Is Belief a Moral Construct?

[zippy2006]

Get ready for a 'bumpy' ride And maybe I should not have been so quick to virtually concede post #5 in haste.?.? Let's see where this all goes?...

I will continue to speak to argument (4-6) from post #5 since I believe that is the heart of the OP. If you wish to concede that premise (5), which is found in your OP, is false, then perhaps we could move to a different argument. As in my last post, tangential points that are unrelated to premise (5) will not be addressed.

Is 'blame' really the pillar for which you deem some/all belief to be a choice? 'Blame' can be assigned to person A, regardless of whether or not person A imposes a choice in a matter or not. Just because 'blame' is assigned, does not mean the 'blame' is automatically warranted.

It is true that blame could be assigned inappropriately. For example, someone might blame the sidewalk when they stub their toe, but in truth it isn't the sidewalk's fault.

As is, premise (5) must be categorial in order to reach conclusion (6). To make the categorial premise more obvious we could restate argument (4-6):

4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. No beliefs are chosen.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.
​

It seems that you wish to concede that some beliefs are subject to blame and are therefore choices which flow from volition. In that case we could give an alternative argument:

4a. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5a. Some beliefs are not chosen.
6a. Therefore, some beliefs are not voluntary actions.
​

In this case you would have more work to do. Namely, you would be required to first show which kinds of beliefs are not chosen, and then to show that the religious beliefs you have in mind fall into this category.

For example, you might concede that the student who holds that 12x12=156 holds this as a belief which is chosen; a belief which flows from their volition. Thus you would admit that there do exist beliefs which are chosen. Nevertheless you claim that some beliefs are not chosen, and that the religious beliefs in question are necessarily those sorts of beliefs.

You continue to use an improper analogy here. Under the tenets of a just God, 'blame' would presumably only be assigned if the student did not do what (s)he was asked, prior to the test. If the student willfully did not study, zipped through the test too fast, was absent for the test, or some other adjacent action, then yes, a just judge would then assign 'blame'.

In most cases incorrect test answers are blameworthy. There could be exceptions. Perhaps the student failed the test because she has been in a coma for two weeks. It would not be correct to blame her for her performance in that case. (Of course, the student who wakes from a coma and takes a test is still making choices during the test, but we can leave that point to the side since it is unrelated to our question of blame.)

Praise and blame has nothing to do with "belief being a choice", as stated above. You are essentially arguing apples, while I'm arguing oranges I've just been going along for the ride.

What a remarkable thing to say, especially after you have already admitted that the student could be legitimately blamed in certain cases, such as if she did not study for the test! Are you now going to tell me that we can legitimately blame people who have made no choice? We can legitimately blame people for actions which are not voluntary?

If you truly held to such a position your OP would implode immediately, for your entire argument is based on the idea that God can't blame people for an involuntary/non-chosen act. Premise (1) is essential to the argument of your OP.

Neither answer was a 'choice'. If it were a choice, the one whom [chose] '144' could just as easily choose '156' as his/her earnest 'correct' answer The test taker comes to one conclusion, especially in math.

On the contrary, if choice were arbitrary then we could not be held responsible for it.

Now, it is perhaps true that once the student has gone through all eight steps leading up to her conclusion, she has only a small choice in drawing the conclusion of '156'. But it is an entirely volitional process. Her decisions about how much to study, how quickly to complete the test, how much effort to apply to this specific problem, how much concentration to give to each of the initial eight steps, whether to check her work and confirm that the answer is a perfect square - all of these are choices that were made. The result '156' is the consequence of a whole host of choices, which is precisely why the teacher is justified in assigning blame to the student for getting the answer wrong. You yourself have argued that it isn't fair to assign blame for involuntary acts.

Let's cut to the chase...

You are arguing that ignorance is no excuse.

No I'm not. I've said that the sort of ignorance that results from a 2 week coma is excusable, while the sort of ignorance that results from lazy study habits is not.

Well, this seems odd... In regards to the Christian claims, all we seem to have is the Bible, and the people whom want to teach from the Bible.

For the minority of Christians called Protestants that might be true. In any case, the Bible offers numerous examples as well.

