to be. It's easy I think for a theist to say just pray and come to Christ and if you find yourself in hell that's your own fault for not agreeing with the Bible or other such arguments and not consider how we view this from the outside looking in. This question places them on the receiving end of where they think we'll end up and then lets them decide whether it's their fault they didn't agree with the Koran for example and it's their fault for being so convinced of an alternative worldview.

With the demographic thing, ye some people convert, happens all the time but when 96% of Pakistan is Muslim and 70% of America is Christian, there's pause for thought. There's a dominant religion entrenched there which is going to influence you a lot and severely negate the possibility of deconversion. God may be looking for a personal relationship with all his children, regardless of culture but being born in the "wrong country" stacks the odds against you. There doesn't seem to be much of a relationship with the folks in Pakistan.

 

[paul1149]

How much of America is actually Christian is up for grabs, afaic. Yes, the culture retains some Biblical restraints even now, but the Bible is no longer in the driver's seat. As far as Pakistan, et al, there is an inestimable amount of coercion of the worst kind keeping people in their religion. No critical thinking is allowed. And that brings me to the main point.

I believe that if you believe the wrong things for the right reasons, God will understand that. There is plenty of evidence in the NT for accountability being a function of understanding. And Paul himself says

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, -1Tim 1:12-13​

Paul had been faithful to what he sincerely believed, and that belief caused him to take a lead part in the bloody persecution of Christians. But God looks on the heart, not the outer appearance, and He saw that the motivation of Paul's heart was right but that he needed a redirection.

I will add what should be obvious, that this principle cannot be used as an excuse. Paul himself says that we are without excuse, because the attributes of God on on display for whomever really wants to find Him (Rom 1). God has left a witness, and it is up to man to seek Him wholeheartedly.

 

[Slipg]

So when Jesus says the only way to salvation is through him, that's not then technically, strictly true? Because there are extenuating circumstances, not explicitly outlined but alluded to in Timothy? I wouldn't bank on it unless explicitly said because he could have appointed Paul to his service in spite of his flaws for reasons that are not applicable to anyone else. If you're right though, is it not the case that basically a lot of people are now off the hook? I.e. anyone who believes another religion can now be saved because they did it for the right reasons? I don't know, that doesn't sound right.

And so Paul did all that and received a reprieve because he acted in ignorance and then says to the rest of us that we are not without excuse because the qualities of God have been seen? That seems like a double standard. It also doesn't make much sense. For example saying that if you acted badly in full knowledge with belief (as opposed to acting ingnorantly in unbelief) then I could see how the principal should not be used as an excuse to justify that. I.e. you think you'll get mercy even though you're not acting in ignorance. But saying you're not without excuse, because Romans 1. Ye I don't follow.

Rather than pester you for deeper explanations, I've looked at biblehub.com for an explanation of Romans 1:20. And I don't get it, I don't understand most of what these people are talking about. Something about the invisible power and Godhead that are so clearly shown in the works he has made that everyone is without excuse. Don't really understand and from what I can gather from it, don't agree. And then something about how all more or less do what they know to be wrong and omit what they know to be right so can't plead ignorance. Don't agree, too much generalising, and don't think the end bit of that follows what precedes it.

I just find the Bible too wordy, with too many statements I don't believe ring true and all written in a way that I don't grasp the message that it's trying to convey. Then it's like what's figurative vs literal vs allegorical. What things apply now rather than back then only. What has to be seen in context to what. Which interpretation is correct because things are not clear. Just seems to me nothing is clear and to the point in that book and I get the feeling any creator woudn't pick select individuals and then utilise text as a means of passing on a message. A message written in languages that die out or barely spoken now so everything has to be translated, potentially losing meaning in the process.

I look at the sheer number of denominations that exist due to differing interpretations to the point they start denouncing each other i.e. Catholic church saying there's no salvation outside the church. And I watch scholars debate and see these people who spend their lives studying this stuff at a sophisticated level yet can't reach agreement. I see this stuff and wonder what hope does the average Joe have who most likely takes it all literally and probably doesn't understand most of it? I feel there is so much potential for error in terms of getting your personal theology correct, that if I were Christian I'd never feel safe I'm on the right track, even assuming Christianity was the correct religion.

Just ranting now, you're probably sick of me. But thanks for your answers thus far.

 

[paul1149]

So when Jesus says the only way to salvation is through him, that's not then technically, strictly true?

It's exactly true. But that is not to say we can see everything going on, how it plays out for each person. That's why we're told not to judge. If Jesus hadn't given His life as a ransom sacrifice, no one would have a chance at reconciliation with Father.

