How do you choose to believe?

[Archaeopteryx]

Is science really self-correcting? Or is it what is true that is correcting it?

So it could be said that truth is correcting science because science is not trying to figure out the absolute truth, yet is continuously being corrected by what is true.

Seems like a flawed system that I don't want to trust. I'd rather trust truth.

How do you find truth if not by detecting and remedying errors in your thinking?

 

[ecco]

That's what they say, but what science thinks one day has often been changed the next.

Always in the direction of more and more accurate knowledge.
Theology: The sun revolves around the earth
Science: The earth and the planets travel around the sun in circles.
Science Revised: The earth and the planets travel around the sun in ellipses.

To put blind faith in it (science) is not much different from putting blind faith in God.

Not at all the same. Your knowledge of the OT god comes from the knowledge of Hebrews living thousands of years ago.
My knowledge of the world and the universe comes from the collective knowledge of thousands from then until now.

You believe in the OT god because you have a "belief" that your scripture is truth. Yet you and all other christians decide what to take literally and what is allegory.

 

[ecco]

Albion said: ↑

That's what they say, but what science thinks one day has often been changed the next.​

That's one reason I like it, and at the same time do not blindly trust it. It has this ability (imperfectly applied since done by human beings) to be self-critical and to self-correct.

It's a characteristic I find lacking in the major religions... "hang on, we've been getting this badly wrong for at least the last few hundred years. We need a total rethink..."

Well, in defense of theism, they do change their views from time to time.
Most, but not all, theists now believe the earth is a spheriod.
Most, but not all, theists now believe the earth revolves around the sun.
Many theists, including many christians now believe in evolution.

 

[WeAreTheChristianGems]

I apologize for simply jumping in like this. I thought the topic was interesting, so I read the first post and decided to give my two cents.
A belief, by definition, has to be chosen, if it's your personal belief. There might be thibgs you here people say, and you're like 'oh, that sounds like it might be true'. But the thing that makes it your belief is the moment you choose- even if it's subconsciencly- to believe it.
Belief is most definatly a choice. And we all have a responsiblity to believe what the Bible tells us.
It can be extremely hard to change a belief, but not impossible.
I myself am personally in a struggle regarding belief, actually. I know that your feelings can latch onto a belief and make you think you believe it, and that's something you don't have much control of.
But the belief that legitimately can be considered yours is the one you decide in your conscience heart to have.
There's no such thing as having a legit belief you didn't choose to have.
Unless maybe you were raised with it, but Id you realize it's wrong later, of course you can change it!
Edit: Let me add something about the post directly above mine:
Name one reason to believe I should stop believing in the Bible.
Since there are none, I still believe it.
Christians are not closed minded, it's just that stuff society is coming up with today is wrong. So obviously we're not gonna get on bored with it.
About evolution, it's not a good thing that some Christisns want to belief it. But that's completely different topic.

 

[Davian]

...and that applies to atheists no less than it does to theists.

Explain how atheism provides a "sense of comfort and security".

 

[Chris B]

Is science really self-correcting? Or is it what is true that is correcting it?

It is being adjusted, by scientists, to be more in accord with what is true. Yes, reality, examined, results in amendments to our mental maps and models of reality. Which is what we operate by.

So it could be said that truth is correcting science because science is not trying to figure out the absolute truth, yet is continuously being corrected by what is true.

Seems like a flawed system that I don't want to trust. I'd rather trust truth.

Now that's interesting. Is science after "absolute truth"? If you use the term in a scientific or philosophical context I suspect a fair bit of time would get used up considering whether such a thing exists and, if it does, whether it can be known. It's not a trivial problem, though some attempt a Gordian Knot solution.

"being corrected by what is true..." you phrase it as though truth were an active agency. The bullet in a gun thought to be empty is the truth which is discovered. It does not change or move, but false ideas may trip over its existence to drastic effect. (or, indeed the reverse: an empty gun discovered when a loaded one was expected, believed in.)

Of course it's a flawed system. It's got human beings in it!

"I'd rather trust truth." Well, it's there. Whatever it is in terms of theistic belief, from wherever you stand the majority of the humans on the planet are wrong about it. The trick is knowing how you know that what you *believe* to be the truth is the truth. Human beings in the system, again.
And epistemology is a big can of worms that quite a few choose not to open.
Can a big can of worms be an elephant in the room? Apparently.

There are plenty of people on the planet as sure as you that they have truth. Absolute, certain, truth. But they hold to a range of beliefs distinctly different from yours. Now, apart from bias to one's own convictions (natural, but having no great weight: anyone can use that, and many do) what makes *your* conviction more reliable than anyone else's?
*The* epistemology question: "how do I know I know that?"

Chris

 

[Chris B]

It still depends on fallible human minds. Ancient myths depended on fallible human minds as well.

