Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Is believing actually a conscious choice?

  • 24-03-2011 10:22AM
    #1
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    I'm a little confused by this. I don't think it believing is something you can just decide on, you don't usually wake up one morning thinking, yes, I do think I believe now, do you? And by the same token, you don't actively decide not to believe, or do you?

    It's been confusing me for a while. I had a Catholic upbringing, communion, confession, confirmation, the lot. Everybody I knew believed in god (well, that's what they were telling me, anyway), and I had no reason to doubt them. Yet, I don't think I ever actually believed in the god they were telling me about. I knew they were quite serious about it, not like they were when they were telling me about the Easter bunny for example, But at the same time, I couldn't really belief they whole thing was entirely serious, either.
    I mean, Jesus was easy enough to grasp, and his stories and lessons did make sense, but the whole resurrection thing? The virgin birth? Life after death? Transsubstanciation (or however you spell that one)? I used to have that filed under "doesn't really matter that much, probably, and is probably just a metaphor anyway". The rest I tried to believe in, as that was expected of me.
    But when I was able to take a step back, and to take an honest look, I had to admit to myself and the rest of the world that, no, I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I tried, but I can't.

    After struggling to believe for well over 2 decades, I had to admit defeat.
    So how can belief be a choice? Surely a choice would mean that you actually can choose to either believe or not to believe?
    Without anybody jumping down my throat for this, please, I feel that being religious or not being religious is about as much choice as being gay or not being gay.
    You can try all you want, if you're straight you'll never be attracted to members of your own sex. And try as I might, I could never believe in a spiritual side of the world..


«13456

Comments

  • #2
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I'm a little confused by this. I don't think it believing is something you can just decide on, you don't usually wake up one morning thinking, yes, I do think I believe now, do you? And by the same token, you don't actively decide not to believe, or do you?

    It's been confusing me for a while. I had a Catholic upbringing, communion, confession, confirmation, the lot. Everybody I knew believed in god (well, that's what they were telling me, anyway), and I had no reason to doubt them. Yet, I don't think I ever actually believed in the god they were telling me about. I knew they were quite serious about it, not like they were when they were telling me about the Easter bunny for example, But at the same time, I couldn't really belief they whole thing was entirely serious, either.
    I mean, Jesus was easy enough to grasp, and his stories and lessons did make sense, but the whole resurrection thing? The virgin birth? Life after death? Transsubstanciation (or however you spell that one)? I used to have that filed under "doesn't really matter that much, probably, and is probably just a metaphor anyway". The rest I tried to believe in, as that was expected of me.
    But when I was able to take a step back, and to take an honest look, I had to admit to myself and the rest of the world that, no, I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I tried, but I can't.

    After struggling to believe for well over 2 decades, I had to admit defeat.
    So how can belief be a choice? Surely a choice would mean that you actually can choose to either believe or not to believe?
    Without anybody jumping down my throat for this, please, I feel that being religious or not being religious is about as much choice as being gay or not being gay.
    You can try all you want, if you're straight you'll never be attracted to members of your own sex. And try as I might, I could never believe in a spiritual side of the world..


    Atheist boardsie Strobe asked the same question in slightly different form over in the Christianity forum.
    Strobe wrote:
    Pretty straight forward question (I think). Why (in your opinion) do atheists and Hindus not believe Jesus was the son of God? Why are non-Christians, non-Christians?

    To which I replied

    antiskeptic wrote:
    It's quite simple to my mind. The reason you don't believe Jesus is the son of God is the same as the reason you don't believe a whole raft of other things, namely: you haven't sufficient evidence to enable belief. If you had convincing evidence of X then you would naturally, believe X to be the case. Whatever X may be.

    Conversely, the reason why Christians believe is that they have evidence suffficient to sustain belief. That would also be a biblical take - there is no requirement for blind (evidential-less) faith.

    Which he not unsurprisingly concluded was the:

    Strobe wrote:
    Most interesting answer so far, in my opinion.


