Runner-Up Religion...

[Eudaimonist]

Whenever I see a topic like this, I imagine that what it is really asking is what religion is closest in values to one's current religion or lack thereof. I don't see how I can choose what to believe, so I'm being asked to pick the least obnoxious alternate belief system.

I'll say that I would simply make some theism up. It will conform to my value system, and it's gotta be true, right?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see how I can choose what to believe, so I'm being asked to pick the least obnoxious alternate belief system.

I think that doxastic voluntarism is obviously true at least for some beliefs. For instance, if I can choose to wear a t-shirt and plimsoles, then I can choose to hold the belief that I am wearing t-shirt and plimsoles. I don't see how religious beliefs are totally dissimilar, and that I cannot choose to hold Christian beliefs or otherwise, unless I have no voluntary control over my philosophy of life whatsoever.

I suppose the question to ask would be is there a test to determine whether I have such voluntary control or not? I think that one might be to look at the neural correlates of belief and disbelief, as Sam Harris has (link). Then, one could take an atheist and ask him to assess statements of Christian belief whilst checking activity in his ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Then give him a week to try and become Christian. If after a week there is in increase in activity there upon assessing the same statements, we can asume that he probably has voluntary control over over his religious disposition to some degree. (There would of coure have to be a control group of atheists not asked to try and become Christian, who would be given a pair of brain scans too).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that doxastic voluntarism is obviously true at least for some beliefs. For instance, if I can choose to wear a t-shirt and plimsoles, then I can choose to hold the belief that I am wearing t-shirt and plimsoles.

Huh? I am absolutely incapable of this. I can no more choose to believe that I'm wearing something I'm evidently not wearing than I can choose to believe that the Moon is made out of green cheese.

Edited to add:

Hold on... I think I misread this. Are you suggesting that if I put on clothes, I have to choose to believe I put on clothes? No, I don't. There's no choice involved. It is my understanding that I put on clothes. Belief is automatic.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[`Raine]

Satanism.

Not the theistic kind (devil worship), because the existence of Satan implies the existence of God (and the veracity of the Bible, so why be on the losing side?), but the Anton LaVey / Church of Satan type. It's atheistic, so in line with the "no God" part, and most of LaVey's writings and observations about human nature are spot on. Not to mention, most of the longer-term members of the COS (ie, exclude the kiddies who join short term for shock value) are very intelligent and really interesting people to interact with. They also recognize the value of ritual and symbolism as a form of catharsis, but wouldn't expect me to delude myself into believe in supernatural powers in a reality where they do not exist.

 

[Verticordious]

If today you found perfectly sound and irrefutable evidence that your current religion was a total lie, what would be your second choice? Or would you just swear off religion in general? (This includes you athiests out there. I guess in your case, it would have to be proven that there IS a diety and you wouldn't know which diety is correct, only that there IS one.) Personally, I think paganism is interesting. Thoughts? (Remember, this is completely hypothetical and not intended as a debate.)

The answer to your question is entirely dependent on what this hypothetical evidence that refutes my current religion turns out to be. The only answer that can be given is whatever religion is most supported in light of this hypothetical new evidence.

 

[MorkandMindy]

If Christianity was disproved e.g. proving that Jesus did not rise from the dead via archeological evidence etc., my faith would be atheism/Scientism.

That's exactly what I did. The deciding factor in my case was Noah's Flood, and eventually I concluded that Christianity wasn't true, which was a shame after putting 10 years into it. It took a while to go all the way to atheist.


After atheism my second choice would be Buddhism because it is open source and works just like science, whatever is found to be true is kept and anything that isn't goes in the bin.

If it had to be a supernatural religion then I'd be tempted to take Hinduism because if you take it metaphorically there is a lot of meaning in it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Huh? I am absolutely incapable of this. I can no more choose to believe that I'm wearing something I'm evidently not wearing than I can choose to believe that the Moon is made out of green cheese.

Edited to add:

Hold on... I think I misread this. Are you suggesting that if I put on clothes, I have to choose to believe I put on clothes? No, I don't. There's no choice involved. It is my understanding that I put on clothes. Belief is automatic.



eudaimonia,

Mark

I think you misunderstand.

I assume that you believe that we have some form of choice, for instance whether to have a tattoo or not. I'll assume we have such a choice.

My argument is a form of constructive dilemma, where one has choice over which of the two antecedents (I will get a tattoo, or I will not get a tattoo) of the two conditionals is realised, and therefore one has choice over which of the consequents (belief "I have a tattoo" or belief "I do not have a tattoo") is realised.

It t then Bt
If -t then -Bt.

Choice of either t or -t.

