Belief is not a choice

[Blindwatchmaker]

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.

With respect, the thing I'm 'making far too much of' is the essence of the whole issue.

We do not choose our beliefs.

SO once again, my question (for anyone inclined to answer) is:
If it's true (as seems likely) that we don't choose what we believe but rather our beliefs follow from what we happen to find convincing (or not), then how can be ethical for God to punish those who don't believe.

It would be like punishing people for being the height they are or having blue eyes.

Ironically there's another level to this:
Even if (for the sake of argument) we accepted that we DO choose our beliefs (and I don't believe that for one second) the problem doesn't go away, as if God is all-knowing, he would have known before creating the universe exactly who would be convinced of the gospel and who would not. It therefore follows that he is creating people specifically to send them to Hell. It would be more merciful just to create people who God knew would be believers, or alternatively provide a better standard of evidence sufficient to persuade those who are not.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

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

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

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.

Beautifully said too.
Thank you.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

BTW the idea of annihilation after death has never bothered me.
Much the same way that rather a long period of time passed before my birth which does not perturb me at all.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Lol!

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

It is impossible to believe something to be true at the same time believing it to be false. You cannot believe the earth has one moon to be true and that the earth has two moons to be true at the same time.

 

[TedT]

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.

Ah the irony...you condemn our religion for resting on belief by offering us your belief as a correct alternative which you claim we are unable to choose. Riiiight... You would have us to decide, choose, to accept your statements as true and thus deny our beliefs about reality which we've developed....

What makes you trustworthy?

You see, the word belief in the sophist materialistic way you are using it is not the way Christians use it because it is mostly used for FAITH, not proof of the reality of something, ie your diamond. To have faith in someone, to trust them to be telling you the truth of something, ie the resurrection of Christ, is indeed a Christian pov.

But such faith isn't the same as belief as you use it. Faith means to accept something as true because you have a strong hope it is true and will soon, some day, be proven to be true. Faith is accepting something you sincerely hope for but which has not yet been proven. In biblical language it reads: Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not being seen. The substance, the essence of faith is hope. And it must rest upon trust, trust in the One who talks to you about it because your hope is strong, not in some illusion of the power of belief that creates new realities. You see, we believe that the demons know the truth of our 'belief' system but still deny Him: James 2:19 You believe that God is one. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Your use of belief would have them to be saved and joyous, not afraid in the knowledge of their destruction.

I have no hope that the existential reality of modern secular materialism is the truth. Even when I lived that way with no faith in Christ at all I did not hope for secularism to be all there was - though I accepted it - I saw much advantage if there were a religious system hidden behind it.

If I trust you and reject faith / belief in Christ, I will lose heaven.
If you trust me and seek faith / belief in Christ, you may gain heaven.

I do not trust you because I think you are an unrepentant sinner who's willing to deprive me of heaven to prove his superiority over me. I do not want to return to secularism for I was an evil person and that philosophy, way of life, did nothing to curb me. Since my Christian conversion I have changed - I'm not full of anger like I was, my family is amazed at my changes and are very happy....why would I ever go back?

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

Ah the irony...you condemn our religion for resting on belief by offering us your belief as a correct alternative which you claim we are unable to choose. Riiiight... You would have us to decide, choose, to accept your statements as true and thus deny our beliefs about reality which we've developed....

What makes you trustworthy?

You see, the word belief in the sophist materialistic way you are using it is not the way Christians use it because it is mostly used for FAITH, not proof of the reality of something, ie your diamond. To have faith in someone, to trust them to be telling you the truth of something, ie the resurrection of Christ, is indeed a Christian pov.

But such faith isn't the same as belief as you use it. Faith means to accept something as true because you have a strong hope it is true and will soon, some day, be proven to be true. Faith is accepting something you sincerely hope for but which has not yet been proven. In biblical language it reads: Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not being seen. The substance, the essence of faith is hope. And it must rest upon trust, trust in the One who talks to you about it because your hope is strong, not in some illusion of the power of belief that creates new realities. You see, we believe that the demons know the truth of our 'belief' system but still deny Him: James 2:19 You believe that God is one. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. Your use of belief would have them to be saved and joyous, not afraid in the knowledge of their destruction.

I have no hope that the existential reality of modern secular materialism is the truth. Even when I lived that way with no faith in Christ at all I did not hope for secularism to be all there was - though I accepted it - I saw much advantage if there were a religious system hidden behind it.

