Christians: Why do many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god?

[Mythunderstood]

Christians,

Why do so many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god (or "choosing" to not believe in god)? We have not made that choice.

How does one just “choose” to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that “he” exists?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be believed.

1)For example, if you read in a biography that Abraham Lincoln ate an apple everyday for breakfast, you probably would not even question this and would accept the claim.. People eat apples every day, so it is no skin off your nose to believe that Lincoln ate apples for breakfast. Sure this could be a false claim, but it is not unreasonable to believe it.

2)Now, what about the story of Lincoln being shot by John Wilkes Booth? Sure, that could be a made-up legend, but we do have evidence that he died and we know that humans who are shot, often die, so it is not unreasonable to believe this.

3)Now, what if people claimed that Lincoln died but came back to life inhabiting the body of his successor in order to finish out his term? Is it reasonable to believe that humans come back to life and then inhabit another person's body? Not without extraordinary evidence.

​

Claims #1 and #2 may very well be false, but they are not extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence to believe. However, claim #3 would require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

With that being said, how does one “choose” to believe extraordinary claims without something that convinces them of the claim’s truth? Without some kind of convincing proof or experience, how is an atheist expected to believe in god? My beliefs are arrived at based on something convincing me of its truth. I cannot just choose to believe out of the blue. Nothing has convinced me yet of god's existence, so I do not currently believe. It doesn’t matter if I “want” to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want” to believe in. Heck, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence.

Let’s take the following scenario as an example:

Would you "choose" to believe your son is a murderer?

Let's say your son (hypothetical) got arrested for murder (1st degree). You've raised him as loving, moral, son for over 20 years and he's never hurt a flea.

Would you "choose" to believe that he was a murderer at this point? (Probably not, since it goes against everything you know about your son.....how kind, gentle, and upstanding he is.)

Now let's say that you are exposed to the damning evidence, your spouse witnessed the murder, and your son did not deny it. There is no mistake in this case that he committed premeditated murder. Would you now "choose" to believe your son was a murderer?

If you are a loving parent who has over 20 years of experience with your son, and know that he has been a good kid all of these years.....why would you "choose" to believe he was a murderer?

On the other hand, if you "choose" to believe he is innocent........why?

​

 

[humblemuslim]

Even though your thread addresses Christians, the topic is relevant to muslims as well. So I hope you do not mind me expressing a view on this matter.

Why do so many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god (or "choosing" to not believe in god)? We have not made that choice.

How does one just “choose” to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that “he” exists?

A belief is just about as pure a choice a person can make. Theists are very clear that they believe in God. Atheists attempt to be clear, although with the presence of agnostics the line between Atheism and Agnosticism is gray. Some people that claim to be Atheist sound more like Agnostics.

atheist Look up atheist at Dictionary.com
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

"The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell." [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

agnostic Look up agnostic at Dictionary.com
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

"I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant." [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

The adj. is first recorded 1873.

Source - Online Etymology Dictionary

Most, if not all, atheists will willingly admit there is no way to disprove God anymore than it can be proven. This sort of position is in agreement with the definition of agnosticism, not atheism. The position of not knowing as being the most logical response.

By definition, an atheist denies god(s)/goddess(s). This position is reached by the view that such supernatural being(s) are unnecessary and/or illogical. This position can also be thought of in terms of probability where the individual will reason that in all likelihood supernatural being(s) do not exist.

People take sides without having total support. This is true of both sides (Theism and Atheism). The fail-proof test unfortunately awaits us after we die.

Claims #1 and #2 may very well be false, but they are not extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence to believe. However, claim #3 would require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

Where are we drawing the line between extraordinary and ordinary? The very term extraordinary implies the event is out of the ordinary. Scientists even today struggle with concepts that are beyond the ordinary and that challenge the way we view our world. Yet we do not see them seeking extraordinary evidence, whatever that may be.

 

[Penumbra]

A belief is just about as pure a choice a person can make.

I disagree.

Belief is not something I personally have much control over.