I have observed your threads on CF. You almost always slip and slide between various different arguments, moving the goalposts as you go. This will not be allowed in your conversations with me. You must answer for the argument you have given. We will not consider new arguments until you have done so.

 

[cvanwey]

I will continue to speak to argument (4-6) from post #5 since I believe that is the heart of the OP. If you wish to concede that premise (5), which is found in your OP, is false, then perhaps we could move to a different argument. As in my last post, tangential points that are unrelated to premise (5) will not be addressed.

And yet, when getting to the 'heart' of the thread, you look to avoid my fundamental question? Can you will yourself to apprehend/discern/believe/conclude "156"? It's a yes or no question.

Beliefs are not chosen. If a belief is chosen, you can start by demonstrating volition to the proposition of 12 X 12 = "156", verses 144. You cannot. Just like I cannot.

Just like you cannot will an alternative current conclusion that Jesus did or did not rise from the dead. Your apprehension/discernment/conclusion is based upon the amoral action of how you process the information.

Thus far, I seem to instead reject your line of premises, from post #5. Why? From my angle, it does not actually look to address the OP, as it is intended.

I'll address below, as need....

It is true that blame could be assigned inappropriately. For example, someone might blame the sidewalk when they stub their toe, but in truth it isn't the sidewalk's fault.

As is, premise (5) must be categorial in order to reach conclusion (6). To make the categorial premise more obvious we could restate argument (4-6):

4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. No beliefs are chosen.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.
​

It seems that you wish to concede that some beliefs are subject to blame and are therefore choices which flow from volition. In that case we could give an alternative argument:

4a. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5a. Some beliefs are not chosen.
6a. Therefore, some beliefs are not voluntary actions.
​

In this case you would have more work to do. Namely, you would be required to first show which kinds of beliefs are not chosen, and then to show that the religious beliefs you have in mind fall into this category.

For example, you might concede that the student who holds that 12x12=156 holds this as a belief which is chosen; a belief which flows from their volition. Thus you would admit that there do exist beliefs which are chosen. Nevertheless you claim that some beliefs are not chosen, and that the religious beliefs in question are necessarily those sorts of beliefs.

No. I reject your line of premises. Why?

As I stated long ago, for which you side-stepped... Unless I knowingly and willfully get an answer wrong, I cannot control my current discernment/belief/conclusion about something. Whether or not I'm punished for discerning the wrong conclusion is your apples, to my oranges. Please look at the OP carefully. We are speaking about God's assigned eternal condemnation.

Apprehending a conclusion, any conclusion, is not a choice. If it is, you can begin by demonstrating the ability to will "156", after discerning "144".

In most cases incorrect test answers are blameworthy.

Apples and oranges.... You are arguing for apples, while I continue to argue for oranges. We are speaking past one another.

Please see above.

On the contrary, if choice were arbitrary then we could not be held responsible for it.

Yes you can. And we often times are... As I stated prior, unless you willfully and knowingly place a "wrong" answer to a test question, your current discerned conclusion can still be marked incorrect, and likely will be. This does not mean you have the ability to will a differing earnest conclusion about the applied/given answer

But belief does not look to be a choice. So again, apples and oranges...

If belief is not a choice, and I claim it is not a choice, then why does God eternally condemn you for an amoral action you cannot control? Willful acts are instead understandably punishable... Remember, this is God we are speaking about, not humans

No I'm not. I've said that the sort of ignorance that results from a 2 week coma is excusable, while the sort of ignorance that results from lazy study habits is not.

Great. Maybe I'm ignorant to the truth that Jesus rose from the dead to save me? Can I currently will or choose to conclude that He actually did, without some sort of new catalyst for which I would then process?

It's a yes or no question.

For the minority of Christians called Protestants that might be true. In any case, the Bible offers numerous examples as well.

Kool.

I have observed your threads on CF. You almost always slip and slide between various different arguments, moving the goalposts as you go. This will not be allowed in your conversations with me. You must answer for the argument you have given. We will not consider new arguments until you have done so.

My mistake is often times following the interlocutor where THEY want to go, only after they avoid my line of questioning.

