Is atheism a choice? is religion a choice?

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

I have heard in the past, that atheists often claim they don't choose to be atheists, but rather they simply don't believe.

So, is atheism a choice?
Is being a believer a choice?

Can we make ourselves not believe or believe?

 

[Chris B]

I certainly didn't set out to be an atheist. I set out to be able to teach Christianity with greater precision and greater understanding, as James 3:1 was becoming relevant.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."
But at the end of about six year's work I found atheism was the only thing I could hold to or defend with a clear conscience.
I couldn't argue myself back to my former beliefs.

Chris

 

[Verv]

That seems to be a really unique position, Chris. WHat is your big hangup?

I've been the opposite... When I was 14-15 I was getting interested in Leftist politics and I felt my Christian beliefs were to a great extent baggage, yet there was nothing that I could do to logically convince myself that there was not a God, and that there was not a greater Divine plan for the world.

You must really be a great debater or something to be able to come here and make such an interesting claim that the Christian faith cannot be backed up logically when that has been something that people have been doing since the very beginning.

What did you do? Just sit down and curl up with Hitchens (lol) books and read them for a year and pretended that his arguments weren't confronted a millenia before he was born>?

Or did you pretend SCIENCE is the only path to understanding of the world without studying an iota of epistemology?

 

[Verv]

Perhaps you could guess from the above post that to some degree I think that belief may not even be a choice. I could not get away from it.

Some of us, it seems, have some sort of umbilical chord to God. I am not surprised to hear that others feel that they 'never could' believe.

It makes some sense in teh context of the Elect and the Unelect, and those saved by Grace and those that are, essentially, born incomplete, and born to die.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, is atheism a choice?

It wasn't for me. My choice was only to accept and recognize that it had happened, and if looking back in hindsight.

Can we make ourselves not believe or believe?

Perhaps about some things -- mainly trivial things on which little else depends. But I doubt that we can rewrite deep personal truths simply through an act of will.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SteveB28]

I have heard in the past, that atheists often claim they don't choose to be atheists, but rather they simply don't believe.

So, is atheism a choice?
Is being a believer a choice?

Can we make ourselves not believe or believe?

No.

No.

No.

 

[Bluecheese]

I am a non believer because I lost my faith when it lost its credibility..

 

[Chris B]

That seems to be a really unique position, Chris. WHat is your big hangup?

Actually quite common. Pick a Christian at random and an atheist at random
Odds are the atheist will have a better knowledge of the bible.

And why does it have to be a hangup, except starting from the position that the atheist position has to be mistaken?
If my friends were asked about my obsessions or hangups, I know exactly what they'd say, because they've said it to me.
I think too much and I'm too logical.

I've been the opposite... When I was 14-15 I was getting interested in Leftist politics and I felt my Christian beliefs were to a great extent baggage, yet there was nothing that I could do to logically convince myself that there was not a God, and that there was not a greater Divine plan for the world.

Logic is good, but it is dependent on each step being uniquely valid, and on the starting data and assumptions being valid.
There are ways of doing some evaluation and verification there, but that's neither perfect or perfectly easy.

You must really be a great debater or something to be able to come here and make such an interesting claim that the Christian faith cannot be backed up logically when that has been something that people have been doing since the very beginning.

Have they? The logic may be good but initial assumptions flawed (goes for all arguments) and some things unthinkable to the ancient or the medieval mind can now be thought. Sometimes new findings have driven the new thinking.

What did you do? Just sit down and curl up with Hitchens (lol) books and read them for a year and pretended that his arguments weren't confronted a millenia before he was born>?

Or did you pretend SCIENCE is the only path to understanding of the world without studying an iota of epistemology?

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. You lose points for tone.