-I can't choose to believe that Jesus is god, because I just don't believe it.
-I can't choose to believe Islam and the Qur'an are correct, because I just don't believe it.
-I can't choose to believe in reincarnation, because I just don't believe it.
-I can't choose to believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago, because I just don't believe it

These things I don't believe because I haven't seen why I should believe them.

Trust me, when I was deconverting, I tried hard to make myself believe things that I really didn't. I could choose to say I believe in something, but it won't change the fact that I don't believe it.

Inversely,
-I can't choose not to believe that the Earth is round, because there is insurmountable evidence that it is.
-I can't choose to not believe Lincoln was assassinated, because of what I know about history, that's what occurred.

"Choosing" to believe or not believe something is not a concept I can relate with at all.

Where are we drawing the line between extraordinary and ordinary? The very term extraordinary implies the event is out of the ordinary. Scientists even today struggle with concepts that are beyond the ordinary and that challenge the way we view our world. Yet we do not see them seeking extraordinary evidence, whatever that may be.

What extraordinary things are scientists not asking extraordinary evidence for?

 

[Mythunderstood]

A belief is just about as pure a choice a person can make. Theists are very clear that they believe in God. Atheists attempt to be clear, although with the presence of agnostics the line between Atheism and Agnosticism is gray. Some people that claim to be Atheist sound more like Agnostics.

So, in the scenario above, would you "choose" to believe that your son is innocent or guilty? As far as you trying to list definitions of agnosticism and atheism, what does this have to do with being able to just choose to believe something that you are not convinced is true?

\Source - Online Etymology Dictionary

Most, if not all, atheists will willingly admit there is no way to disprove God anymore than it can be proven. This sort of position is in agreement with the definition of agnosticism, not atheism. The position of not knowing as being the most logical response.

Atheism addresses "belief", not knowledge (agnosticism/gnosticism). You can believe (or not) in something without having proof (knowledge). I can admit that I don't have knowledge of god (agnosticsm) which is the very reason why I have no belief in god (atheism).

By definition, an atheist denies god(s)/goddess(s). This position is reached by the view that such supernatural being(s) are unnecessary and/or illogical. This position can also be thought of in terms of probability where the individual will reason that in all likelihood supernatural being(s) do not exist.

I do not have to "deny" something that is not there to "deny." As far as your definition, I can find plenty of other dictionaries which define atheism as both a lack of belief in god and/or disbelief.

Although I hate using dictionary definitions since they only reflect "popular usage", and each dictionary has a different definition, here is a dictionary definition which defines it as inclusive of the strong and weak atheist beliefs.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861587465/atheism.html

a•the•ism noun Definition: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
​

Sure, you'll find different dictionaries saying different things, but it boils down to atheism encompassing all those who have no belief in god.

The lowest common denominator and only defintion that fits all atheists is having no belief in any god.

Where are we drawing the line between extraordinary and ordinary? The very term extraordinary implies the event is out of the ordinary. Scientists even today struggle with concepts that are beyond the ordinary and that challenge the way we view our world. Yet we do not see them seeking extraordinary evidence, whatever that may be.

Yeah, Jesus dying and coming rising from the dead 3 days later is "out of the ordinary" I would say. As no other person in human history has ever encountered another human who has done this before or since, it is considered extraordinary. Christians, in fact, point to this as one of the things that makes their god unique because it is extraordinary.

 

[hikersong]

People take sides without having total support. This is true of both sides (Theism and Atheism). The fail-proof test unfortunately awaits us after we die.

Well, it is only "unfortunately" IF God exists AND he has absolutely no clue about what it is like to live on earth, AND he then decides to immorally punish people because we didn't believe in him. (I decide what is moral in this scenario. But seeing as we almost certainly didn't have any choice about being born, or who we were born to, or the environment in which we were born, or the time in history, or who our brothers and sisters were, or our genetic make-up, or about the honest questions that would emerge in our heads...then I think I am on safe ground to call the God of such a scenario, immoral. At least in my own mind ).

But, if God doesn't exist AND there is no after-life, then neither believers or unbelievers will have a sense of "unfortunate".

 

[humblemuslim]

I disagree.

Belief is not something I personally have much control over.