If I trust you and reject faith / belief in Christ, I will lose heaven.
If you trust me and seek faith / belief in Christ, you may gain heaven.

I do not trust you because I think you are an unrepentant sinner who's willing to deprive me of heaven to prove his superiority over me. I do not want to return to secularism for I was an evil person and that philosophy, way of life, did nothing to curb me. Since my Christian conversion I have changed - I'm not full of anger like I was, my family is amazed at my changes and are very happy....why would I ever go back?

You misunderstand my post.
I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T believe.
If your faith has brought you joy and peace then I'm happy for you.

I'm simply asking how you reconcile a loving God with one who condemns people for not being convinced as you are.

 

[TedT]

An all-knowing God would know IN ADVANCE what evidence would convince any given person and so even before I was born (for example) God would know that someone would not be convinced by stories of his existence. It therefore seems immoral to punish that person for lack of belief.

I agree.

I do not agree that our birth is our creation but that doesn't change the point - IF GOD is omniscient in the pagan Greek definition of "to know all there is to be known from eternity past to eternity future" then HE would indeed know who would not have faith and would end in hell. There is more than one verse that clearly says that GOD didn't create us to be separated from HIM and to go to hell, that HE takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. But all HE had to do to keep hell empty forever was to not create those HE knew would end in hell. Since HE makes it abundantly clear hell is real there must be something wrong with the pagan definition which the Church Fathers accepted so easily.

Obviously IF HE knew before their creation who would end in hell, to be who HE claims to be, HE would NOT create them at all. This is why I contend for the belief that HE knows fully what HE creates but HE gave us the power of a free will able to create our own fate which HE did NOT know because HE did not create the results of any free will decision. This is a better solution to me than either the denial of hell as inimical to HIS nature, a clear denial of scripture, or the acceptance that not only did HE know who would go to hell before HE created them but HE purposefully created them evil to go to hell for HIS own reasons, a clear denial of HIS benevolent character.

HOW then did evil come to be created?
1. His reason for our creation was to have an intimate relationship with us based upon love, a relationship for which the best metaphor is a marriage.

2. A true marriage based upon a real love cannot be forced but must be entered into by the clear free will decison to do so, uncoerced by any force, impulse or experience at all.

3. A true free will must be able to reject the purpose of GOD or it is not free. Knowledge of HIS claims of the natural and legal consequences of making this choice had to be perfectly known and rejected as a lie for anyone to end in hell.

This is how we end with the creation of evil against GOD's will and without HIM knowing who would choose which fate before they in fact chose.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

I agree.

I do not agree that our birth is our creation but that doesn't change the point - IF GOD is omniscient in the pagan Greek definition of "to know all there is to be known from eternity past to eternity future" then HE would indeed know who would not have faith and would end in hell. There is more than one verse that clearly says that GOD didn't create us to be separated from HIM and to go to hell, that HE takes no pleasure in the death of anyone. But all HE had to do to keep hell empty forever was to not create those HE knew would end in hell. Since HE makes it abundantly clear hell is real there must be something wrong with the pagan definition which the Church Fathers accepted so easily.

Obviously IF HE knew before their creation who would end in hell, to be who HE claims to be, HE would NOT create them at all. This is why I contend for the belief that HE knows fully what HE creates but HE gave us the power of a free will able to create our own fate which HE did NOT know because HE did not create the results of any free will decision. This is a better solution to me than either the denial of hell as inimical to HIS nature, a clear denial of scripture, or the acceptance that not only did HE know who would go to hell before HE created them but HE purposefully created them evil to go to hell for HIS own reasons, a clear denial of HIS benevolent character.

HOW then did evil come to be created?
1. His reason for our creation was to have an intimate relationship with us based upon love, a relationship for which the best metaphor is a marriage.

2. A true marriage based upon a real love cannot be forced but must be entered into by the clear free will decison to do so, uncoerced by any force, impulse or experience at all.

3. A true free will must be able to reject the purpose of GOD or it is not free. Knowledge of HIS claims of the natural and legal consequences of making this choice had to be perfectly known and rejected as a lie for anyone to end in hell.

This is how we end with the creation of evil against GOD's will and without HIM knowing who would choose which fate before they in fact chose.

So you are proposing that God's knowledge of the future is limited. That's an interesting variation, thank you.

But even if it is, this leads us back to the original post.
We now know that belief is not an act of freewill like choosing tea or coffee.
No matter how inconvenient this may be, we do NOT choose what to believe.
If I decide right now THIS second to believe in God, I find myself no more able to do so than if you were to decide right now to believe that I am a god.