I've already said thus was five years in the researching, thinking and discussing.
I got up to at least 10ft of bookshelf (I still have 6ft) of theology, philosophy and relevant history texts.
Favours asked and granted, I got to sit in on some Bible college courses on useful topics and later on, rather clutching at straws, I did a couple of sets of evening classes on liberal theology to see if there was a viable perspective there. There wasn't, really, if you were still asking the "but is it true?" question. Lose that and slide to "does this feel nice? and a different answer can emerge.

I would have said science (small "s") drives you to epistemology. I'm not sure how you can do it without any.
It will be there subconsciously even without conscious awareness.
(Useful book:"Truth: a history and a guide for the perplexed" Felipe Fernández-Armesto)
I was doing epistemology by the age of five, though it was many years before I discovered the actual term.
I'd caught my parents lying to me... (about Santa). So if you can't trust your own parents for reliable information, where can you go for it, and how can you be sure that it is?

I explained *why* I started studying Christianity with greater depth and care.
If I remember correctly my three start points were
"What is the right way of handling, understanding, the book of Genesis?"
(There's more than a handful to choose from!)

"How should the existence of the different endings to Mark's Gospel be handled, understood?"
(Implications for inerrancy, reliability and preservation of text as scripture.)

"What were the doctrines or other factors that lay behind the major schisms and divisions of Christianity?"
(And should I be on any particular side of any of them?)

A level of understanding (and of accepted "don't know"s) that I was fairly happy with for me would not do when I was leading and teaching others.

Chris.
"...curl up with Hitchens (lol) book" {Snort.}.

 

[Verv]

Actually quite common. Pick a Christian at random and an atheist at random
Odds are the atheist will have a better knowledge of the bible.

Very different levels of superficial knowledge, I would venture a guess. Most people only hear some very superficial Osteen-esque positive interpretations or some light hearted, semi-deep Orthodox or Catholic Priest try to do a bit of a better job; the problematic parts of the Bible are known well by atheists and the rest is ignored.

The real answer is to be aware of all of the possible positions through continual search.

And why does it have to be a hangup, except starting from the position that the atheist position has to be mistaken?
If my friends were asked about my obsessions or hangups, I know exactly what they'd say, because they've said it to me.
I think too much and I'm too logical.

But logic is merely a system of consistency; it has very little to do with divergent opinions. You may be adequately logical, but it is impossible to be 'too logical.'

Have they? The logic may be good but initial assumptions flawed (goes for all arguments) and some things unthinkable to the ancient or the medieval mind can now be thought. Sometimes new findings have driven the new thinking.

None of these things were unthinkable to the 'medieval' or 'ancient' mind because there is no such thing as a 'medieval' or 'ancient' mind; we all merely have the exact same human minds. Our data has broadened on the topic, nothing more.

Conveniently superficial understandings of science lead to conventialy superficial conclusions about science and... you guessed it... conveniently superficial atheism.

I've already said thus was five years in the researching, thinking and discussing.
I got up to at least 10ft of bookshelf (I still have 6ft) of theology, philosophy and relevant history texts.
Favours asked and granted, I got to sit in on some Bible college courses on useful topics and later on, rather clutching at straws, I did a couple of sets of evening classes on liberal theology to see if there was a viable perspective there. There wasn't, really, if you were still asking the "but is it true?" question. Lose that and slide to "does this feel nice? and a different answer can emerge.

I doubt you've read enough. The works are pretty inexhaustible. I haven't read enough. I doubt you have paid sufficient attention to the classic thought as you have already shown your contempt for it. "Ancient" or "Medieval mind."

I was doing epistemology by the age of five, though it was many years before I discovered the actual term.
I'd caught my parents lying to me... (about Santa). So if you can't trust your own parents for reliable information, where can you go for it, and how can you be sure that it is?

You were a five year old epistemologist? K.

I explained *why* I started studying Christianity with greater depth and care.
If I remember correctly my three start points were
"What is the right way of handling, understanding, the book of Genesis?"
(There's more than a handful to choose from!)

"How should the existence of the different endings to Mark's Gospel be handled, understood?"
(Implications for inerrancy, reliability and preservation of text as scripture.)

