Believe but don't want to?

[nicknack28]

I don't expect this thread to get the most attention or responses but I've been curious about this for a while now.

It seems there are four ways it can break down when it comes to whether someone wants to believe in the divine (not specifically the Christian god) and whether someone does believe in the divine:

Believes, wants to
Believes, doesn't want to
Doesn't believe, wants to
Doesn't believe, doesn't want to

The two main groups people fall into are obviously the first and last. Occasionally we get the visitor to the Struggles By Non-Christians section from the third group wanting to believe but struggling to get there. The odd thing is that we never seem to get anyone from the second group, those who believe but just plain don't want to.

I could easily imagine such a person. If someone thought that they personally shouldn't believe anything that required faith but simply couldn't help but believe in the divine for emotional reasons (therefore being helplessly hypocritical), they would qualify perfectly. That's just a single possible scenario too. I'm sure there are dozens of ways a person could fall into this category.

Is there anyone around here like this? Does anyone know anyone like this? How do you or the person handle the unusual conflict? Which would be more important, belief or the want to believe?

I would like this to be able to turn into a full discussion somehow so if you've got anything that's relevant and interesting let's hear it! Thanks bunches.

 

[Coralie]

For a long time I was in the second group. I was horrified when I realised God existed, and worse, that He is the Christian God.

I hated Christianity so much at the time that the thought of becoming part of that group made me cringe with horror...

In the end, though, I realised that if this is the real God, the actual Creator of the Universe who made me and knit me together in my mother's womb, then I better put my pride aside and start learning more about Him.

From there, I started to feel better (this only happened because my pride began to fall away. Pride makes belief in God either impossible or incredibly painful). Took about three years. Nowadays I fall into the first group.

There are way, way more people like this than most folks realise. The difference is, they tend to be very quiet about their faith (obviously).

 

[Van]

The Atheist mantra is "Belief is not an option" - they did not choose to not accept Christ, they were unable to accept Christ.

The Calvinist mantra is "Belief is not an option" - those that do not believe are unable to believe, and those that believe were compelled by irresistible grace to want to believe and then believe willingly.

The Bible simply says God sets before us the choice of life or death.

 

[Criada]

I am in the third group, but I can imagine that for a confirmed atheist, the dawning of belief must be very hard to accept, and probably unwelcome.

 

[ebia]

I don't expect this thread to get the most attention or responses but I've been curious about this for a while now.

It seems there are four ways it can break down when it comes to whether someone wants to believe in the divine (not specifically the Christian god) and whether someone does believe in the divine:

Believes, wants to
Believes, doesn't want to
Doesn't believe, wants to
Doesn't believe, doesn't want to

The two main groups people fall into are obviously the first and last. Occasionally we get the visitor to the Struggles By Non-Christians section from the third group wanting to believe but struggling to get there. The odd thing is that we never seem to get anyone from the second group, those who believe but just plain don't want to.

I could easily imagine such a person. If someone thought that they personally shouldn't believe anything that required faith but simply couldn't help but believe in the divine for emotional reasons (therefore being helplessly hypocritical), they would qualify perfectly. That's just a single possible scenario too. I'm sure there are dozens of ways a person could fall into this category.

That's pretty much where I was for a time.

Obviously in reality people move between categories

Is there anyone around here like this? Does anyone know anyone like this? How do you or the person handle the unusual conflict? Which would be more important, belief or the want to believe?

I gave up stuggling eventually and let God drag me to where he wanted me to be.


Obviously if Christianity is right your category 1 is where we should be - 2 and 3 are (or at least should be) transitory stages, not places where we stay forever.

 

[Chesterton]

I was in the second group for quite a while. I really didn't want to think there was a God. I liked the idea of an amoral universe, and that no matter what type of person I was, I would just go to sleep when I died. But all things considered, it just doesn't stand to reason. Eventually I came to be in the first group.

 

[drich0150]

Is there anyone around here like this? Does anyone know anyone like this? How do you or the person handle the unusual conflict? Which would be more important, belief or the want to believe?