And sure, I'm not perfect either. Often times, conversations flow into other realms organically; or maybe even spark up adjacent questions. Find me one thread, where post #200 is still speaking to post #1 and you will win a prize

But I am enjoying this current thread, all-the-same

The bottom line is this....

The concluded discernment to a claim itself is an amoral action. You cannot choose what you apprehend. Maybe you can control it, (by means of protection or other), but that is another topic altogether. This drives at the heart of the OP. If you want to start here, I'm game. If not, then maybe we can shift gears?.?.?

It may also behoove you to address post #3.

 

[zippy2006]

And yet, when getting to the 'heart' of the thread, you look to avoid my fundamental question? Can you will yourself to apprehend/discern/believe/conclude "156"? It's a yes or no question.

Beliefs are not chosen. If a belief is chosen, you can start by demonstrating volition to the proposition of 12 X 12 = "156", verses 144. You cannot. Just like I cannot.

If the student's answer is not chosen/volitional then the teacher is not allowed to give her a bad mark. It's that simple.

I gave a whole slew of ways that the student is both responsible for her answer and capable of changing her answer, but you ignored them all. Here they are again:

Now, it is perhaps true that once the student has gone through all eight steps leading up to her conclusion, she has only a small choice in drawing the conclusion of '156'. But it is an entirely volitional process. Her decisions about how much to study, how quickly to complete the test, how much effort to apply to this specific problem, how much concentration to give to each of the initial eight steps, whether to check her work and confirm that the answer is a perfect square - all of these are choices that were made. The result '156' is the consequence of a whole host of choices, which is precisely why the teacher is justified in assigning blame to the student for getting the answer wrong.
​

Your point is immaterial. Suppose the student is unable to arbitrarily draw a conclusion other than '156' the microsecond before she begins to write that number. Who cares? That doesn't mean it wasn't ultimately her choice to come to that conclusion. That doesn't mean her answer didn't flow from her volition. We know this because we know that the teacher can legitimately blame the student and mark the answer wrong.

If you're willing to say that teachers are being unfair each and every time they praise or blame a student then you can consistently hold to premise (5). Unfortunately you would also be holding to an absurd position.

 

[cvanwey]

If the student's answer is not chosen/volitional then the teacher is not allowed to give her a bad mark. It's that simple.

I gave a whole slew of ways that the student is both responsible for her answer and capable of changing her answer, but you ignored them all. Here they are again:

Now, it is perhaps true that once the student has gone through all eight steps leading up to her conclusion, she has only a small choice in drawing the conclusion of '156'. But it is an entirely volitional process. Her decisions about how much to study, how quickly to complete the test, how much effort to apply to this specific problem, how much concentration to give to each of the initial eight steps, whether to check her work and confirm that the answer is a perfect square - all of these are choices that were made. The result '156' is the consequence of a whole host of choices, which is precisely why the teacher is justified in assigning blame to the student for getting the answer wrong.
​

Your point is immaterial. Suppose the student is unable to arbitrarily draw a conclusion other than '156' the microsecond before she begins to write that number. Who cares? That doesn't mean it wasn't ultimately her choice to come to that conclusion. That doesn't mean her answer didn't flow from her volition. We know this because we know that the teacher can legitimately blame the student and mark the answer wrong.

If you're willing to say that teachers are being unfair each and every time they praise or blame a student then you can consistently hold to premise (5). Unfortunately you would also be holding to an absurd position.

You keep doubling down

I already conceded your point, long ago - (starting at the top of post #15). But this is not the intent of the OP. Not in the slightest, actually.

I addressed your argument. Does this ring a bell? - (from post #18)?

A) I don't know the answer. I guess and either get it correct or incorrect.
B) I think I truly know the answer, but still get the answer incorrect.
C) I think I know the actual answer, and purposefully answer incorrectly.

Conclusion:

A) If I accidentally get the answer correct, I'm apparently rewarded. So?
B) God's punishment for a mistaken conclusion is apparently eternal condemnation?
C) Now this one is willful, and does not involve apprehension.

A teacher can mark you wrong, for many reasons. A teacher is not God

Now let's get to MY post.....