-I can't choose to believe that Jesus is god, because I just don't believe it.
-I can't choose to believe Islam and the Qur'an are correct, because I just don't believe it.
-I can't choose to believe in reincarnation, because I just don't believe it.
-I can't choose to believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago, because I just don't believe it

These things I don't believe because I haven't seen why I should believe them.

Trust me, when I was deconverting, I tried hard to make myself believe things that I really didn't. I could choose to say I believe in something, but it won't change the fact that I don't believe it.

Inversely,
-I can't choose not to believe that the Earth is round, because there is insurmountable evidence that it is.
-I can't choose to not believe Lincoln was assassinated, because of what I know about history, that's what occurred.

"Choosing" to believe or not believe something is not a concept I can relate with at all.

Anyone can believe anything. All you have to do is not ask why/how. Either that or not know any better. Look at what parents tell their children and the children believe it. Now children are curious and will ask questions, to which the parents can respond with gibberish. So in that case they don't know any better.

When someone tells me they cannot believe something it sounds more like they are unwilling to compromise what they already believe. Which is perfectly acceptable. Once beliefs are established it is typically not easy to change them, especially when we lack strong objective criterion for determining the exact solution. But somewhere in the middle there was a point where we all made a decision to accept our beliefs. We didn't come out of the womb proclaiming belief or disbelief in God. Whether we just went along with our family/friends/influences or whether we actively went against them or somewhere in between.

What extraordinary things are scientists not asking extraordinary evidence for?

In the case of dark matter/energy scientists continue to use empirical ordinary means to test their theories. I mean I am not completely sure what would constitute extraordinary evidence, but empirical tests have been around for ages and are quite common place. Yet dark matter/energy is quite mysterious and beyond our ordinary view of the world/universe.

 

[Penumbra]

Anyone can believe anything. All you have to do is not ask why/how. Either that or not know any better. Look at what parents tell their children and the children believe it. Now children are curious and will ask questions, to which the parents can respond with gibberish. So in that case they don't know any better.

Not asking why or how and just accepting everything at face value leads someone to believe the first thing they hear. Judging by context of your other posts, I assume you're not advocating this as a way to live.

When someone tells me they cannot believe something it sounds more like they are unwilling to compromise what they already believe. Which is perfectly acceptable. Once beliefs are established it is typically not easy to change them, especially when we lack strong objective criterion for determining the exact solution. But somewhere in the middle there was a point where we all made a decision to accept our beliefs. We didn't come out of the womb proclaiming belief or disbelief in God. Whether we just went along with our family/friends/influences or whether we actively went against them or somewhere in between.

I've already switched worldviews once, and I've seen no reason to do it again. My current worldview isn't even a very concrete one, it's just a lack of accepting anything I hear at face value.

"Accepting" my lack of beliefs only occurred after I kicked and screamed against the feeling for years. It could hardly be called a choice. I stopped believing, and it took a while for me to admit that.

The only choice I made in the process was that I decided to look into my religion and look for answers. That was a choice, but the results coming from it were not.

In the case of dark matter/energy scientists continue to use empirical ordinary means to test their theories. I mean I am not completely sure what would constitute extraordinary evidence, but empirical tests have been around for ages and are quite common place. Yet dark matter/energy is quite mysterious and beyond our ordinary view of the world/universe.

Dark matter is extraordinary, but it's not exactly a claim. It's a discrepancy in measurements that has certain measurable qualities. There is only speculation as to what it is; no respectable scientist makes any definitive claim about what it is, because that would be a pretty extraordinary claim and so would require pretty extraordinary evidence. As of now, there are only speculations because they lack enough evidence to form solid conclusions on it.

So they aren't making extraordinary claims.

 

[Mythunderstood]

Anyone can believe anything. All you have to do is not ask why/how. Either that or not know any better. Look at what parents tell their children and the children believe it. Now children are curious and will ask questions, to which the parents can respond with gibberish. So in that case they don't know any better.

When someone tells me they cannot believe something it sounds more like they are unwilling to compromise what they already believe. Which is perfectly acceptable. Once beliefs are established it is typically not easy to change them, especially when we lack strong objective criterion for determining the exact solution. But somewhere in the middle there was a point where we all made a decision to accept our beliefs. We didn't come out of the womb proclaiming belief or disbelief in God. Whether we just went along with our family/friends/influences or whether we actively went against them or somewhere in between.

