Belief is not a choice

Blindwatchmaker

Active Member
Feb 28, 2021
106
27
52
Surrey
✟9,892.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private
Again, the very fact that you doubt this is not a decision you're making.
It's because my argument simply hasn't convinced you. (possibly because I'm poor at arguing).

But you could refute my argument by giving a single example of a proposition you really believed a minute ago which you have now decided to stop believing. (And not something like I prefer tea to coffee. Thos are not beliefs, they're value judgements.)
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It seems to me that a central principle of Christianity is that those who choose to accept Christ as their personal saviour gain access to Heaven whilst those that choose not to are punished or lose out in some way once their lives are over.

But this is based on a notion of belief which we now know to be false.
Believing a proposition is not a choice you make.
It's something that happens to you, not by you.

If you disagree, consider whether you are able right now, to believe that you have a diamond the size of a fridge buried in your garden. Or that your mother is a secret agent working for ISIS.

You are simply not at liberty to believe this, no matter how much you may want to. The only way your brain would accept the truth of the proposition is if you saw the diamond or caught your mother relaying information back to her ISIS contacts.
Then?....
Then you would have no CHOICE but to believe it.

Presented with compelling evidence we are forced to accept the truth of a claim and in the absence of it, we are unable to do so.

Everything we know about neuroscience supports this idea. There are neurological correlates to belief in a given proposition. And they are not voluntary.

With this in mind, it seems unreasonable for God to punish people who are simply not convinced of the claims of Christianity.

I have an open mind but I just don't find Christianity any more convincing than any other religion. It's not because I hate God, or want to sin or anything like that.
I have heard the claims and simply find myself unconvinced by them in exactly the same way as most people here are unconvinced by the claims of Scientology or Hinduism.

That's not a choice you made. Your brains just didn't buy what they were selling.

Given this understanding of the cognition of belief, what is the moral justification for punishing non-belief?

With some qualification, I also do not hold that belief is a choice. I put my thoughts down here:

Is belief a choice?

I'm agnostic between eternal damnation, annihilationism, and universal reconciliation, but lean towards the later. We'll see...or we won't.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then you made a choice to belive it was untrue.

You made a choice because there was a choice...period.
No, not at all. I became unconvinced because of a better standard of evidence.

why do you avoid the question, can you believe the earth has two moons?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@Blindwatchmaker
With some qualification, I also do not hold that belief is a choice. I put my thoughts down here:

Is belief a choice?

I'm agnostic between eternal damnation, annihilationism, and universal reconciliation, but lean towards the later. We'll see...or we won't.

Obviously, aspects of the human mind are very well autonomic in nature when it comes to 'belief' on a general level, but since we're dropping links into our overall considerations, I'm going to drop this one into the pile and assert that, from my hermeneutical viewpoint, the points made in the following articles would be my first stepping stone here:

Abend, G. (2017). What are neural correlates neural correlates of?. BioSocieties, 12(3), 415-438.

Hoogeveen, S., & van Elk, M. (2021). Advancing the Cognitive Science of Religion through Replication and Open Science.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
my hermeneutical viewpoint, the points made in the following articles would be my first stepping point here:

From what I gather, they're saying CSR needs fine tuning in terms of recognizing the neural correlates of a given religious belief?

Obviously, aspects of the human mind are very well autonomic in nature when it comes to 'belief' on a general level

Right, religious belief is not mere belief in a set of fact claims. It has intentionality, in terms of how one approaches life. I can say I believe claim x, and let's say I do, and yet how I approach life might be in no way reflected by that mere belief.

On the other hand, I can be doubtful about a particular claim, and yet still approach life as if it's true. Let's say, I have heard, but am doubtful, that God loves me and created me to live in a particular way, a way fitting to love (perhaps I'm supposed to love and care for others, as they say God does for me). In this case, my credence level is low, but I still try to live accordingly.

Religious faith, Christian faith at least, entails an element of trust that can outpace the propositional attitude of belief. Jesus seems to imply that the reception of revelation (strong belief) in some sense depends on an intentional approach to life (John 14:21). But even in the one who has strong belief, they still must get up and go through their day trusting the one in whom they believe. It's that personal element of trust that is inescapable, even with a high credence level of belief.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let's say, I have heard, but am doubtful, that God loves me and created me to live in a particular way, a way fitting to love (perhaps I'm supposed to love and care for others, as they say God does for me). In this case, my credence level is low, but I still try to live accordingly

I should point out, and this isn't brought up enough in this context, I can have non-epistemic reasons for adherence to a religious way of life. Perhaps is seems to me I will have an overall better experience in life if I live according to Jesus's rule of love. Or, perhaps I do it because my wife does.