My father falls into this category. his life would be so much easier if He could simple deny what he has experienced. I think the reason we don't get many people like this here, is because in the active nature of trying to suppress what they believe "they" have to limit their exposure and activity to all things religious. Meanwhile all of the other three needs to experience faith or the lack of it, openly in one form or another.

 

[nicknack28]

Wow, thanks for the honest responses guys. They were actually a little unexpected but interesting because of it.

I always figured that most Christians would be resistant to losing their faith, but for some reason I always supposed that traveling the other direction would (generally) be less bumpy. I grew up being taught Christian beliefs so I never had the sort of experience some of you folks had, that being a conversion where you're very conscious of it and sometimes even resistant to it. I don't hear stories too often of someone opposed to belief coming to religion but more of someone neutral on the entire subject coming to religion. I'm glad the street of struggle goes both ways -- it is a testament to careful consideration on either side.

I am a little curious if such a situation can continue indefinitely. Obviously categories two and three are usually transitional stages, but do they have to be? Could someone go their whole life believing in something they wish they didn't? It reminds me of in movies where the main character is attracted to someone they honestly wished they weren't. (Or if you're a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, the whole Buffy-Spike schebang.)

Also, would such a person (being stuck in the middle indefinitely) be considered a person of faith by theists or a skeptic by atheists?

I personally could find myself empathizing very much with such a person for they would not be responsible for their predicament and they frankly couldn't do anything about it. Belief isn't a choice (as stated earlier) and neither is desire. It doesn't sound like a fun spot to be in.

 

[JasperJackson]

I am a little curious if such a situation can continue indefinitely.(

Hi Nick,

No I don't think someone could stay in the position of believing but not wanting to indefinitely. When we believe Christ changes our heart and changes our desire so that eventually we will want more of God, want to believe.

At the same time, I think every Christian still has moments where they briefly wished they didn't believe, i.e. when their sinful nature is kicking in and they're being tempted to sin. But as we mature and become more like Christ I think those moments will become fewer.

On a personal note, I used to be in category 4, then category 3. I wanted to believe (heck, eternal life does sound pretty good...) but I couldn't believe for no reason. So I started doing some investigating/reading about God and specifically the historical Jesus. I don't want to derail the thread so I won't go into specifics but needless to say, I came to believe that yes Jesus did live, die and rise again just as it says in the Bible. And not only that but he did it because he loves me and so I can have eternal life with him. So now, I'm a big category 1-er!

 

[drich0150]

My dad has spent most of His adult life stuck in the middle, and at this point forward it doesn't look like he is ever going to change.

I believe that He loves his life style more than he loves God, and despite what He believes, he chooses to ignore it, or he justify his actions through his new system of belief. This allows him to live a life giving a nod to God, and yet can live the way he sees fit. I also believe So long as he can continue to live without truly repenting he will stay stuck in the middle..

Jesus tells us that those of us who are neither hot nor cold will be spewed from the mouth of the Lord.

 

[alfrodull]

I think I fall in the category of "believes but doesn't want to", at least in a certain sense. I want to believe in a God, but a God of a different nature than I actually think exists. I honestly think not believing would be better than where I'm at now, but I'm not sure I'll ever be able to be a true atheist at this point.

Do I think I'll be able to stay in this mindset forever? I don't know. I think it's possible. I haven't always thought this way, but it's where I keep returning. How do I cope? Well, I fear death, and the only other option is to keep on living. I try not to dwell on it, not that I'm very successful.

 

[JasperJackson]

alfrodull, I see where you're coming from. I guess I'd just suggest you keep reading the Bible to learn more about God, and then you may grow to want to believe in Him. Perhaps doing a study on the attributes of God would be handy...

 

[nicknack28]

Forgive me if this post sounds rather atheistic, black-and-white, or impersonal.

It's striking me that there are for the most part two main ways a person could have this sort of struggle. One would be where it's a conflict of emotions (somebody doesn't want there to be a divine force and whatever they think comes with it and doesn't want to reconcile this with the reality that there is). However it could also be a conflict of a person's reasoning (they believe they should not believe something on the prospect of faith but cannot deny a transforming experience that is too overpowering to be subject to this standard).