So in my example in the OP, would you "choose" to believe your son was guilty or innocent, and why? I'm sure that the mother who is devastated about the evidence pointing to her son being a murderer, would not be "unwilling" to compromise her belief that he is guilty. Of course she would rather "choose" to believe that her son was innocent, but she is unable to based on the convincing evidence that he is guilty.

 

[humblemuslim]

So, in the scenario above, would you "choose" to believe that your son is innocent or guilty? As far as you trying to list definitions of agnosticism and atheism, what does this have to do with being able to just choose to believe something that you are not convinced is true?

The analogy between your scenario and a belief in God breaks down because of one detail: Objective means of testing.

If someone has objective evidence to support/not support a claim it is far removed from a situation where we lack evidence and people are effectively shooting in the dark. Even if the choice is not certain, it can still be made. How many things in life are certain? Very few. Will I still be alive tomorrow? Maybe. I choose to believe it even though I do not know. And sure enough tomorrow I will know for certain. Same applies with God. If you want to know for sure then wait till death. That is the only way to know 100%. Anything else could be reasoned away through an active use of skepticism.

The definitions were a side note for context regarding self-identification of those who do not believe in God. It has nothing to do with choice of belief.

Atheism addresses "belief", not knowledge (agnosticism/gnosticism). You can believe (or not) in something without having proof (knowledge). I can admit that I don't have knowledge of god (agnosticsm) which is the very reason why I have no belief in god (atheism).

I do not have to "deny" something that is not there to "deny." As far as your definition, I can find plenty of other dictionaries which define atheism as both a lack of belief in god and/or disbelief.

Although I hate using dictionary definitions since they only reflect "popular usage", and each dictionary has a different definition, here is a dictionary definition which defines it as inclusive of the strong and weak atheist beliefs.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861587465/atheism.html

a•the•ism noun Definition: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
​

Sure, you'll find different dictionaries saying different things, but it boils down to atheism encompassing all those who have no belief in god.

The lowest common denominator and only defintion that fits all atheists is having no belief in any god.

Admitting the lack of knowledge would be admitting one of a few positions (Some of which are):

1. A position where one disbelieves God without proper support (Not very common)

2. A position where one is unsure and refuses to take a side

3. A position where one is unsure but sides against a belief in God because they have reasoned it is unlikely.

Judging by your response you sound like an option 3. Although you might want to create your own unique option (People ordinarily do not fit into categories neatly).

As far as definitions and meanings go, so long as the party communicating is aware of what the words being transmitted mean to the speaking party then the words do not have to take on popular usage.

For example you and I could start speaking in morse code with the mutual understanding on either end of what the various symbols of communication are.

But it is important to define words that one is using against popular usage, or if the word is unclear to being with, or if the word has elevated importance to the message.

If, for the purpose of this thread, you want the word atheist/atheism to describe a person with a lack of religious beliefs, that is perfectly fine. But it is something we need to establish early in the communication.

Yeah, Jesus dying and coming rising from the dead 3 days later is "out of the ordinary" I would say. As no other person in human history has ever encountered another human who has done this before or since, it is considered extraordinary. Christians, in fact, point to this as one of the things that makes their god unique because it is extraordinary.

I agree the event spoken off is quite extraordinary. But can we agree that extraordinary events can become ordinary with time? If a scientist discovered a way to reproduce the event (Bring a 3 day old dead person back to life), would we then call the scientist's findings extraordinary and unbelievable. Sure it might be hard to swallow at first, but with time humanity would grow accustomed to it and it would become common place.

What I still find confusing is what is extraordinary evidence? My first inclination is evidence that provides a direct or indirect link to the event but that we lack the understanding of what is really happening.

 

[humblemuslim]

Well, it is only "unfortunately" IF God exists AND he has absolutely no clue about what it is like to live on earth, AND he then decides to immorally punish people because we didn't believe in him. (I decide what is moral in this scenario. But seeing as we almost certainly didn't have any choice about being born, or who we were born to, or the environment in which we were born, or the time in history, or who our brothers and sisters were, or our genetic make-up, or about the honest questions that would emerge in our heads...then I think I am on safe ground to call the God of such a scenario, immoral. At least in my own mind ).