Someone tells me Jesus rose from the grave. I do not believe them. I study the claim, and continue not to believe the claim. My apprehension has failed me supposedly, in the truth claim that Jesus rose from the dead. In this case, God is not only assigning "blame", (for something I cannot choose - apprehension/belief/conclusion), but the "blame" results in eternal condemnation.

Again, we must explore the topic of 'blame". Maybe God's reasoning for me is that I did not study hard enough. Maybe God's reason is I was 'close-minded'. Or maybe I'm too ignorant. Maybe other? God likely knows quite a bit more than the teacher who grades my test.

You can say I'm moving the goal posts, only if you conceded that your initial post does not address my OP, or post #3

You seem not capable of addressing my OP? Hopefully this will change.

Can you will "156", yes or no? If we both know this, and God also likely knows this, then why is condemnation the appropriate punishment?

 

[zippy2006]

I already conceded your point, long ago - (starting at the top of post #15).

My point is that premise (5) is false. Where have you conceded this?

I addressed your argument. Does this ring a bell? - (from post #18)?

A) I don't know the answer. I guess and either get it correct or incorrect.
B) I think I truly know the answer, but still get the answer incorrect.
C) I think I know the actual answer, and purposefully answer incorrectly.

Conclusion:

A) If I accidentally get the answer correct, I'm apparently rewarded. So?
B) God's punishment for a mistaken conclusion is apparently eternal condemnation?
C) Now this one is willful, and does not involve apprehension.

A teacher can mark you wrong, for many reasons. A teacher is not God

How does this address my argument in the slightest? Here is a formalization of my argument, maintaining unique numbering of steps:

1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions. {From post #5}
7. Teachers punish and reward students' beliefs when they grade tests.
8. Therefore, these students' beliefs are voluntary actions (i.e. "chosen" actions).​

Now let's get to MY post.....

We can compare the religious belief to the mathematical belief once I understand your position on the mathematical belief. You said that you, "Conceded my point." My point was that premise (5) is false and that some beliefs are therefore chosen/volitional. Is that what you are conceding?

 

[cvanwey]

My point is that premise (5) is false. Where have you conceded this?



How does this address my argument in the slightest? Here is a formalization of my argument, maintaining unique numbering of steps:

1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions. {From post #5}
7. Teachers punish and reward students' beliefs when they grade tests.
8. Therefore, these students' beliefs are voluntary actions (i.e. "chosen" actions).​

We can compare the religious belief to the mathematical belief once I understand your position on the mathematical belief. You said that you, "Conceded my point." My point was that premise (5) is false and that some beliefs are therefore chosen/volitional. Is that what you are conceding?

Premise 5 is false, for the reason you continue to avoid, over and over again. If belief is a choice, simply will the conclusion that 12 X 12 = 156.

 

[zippy2006]

Premise 5 is false, for the reason you continue to avoid, over and over again.

You admit that premise (5) is false? Do you know what premise (5) is? Go back to post #5 and look at it again.

 

[cvanwey]

Premise 5 is false, for the reason you continue to avoid, over and over again. If belief is a choice, simply will the conclusion that 12 X 12 = 156.

My BAD I meant to state post #5. Where you assert that belief is voluntary BECAUSE we can assign blame.

Sorry!

I conceded "blame" can be assigned, regardless of volition or not.

 

[zippy2006]

My BAD I meant to state post #5. Where you assert that belief is voluntary BECAUSE we can assign blame.

Sorry!

I conceded "blame" can be assigned, regardless of volition or not.

Okay, good. You concede that blame can be assigned. Would you also concede that whenever blame is legitimately assigned, the blameworthy act must be volitional? That is, we can only legitimately blame someone when their act flows from their volition; and each time we legitimately blame someone it must be the case that their act flowed from their volition?

 

[cvanwey]

Okay, good. You concede that blame can be assigned.

You are getting ahead of yourself here. I conceded, on the top of post #15, that "blame" can always be assigned.... However, I see premise 1, from post #5, as incorrect.

Please now address my repeated question.... Is belief a choice? If so, please choose or will an answer of "156".

 

[zippy2006]

You are getting ahead of yourself here. I conceded, on the top of post #15, that "blame" can always be assigned....

