Belief is not a choice

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

I suppose the answer to this question would depend upon the metaphysical substance of your own idea of 'The Good,' not to mention the actual properties of truth and logic inhering within it. Are you confident that your own subjective ideas about what's truly 'Good' are real?

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

I suppose the answer to this question would depend upon the metaphysical substance of your own idea of 'The Good,' not to mention the actual properties of truth and logic inhering within it. Are you confident that your own subjective ideas about what's truly 'Good' are real?

I'm not claiming that MY ideas about what is good are 'real' any more than my ideas about what food is tasty are real.
People may mistakenly think I'm advocating some sort of fundamentalist moral relativism whereby what's ethical is simply a matter of choice.

I'm not saying that either.

I'm saying that even if we can't comprehensively define what is good, we can make reasonable statements about what is NOT good.
No mentally sound person for example would say that raping babies is good. Anyone presenting that as a mere matter of opinion about which we should remain open-minded would not be welcome in any healthy social group or society.

I am contending that creating living beings with the express purpose of condemning them to an eternity of punishment for how they were created is a worse moral outrage than raping a baby (because its unbounded and so any consequent suffering multiplies infinitely).

And again, the purpose of my question is to understand how you can be ok with it?

By challenging my definition of 'good', the implication is that you have a different standard which includes the eternal torture of people like me who are simply unable to believe.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not claiming that MY ideas about what is good are 'real' any more than my ideas about what food is tasty are real.
People may mistakenly think I'm advocating some sort of fundamentalist moral relativism whereby what's ethical is simply a matter of choice.

I'm not saying that either.

I'm saying that even if we can't comprehensively define what is good, we can make reasonable statements about what is NOT good.
No mentally sound person for example would say that raping babies is good. Anyone presenting that as a mere matter of opinion about which we should remain open-minded would not be welcome in any healthy social group or society.

I am contending that creating living beings with the express purpose of condemning them to an eternity of punishment for how they were created is a worse moral outrage than raping a baby (because its unbounded and so any consequent suffering multiplies infinitely).

And again, the purpose of my question is to understand how you can be ok with it?

By challenging my definition of 'good', the implication is that you have a different standard which includes the eternal torture of people like me who are simply unable to believe.

Have you ever taken an Ethics class? Like, just one even? I'm wondering, because your answer to this will inform me of the extent to which I can take you seriously here. Thus far, all I'm hearing are expressions from your mind to the effect that you happen to have such and such a moral idea at time X which you haven't actually substantiated.

In fact, I noticed there's a lot of this usual trope being expressed lately among a lot of grass-roots type skeptics and atheists. And frankly, I'm not the 'Christian kind' who's just going to let it slide by as being some kind of evident or valid type of Ethical thought, let alone constitute either brilliant or robust ethical thought.

What you're pressing for here typically passess as satisfactory within circles prone to adopting Marxist style pushes of morality, or those favoring Nietzsche, neither of whom I'll stomach for more than, say, 10 minutes.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Y

Can you explain?

You asked If I can believe the earth has two moons?

Yes, I can believe it, if it is believable to me.

Convince me.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Y


You asked If I can believe the earth has two moons?

Yes, I can believe it, if it is believable to me.

Convince me.

Can you choose to believe the earth has two moons when you are convinced it has one?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you choose to believe the earth has two moons when you are convinced it has one?

That's not even a scientific question, Clizby. Secondly, you're not supposed to be here in this forum.

Bye!

 

[Direct Driver]

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

I can sum up my answer to the entire post by responding to your last line: It's not that there is a punishment for non belief. Rather, there is a reward for belief. It's explained here: Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

The lost are simply biological animals in human biological machines. Like the rest of the animal kingdom, they die. But Jesus offers a better way. A way that leads to joy and peace while one occupies this human meat, and an eternity with our creator once this meat body meets its end.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's not even a scientific question, Clizby. Secondly, you're not supposed to be here in this forum.

Bye!

You may be right, have a nice day.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Can you choose to believe the earth has two moons when you are convinced it has one?

I can, at least until someone comes along to convince me otherwise.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I can, at least until someone comes along to convince me otherwise.

So you can choose to believe anything you want no matter what you are convinced of? I don't believe you. You can act like you believe something is true that you are convinced is untrue but you cannot actually believe it is true until you are convinced.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

Have you ever taken an Ethics class? Like, just one even? I'm wondering, because your answer to this will inform me of the extent to which I can take you seriously here. Thus far, all I'm hearing are expressions from your mind to the effect that you happen to have such and such a moral idea at time X which you haven't actually substantiated.

In fact, I noticed there's a lot of this usual trope being expressed lately among a lot of grass-roots type skeptics and atheists. And frankly, I'm not the 'Christian kind' who's just going to let it slide by as being some kind of evident or valid type of Ethical thought, let alone constitute either brilliant or robust ethical thought.