Implied choice of either Bt or -Bt.
​

The alternative, which would have the nature "I chose a tattoo of a mermaid, but I never chose to believe I would have a tattoo of a mermaid after having the tattoo done" seems ridiculous. Rather a person who has a tattoo done knows full well he will know he has a tattoo, and hence have a tattoo belief, when the procedure is over. Of course, it would be totally stupid of him to assume he could choose a tattoo but not actually wind up believing he had one when the process was over. Could you imagine that one in court? "Your honor, I am suing, not for the tattoo which is very good, but for the unexpected tattoo belief!"

 

[Eudaimonist]

My argument is a form of constructive dilemma, where one has choice over which of the two antecedents (I will get a tattoo, or I will not get a tattoo) of the two conditionals is realised, and therefore one has choice over which of the consequents (belief "I have a tattoo" or belief "I do not have a tattoo") is realised.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not precisely certain why you are raising this issue, but I agree with what you have explained.

I agree that we have at least some choice over our actions, and at least some control over our mental activities. As I see it, we don't choose to believe or not believe through an act of will, but we can choose what to think about, for how long, with what degree of honesty, with what measure of courage, to what depth, etc.

So, a change of worldview may be preceded by acts of choice about, for instance, which books to read and one's degree of sincerity in pondering their ideas, but the belief that may result is not itself an act of choice. At most, one's final act of choice is simply to stop fighting this realization.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So, a change of worldview may be preceded by acts of choice about, for instance, which books to read and one's degree of sincerity in pondering their ideas, but the belief that may result is not itself an act of choice.

Not normally anyway, a totally agree. But the fact that changes in belief about religion and philosophy are not normally chosen deliberately ought not lead to the implication that it is impossible to so choose them. It's just that for a total overhaul there is probably a high "coefficient of adversity", or in other words, a lot of work required. Yet, maybe a total overhaul is not required to prove the point. Maybe it's a matter for fuzzy logic and there are degrees of truth, rather than it being a binary, all or nothing affair.

 

[jayem]

If there was authentic and undeniable evidence for some kind of god, I'd just conform my beliefs to the evidence. Wouldn't most everyone? Though I doubt that a genuine diety would be anything at all like the gods of our familiar religions. And I strongly doubt that such a diety would care about worship, rituals, doctrines, and all the typical religious trappings. Those are totally human-created.

 

[MorkandMindy]

If there was authentic and undeniable evidence for some kind of god, I'd just conform my beliefs to the evidence. Wouldn't most everyone? Though I doubt that a genuine diety would be anything at all like the gods of our familiar religions. And I strongly doubt that such a diety would care about worship, rituals, doctrines, and all the typical religious trappings. Those are totally human-created.

We know quite a lot about God and that His game plan has been changing over the years. Killing the Egyptian first-born was one of His first major actions, followed by telling Joshua to kill all the people in the areas the ancient Jews would settle in. God even joined in on one occasion and killed more of the occupants with hail stones than the invading Jews were able to kill.

But He has moved on and so has His plan of salvation. Now fervent prayer, donating money, getting others in, paying ministers and missionaries, and building Churches of any shape or size is very pleasing. Sure the secular buildings are a lot bigger, but He cares far more about the ones that praise Himself.

 

[Nick T]

If today you found perfectly sound and irrefutable evidence that your current religion was a total lie, what would be your second choice? Or would you just swear off religion in general? (This includes you athiests out there. I guess in your case, it would have to be proven that there IS a diety and you wouldn't know which diety is correct, only that there IS one.) Personally, I think paganism is interesting. Thoughts? (Remember, this is completely hypothetical and not intended as a debate.)

If it were "proven" that Jesus did not rise from the dead then I would probobly go for Islam, as I would still believe Jesus as a prophet. My first thought was Judaism however converting to Judaism is rather hard and it would require me to give up on jesus altogether.

 

[quatona]

If today you found perfectly sound and irrefutable evidence that your current religion was a total lie, what would be your second choice? Or would you just swear off religion in general? (This includes you athiests out there. I guess in your case, it would have to be proven that there IS a diety and you wouldn't know which diety is correct, only that there IS one.) Personally, I think paganism is interesting. Thoughts? (Remember, this is completely hypothetical and not intended as a debate.)

I´m an agnostic atheist.
"Perfectly sound and irrefutable evidence" for this to be "a lie" would necessitate sound and irrefutable evidence that a deity exists. This would inevitably provide us with knowledge of some characteristics of this deity.
I would believe in the existence of a god as far as those characteristics/properties go that I would have "perfectly sound and irrefutable evidence" for.

 

[quatona]

According to the OP, the evidence I would see would tell me that a god exists, but nothing more than that. Hence, I would probably choose deism as the logical position.

If evidence would tell me that a god exists, but nothing more, I don´t see any reason to believe anything beyond "a god exists". I wouldn´t even have to fill the term "god" with meaning, in this case.
Actually, it would be a just change in my terminology rather than a change of any of my convictions.