What doesn't depend on fallible human minds is truth.

How do you get human beings out of the system? Any system?

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

Basically ~do you hold to free will or predestination~

It is quite possible that God uses both in order to hit His mark or implement His plans. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh...that's biblical! So why wouldn't He do the same throughout the lives of others around the world? I don't think God would allow it to happen to the point of condemning people for something He did to them. But if you go on reading, God also BLESSED Pharaoh. He is gracious and merciful. Not entirely sure what His intent may be for the use of predestination and free will, but nevertheless, I believe He uses both to execute His plan in our lives.

 

[TheMadnessInMe]

And to the atheists that continue to troll the forums....remember this:

"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Right, God created us in His image. He has free will, so He created us to have free will, the problem is that we are free to not accept Him, but He only does what is right and true. If someone rejects what is right and true, it will not end well for them.

God bless!

PERHAPS YOU WILL ACCEPT FOLLOWING:

The known song "I love to hate You" is the crazy prayer of atheist to God, isn't it?
This was the song from God, I think. Therefore, it can be true. This is song about atheists' feeling. They deal so hardly with saying "No God", what they need Him even more, than we do. This song is not about demons, because God does not send to them "lovers", latter-s are me and other nice people.

section{Mind, freewill and conscious}
These three ones are the single gift of life from God ("Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". Genesis 2:7 NIV), which separates us from our pets. Latter-s are guided by instincts, the beautiful one is love towards us.

One can not hate own parents (especially the God), one can not hate own mother. You exist because of parents, so hating latter-s you hate oneself. Thus, you hate everything about you, so you hate the hatred to parents. Latter means, you love the parents. But the fact of hatred mean, what you have lost the mind and become bio-robot, a satan's doll, which engine is hatred. Indeed, if person hates and loves the parents, then the logical mistake tells us, what there is no mind in person. If for person it is no meter the parents live or they are dead, then the person has not excluded the own non-existence. (The hatred means, what the person excludes and not tolerates a wrong thing.) Therefore, there is logical mistake, and, thus, person is satan's doll.

 

[In situ]

Yes. But that isn't the point. The point is that there is no reason why such a God cannot exist.

Somehow I don't find answers such as "in a world of magic everything is possible therefor I have reason to think this or that might be the case". I think one should weight things - which thing is more likely than not - and I think you do that to.

But for the sake of argument, if we assume this possibility then it begs the question how God can hold you responsible for the things he made you resposible by choice. To me that indicates a malicious god.

 

[In situ]

Like not believing cigarettes cause cancer?
Or stopping to believe that smoking is healthy?

There are several kind of believes I have, but none of them involve a choice. Nor my acceptance or denials are choices.

Are you familiar with the Santa Clause issue?

Yes and no. What particulars do you have in mind and why do you think it is relevant?

 

[In situ]

I didn't say anything like that.

Would you then like to explain so I understand?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If a man can believe he is a woman trapped in a man's body without any physical evidence then I guess another person can believe in God without any physical evidence.

No physical evidence is necessarily required for somebody to really believe something.
The example of transgenders is also a bad example at that, because that's necessarily an internal issue of the person. We can't experience someone else's feelings.

It's missing the point of the thread as well. The question is about what it is that triggers you to believe something.

And, absent that trigger, could you simply "choose" to start believing something?
Could you "choose" to believe right now that you are a brain in a jar, that an undetectable dragon is about to eat you, that Thor is real or that Islam is correct?
Or do you actually require certain triggers to take place?

In other words, is "belief" not rather a compulsion? A reaction that is the result of several things coming together and you drawing a conclusion which then, outside of your free will, leads you to a belief?

I'ld say that this is how you experience "being convinced" in all aspects of daily life.
When you see a glowing hot piece of metal, you conclude that it's burning hot and won't touch it with your bare hands. You are convinced that you'll get burned. And you could not simply "choose" to believe otherwise.

This conviction is the result of several factors:
- evidence
- prior experience
- trust

When the con-man tries to fool you, he will do his outmost best to abuse those 3 factors to trick you into belief. He'll try to gain you trust, he'll try to pass of things as evidence and he'll deceivingly attempt to use your prior experiences to add extra strength to his attempts at deceiving you.

So I don't buy into the "theists 'choose' to believe in god". I think most theists really do believe in god as a result of those 3 factors mentioned above. Those 3 factors can still lead you to false conclusions:

The evidence can be weak and/or simply bad.
The prior experience can be mistaken and/or wrongly interpreted.
The trust can be misplaced.

 

[In situ]

If a man can believe he is a woman trapped in a man's body without any physical evidence then I guess another person can believe in God without any physical evidence.

