DRFseven

Many people seem adament that we DO get to arbitrarily choose whether we believe in the existence of a god, but no one can ever explain why they hold that opinion. In several of these discussions, when I have asked if they can provide an illustration by suddenly deciding to believe in something they haven't previously believed in (such as fairies or elves, etc.), they, not wanting to lie, simply exit the discussion.

Will someone who thinks we choose what to believe please address this?

Princess of Peace

I think we choose what to believe. I chose not to believe that alien beings were abducting people from earth. I can't prove it, any more than I can prove that there are no albino crows. I chose not to believe in santa claus, or the tooth fairy, or the loch ness monster. I choose not to believe that one diet is healthy for everyone, even though I am not a nutritionist.

On the other hand, there are things that I choose to believe in which are equally unproven to me. I choose to believe that the Earth goes around the sun, and not the other way around. I choose to believe that the Earth is sphere-like instead of flat. I choose to believe in DNA, although I have not really seen it myself. I choose to believe that people actually did land on the moon, and that it was not staged. Anyone who thinks these beliefs are not a choice need merely look at the people who believe otherwise, despite all evidence to the contrary: the flat-earthers, the conspiracy theorists who think the Apollo moon-landing was all staged by Hollywood, those who choose that God is love despite all evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, the choices we make are not exactly free. Many are influenced heavily by our upbringing. We choose to believe that drugs heal diseases instead of voodoo magic because that is what we were taught. To make a choice, there must be a choice to make. There must be alternatives presented. Some people have never really been presented with the alternative of atheism. So when they remain with the faith of their fathers, is that a choice?

ManM

DRFseven,
I hold that opinion based on my understanding of the limitations of reason. I have come to understand those limitations as the result of years of dialog with people of different philosophical persuasions. However, I am not sure I would go so far as to label our choices in belief as arbitrary. I think personal experience, intuition, and value are all factors which push us to accept a certain set of beliefs.

And so when I say that belief in God is a matter of choice, I am simply saying that reason cannot prove the necessity of things such as naturalism or theism.

phlebas

Princess or ManM,

Could either of you demonstrate this by changing what you believe?

ManM

phlebas,
What would you like me to defend?

Keep in mind that I did not say the choice was arbitrary. I only claim that choice is not a matter of reason.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

Jamie_L

I think we're getting into these word games again. What does it mean to "choose"?

A man sticks a gun to a woman's head and says, "have sex with me or I'll shoot you." She has sex with him.

Did she "choose" to have sex with him? So many things can be cast as a choice, but I don't think that's what the OP means.

Unless I'm missing the point, I believe the OP is getting at the oft-repeated Christian notion that atheists are people who deep down believe God is real, but "choose" to disbelieve. I firmly take the position that this is not the case.

I think what the OP is getting at is that coming to a conclusion is different than making a choice. I choose to drink apple juice or orange juice. I don't come to the conclusion, based on my observations, that apple juice is what I am going to drink.

Likewise, I examine and experience the world and conclude that there is no god. Others come to the conclusion that there is a god. We don't come to the problem and look at the two choices and think to ourselves: "Gee. Today I think I'll be an atheist."

Jamie

Princess of Peace

&lt;Sigh&gt; Oh, all right. Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World claims that there are no alien abductions, and goes on to say that there have been reports of incubi and sucubi seducing people and causing them to have children all throughout the ages. What that really means is that the aliens have been practicing genetic enhancement and breeding for many many centuries, and have only had to stop recently because our technology has gotten good enough to catch them doing it. Now they have to have the government's permission. After all, if there were going to be alien abductions, why would it just be a recent phenomenon? I would expect to see alien abductions and sexual experimentation for a long time before now, and what do you know, that is what I see! This even explains some of the things in the Old Testament. The cloud by day and the fire by night that led the isrealites through the desert was none other than an alien spacecraft! And check out Ezekial 1:4 (NAS) "And I looked, behold, a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing forth continually and a bright light around it, and in its midst something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire." Sounds like your average Hollywood spacecraft to me.

Of course, it could just be drugs, but why would these things be in the bible if they were not witnessed by many people and believed by others? God is no more than an alien race who decided to do experiments upon the Jewish race!

Ummm. Okay. Maybe it's harder to choose your beliefs than that. Usually, when I change a belief (for example, deciding that the fundie christianity I was raised to believe in was bogus), it takes learning new information and failing to be able to integrate it with the model of the world in my head. Thus, I take a belief like: "God will never give you more than you can handle". Then, I add new information thought of in a different light: there are lots of people who commit suicide who were verifiably christian, not to mention all of the christians in aushwitz and dachau and vietnam who were tortured to death and broke under the strain. This information, if believed, and the previous belief can not be held within the same head without cognitive dissonance. Thus, the old belief: "God will never give you more than you can handle" is discarded, and that brings other beliefs into question like a house of cards collapsing.

From there, you can discard "my sunday school teachers are wiser than I am and will never lie to me" because you now know that you disagree with them on one important belief. You can also discard "God is good" because you know that God left those christians to die horrible deaths in Auschwitz, dachau, vietnam, and lots of other horrible places like the spanish inquisition, and through sheer probability, it is just not possible for all of them not to have been christians at death. And from discarding "God is good", you can discard "God is worthy of my worship", and eventually, you get to the belief "God sure doesn't do much, really. It seems to mostly be explained by natural phenomena, and whatever isn't explained by natural phenomena, I don't really have personal experience to be able to tell what really happened anyway." From there, it is a short leap through "God exists, but just watches" to "God isn't really there."

Every step along the chain of inferences is a choice, made with twisting the information you are given into how you want it to come out. Some people just can't handle the cognitive dissonance that others can. Most of us simply haven't had the time to actually go out and gather all of the information necessary to make the "right" choice, and go with either tradition, authority, or our own gut instincts.

Princess of Peace

Conclusion is a better word than choice. Sometimes. But a conclusion only works if there is enough information to make one. If there is not enough information to make a conclusion, then a choice must be made.

DarkBronzePlant

I'm in the camp that says that one cannot truly "choose" to believe anything.

Whether I believe that there is a laptop computer sitting on the desk in front of my is not up to me. I must believe it; I have no choice in the matter. Same with the existence of god. Based on all of the evidence, and lack thereof, that I have encountered, I have no choice but to disbelieve in god.

What I do have a choice in is the amount of information, evidence, and proof I obtain that leads to my beliefs. I could leave the office and never bother to return to my desk. A week later, then, my lack of seeking out information about my laptop might cause me to believe that it's still on my desk, even if in fact it'd been stolen. Same with god. I might've chosen not to thoroughly read the bible, or read criticisms of the bible, or read non-religious accounts of history, and resultingly might've believed in god. The belief is not the choice; rather, the search for evidence is.

phlebas

That's fine. That's probably what most of us do But at what point is some actual decision being made by you? You learn something that shatters what you currently believe, so your beliefs change. Where does the "will" come in?

And I'm not sure what you mean by a conclusion. A conclusion is simply an answer which fits available evidence, subject to change as new information comes in. If there is more than one equally plausible answer, then you have trouble coming to a conclusion. But I don't see how that's relevant to what we're talking about.

ManM, I'm sorry if I misunderstoof your POV I agree that choices aren't arbitrary or necessarily based on reason. My point is that, in matters of belief, choices aren't based on any willful decision at all.