And so Paul did all that and received a reprieve because he acted in ignorance and then says to the rest of us that we are not without excuse because the qualities of God have been seen? That seems like a double standard.

First of all, he made no distinction between himself and others in Rom 1. ALL are without excuse, including himself. But the deeper issue is that you are not acknowledging God's ability to work in the fallen human heart. If you turn to Him and say something as simple as, "If you're there I want to know You", that's all it takes if you mean it. You can stand on the outside and cite all the confusion, all the wordiness, all the failings of religious man, and while you certainly wouldn't be wrong, it would get you nowhere. But if you want something more than what life on this fallen earth offers, Jesus extends a warm invitation. This is the Good News, that the door is open to anyone who wants to walk through it. As the scripture says, taste and see that the Lord is good.

And no, I normally don't get sick of honest inquiry.

 

[bling]

Hi all,

So for me the big stumbling block with all religion is this idea of belief..

“belief” in the existence of a benevolent Creator is something the lowliest mature adult on earth can do, so would that not make it a fair/just requirement?

Okay so I don't consider belief a choice. It's more a graduation point you reach when you're convinced of something. Like if I start telling someone about some idea which seems inplausible and they claim not to believe it off the bat because it falls outside the bounds of reason for example, but as I explain more and more, they gradually reach a point whereby they are convinced by the data, reason, or the evidence . So it's not like they chose to believe but rather they eventually found the proposition credible enough to be convinced of it after a certain point.

An example I've heard is this; if someone has a loved one of yours hostage, with a gun to their head, and they tell you that you must believe a fish can ride a bicycle or they will shoot them in the head, no amount of mental gymnastics is going to allow you to do that. You cannot chose to believe that because there is no good reason to believe that. There is no parallel or precendence for it, nothing about the anatomy of a fish that convinces you he is capable of such a feat and it's nothing you've witnessed or seen happen, ever. So even when the stakes are high you can't force a belief.

So you can't force yourself to believe something although you can pretend to yourself and others you do. That being the case, if the case for Christianity or any other religion or any God in general is not convincing to your brain, not matter how convincing it is to others, why does this result in you being punished for it? How can God punish you for an involuntary thing like lack of belief? That of course assuming that it's 100% necessary for salvation, and the lack of it will result in damnation.

Never heard a good rebuttal to this? So, interested what people think.

First off: All mature adults are never in a state void of any believes and assumptions. We trust things, others and ourselves to some degree or we are not trust someone or something because we belief they are not trust worthy at the time.

I could have the belief of an agnostic, if they could answer scientifically (I am a Chemist) how: life could spontaneously start from just nonliving chemicals, how I could be so lucky as to be in the “one” universe that did produce life, how an infinite number of universes could come about, and why everything that has happened, is happening and will happen fits the purpose of helping willing individuals to humbly accept Godly type Love and grow that Love?

A tree is evidence of God’s existence if you accept it as evidence. A tree is not evidence for there not being a God, so what do you belief caused a living tree to come into existence? You can say “I do not know”, but if you act like it was not God that did it are you not “believing” it was not God?


Believing is not the same as having unquestionable “proof” (knowledge). Trusting in the existence of a benevolent Creator is something the lowliest person on earth can do, so for you to trust in the Christian God, is an act of humility. We need humility in order to humbly accept God’s pure charity, since no one really likes to ask for “charity”.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think belief starts somewhat when you decide what you believe about creation. I'm not talking about whether or not you believe in the 7 day creation in Genesis, but overall if you believe that there is a God who created the Universe (or at least started it) and breathed (or started) life.

The Big Bang is cute and all, but really it doesn't explain where what was The Big Bang started. Science has acted like they have answered it, but they haven't. The Universe existed at some point before that and life just wasn't a happy little accident that started on earth.

Then to see and understand the complexities of the universe, earth, life, plants, water, everything to me is so vast that I only believe that it could be done by God. The earth never get's too close to the Sun (or we'd burn) or never to far (we'd freeze) the planets all have a gravitational pull as do our moons and earth's orbit to keep life here going. It's just too dang complex. Even how many species of animals there are, both land and sea.

I see a creator in it all. I see a creator in how we were made too.

Just look at how we pro-create. A miniscule (unseeable by the naked eye) sperm connects with a female miniscule ovum to in 9 months create a child. A child with a full functioning body and brain. And that is done by the two origional sperm and egg meeting and then dividing.

It is MIRACULOUS. We are MIRACULOUS. All of creation is MIRACULOUS.

The Word even says that. That the proof of God is in all creation.