But, if God doesn't exist AND there is no after-life, then neither believers or unbelievers will have a sense of "unfortunate".

True. That pretty much sums up Pascal's Wager.

 

[humblemuslim]

Not asking why or how and just accepting everything at face value leads someone to believe the first thing they hear. Judging by context of your other posts, I assume you're not advocating this as a way to live.

Of course not. But it happens.

I've already switched worldviews once, and I've seen no reason to do it again. My current worldview isn't even a very concrete one, it's just a lack of accepting anything I hear at face value.

"Accepting" my lack of beliefs only occurred after I kicked and screamed against the feeling for years. It could hardly be called a choice. I stopped believing, and it took a while for me to admit that.

The only choice I made in the process was that I decided to look into my religion and look for answers. That was a choice, but the results coming from it were not.

How did you come to your belief if not through the use of other established beliefs (Whether scientific, personal, or otherwise)?

I can understand changing beliefs does not feel like a choice, because the criterion a multitude of use to establish or reject beliefs stem from what other people tell us. Whether our reaction is to go against it or with it. We are all products of our environment.

For example:

Mr. Jones believes his parents. His parents tell him God exists. Therefore Jones believes in God. What Jones might not realize is his choice to believe in God stemmed from his choice to believe his parents. To him it might seem like the belief just came naturally.

Mr. Smith on the other hand believed his parents at first but then investigated his belief further coming to the conclusion that God does not exist. Mr. Smith might not also realize it but his choice stemmed from his choice to accept the evidence that he discovered which ultimately would not have been possible without the choice to investigate in the first place.

What might be thought of as a single choice might end up being a multitude of choices all wrapped up together to form one cohesive belief.

Dark matter is extraordinary, but it's not exactly a claim. It's a discrepancy in measurements that has certain measurable qualities. There is only speculation as to what it is; no respectable scientist makes any definitive claim about what it is, because that would be a pretty extraordinary claim and so would require pretty extraordinary evidence. As of now, there are only speculations because they lack enough evidence to form solid conclusions on it.

So they aren't making extraordinary claims.

So the numbers don't add up and they assume the existence of something new. Who is to say our formulas are correct? Obviously rethinking our formulas is a far more daunting task since we have depended on them for ages and they have served us well. The funny thing about scientific formulas is as they get more complex they begin including fudge factors (Constants). I see them all the time when analyzing electronic circuits. If you ask where those numbers came from the response is from empirical methods. What some people might not think about is that means the formula was incorrect to begin with and now requires a fudge factor to get as close to reality as possible.

 

[Penumbra]

Pascal's Wager makes too many blind assumptions to be useful.

Though I'm glad the man founded the entire field of probability, it would have been best if he didn't apply it to a subject like this one.

 

[Penumbra]

How did you come to your belief if not through the use of other established beliefs (Whether scientific, personal, or otherwise)?

I'm not sure I understand the context of the question. Could you elaborate a bit so I make sure I give an accurate answer?

I can understand changing beliefs does not feel like a choice, because the criterion a multitude of use to establish or reject beliefs stem from what other people tell us. Whether our reaction is to go against it or with it. We are all products of our environment.

I agree with this part.

For example:

Mr. Jones believes his parents. His parents tell him God exists. Therefore Jones believes in God. What Jones might not realize is his choice to believe in God stemmed from his choice to believe his parents. To him it might seem like the belief just came naturally.

And so my point is that Mr. Jones never "choose" to believe in God, because as far back as he remembers as a kid, he always did. His parents told him about God, and he loves and trusts his parents. As a young kid he probably knows little to nothing about other religions, and just accepts what he hears.

Mr. Smith on the other hand believed his parents at first but then investigated his belief further coming to the conclusion that God does not exist. Mr. Smith might not also realize it but his choice stemmed from his choice to accept the evidence that he discovered which ultimately would not have been possible without the choice to investigate in the first place.

What might be thought of as a single choice might end up being a multitude of choices all wrapped up together to form one cohesive belief.