"What were the doctrines or other factors that lay behind the major schisms and divisions of Christianity?"
(And should I be on any particular side of any of them?)

A level of understanding (and of accepted "don't know"s) that I was fairly happy with for me would not do when I was leading and teaching others.

Chris.
"...curl up with Hitchens (lol) book" {Snort.}.

RIght; there's a lot of ways to interpret the OT. Countless.

Probably being able to identify subsequent additions to the Gospel is a great boon tot he legitimatcy of the text. Furthermore, a real understanding of the message of Christ would emphasize that the details of the stories are of middling importance in comparison.

The divisions within Christianity? Geography, culture, time; the natural fickleness of man; the fact it was written in parables.

Nothing that youv'e said has been very persuasive and the idea that you are 'too intelligent' to accept Christianity seems rather silly & rash conclusion, and it is accusing towards others that they are somehow intellectually wanting for not making the same conclusion as you.

Id' watch yourself unless you really can put your money where your mouth is.

Your crisis is one of faith; you aren't "too smart" for it.

Or go on & prove it.

(***Spoiler Alert****)
You can't. And there are people paid handsome salaries reciting rehashed bologne on these topics like Sam Harris that doubly cannot.

You could probably do better than Sam, though -- see if there's a paycheck in here somewhere for you.

 

[Verv]

I am a non believer because I lost my faith when it lost its credibility..

When did it "lose its credibility?"

I was also unaware that religions of hundreds of millions could have interlinked credibiltiy.

Let me guess: you believe that certainly all Muslims and all Buddhists must think alike too, right? And that they all share some credibility?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Religion is a choice. Otherwise conversion would be impossible. Theism and atheism, I would say, are not choices.

 

[KWCrazy]

Everything is a choice.
Choosing to read this or not is a choice.
Choosing to override the autonomic nervous system and breathe the way you want to breathe is a choice; so is choosing not to do so.
One can choose to open his heart to the Lord or not.
One decides whether he accepts that God is Lord of the universe or whether he believes that natural law is supreme and inviolable.
One can submit to the Lord, acknowledge Jesus as his personal savior, and ask for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
One cannot have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and subsequently deny the existence of the same. If someone claims to have had a deep relationship with God and no longer believes in Him, that person is lying to himself. It is more likely that the person in question was actively seeking the Lord, maybe even saying all the right things, but never committing with his heart. You can no more deny the existence of a God you once served than you can deny the existence of a friend with whom you went through school.

It is possible to lose your faith; to turn your back on God; to fall away into sin and denial. However, you can't escape the fact that God is real. You can deny it all you want, but the only way you can convince yourself that God is not real is to have never known Him in the first place.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Religion is a choice. Otherwise conversion would be impossible.

I'm not sure what you mean here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Everything is a choice.

I'm not so certain about that. Can you believe honestly -- so you could fool a perfect lie detector -- that the Earth is flat like a pancake?

Choosing to read this or not is a choice.

Agreed.

Choosing to override the autonomic nervous system and breathe the way you want to breathe is a choice; so is choosing not to do so.

Agreed.

One can choose to open his heart to the Lord or not.

One can go through the motions, but I had done that a few times in my youth and didn't feel any different afterwards.

One decides whether he accepts that God is Lord of the universe

But one can't choose to honestly believe that. At least, I couldn't.

One can submit to the Lord, acknowledge Jesus as his personal savior, and ask for the gift of the Holy Spirit.

One can go through the motions, yes.

One cannot have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and subsequently deny the existence of the same.

Yes, one can. One can interpret one's experiences differently afterwards.

If someone claims to have had a deep relationship with God and no longer believes in Him, that person is lying to himself.

I'd say that the person was simply being honest.

It is more likely that the person in question was actively seeking the Lord, maybe even saying all the right things, but never committing with his heart.

Committing with the heart is not the same thing as honest belief.