Blame cannot always be legitimately assigned. It cannot be assigned to the sidewalk nor to the comatose student in post #21. In post #20 you made this same point when you said, "Just because 'blame' is assigned, does not mean the 'blame' is automatically warranted."

Further, as noted in posts #16 and #19, the "blame" that you assigned to the astronaut in post #15 is inappropriate. The astronaut is not blamed for destroying earth. Indeed, there is no one alive to blame them. Your point there was that bad effects can flow from beliefs whether those beliefs are voluntary or involuntary. As I pointed out in #16 and #19, your focus on "bad effects" was a piece of fallacious reasoning that departed from the central consideration of blame and volition.

 

[cvanwey]

Blame cannot always be legitimately assigned. It cannot be assigned to the sidewalk nor to the comatose student in post #21. In post #20 you made this same point when you said, "Just because 'blame' is assigned, does not mean the 'blame' is automatically warranted."

Further, as noted in posts #16 and #19, the "blame" that you assigned to the astronaut in post #15 is inappropriate. The astronaut is not blamed for destroying earth. Indeed, there is no one alive to blame them. Your point there was that bad effects can flow from beliefs whether those beliefs are voluntary or involuntary. As I pointed out in #16 and #19, your focus on "bad effects" was a piece of fallacious reasoning that departed from the central consideration of blame and volition.

Why can't you answer a simple and straight forward question?

Again, attempt #7...

Can you currently will or choose to believe that 12 X 12 = 156? Yes or no?

 

[zippy2006]

The answers to your questions can be found above. I'm getting bored and I'm tired of repeating myself. I would recommend going to Coursera or the equivalent and signing up for a class on syllogistic or propositional logic. Formal training in logic would help you a great deal.

Let me conclude by offering a quick formal recap. The central piece of @cvanwey's argument from the OP was formalized in post #5:

4. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5. We do not choose what to believe.
6. Therefore, belief is not a voluntary action.

@cvanwey agreed to this characterization in post #6.

Throughout the thread I have argued against premise (5). My main argument was formalized in post #25:

Here is a formalization of my argument, maintaining unique numbering of steps:

1. All actions for which we can be punished or rewarded are voluntary actions. {From post #5}
7. Teachers punish and reward students' beliefs when they grade tests.
8. Therefore, these students' beliefs are voluntary actions (i.e. "chosen" actions).​

​

@cvanwey's counterargument, expressed in various posts, is as follows:

9. If a belief cannot be arbitrarily changed, then it is not chosen/volitional.
10. The students' belief about the answer to their test question cannot be arbitrarily changed.
11. Therefore, the student's belief is not chosen/volitional.
​

In post #23 I pointed out to @cvanwey that this results in the absurd conclusion that premise (7) is false. That is, it leads to the absurd conclusion that teachers are being unfair each time they punish or reward students for incorrect or correct answers on tests. This is because according to @cvanwey the student's answer is involuntary [conclusion (11)] and therefore, via the contrapositive of premise (1), cannot be rightfully punished or rewarded. @cvanwey holds, on the basis of premises (1) and (6), that God cannot justly punish us for our beliefs. If he is consistent then he would also have to hold, on the basis of premises (1) and (11), that the teacher cannot justly punish the student for their incorrect answer.

Ergo: reductio ad absurdum. @cvanwey's premise (5) has been reduced to an absurdity, and therefore cannot stand. Q.E.D.

 

[cvanwey]

The answers to your questions can be found above. I'm getting bored and I'm tired of repeating myself. I would recommend going to Coursera or the equivalent and signing up for a class on syllogistic or propositional logic. Formal training in logic would help you a great deal.

Let me conclude by offering a quick formal recap. The central piece of @cvanwey's argument from the OP was formalized in post #5:



@cvanwey agreed to this characterization in post #6.

