luvluv

Over the past couple of days I've come to know a lot more about some of you guys than any sane guy would want to know Seriously though, without being specific, I have come to find out that many people on this board (myself included) have at various times lived lifestyles which are in strong contradiction to the demands of a Christian life.

I propose there are at least two factors which enable or initiate belief. One would be evidence in favor of a proposition, the other, I'm arguing, would be willingness to accept the implications of a proposition.

Couldn't it be argued that there is, in all of us, a subjective bias against certain propositions which prevents us from making any decision from sheer logic? Isn't this especially acute since most of our lifestyles are established before our ability to critically think are established?

I'd argue this work both ways, but I never claimed to make any decisions sheerly on the basis of rationality. (for those wishing to denigrate luvluv, please begin your cutting and pasting above...)

I reckon I could just short-circuit this post off the bat myself by assuming you folks will simply say that the evidence is so far in excess of the bias as to make the bias inconsequential. But I argue that there are several theological propositions that make the lack of evidence a moot point, and that bias, at that point, would be all that determines a person's decision.

So do we really base what we believe on evidence or do we base it on our biases?

Foxhole Atheist

Those of us who have reached the “age of reason” and think, base our decisions on the evidence. Those of us who “feel”, base our decisions on whatever bias we have accumulated. Now, the “age of reason” may come late in life or, as in the case of some, never at all.

luvluv

That's not true. I'm sure you make irrational decsions all the time. You are human.

Autonemesis

Name them. I don't think I can answer your question in general. I need an example.

luvluv

For example the notion that God has not left evidence because He did not want his presence to be directly detectable, as evidence of an omnipotent omniscient God would significantly interfere with free will.

Let's please not get into a big digression here now, though, please?

Philosoft

I don't understand. Are you saying bias is an independent meme, if you will? That it exists independent of personal experience? I do not see how this can be.

Typhon

I can't speak for others, but I base what I believe on the basis of evidence. I temper this with the application of logic and critical thinking.

Personally, I find these tools more than sufficient to determine fiction from reality in all the cases I have so far experienced.

I hope that answers your question.

.T.

luvluv

Experience and logic are not the same thing. My experience might influence me to draw illogical conclusions. From childhood abuse a person might come to think that they were unlovable, for example. All lessons that experience teaches us are not logical.

What I'm asking you is...

is there anything you want to be true?

is there anything you don't want to be true?

Does that in anyway influence what you believe to be true?

For instance, Christopher Hitchens has described himself as an anti-theist. The idea of a God is one he finds extremely discomforting and is an idea he does not want to be true. It's hard to believe that his desire that a God not exist has no effect on his belief that God does not exist.

Of course it goes both ways.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Perchance

Of course there are things I don't want to be true, things I suspect to be true but don't want to be, things I suspect not to be true but want to be, and things that are true I really wish weren't.

But if you get caught up in this, where does it lead you?

"Why am I believing this?" is a good question to ask. "Am I only believing this because of my biases, though?" is a question that can never be answered with any certainty. After all, if you think you're believing it because of your biases, that in itself might be a bias (against your own judgment). If you believe that you are free of biases, you might have a bias you're ignoring.

I have a list of reasons why I don't generally accept the existence of gods, though I remain unsure enough to call myself agnostic. Biases are on there. After all, I would prefer NOT to believe that I am going to be tormented for all eternity for "blaspheming the Holy Spirit," however one goes about doing that. Luckily for me, the evidence seems to indicate that neither Hell nor Holy Spirit exists.

Besides, there's one thing you're ignoring:

Even if a person could be convinced that his or her non-belief in a god is purely a result of biases, what kind of god is it? Say a person has developed non-belief as a result of reading about the OT god, and doesn't want such a cruel, murderous god to be the creator of the universe. Let's say that he or she becomes convinced that the OT god is, in fact, the creator of the universe.

What options are left? Suicide, despair, fanatic conversion, anti-theism? Those are the options I could see.

Because I dislike constraints on my free will, I would probably see worship of such a god as akin to slavery, and become an anti-theist crusader (concentrating on the god, not the humans worshipping it).

-Perchance.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Typhon

Again,

Our wants and desires of course, can cause bias, if we are (a) unaware of our desires or (b) injudiciously allow those desires to affect our critical weighing of the facts.

I weigh the facts of reality, without regard to my feelings about it. I believe I do this successfully.

I want/wish that the world was magical. I would love it if human consciousness went on forever. I would be glad to have a chance at an afterlife. I would like it if a loving, benevolent creator had put me here for some divine purpose and was interested in my life and my fate.

And yet, with all those wants, I have taken an objective look at the evidence that is available, used logic and critical thinking, and come to the conclusion that there isn't good reason to suspect that any of this holds true.

Actually, the evidence where it lays, points towards no gods of this type at all. It doesn't absolutely preclude them, especially in their more abstract sense, but it absolutely doesn't support them, so it would be illogical and just falling into a trap of bias based on emotional wants and desires to believe in such a system in the face of the thunderous lack of evidence.

I'm a little curious where you're trying to go with this.

Do you think most atheists are such because they want a naturalistic universe over a supernatural one, openly or otherwise? I would challenge you and your findings here if this is what you are saying.

In my experience, atheists and believers in metaphysical naturalism have arrived at their belief and/or lack of belief, often in spite of their own wants and feelings, based upon the best, most logical and careful examination of the facts available. I can not say the same for most theists that I know, who indeed, seem more prone to blithely follow their wants and desires even in the face of logical inconsistencies and sometimes huge evidential problems.

.T.