In truth, I don't see how people cannot believe in God. I think each spring when the grass, flowers, leaves on the trees, warmth and all the animals having babies shows the glorious renewal of life.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

It sounds as if some are claiming that belief is a choice and one we're all capable of making. Almost as if God has placed evidence of his existence deep within us and all we have to do 8s honestly look.
However, I haven't found that to be the case after decades of searching. Recently I have also read that there are measurable differences in those who have faith vs. those who are agnostic. If that research is true, would it imply to believers that God created some humans incapable of faith in him?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

http://m.phys.org/news/2009-03-brain-differences-believers-non-believers.htmlHere's the reference I mentioned

 

[ToBeLoved]

It sounds as if some are claiming that belief is a choice and one we're all capable of making. Almost as if God has placed evidence of his existence deep within us and all we have to do 8s honestly look.
However, I haven't found that to be the case after decades of searching. Recently I have also read that there are measurable differences in those who have faith vs. those who are agnostic. If that research is true, would it imply to believers that God created some humans incapable of faith in him?

I don't know if you were responding to me or in general, but I'll try to answer your question.

Don't all people care about how we got here? How things began? If we were created for a reason or just a 'happy accident'?

Maybe it's just me, but I would like to know because to me it adds meaning to life. Can science in all it's 'I'm everything and know everything' ness explain or give any good indication of how things began? Where did the Big Bang come from? If 'life' just so happened on earth, than how come the diversity of life? Now I know that some say evolution played a big part in all the different animals and plants, but did evolution make a fish evolve into a bird? An animal that cannot live without being in water evolve into an animal that would drown if it was always in water and to boot make it fly? Did a caterpillar evolve into an elephant? Did a cougar evolve into a dingo? A cougar cannot mate with a dingo and have offspring if they wanted to.

I'm not saying that (this is from your response above) "belief is a choice and one that we are capable of making". What I am saying is that maybe those of us who believe in God are more prone to want to know where we came from and why we are here on this earth and that maybe we see that it is only by intelligent design, a creator in my point of view.

I will say though that there was never a time that I can remember that I did not believe in God. I believed before I got into school and learned about science.

Just think about ghosts for a minute. I am serious, don't laugh. Now, they've done surveys about how many people believe in ghosts and how many people have seen or experienced the paranormal and many of these people say that the experiences they have are with someone they once knew, so in order for that to be true than there would have to be an afterlife because no one can come back from nothingness/death w/ no afterlife.

Another example is people who have had near-death experiences. People who have been documented by a physician/medical doctor to have been dead. So many times these people come back with a basic story. 1) Seeing themselves dead 2) floating above their body 3) going through a tunnel towards a light 4) meeting deceased relatives on the other side 5) talk about how much vivider colors are (like more shades) and music (how much more beautiful) it sounds.

Now some people say that this is there brain shutting down or something, but come on. If your brain was shutting down you would not experience what they experience from the time of near-death thru resuscitation. There is no beginning and end, stopping in between or anything. It's like a transition from one place to another, with no break, just a point in time between one and the next.

I just think that all the logic is there for belief in God. Call me crazy.

So I guess to answer your question, I think it is very logical to believe in God. I think that a God is the only complete answer.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I have found that every time I'm curious about how something in the physical universe came about, I can find an answer in science. ..I've even made such fields the course of my studies. As for other things like ghosts, I haven't yet seen any credible evidence. Most believers I know have had some sort of experience of God or the supernatural, but despite prayer, Bible study and regular church attendance I haven't, and am often wondering if what they experience is better explained as coincidence.

 

[bling]

http://m.phys.org/news/2009-03-brain-differences-believers-non-believers.htmlHere's the reference I mentioned

I read your article but there is one huge fallacy in the way you are using this good study, given this is what they are saying:

“Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new University of Toronto research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers.”

It is not talking about testing all nonbelievers to begin with; where there is a difference between those that later become believers and those that never become believers.

Yes, believers would have less “stress” about their mistakes in life, because these stresses do not linger in a believer, but are easily and quickly removed through sincere repentance, seeking forgiveness and accepting God’s forgiveness.

All believers start out as nonbelievers like everyone else, and their choices that have hurt others in the past is a burden on them. They may try lots of stuff (drugs, alcohol, working, good deeds, sex, or religion) to relief this burden (stress in their conscience). The only real solution is found in accepting God’s forgiveness and allowing these past “sins” to become part of your witness (they actually can have value to the Christian that has overcome them).