One is a conflict of emotion; the other is a conflict of reasoning. The example I gave in my first post was a conflict of reasoning and I am glad that there were enough responses to broaden my view of the subject beyond this. There were a couple posts that I felt demonstrated these different types of conflicts well so I decided to quote them here. This isn't to say that other contributions were not also very valuable.

For a long time I was in the second group. I was horrified when I realised God existed, and worse, that He is the Christian God.

I hated Christianity so much at the time that the thought of becoming part of that group made me cringe with horror...

In the end, though, I realised that if this is the real God, the actual Creator of the Universe who made me and knit me together in my mother's womb, then I better put my pride aside and start learning more about Him.

From there, I started to feel better (this only happened because my pride began to fall away. Pride makes belief in God either impossible or incredibly painful). Took about three years. Nowadays I fall into the first group.

There are way, way more people like this than most folks realise. The difference is, they tend to be very quiet about their faith (obviously).

This seems very much like a conflict of emotions. Compare this to:

My father falls into this category. his life would be so much easier if He could simple deny what he has experienced. I think the reason we don't get many people like this here, is because in the active nature of trying to suppress what they believe "they" have to limit their exposure and activity to all things religious. Meanwhile all of the other three needs to experience faith or the lack of it, openly in one form or another.

I'm referring mostly to the first couple sentences. Here it seems definitely a conflict of reasoning. Perhaps according to such a worldview (I'm reading into it a little here) one cannot deny the exceptionless standard of reason but also have room for an exceptional case of transformative experience that contradicts it. Indeed, it would be easier to deny such an experience, but obviously nobody can deny something so impacting.

Any thoughts on this? Can we agree that these situations can (albeit artificially) be seen as a conflict of emotions or a conflict of reasoning? Or is this way off the mark? Also, if anyone would like to go into more detail about their situation as one kind of conflict or the other I will certainly be all ears.

Thanks again!

 

[Coralie]

Nice discussion here hon, real interesting OP so I guess that helps matters!

Can we agree that these situations can (albeit artificially) be seen as a conflict of emotions or a conflict of reasoning? Or is this way off the mark?

We can agree on that I guess. I do think most people will have both conflicts simultaneously, though, to some extent--even if they're not aware of it at the time. (I guess what I'm asking is, in what way is the distinction useful to you? i.e., what direction are you thinking in here?)

Because of my personality and what I tend to focus on, I answered the question with a focus on the emotional conflict. This is because I find it fairly painless to change my "mind", if you will--I have well-developed logic (I like to think I do at least), I know a good point when I see one, etc. But I find it very hard to change my "heart" about something. I am (was?) emotionally and ideologically invested in my opinions.

My conversion, if I try to analyse it objectively (ha!), started with the usual intellectual conflicts, which resolved quite easily once I thought clearly about them. It then moved into the emotional conflicts of having to incorporate this new knowledge/set of opinions into life/praxis.

I remember little of the first part--it was interesting and stimulating, kind of cool, like uncovering a mystery a la The Da Vinci Code. I was reading a lot of philosophy and suddenly I was really questioning the values of the Enlightenment and reading about nihilism and existentialism, etc. etc. etc. Really exciting stuff to a geek like me.

The second part, however, is vividly stamped in my memory because of how painful, embarrassing and scary it was. It was like walking around naked in public for a few years. I had to change my whole life--say sorry to people--forgive people--put my pride aside--take very hard, long looks at myself--all that jazz.

I didn't want there to be a God. I just wanted to keep having fun, being snarky and nasty when it felt good, say cutting things to people who hurt my feelings, use people, lie when it was convenient, build a life that was designed to make me happy. I didn't want my actions to matter. That whole period was extremely difficult.

But another person could have had a similar set of experiences to me, and remember conversion as being flavoured mostly by intellectual conflict (unconsciously "editing" the emotional conflicts from memory).

 

[nicknack28]

We can agree on that I guess. I do think most people will have both conflicts simultaneously, though, to some extent--even if they're not aware of it at the time. (I guess what I'm asking is, in what way is the distinction useful to you? i.e., what direction are you thinking in here?)