Throughout the thread I have argued against premise (5). My main argument was formalized in post #25:

​

@cvanwey's counterargument, expressed in various posts, is as follows:

9. If a belief cannot be arbitrarily changed, then it is not chosen/volitional.
10. The students' belief about the answer to their test question cannot be arbitrarily changed.
11. Therefore, the student's belief is not chosen/volitional.
​

In post #23 I pointed out to @cvanwey that this results in the absurd conclusion that premise (7) is false. That is, it leads to the absurd conclusion that teachers are being unfair each time they punish or reward students for incorrect or correct answers on tests. This is because according to @cvanwey the student's answer is involuntary [conclusion (11)] and therefore, via the contrapositive of premise (1), cannot be rightfully punished or rewarded. @cvanwey holds, on the basis of premises (1) and (6), that God cannot justly punish us for our beliefs. If he is consistent then he would also have to hold, on the basis of premises (1) and (11), that the teacher cannot justly punish the student for their incorrect answer.

Ergo: reductio ad absurdum. @cvanwey's premise (5) has been reduced to an absurdity, and therefore cannot stand. Q.E.D.

Talk about a redirect

You know belief is not a choice, and wish not to answer the simple question; which would then render or expose premise one of your argument invalid.

Ta ta, sorry to 'bore' you

 

[cvanwey]

@zippy2006
I would like to explore the OP genuinely. Or anyone else, whom would like to chime in...

The OP brings up a quote from the Bible:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

I then asked about condemnation.

****************************

Belief is not a choice, at least as far as we have explored... However, we've only explored two examples, thus far, in this thread. But quite frankly, it's almost irrelevant to explore if belief can ever be a choice. Why? Because God's criteria for condemnation hinges upon one belief in particular.

1. You and I both currently believe that 12 X 12 = 144. You and I cannot will or choose for this answer to be "156", without some newly introduced catalyst, for which we might then process and apprehend to reach another involuntary conclusion. Hence, belief is not a choice here.

2. You believe Jesus rose from the grave. I do not believe Jesus rose from the grave. Neither of us can choose to believe the opposite conclusion, without some newly introduced catalyst, for which we might then process and apprehend to reach another involuntary conclusion. Hence, belief is not a choice here either.

Rather than acknowledge the above two propositions, you instead wanted to continue with another argument. You are arguing apples, while I am arguing oranges.

You then stated, (from post #21):

4a. No action which we do not choose can be a voluntary action.
5a. Some beliefs are not chosen.
6a. Therefore, some beliefs are not voluntary actions.

In this case you would have more work to do. Namely, you would be required to first show which kinds of beliefs are not chosen, and then to show that the religious beliefs you have in mind fall into this category.

******************

I've already provided my work. All you would have needed to do, is simply acknowledge the two [yes or no] questions, for which I repeatedly asked of you, about choosing to believe"156" and/or "rising from the grave".

Thus, if a skeptic cannot will or choose to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, even after extensive exploration to the claim, is eternal condemnation a fair and just punishment? Maybe it is?

 

[zippy2006]

1. You and I both currently believe that 12 X 12 = 144. You and I cannot will or choose for this answer to be "156", without some newly introduced catalyst, for which we might then process and apprehend to reach another involuntary conclusion. Hence, belief is not a choice here.

If the student's incorrect belief that 12x12=156 is not a choice (or does not flow from the student's volition) then the teacher could never punish the student with a bad grade.

You haven't addressed this at all. I laid out the argument very clearly in post #33. I see no reason to continue until you have addressed this very substantial argument. It is directly relevant to the OP.

I will be away from CF for awhile while traveling. Be well.

 

[cvanwey]

If the student's incorrect belief that 12x12=156 is not a choice (or does not flow from the student's volition) then the teacher could never punish the student with a bad grade.

Your argument is "apples", to my "oranges". Why?

In your example above, "blame" can still be justified by this teacher. Why?

The student can still be held accountable for what (s)he is 'taught' by the teacher. If the teacher teaches 12 X 12 = 144, but the student still continues to believe "156", the student has still been presented with the teacher's perceived 'correct' answer. The student is then presented with a choice, at test time. Either provide the answer the teacher wants, or stick to his/her current belief and apply the 'wrong' answer.

The same goes for the OP.

The teacher states "Jesus rose from the grave". The student still believes Jesus did not rise from the grave. The teacher then presents a [true/false] test question asking:

"Jesus rose from the grave (true or false)?"