If Christian faith is inseparable from the way one lives (not just morally, but spiritual practices, worship in community, etc.), then those non-epistemic reasons could open the door for a more robust epistemic situation in terms of propositional attitudes of belief. If, for instance, I find Christians are loving and generous, as they say God is, I might become a "believer."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From what I gather, they're saying CSR needs fine tuning in terms of recognizing the neural correlates of a given religious belief?
Yes, it does, mainly in the area of reproducing study results for ongoing verification of earlier findings. This doesn't necessarily vitiate whatever findings are coming at us from neurological studies related to human belief functions of the brain, but it does impinge upon the assurance and the breadth of applicability of the findings. We can't just take a single study's findings for granted, nor can we assume that some specific finding necessarily explains some social context or psychological context in which a belief process takes place.

Right, religious belief is not mere belief in a set of fact claims. It has intentionality, in terms of how one approaches life. I can say I believe claim x, and let's say I do, and yet how I approach life might be in no way reflected by that mere belief.
Yes, there is that possibility. But as I was mentioning earlier, where 'Christian belief' is concerned, there are epistemic considerations expressed within the text of the Bible that, whether any of us feel we likewise recognize these epistemic structures in our own religious understanding or experiences, are inherent to the content of the Bible. These can't be simply ignored and then dismissed by saying they are inconsequential to the Christian status of a Christian belief, trumped by modern neurological studies or even secular philosophical considerations regarding human belief

On the other hand, I can be doubtful about a particular claim, and yet still approach life as if it's true. Let's say, I have heard, but am doubtful, that God loves me and created me to live in a particular way, a way fitting to love (perhaps I'm supposed to love and care for others, as they say God does for me). In this case, my credence level is low, but I still try to live accordingly.
Sure, there's the observational and experiential sense data that come by interacting with Christians who claim they are being guided by God, but there is also the idea that God has some volitional influence within the activation of at least some Christian beliefs. There are also the factors of social psychology that inform the overall confluence of belief formation, often accompanying various social and educational endeavors. So, a marginal belief that just 'can't be had' in one passive setting might become a more substantive belief if fostered or searched for in a more active, ongoing scenario involving the same person.

Religious faith, Christian faith at least, entails an element of trust that can outpace the propositional attitude of belief. Jesus seems to imply that the reception of revelation (strong belief) in some sense depends on an intentional approach to life (John 14:21). But even in the one who has strong belief, they still must get up and go through their day trusting the one in whom they believe. It's that personal element of trust that is inescapable, even with a high credence level of belief.
This is true, PH! The social psychology of trust needs will play a part in influencing the direction and the felt motivations one feels to 'chase after' either a fuller data set for possible Christian belief(s) or to instead 'chase after' a fuller data set for possible ideas that militate against Christian belief.

Either way, it's my contention that most people are acculturated into a path of belief or unbelief through active social means, means that are deemed to be either socially or epistemically trustworthy (i.e. attending church and/or reading books, engaging educated sources); and they don't believe or not believe an idea by just passively being struck by random ideas or strong notions while sitting on a chair, staring out of a window. So forgive me if I think this whole paradigm that sees 'belief' as utterly involuntary to be at least partially spurious.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I should point out, and this isn't brought up enough in this context, I can have non-epistemic reasons for adherence to a religious way of life. Perhaps is seems to me I will have an overall better experience in life if I live according to Jesus's rule of love. Or, perhaps I do it because my wife does.

If Christian faith is inseparable from the way one lives (not just morally, but spiritual practices, worship in community, etc.), then those non-epistemic reasons could open the door for a more robust epistemic situation in terms of propositional attitudes of belief. If, for instance, I find Christians are loving and generous, as they say God is, I might become a "believer."

That's true. For some that works. But I can honestly say it was hardly the 'niceness' of Christians I mingled with when first engaging the Christian faith that "did it for me." In fact, I didn't 'become' a Christian and value it because I somehow saw it's truth being lived in other people's lives at church or wherever.

I know, I know. I'm the outlier!!!! :rolleyes:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But I can honestly say it was hardly the 'niceness' of Christians I mingled with when first engaging the Christian faith that "did it for me." In fact, I didn't 'become' a Christian and value it because I somehow saw it's truth being lived in other people's lives at church or wherever.