I agree, we can have such beliefs. But why? It does not explain why we choice to believe as we do. In the case of the man who believe he is a woman in a mans body we know there are specific patterns in the brain that decided is somebody believe they are a male or a female. In other words, it is not the shape of the body that determines if you believe your a a male, but the physical shape of your brain. We know that men, at least those being investigated, who believe they are female do so because they have female brains.

Whether this description is correct or not does not matter, I just want to point out that just because something looks like a choice at a shallow level it might turn out not be a choice at all.

Additionally, if someone does not believe in a god why would they believe that that god they do not believe in could punish them?

I dunno. Good question; why would they believe that? Only an fool would believe such things, would you not say?

Of course people need evidence before they believe something, but the evidence does not have to be evidence that someone else that believes otherwise would accept as convincing. What direct physical evidence is there that any number of things exist that people choose to believe exist because of indirect physical evidence?

I don't ask for evidence of any kind; that would be to beg the question. I am asking for an opinion how it could be a choice to believe that god exists. Saying "there is no evidence to support it" and "it is not physical" does not answer the question what the choice is supposed to be, only what it is not.

You seams to say that "the choice to believe that god exists" is a "belief that you can choose to believe that god exists"??

In other word, the exitense of a choice itself is a belief.

 

[Chris B]

A belief, by definition, has to be chosen, if it's your personal belief. .

If it's conscious, yes. There's an awful lot of stuff picked up during early years, both openly taught and subconsciously noted and absorbed which wouldn't stand for a moment if examined, but works as "believed" until it is consciously considered. I'm still finding odd bits in my mental attic from time to time that mostly need throwing out.

noted and lThere might be thibgs you here people say, and you're like 'oh, that sounds like it might be true'. But the thing that makes it your belief is the moment you choose- even if it's subconsciencly- to believe it..

But the "might" is useful and important. If it doesn't require a decision, a binary forcing, then believing something provisionally or tentatively can be a very sound option.
It goes well with noting where any of several different beliefs might be true, the matter not being decided absolutely, "beyond all reasonable doubt" or even "on the balance of probabilities"

And we all have a responsiblity to believe what the Bible tells us.

We do? Only operating within the framework of certain beliefs, not universally held.
I'd have room for seeing if I ought to believe what the Bible has to say, but it seems a leap to miss out on that important idea.

Name one reason to believe I should stop believing in the Bible.
Since there are none, I still believe it.

I studied it, its content and its history, and that of the Christian church, and it put me on the path towards atheism, which I hadn't expected and didn't greatly welcome. Years of work, though. No simple one-verse solution, either way.

Christians are not closed minded...
...About evolution, it's not a good thing that some Christisns want to belief it.

So, "decided" rather than "open-minded" there, then.

Chris.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[In situ]

I certainly am not going to argue against what you've said here, but I have been thinking that there's something missing from this whole thread (although the author of the OP may have intended to keep the topic to just the parameters he chose).

I want to understand if a trigger to choose to believe god exists or not and if so what that trigger my be - because, obviously, I do not have such trigger. To me it is not a choice weather I want to believe or not. I can not choose that that red is red - it is red per definition, i.e. it is red as a fact.

That god exists is not a fact to me. If it was a fact I would not be able to make a choice but would be force to accept the fact. That implies my free will has nothing to do with my choice to believe. However, if my free will is not involved how can I be held responsible not believing? Is it a crime in gods eye to be stupid (i.e. an atheist)? If so why did god made people stupid (i.e. atheists)?

I am saying that I don't understand what a choice is meant to mean because the conclusions I draws makes no sense to me.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes, it is. But it isn't merely the formation of values.

I would suggest that there is nothing mere about one's value system. One's values are fairly important to one. So much so that one is sometimes willing to forego what one sees as one's own best interest to conform to them. When that is the case one does not see those values as fleeting and fungible but overriding and insistent. In other words one is religious in following a moral code. When one finds that one's moral code influences one's conduct despite the fact that such a moral code does not stem from one's own basic needs or wants but from something one sees as greater than even one's own self that is religion as it is based upon the belief that there is something greater than oneself that has the right to command one's respect and to demand action or inaction from one. So if one person acts benevolently or decides against acting malevolently because of their belief in a god while another does so because of their belief in the brotherhood of man or the collective or whatever other thing they esteem above their own personal comfort that is based upon the same basic thing i.e. a belief system which holds that something is greater than oneself and has the right to demand conformity. That is exactly what religion is all about. Esteeming something above oneself enough to be informed of what one ought to do and refrain from doing. For some that something happens to be a god for others it is something else. But for a large percentage of the population it is something supernatural , a god, an idea, a philosophy or a vision of some utopian society none of which are tangible and natural things but supernatural in that they are seen as more important than the physical universe in terms of allegiance and preeminence in the life of the believer. Now, granted, there are those that worship real physical things like the sun or the earth and there are those that reject anything being more important than themselves but those IMO are the exception rather than the rule in modern society so that most people either esteem something supernatural above themselves while only a few esteem something natural above themselves and a very few esteem nothing at all but their own self and those latter are considered sociopaths by the others.