You can no more deny the existence of a God you once served than you can deny the existence of a friend with whom you went through school.

Yes, you can, and it could happen to you.

It is possible to lose your faith; to turn your back on God; to fall away into sin and denial. However, you can't escape the fact that God is real. You can deny it all you want, but the only way you can convince yourself that God is not real is to have never known Him in the first place.

That's just the Party Line.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm not sure what you mean here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If religion wasn't a choice, people would not be able to "convert" from one religion to another.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If religion wasn't a choice, people would not be able to "convert" from one religion to another.

I don't understand your reasoning. Please elaborate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm not so certain about that. Can you believe honestly -- so you could fool a perfect lie detector -- that the Earth is flat like a pancake?

If you convinced yourself you were telling the truth, no lie detector would know otherwise because you wouldn't react to the lie.

But one can't choose to honestly believe that. At least, I couldn't.

The key word is "accept," not believe. Acceptance goes one step further. It is the elimination of doubt.

I'd say that the person was simply being honest.

It's a logical absurdity to deny the existence of one with whom you have had a relationship. Either the relationship was not genuine or the recant is not. It is possible that you THOUGHT you had a relationship, which is not the same thing. Many people do almost everything right in their relationship with the lord, but they don't submit to His authority and accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

Committing with the heart is not the same thing as honest belief.

You can't commit with your heart without believing. Commitment is the elimination of all other options. There is no room for doubt.

Yes, you can, and it could happen to you.

Logical absurdity. You can fall away from your faith, but you can't unlearn things which have been revealed to you.

That's just the Party Line.

If one is to renounce his relationship with the Lord, the only way to avoid consequence is to pretend there is no God. You can proclaim it from the tall mountains, but if you ever knew Him, you can't get around the fact that God is real.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't understand your reasoning. Please elaborate.

Religious beliefs can be chosen. To me at least, it seems like belief in a specific deity would be a choice one makes for themselves. Perhaps that is how I interpret it because I feel most (all?) religions have about the same amount of evidence for their respective deity figures, so in my view, it's like picking your clothes.

Theism or atheism is a different matter in my opinion. I can't think of a time where I decided not to believe in God. I do remember when I decided to be honest with people when they ask if I believe in God and tell them that I don't.

 

[Soyeong]

I have heard in the past, that atheists often claim they don't choose to be atheists, but rather they simply don't believe.

So, is atheism a choice?
Is being a believer a choice?

Can we make ourselves not believe or believe?

There is the issue of whether things are deterministic and we only have the appearance of making choices or whether we have actual choices where it is possible that we could have chosen differently. If we can make actual choices, as I believe we can, then the way that we interpret evidence is a choice and so all beliefs are choices. However, it is not a choice in the sense that we can pick and choose what we want to believe or force ourselves to believe something. We can choose how we interpret evidence, but then we can't choose to believe something that is contrary to what we think is the correct interpretation of the evidence.

For example, if you examine the evidence at a murder case and think that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then you can't choose to believe that they are innocent in spite of your evaluation of the evidence. Certain factors, such as wanting someone to be innocent can influence how we evaluate evidence, but they are insufficient in themselves to form the belief that they are because beliefs can't be formed without evidence.

The problem with saying atheism isn't a choice is that it is the negation of theism, so it inherently can't be a neutral position. In other words, it is an equal and opposite position, not the null position, so if theism is 1, atheism is -1, not 0. While it is possible to choose to be at a neutral position, the only position that can involve not making a choice is the neutral position because moving to any other position involves making a choice.

 

[bhsmte]

I have heard in the past, that atheists often claim they don't choose to be atheists, but rather they simply don't believe.

So, is atheism a choice?
Is being a believer a choice?

Can we make ourselves not believe or believe?

Not a choice, but the totality of all the factors involved; genetics, upbringing, environment and how those impact each person's personal psyche.

Can you make a choice today, to not believe a God exists and have it be a legit non belief?