What you're pressing for here typically passess as satisfactory within circles prone to adopting Marxist style pushes of morality, or those favoring Nietzsche, neither of whom I'll stomach for more than, say, 10 minutes.

Wow.
Touched a nerve it would seem.

I favour neither Marx nor Nietzche.
I'm not overly concerned with how seriously you take me.

I'm simply asking (again) how you can reconcile a loving god with one that condemns creatures he created to eternal torture due to the processes of the cognition with which he imbued them.
Your philosophical tap-dancing and if I may, your condescending tone is simply evading the question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

No one believes without first hearing the gospel which is the evidence that enables us to believe. So if you had evidence that there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in your garden then it wouldn’t be so impossible to believe.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

I can, at least until someone comes along to convince me otherwise.

That's ridiculous.
As well as false.
Sorry.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

No one believes without first hearing the gospel which is the evidence that enables us to believe. So if you had evidence that there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in your garden then it wouldn’t be so impossible to believe.

Your post is absolutely proving my point thank you.
As soon as you see the fridge-sized diamond, not only would it be less impossible to believe, but you would have NO CHOICE but to believe.

You heard the gospel and some combination of past experience and genes led to a brain capable of being convinced by what was on offer. Good for you! And congrats on being saved if the gospel is true.

I have also heard the gospel and its has not come anywhere close to being convincing.
There's literally nothing I can do about that.

According to some here, it's ethical for me to be punished for this.
That is the substance of my question really. Trying to reconcile that with a deity who is described as loving and good.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's ridiculous.
As well as false.
Sorry.

Lol!

It is absolutely true, and anyone who wants to can see that very simple fact.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

Lol!

It is absolutely true, and anyone who wants to can see that very simple fact.

You are asserting that at any moment, simply by an act of will, that you are able to come to the positive belief that propositions which you KNOW to be false, are in fact true.

The reason you're doing this is to avoid the cognitive dissonance of accepting that you can't change your beliefs about the number of moons around the Earth because that would force you to climb down from your previously stated position.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You are asserting that at any moment, simply by an act of will, that you are able to come to the positive belief that propositions which you KNOW to be false, are in fact true.

The reason you're doing this is to avoid the cognitive dissonance of accepting that you can't change your beliefs about the number of moons around the Earth because that would force you to climb down from your previously stated position.

I guess the simplicity of the truth is seomething you aren't ready for.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

I guess the simplicity of the truth is seomething you aren't ready for.

You are saying that by a simple act of will, you can believe that the US is located in Europe or that you are an elephant.

To be honest I'm looking for a more serious level of discussion here.
I'm not trolling.
I'm genuinely interested in how believers square this circle.

Kenny's way is to maintain that he can simply believe as true, propositions which he knows to be false.
That's patent nonsense.

The only way forward for a believer (as far as I can see) is to maintain that punishing honest seekers who happened not be convinced is somehow consistent with love or goodness.
I just can't work out how it could be. I'm genuinely open to that being a limitation on my part, in which case I'm hoping someone can educate me to understand it better.
Thanks.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You are saying that by a simple act of will, you can believe that the US is located in Europe or that you are an elephant.

To be honest I'm looking for a more serious level of discussion here.
I'm not trolling.
I'm genuinely interested in how believers square this circle.

Kenny's way is to maintain that he can simply believe as true, propositions which he knows to be false.
That's patent nonsense.

The only way forward for a believer (as far as I can see) is to maintain that punishing honest seekers who happened not be convinced is somehow consistent with love or goodness.
I just can't work out how it could be. I'm genuinely open to that being a limitation on my part, in which case I'm hoping someone can educate me to understand it better.
Thanks.

You're making far too much of this.

My comment was simple, and absolutely true. I hope someone will come along and appease your need for a higher level of conversation, but to me, sometimes that is simply not needed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow.
Touched a nerve it would seem.

A few people here on CF have that ability. And they know who they are. And so do I.

I favour neither Marx nor Nietzche.
I'm not overly concerned with how seriously you take me.

That's always a plus where solid, bilateral interlocution is concerned ... (not!)

I'm simply asking (again) how you can reconcile a loving god with one that condemns creatures he created to eternal torture due to the processes of the cognition with which he imbued them.
Your philosophical tap-dancing and if I may, your condescending tone is simply evading the question.

If I remember rightly, and one can never be too sure that any of us do, I think I said I'm an Annihilationist. So, you're act of asking me this question is a bit on the moot side, wouldn't you say?

I don't reject the ED position simply because I have some overwhelming feeling of repugnance and sorrow about how someone like Hitler could bake forever (although if the shoe fits in his case, and if there were such a shoe, it'd likely fit him). Rather, despite my own bad feelings about ED, I mainly reject ED and the eternal torment of someone like Hitler because in my estimation, the application of solid, meticulous, non-pearl strung type Exegetical and Hermeneutical readings of the Bible imply that ED isn't the meaning of Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus or the Lake of Fire.

But that's all I can say on the subject here. No more, no less.