Here, the student is in the exact same scenario, as with the math question. The student has been given the 'correct" information by the teacher, prior to the test. Since the student has been given his/her instruction, the student is then held accountable for providing the 'correct' answer to the question. Even though this student may not actually BELIEVE the claim, the student can still be assigned "blame" for marking the question 'false', when the correct answer is 'true'.

This is why you are arguing apples, while I am arguing oranges.

The teacher does not know what the student actually truly believes. The teacher can only account for how the student answered the question.

Another case/point: A classic "young earth creationist" takes an evolutionary biology course. (S)he teaches the 'correct' material. Though the student believes virtually none of what is being taught, the student is still assigned 'blame', or might be held accountable, if not providing the correct answers during the test.

Again, I assert belief is not a choice. Thus far, we have three examples:

1. Choose to believe 12 X 12 = 156
2. Choose to believe Jesus did not rise from the grave
3. Choose to believe the opposite conclusion about evolutionary biology

Without some new catalyst presented, for which you then actually apprehend/process/discern/other, you cannot simply 'will' or 'choose' another current conclusion.

Please stop comparing a teacher with God. God would apparently know your actual thoughts. Hence, me marking the answer "true", rendering the test question correct about 'did Jesus rise from the grave?" -- is irrelevant to God.

You haven't addressed this at all. I laid out the argument very clearly in post #33. I see no reason to continue until you have addressed this very substantial argument. It is directly relevant to the OP.

Your argument is apples, to my oranges.

Assuming you believe Jesus rose from the grave, "will" the opposite belief. Can you? (yes or no)

Hint: You do not choose your beliefs.

Even though I can mark you "wrong", is your belief then volitional?

 

[zippy2006]

Your argument is "apples", to my "oranges". Why?

In your example above, "blame" can still be justified by this teacher. Why?

The student can still be held accountable for what (s)he is 'taught' by the teacher. If the teacher teaches 12 X 12 = 144, but the student still continues to believe "156", the student has still been presented with the teacher's perceived 'correct' answer. The student is then presented with a choice, at test time. Either provide the answer the teacher wants, or stick to his/her current belief and apply the 'wrong' answer.

So what you ought to do is try to give an argument without applying scare quotes to the words, "correct," "wrong," "blame," etc. That is a tell-tale sign of sophism.

My claim is that the student's belief that 12x12=156 is both wrong and (at least in some cases) blameworthy. It is not "wrong" and "blameworthy."

(The case of, say, a political science class where the student legitimately disagrees with the teacher on a contested topic and yet knows that, in order to pass the test, she must provide the "correct" answers (i.e. the answers that the teacher agrees with), is very different from the case of mathematical multiplication, which was chosen intentionally)


Thoughts on this thread, @Moral Orel? We have spoken on this before.

 

[cvanwey]

So what you ought to do is try to give an argument without applying scare quotes to the words, "correct," "wrong," "blame," etc. That is a tell-tale sign of sophism.

My claim is that the student's belief that 12x12=156 is both wrong and (at least in some cases) blameworthy. It is not "wrong" and "blameworthy."

(The case of, say, a political science class where the student legitimately disagrees with the teacher on a contested topic and yet knows that, in order to pass the test, she must provide the "correct" answers (i.e. the answers that the teacher agrees with), is very different from the case of mathematical multiplication, which was chosen intentionally)


Thoughts on this thread, @Moral Orel? We have spoken on this before.

What I 'ought' to have done, was not to grant post #5 with so much wiggle room or leeway.

My OP stands as posited. -- If God is aware apprehension to given data is uncontrolled, then it is neither a moral nor an immoral proposition to discern any such conclusion... Why? Because what we discern or conclude is not by choice. And yet, this looks to be God's measure for salvation?

Case/point:

"Believe I rose from the dead, or be condemned." Simply telling the teacher "Jesus rose from the grave, according to Scripture", is of no concern to someone like God; even though I get the answer right. It's what I actually believe which matters to God.

As I hope we can both now agree, your example does not really speak to my OP.

 

[zippy2006]

What I 'ought' to have done, was not to grant post #5 with so much wiggle room or leeway.

If you reject the characterization of your OP in post #5 then the obvious solution is to offer a different formalized argument. Something far less wishy-washy than your OP.