Choosing to accept evidence is hardly a choice. It's a choice to investigate, but if someone chooses to investigate and that leads them to a conclusion, it can't be said that they "choose" that conclusion. They choose to investigate, that's all.

So the numbers don't add up and they assume the existence of something new. Who is to say our formulas are correct? Obviously rethinking our formulas is a far more daunting task since we have depended on them for ages and they have served us well. The funny thing about scientific formulas is as they get more complex they begin including fudge factors (Constants). I see them all the time when analyzing electronic circuits. If you ask where those numbers came from the response is from empirical methods. What some people might not think about is that means the formula was incorrect to begin with and now requires a fudge factor to get as close to reality as possible.

But they do go back and rethink formulas. And when a major formula is overthrown for a new one, it is a BEAUTIFUL day in physics.

Newton's formulas were basically written in stone until Einstein revolutionized them. But Einstein disagreed with quantum mechanics and eventually wound up being on the wrong side of the debate. It doesn't change the fact that these men gave us the ability to do all that we've done technologically.

Every formula is a step in the right direction. Not being perfect doesn't mean that it doesn't help us solve so many of our technological problems. Nothing in science is impossible to question, and that is what makes it work.

Your comment about electrical circuits piqued my interest: I'm an electrical engineering major.

Some constants are derived, others are determined empirically. But constants that are determined empirically almost always warrant further questioning, probing, as to why the constant is the way it is. Constants are accepted so that work can be done and systems can be made. This is what separates engineers from scientists: engineers want the constant so that they can make a system, and scientists want the reasoning behind the constant so that they may delve more deeply into the subject and find more answers and more questions. Questions and curiosity by professors and scientists are limitless (until they are limited by an institution's budget... )

 

[BlackSabb]

Christians,

Why do so many of you blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god (or "choosing" to not believe in god)? We have not made that choice.

How does one just “choose” to believe in god, if they have not been convinced that “he” exists?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they are to be believed.

1)For example, if you read in a biography that Abraham Lincoln ate an apple everyday for breakfast, you probably would not even question this and would accept the claim.. People eat apples every day, so it is no skin off your nose to believe that Lincoln ate apples for breakfast. Sure this could be a false claim, but it is not unreasonable to believe it.

2)Now, what about the story of Lincoln being shot by John Wilkes Booth? Sure, that could be a made-up legend, but we do have evidence that he died and we know that humans who are shot, often die, so it is not unreasonable to believe this.

3)Now, what if people claimed that Lincoln died but came back to life inhabiting the body of his successor in order to finish out his term? Is it reasonable to believe that humans come back to life and then inhabit another person's body? Not without extraordinary evidence.

​

Claims #1 and #2 may very well be false, but they are not extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence to believe. However, claim #3 would require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

With that being said, how does one “choose” to believe extraordinary claims without something that convinces them of the claim’s truth? Without some kind of convincing proof or experience, how is an atheist expected to believe in god? My beliefs are arrived at based on something convincing me of its truth. I cannot just choose to believe out of the blue. Nothing has convinced me yet of god's existence, so I do not currently believe. It doesn’t matter if I “want” to believe in god (which I do), because my beliefs aren’t arrived at based on what I “want” to believe in. Heck, there are some things that I believe in that I would rather not believe, but have no choice based on the overwhelming evidence.

Let’s take the following scenario as an example:

Would you "choose" to believe your son is a murderer?

Let's say your son (hypothetical) got arrested for murder (1st degree). You've raised him as loving, moral, son for over 20 years and he's never hurt a flea.

Would you "choose" to believe that he was a murderer at this point? (Probably not, since it goes against everything you know about your son.....how kind, gentle, and upstanding he is.)

Now let's say that you are exposed to the damning evidence, your spouse witnessed the murder, and your son did not deny it. There is no mistake in this case that he committed premeditated murder. Would you now "choose" to believe your son was a murderer?

If you are a loving parent who has over 20 years of experience with your son, and know that he has been a good kid all of these years.....why would you "choose" to believe he was a murderer?

On the other hand, if you "choose" to believe he is innocent........why?