 

[bling]

I have found that every time I'm curious about how something in the physical universe came about, I can find an answer in science. ..I've even made such fields the course of my studies. As for other things like ghosts, I haven't yet seen any credible evidence. Most believers I know have had some sort of experience of God or the supernatural, but despite prayer, Bible study and regular church attendance I haven't, and am often wondering if what they experience is better explained as coincidence.

What answers has science provided to:

life spontaneously start from just nonliving chemicals, how I could be so lucky as to be in the “one” universe that did produce life, how an infinite number of universes could come about, and why everything that has happened, is happening and will happen fits the purpose of helping willing individuals to humbly accept Godly type Love and grow that Love?

You might try at lease an Alpha Bible Study.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I have found that every time I'm curious about how something in the physical universe came about, I can find an answer in science. ..I've even made such fields the course of my studies. As for other things like ghosts, I haven't yet seen any credible evidence. Most believers I know have had some sort of experience of God or the supernatural, but despite prayer, Bible study and regular church attendance I haven't, and am often wondering if what they experience is better explained as coincidence.

But what really is science? Science studies what is already there, what has already been created and what already exists. What has science created? It can tell us about atoms and cells, but it didn't create them.

The problem with people who are really into science is that they are happy with the 85%. Yes, science can show and put together in a cemblance of order what God has already created. It can study planets and determine if there is life or no life. Whoopy do, that is not the end all to be all.

If you are happy with what science provides you, than that is why you got the 85% that you got, no diss intended. Those who feel the need to 'prove' everything, get what is provable, which is never the full story because science does not have the full story.

Man (human beings) can not admit or fatham that he/she does not have all the answers, but yet they are ok with only knowing as much as science can tell them. It is a mystery to me how this thought process works to create such 'knowing' and 'provable' things, but only can explain what is already there and how it has evolved since it has been there.

IMHO, (and this is no judgement on you, only an observation) it is the pride of human beings that they want and insist on being the 'top dog'. For there to be a God, would only prove that they are not the prideful, top dogs that they (humans) think they are.

Can they stand it? I don't think they can.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

To your first question , how did life begin...there is more understood and better theories emerging as we continue to study this
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
Your second question is confusing. ..the fact that we live means by default we live in a universe that contains life. If you are implying we existed in a non living form and could have remained as such (perhaps in a state already united with a God), then what is lucky about being born? If we didn't exist before we were born, and we do now, then we must do so in a universe that contains life.
To your third question, what evidence do we have that our existence serves a divine purpose connected with a faith that only existed for a small fraction of human existence?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

But what really is science? Science studies what is already there, what has already been created and what already exists. What has science created? It can tell us about atoms and cells, but it didn't create them.

The problem with people who are really into science is that they are happy with the 85%. Yes, science can show and put together in a cemblance of order what God has already created. It can study planets and determine if there is life or no life. Whoopy do, that is not the end all to be all.

If you are happy with what science provides you, than that is why you got the 85% that you got, no diss intended. Those who feel the need to 'prove' everything, get what is provable, which is never the full story because science does not have the full story.

Man (human beings) can not admit or fatham that he/she does not have all the answers, but yet they are ok with only knowing as much as science can tell them. It is a mystery to me how this thought process works to create such 'knowing' and 'provable' things, but only can explain what is already there and how it has evolved since it has been there.

IMHO, (and this is no judgement on you, only an observation) it is the pride of human beings that they want and insist on being the 'top dog'. For there to be a God, would only prove that they are not the prideful, top dogs that they (humans) think they are.

Can they stand it? I don't think they can.

I do have questions about things like the afterlife, meaning of life, etc...but even those questions require some sort if evidence (even if not really scientific ) to answer. If I accept that it's all because of a God's will, what evidence do I have that it's the Christian God? Or even a single god, or a god that didn't just set things in motion then leave?

 

[ToBeLoved]

With all due respect, the question that I am trying to answer is the OP and question of this thread which is about belief. Why some seem to be able to believe in God vs. others who do not feel that they have that belief.

I understand that you have a great love of science and the things of science as you have been including links about science theories, however I am not here to really debate science. I am not here to 'prove' my beliefs or my faith, because the word faith is really a word that exemplifies belief in something that is unseen and unproven, so we could go around, and around with this but I really have no desire to do that.

What I am trying to do is to bring my perspective and how I see things. I hope that I am explaining these things well, but at the end of the day it is belief and it is faith and I do not in my heart feel the need to substantiate that or 'prove' that in any matter.

I hope that this discussion stays on topic as to belief and God and not get into a discussion about what science can prove or not prove, because countless people have been around and around about that and that will only move us away from the original OP topic.