You are again conflating the mere act of forming values, something that everyone does, with "religion," a term laden with supernatural baggage.

Values are not formed from nothing some are arrived at by reason but if we are honest those are very few in number . Some may well be innate but IMO most are given to us by our predecessors or we are indoctrinated into them by our peers using the "supernatural" as guide. You seem hung up on the supernatural part as if you conflate supernatural with imaginary or magical. If one sees the supernatural simply as something not physical that is not bound by physical properties one does not find the term as demeaning or as confining to the magical and whimsical as you seem to think it ought to be .

This is does not follow. That something is based on one's preferences does not imply that it is therefore supernatural.

I did not say anything about being based on one's preference now did I? If something is based upon something other than the natural that is perceived as having moral authority over actions greater than the natural, then from what I can see it is supernatural. If I do not do what I want to do instinctively but do something else because I believe in something greater than myself that is what I would consider being influenced by the supernatural because the natural would have me follow my instinct. If you have a better explanation for this phenomenon where we act against our basic natural instincts, I am all ears.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Something, but there's no massive consensus as to what it is, nor is there usually the promotion or execution of any such at a level that I would consider "religious dedication".

Even with (almost all) those said to worship their car, or their football team, it would be hard to make a serious case, as opposed to a mocking one.

Chris

We aren't talking about trivialities like cars and football teams here though . We are talking about things that cause people to fashion their behavior against their own instinctual preferences. things like belief in ecological purity , the brotherhood of man, the collective consciousness, the advance of civilization, the betterment of the species, etc. and there is no lack of religious dedication and zealous fervor that attends the devotees in those areas. The only difference from an Abrahamic or pagan religion being that these high priests and their followers are deniers of their own religiosity despite its obvious presence among them on the slim basis that they have not invoked any gods.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would suggest that there is nothing mere about one's value system.

I never suggested that there was something "mere" about it. Read the context.

One's values are fairly important to one. So much so that one is sometimes willing to forego what one sees as one's own best interest to conform to them. When that is the case one does not see those values as fleeting and fungible but overriding and insistent. In other words one is religious in following a moral code. When one finds that one's moral code influences one's conduct despite the fact that such a moral code does not stem from one's own basic needs or wants but from something one sees as greater than even one's own self that is religion as it is based upon the belief that there is something greater than oneself that has the right to command one's respect and to demand action or inaction from one.

Having principles that one abides by does not entail that one is religious.

So if one person acts benevolently or decides against acting malevolently because of their belief in a god while another does so because of their belief in the brotherhood of man or the collective or whatever other thing they esteem above their own personal comfort that is based upon the same basic thing i.e. a belief system which holds that something is greater than oneself and has the right to demand conformity. That is exactly what religion is all about.

That's not all religion is though, is it?

Esteeming something above oneself enough to be informed of what one ought to do and refrain from doing. For some that something happens to be a god for others it is something else. But for a large percentage of the population it is something supernatural , a god, an idea, a philosophy or a vision of some utopian society none of which are tangible and natural things but supernatural in that they are seen as more important than the physical universe in terms of allegiance and preeminence in the life of the believer.

That something is not tangible does not entail that it is therefore supernatural. That something is considered important, that it is valued, does not entail that it is therefore supernatural.

Values are not formed from nothing some are arrived at by reason but if we are honest those are very few in number . Some may well be innate but IMO most are given to us by our predecessors or we are indoctrinated into them by our peers using the "supernatural" as guide. You seem hung up on the supernatural part as if you conflate supernatural with imaginary or magical. If one sees the supernatural simply as something not physical that is not bound by physical properties one does not find the term as demeaning or as confining to the magical and whimsical as you seem to think it ought to be .

You're attempting to inject the supernatural into it. I'm merely pointing out that your reasoning doesn't follow. The propensity to form values is universal, and not intrinsically religious per se.

I did not say anything about being based on one's preference now did I? If something is based upon something other than the natural that is perceived as having moral authority over actions greater than the natural, then from what I can see it is supernatural. If I do not do what I want to do instinctively but do something else because I believe in something greater than myself that is what I would consider being influenced by the supernatural because the natural would have me follow my instinct.

This does not appear to follow. Why would "the natural" have you follow your instincts only? In what way does the supernatural enable you to form values?

If you have a better explanation for this phenomenon where we act against our basic natural instincts, I am all ears.

I don't think you've provided an explanation at all. You've simply stated that you consider our tendency to form values supernatural. That's it.