I cannot simply choose what to be convinced of. I am either convinced of something or I am not.
There would be no need for Christian apologetics were this not the case. The purpose of evangelising is to convince others of the truth of biblical claims.
Some find these convincing. Others don't.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

That's not always the case. There is much that is unfortunate about anti-vaccination, and other backwards beliefs such as flat Earth trending upward. However, not all of the people who buy into one or more of these backward beliefs are dumb. An unfortunate fact is there are intelligent people who buy into completely separate beliefs about reality who read the same material as those who accept current science.

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.

1) So you're talking about what you would choose based on what you believe would be ethical?
2) You're also implying that what you said about the nature of belief itself isn't absolute, then. Since you are making a moral judgement about another being who is choosing what to do with you. If the nature of belief itself precludes choice, then you can't rightly blame God any more than he could rightly blame you, because God would be acting upon his beliefs. If you insist on blaming God, it would be more correct to abandon the notion that belief cannot be chosen.

 

[Kenny'sID]

With respect, the thing I'm 'making far too much of' is the essence of the whole issue.

We do not choose our beliefs.

SO once again, my question (for anyone inclined to answer) is:
If it's true (as seems likely) that we don't choose what we believe but rather our beliefs follow from what we happen to find convincing (or not), then how can be ethical for God to punish those who don't believe.

It would be like punishing people for being the height they are or having blue eyes.

Ironically there's another level to this:
Even if (for the sake of argument) we accepted that we DO choose our beliefs (and I don't believe that for one second) the problem doesn't go away, as if God is all-knowing, he would have known before creating the universe exactly who would be convinced of the gospel and who would not. It therefore follows that he is creating people specifically to send them to Hell. It would be more merciful just to create people who God knew would be believers, or alternatively provide a better standard of evidence sufficient to persuade those who are not.

I choose what to believe. You may twist and turn it any way you like but that will not change a thing.

You may want to find someone else to convince otherwise, as you are not going to have any luck with me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is impossible to believe something to be true at the same time believing it to be false. You cannot believe the earth has one moon to be true and that the earth has two moons to be true at the same time.

Show me where I said you could?

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

Show me where I said you could?

You said that you can believe what you want.
You said that you can CHOOSE to believe that the Earth has two moons which would require you to do so KNOWING that it has only one.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

I choose what to believe. You may twist and turn it any way you like but that will not change a thing.

You may want to find someone else to convince otherwise, as you are not going to have any luck with me.

I'm not twisting and turning anything.
But it still the case that your beliefs are the set of propositions of which you have become convinced.
No choice involved.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You said that you can believe what you want.
You said that you can CHOOSE to believe that the Earth has two moons which would require you to do so KNOWING that it has only one.

Sure, I can, but that doesn't mean I will.

Where are you going with this oddball argument?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not twisting and turning anything.
But it still the case that your beliefs are the set of propositions of which you have become convinced.
No choice involved.

I have a choice to be convinced or not.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that your argument is worthless?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Show me where I said you could?

Post 69.

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

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

Belief is not a choice

So you said that if you are convinced of one thing (earth has one moon) that you can choose to believe another contradictory things (earth has two moons) to be true.

 

[TedT]

But if God knows in advance who he will save, that means he also knows who he WONT save.
This means he is creating people with the express purpose of condemning them to Hell.
Why would a loving God do that?

HE DID NOT DO THIS! HIS knowledge was acquired after our creation and after our free will decisions to put our faith in HIM as our GOD or in HIM being a liar and a false god...

After these decisions HE certainly knows before our birth on earth who HE will save because HE promised all those who put their faith in HIM that HE would save them from any and all sin by the work of the Son,
AND
HE passed over for salvation those who rejected HIM as evil and who completely refused to come under HIS promise of salvation, rather condemned them on the spot.

 

[TedT]

I'm simply asking how you reconcile a loving God with one who condemns people for not being convinced as you are.

Well, now you know.

 

[Clare73]

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?

The Christian revelation is that you were born with a sinful nature which puts you at enmity with God and subject to condemnation (Ro 5:18).

God does not owe you salvation. He provides it for those who believe, none of which is unjust.

 

[TedT]

But even if it is, this leads us back to the original post.
We now know that belief is not an act of freewill like choosing tea or coffee.
No matter how inconvenient this may be, we do NOT choose what to believe.

Ok, have it your way if it works for you; Post #85 was a good effort anyway even if ignored....