​

I like the coherent logic of your thought processes. And I do understand where you are coming from. Belief in any faith is a very complex phenomenon, based on culture and the society around us, our parents/family, friends, mentors and influences, life circumstances, the personality and character of each individual etc.

I think for you however it would be good to narrow it down not to individual religions, (Christianity, Islam etc) but just concentrate on the existance of God. According to the Bible, the evidence of God is all around us in nature-the earth, stars, sun, humans, animals, plants etc.

So start to really think of it from there. Do you accept that all creation points to a creator?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyone can believe anything.

Not in my personal experience. Now, maybe that personal limitation comes from learning critical thinking and logic skills. Perhaps I'm no longer "fluffy" enough a thinker to believe anything.

All you have to do is not ask why/how.

LOL! And do you propose I do that? It will happen automatically. You might as well ask me not to breathe.

Look at what parents tell their children and the children believe it.

My days as a child are long over. Perhaps I was a fluffy thinker as a child, but my psychology is vastly different now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[hikersong]

True. That pretty much sums up Pascal's Wager.

Hey, I've never even read Pascal's Wager. Does that mean I just reinvented the wheel?

Not that I need wheels, being a hiker n'all.....

 

[Wicked Willow]

I think beliefs and knowledge depend upon each other, with the latter putting limitations on the first.

That's why small children will believe pretty much everything you tell them: they lack the experience and/or knowledge to doubt certain propositions. Thus, they readily believe that the presents under the christmas tree are indeed an indicator of the existence of Santa Claus and his flying sleigh. After all, their parents told them so, didn't they?

For me, deconversion from Christianity was pretty much an integral part of my maturation process - neither painful nor dramatic, but just a natural result of my expanding horizon. The Bible just became too small to contain the world, not to mention God, and its interpretation of life, the universe and everything just didn't ring true with me any longer. In fact, the more I studied it, the less I believed it - not for lack of trying, but simply because it didn't add up with what I knew by then.

 

[Penumbra]

Hey, I've never even read Pascal's Wager. Does that mean I just reinvented the wheel?

Not that I need wheels, being a hiker n'all.....

Don't worry; most people haven't read Pascal's Wager. People throw around the term a lot, but few people have read it in the context from which it came in the Pensees.

Pascal pioneered the field of probability, and he applies it to belief in the Christian God in his wager. Basically, he says that there exist four possibilities:

1. Believe in God and follow a religious lifestyle, and God is real, and you get infinite reward.
2. Believe in God and follow a religious lifestyle, and God is not real, and you just die and wasted a few years of your life.
3. Don't believe in God, and God is real, and you get infinite punishment.
4. Don't believe in God, and God is not real, and you just die after having a few years of fun.

His claim was that because an infinite reward overshadows all other possibilities, it's the only logical choice to follow.

It has a series of weaknesses, including the fact that when multiple religions are considered, it completely breaks down and is useless. It's also called a coward's faith by some. His wager makes Pascal look bad, but it was published after his death from his notes, and needs to be read in context for it to be understood in the way he meant it. It's not like he just went around in the streets shouting this out.

(My roommate wrote a huge paper about Pascal and I was the proofreader. So now I know far more than I should about Pascal's life.)

 

[humblemuslim]

I'm not sure I understand the context of the question. Could you elaborate a bit so I make sure I give an accurate answer?

Certainly.

If we think critically about how we personally make decisions it becomes evident, at least for myself, that decisions are entirely based upon other beliefs already accepted. Some more commonly used beliefs include: Scientific beliefs, inherited beliefs (From others including family, friends, and society in general), and beliefs achieved through personal discovery to mention a few. Some of these beliefs were established before we became self aware of our existence. These beliefs might commonly be referred to under the fuzzy alias "Common Sense". The earlier the establishment of a belief, the more difficult it is for a person to alter that belief and also the more difficult it is for them to even realize it is a belief and not a naturally occurring belief/knowledge. Beliefs established later in life conversely are typically easier to alter and might frequently change depending on the belief and the individual.

Aside from the age of the belief, we also subconsciously assign weight to certain beliefs. Certain beliefs are more important, and therefore are used in the early stages of testing new beliefs, whether totally new or merely an alteration of an established belief.