Yeah, that's why I threw that example out there, because it's a crying shame it's not more often the case. It should be a contributing factor with the "The world will know you're my disciples by your love" thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, that's why I threw that example out there, because it's a crying shame it's not more often the case. It should be a contributing factor with the "The world will know you're my disciples by your love" thing.

I agree with you on this. Love definitely helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
1) People are still choosing to dismiss the evidence because of the sunk cost fallacy and are therefore choosing their beliefs.

1) The sunk cost fallacy is a heuristic and people falling for it are still not choosing to be fooled by the fallacy. It may be a fault in their cognition but clearly if they believed they would act accordingly. It's still the case that the lack of belief is something that happens to them, not BY them.
Why would this be? Why is it that evidence for the benefits of vaccines for instance can be read by two equally smart people, and one is pro-vaccination and the other is anti-vaccination?

2) God is the author of all rules and is therefore entitled to punish anyone as he sees fit.

2) Yes if God is all-powerful he can make whatever rules he wants. My question is whether or not that is moral. If you say that anything God does is moral by definition, then you are surrendering your ability to assess ethics with an independent mind.
'Might' does not make right.
I'm not contending that might makes right. "Might makes right" means that if a strong man wishes to take a weaker man's possessions or wife or children for his own use, he is entitled to. Or that a government in power is entitled to persecute any group of people that is within their power to do so. This is wrong because there is a higher moral law which dictates that individual people have certain rights and dignity and that no person or assembly of people may rightly violate them.

But where does this moral law come from? Why is it even a law? Why is it a statement with any authority at all, rather than just a matter of opinion that became popular one day? That moral law had to come from something higher than one person or body of people - from something or someone that would function as a god over us. That god, or collection of gods, would need to either make that moral law, or be under it themselves, and if they themselves are under it, there must be at least one god over those gods, etc.

Cutting to the chase, Christianity teaches there is only one God, who is the ultimate Lawgiver. The Lawgiver makes moral law. If the Lawgiver makes moral law, then anything he dictates must by definition, be moral. He gives rights, and is equally right if he takes those rights away from any one person or group of people. He is above the moral law which is above the human governments. If he is above it, then he is not to be held to the same standard that exists for human governments, because they are under the moral law rather than above it. God on the other hand, is at the tip-top.

To me, if there were an all-powerful being that chose to create me knowing I would not believe in him (due to lack of evidence and with God also knowing what evidence would be sufficient to convince me and choosing not to provide it) and then chose to punish me for eternity because I applied reason using the brain he gave me, then I would not worship or respect such a bully even if it turned out he did exist.
I would take my punishment knowing that I was on the ethical side of the issue.
So you're talking about what you would choose to do then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Blindwatchmaker

Active Member
Feb 28, 2021
106
27
52
Surrey
✟9,892.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private
Why would this be? Why is it that evidence for the benefits of vaccines for instance can be read by two equally smart people, and one is pro-vaccination and the other is anti-vaccination?

I would say that if two people look at the evidence for the benefits of vaccines, and one concludes that an anti-vaccination stance is warranted, that is strong evidence that they are not equally smart.





So you're talking about what you would choose to do then?
I'm talking about what is ethical.
I've always found the idea that a deity is required for morality to be very unconvincing.
Any god who convicts and punishes people for having the nature HE gave them would be an evil god, and not worthy of respect in my view.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Par5
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would say that if two people look at the evidence for the benefits of vaccines, and one concludes that an anti-vaccination stance is warranted, that is strong evidence that they are not equally smart.






I'm talking about what is ethical.
I've always found the idea that a deity is required for morality to be very unconvincing.
Any god who convicts and punishes people for having the nature HE gave them would be an evil god, and not worthy of respect in my view.

Ok. So, you think your idea of god is evil. The good thing is that we know that ... this is just your opinion and something we don't have to delve into here since this isn't a debate forum. :cool:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Blindwatchmaker

Active Member
Feb 28, 2021
106
27
52
Surrey
✟9,892.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private
Ok. So, you think your idea of god is evil. The good thing is that we know that ... this is just your opinion and something we don't have to delve into here since this isn't a debate forum. :cool:
My point is a little more subtle than that.
It's more that any God who would deliberately create creatures for the purpose of punishing them eternally for how he created them would be evil. If that doesn't fit a characterisation of evil then nothing would.

So the question becomes not what do I think about God (I personally don't see any reason to think there is one) but rather how do you square a god doing that with the god being benevolent and loving?
 
Upvote 0