I didn't have a specific direction I was heading. The distinction (looking back) was probably for my own benefit rather than anyone else's because I started the thread mostly with conflicts of reasoning in mind and received some responses that were not such. I was reminded that this isn't the only kind of conflict that could occur in this situation. My next line of thinking was to recognize the two kinds of conflicts and see if there is anything worth exploring there.

It does make me wonder a little if a conflict of reasoning would be more likely to persist whereas a conflict of emotions would be more likely to cease. A person's reasoning would only really change if it was seen to be faulty whereas a person's emotions can change quite rapidly. This is just digging for curiosity's sake, really. I would also be interested in which kind of conflict is more common.

Because of my personality and what I tend to focus on, I answered the question with a focus on the emotional conflict. This is because I find it fairly painless to change my "mind", if you will--I have well-developed logic (I like to think I do at least), I know a good point when I see one, etc. But I find it very hard to change my "heart" about something. I am (was?) emotionally and ideologically invested in my opinions.

I can relate rather well. I don't mean to switch into storytelling mode but there was a time when I went through a very dense and rapid period of exploring some religious questions and changing my mind according to my conclusions. One thing that was interesting was that I didn't really have any trouble at all abandoning previously illogical stances for newly discovered more logical ones. I thought there would be much more resistance. However, the emotional side did take a while to catch up and embrace these positions.

But another person could have had a similar set of experiences to me, and remember conversion as being flavoured mostly by intellectual conflict (unconsciously "editing" the emotional conflicts from memory).

I'm glad you made this point because it has a lot of value. People will also simply perceive their changes differently, whether consciously or unconsciously. Hand the same experience to different people and I'm sure they'd each tell you a different story of what happened.

 

[alfrodull]

alfrodull, I see where you're coming from. I guess I'd just suggest you keep reading the Bible to learn more about God, and then you may grow to want to believe in Him. Perhaps doing a study on the attributes of God would be handy...

The God of the Bible is exactly what I want to get away from, and not for lack of understanding of the text.

Any thoughts on this? Can we agree that these situations can (albeit artificially) be seen as a conflict of emotions or a conflict of reasoning? Or is this way off the mark? Also, if anyone would like to go into more detail about their situation as one kind of conflict or the other I will certainly be all ears.

Thanks again!

I don't think you can take either logic or emotion out of the equation when it comes to religion. You need to find something logical, or at least not illogical, in order to believe it, but your emotions subconsciously feed into your logical processes way more than most people would like to give them credit for. Furthermore, since it is ultimately about the unprovable, all religion boils down to some kind of personal (although not usually deliberate or willingly changeable) preference in the end. I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[Chesterton]

I remember somewhere C.S. Lewis (who I think knew a lot about how ancient people thought) wrote something to the effect that "there once was a time when, if men discovered an explanation of life which seemed true, they were ready and willing to change their life to suit the truth". I think we moderns are are a lot less willing to engage the emotional conflict. We're a lot more attached to the world and our immediate sense perceptions of the world. We want to stick with whatever worldview is easy and trouble-free in the short run.

 

[nicknack28]

I can't tell if C.S. Lewis is supporting this perhaps ancient way of thinking but if he is then I'd respond with the following.

I see the problem in being in the lack of skepticism in whether something actually is "the truth." I encourage embracing the truth over any emotional leanings but I can't agree that the truth ("the explanation of life") should be embraced because it "seemed true." I would encourage a much much more rigorous process of discerning whether something is the truth or not.

Modernization (to me) seems to be pushing for skepticism, and this is something I can get behind.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, I think "being sceptical" shouldn't be the goal of scepticism, you know? I think the goal of scepticism should be to get to real truth.

 

[nicknack28]

Isn't getting getting the most accurate truth (reality) inherently the goal of skepticism? Therefore more skepticism equals more accurate truth? Obviously there's an issue of practicality but I'm not suggesting people should be skeptical just to be skeptical.

This is getting away from the thread's intent though so I'd like to encourage further conversations by anyone interested to head back in that direction.