Usually people do not think about these things and just make decisions about new beliefs arriving to conclusions with the feeling that the conclusion was of no choice of their own. Therefore we get statements like 'I can not just choose to believe in God. I just do not believe in God'. The important question is Why can this person not believe? What is hindering them from believing?

Commonly people will refer to science as their reason. The reasoning can vary from person to person, but the general appeal to science seems to be very prevalent among atheists. This is not necessarily a bad thing, so hopefully no one will take this statement as saying that science is bad/wrong/foolish, because it most certainly is not. Some religious people do shun science, others embrace it. The religious people who shun science are really no different than the atheists that shun religious beliefs. But there are also atheists that consider the possibility of a higher power, although not convinced and there are religious people that generally accept science, although they might not be settled with everything science has to offer. So how is it that people on both sides of the argument can have such overlapping views over the very thing that seems to be the cornerstone of an atheist argument against God, science? The answer is surely more complicated then my forthcoming example, but it will serve to show the possible train of thought that I would expect based on my own thought procedure when I purposefully become aware of that process. We will only be dealing with the existence of a God, not the Scriptures that are claimed on that higher being's behalf.

Let us begin with an Atheist person's potential thought process:

The Atheist...

1. Has been told a God exists.
2. Appeals to the science and finds no science evidence for the existence of a God (Everything that is can be without the existence of said God).
3. They are content with the conclusion that God does not exist based on their scientific understanding of the world.

Now did the atheist choose to believe science? Of course the atheist did. We do not come into the world with a science textbook in hand or in mind. Science is taught to us over the course of our lives in public,private, and personal education. At any point in time we have the choice to reject science and believe whatever we want or nothing at all. This can be both a complete denial of science or partial. However, through empirical tests most people will agree with what they see. Now for anyone who has done a live scientific experiment, especially more complex ones, the results are never what they theoretically should be. The science will explain way these discrepancies by reasoning an imperfect lab procedure, imperfect tools, or possibly incorrect hypothesis if the discrepancies are great enough, which is quite subjective as to what constitutes great enough. But let's face it at some point we just start accepting what we are told when the trusted label of science is stamped on it. The thought is, why not trust it? It has not served me incorrectly yet, right? So we end up taking scientific beliefs on faith, even though the people more familiar with the science might not depending on which theory we are speaking of.

With all this in mind, what the atheist is doing is assigning a greater weight to their belief in science over the belief in God. The individual then decides that science and God are mutually exclusive and therefore throws out the one of less weight, the belief in God.

So how then are their religious people that ascribe to science as well? Charles Darwin, the father of the modern study of evolution, was convinced his findings was evidence for the existence of God quite contrary to how his findings are used by atheists. So we have people that believe science and God are not mutually exclusive.

The question then becomes, who is right? Are these beliefs mutually exclusive? I personally plead ignorance, although I believe in science and use it in my job everyday and belive in God and use it everyday of my life. But it is an interesting question no less.

Your comment about electrical circuits piqued my interest: I'm an electrical engineering major.

Some constants are derived, others are determined empirically. But constants that are determined empirically almost always warrant further questioning, probing, as to why the constant is the way it is. Constants are accepted so that work can be done and systems can be made. This is what separates engineers from scientists: engineers want the constant so that they can make a system, and scientists want the reasoning behind the constant so that they may delve more deeply into the subject and find more answers and more questions. Questions and curiosity by professors and scientists are limitless (until they are limited by an institution's budget... )

I got both my B.S. and M.S. degrees in EE. I love the field. You learn something new everyday, even in the field working as an engineer. My brother is also following in my footsteps

 

[humblemuslim]

Not in my personal experience. Now, maybe that personal limitation comes from learning critical thinking and logic skills. Perhaps I'm no longer "fluffy" enough a thinker to believe anything.

As we get older, we generally do become resistant to change, whether in beliefs or otherwise. There are things I would not change, because I refuse to by choice.

LOL! And do you propose I do that? It will happen automatically. You might as well ask me not to breathe.

Certainly not. I was just pointing out how one could arrive to any belief. This happens to be one route.