    :)


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056208332

    You don't believe in Christs resurrection for instance, because there is no good reason for you to believe it. Which is utterly fair enough. God is nothing if not reasonable.


  • #3
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,883 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    If you ever watch or listen to podcasts like the Atheist Experience you'll often get fundamentalists calling in who will say "you're choosing to ignore god, you're ignoring his call" etc etc.

    This of course isn't true, but I suppose if a person has a strong belief cognitive dissonance would turn "this person perhaps refutes some of my beliefs" into "this person chooses to ignore the facts".


  • #4
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I believe that some people are more likely to believe in God and be religious than others. I wouldn't go so far as to equate it to being born gay, as personal circumstances can still destroy a religious persons beliefs.

    Some people subconsciously WANT to believe in God. They need to believe in God because it comforts them. It's the balance that religion is based on. You don't believe in God, you'll burn in Hell for eternity. But believe in God and follow him, and you'll have a good life and be rewarded in Heaven. People, even those who you'd think wouldn't place their faith in something so unproven and doubtful, subconsciously don't want to risk being wrong.

    I watched Religulous (Bill Maher's movie about religion) last week, and I saw something which kinda proved what I'm saying. After Bill talked to some believers, pointed flaws in what they were saying, and generally ran rings around them, a few of them just asked him "What if you're wrong?". That's it. That's the fear that religion has drilled into them and they can't escape from, because they are more subsceptible to it than others. That's what faith is in my opinion. Worshipping God when something good happens, and worshipping him when something bad happens because you're too afraid that questioning him will result in your being condemned to Hell.

    So yes, I believe some people are a lot more likely to become religious from birth. But it's still a choice.


  • #5
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    antiskeptic wrote:
    Conversely, the reason why Christians believe is that they have evidence suffficient to sustain belief. That would also be a biblical take - there is no requirement for blind (evidential-less) faith.

    So you claim to apply the same standards of evidence to christianity, as you do in every other area of your life?


  • #6
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The idea that some people (theists) find evidence convincing that others (atheists/agnostics) don't - only holds true only for a certain, limited amount of people.

    It is my unsupported contention, that the vast majority of "believers", believe because they:
    1. Want/need to believe in something and have (sub)consciously silenced the voices;
    2. Have never really thought about it out of pure apathy;
    3. Are (through no fault of their own) brainwashed or uneducated in science or what we know the natural world.

    Also, almost all the above would have been raised in a religion.
    This is supported by the stats that show the "transfer" between religious and non-religious hugely outnumber the opposite.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    liamw wrote: »
    So you claim to apply the same standards of evidence to christianity, as you do in every other area of your life?

    I'd apply far higher standards in fact. Christianities claims are too outlandish and significant to settle for common-or-garden levels of evidence such as those required to support something as relatively insignificant as eg: evolution

    :)


  • #8
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Before this turns into a thread requesting and debunking antiskeptic's evidence - can we just assume the answer to the question as far as he's concerned is "yes - for me it's a conscious decision"?

    Kthxbye


  • #9
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'd apply far higher standards in fact. Christianities claims are too outlandish and significant to settle for common-or-garden levels of evidence such as those required to support something as relatively insignificant as eg: evolution

    :)

    I'd agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Bu why doesn't everybody accept this 'high standard' of evidence that supports the outlandish claims of christianity? Where is this evidence? Is it hidden away from us all until we 'open our hearts'?

    EDIT: Aww Dades, that's no fun


  • #10
    token56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,695 ✭✭✭token56


    I think there are various reasons why some people believe and others dont but ultimately I completely agree with Barrington.

    The first and most obvious reason is your upbringing and the environment you are brought up in. If from a kid you have been told by its parents, teachers, etc there is a God and X, Y and Z happened, a lot of kids are just going to believe what they are told. Sure alot will have questions but ultimately once they are still kids the will continue to be told whatever the parents, teachers etc want to tell them. The people who do question these things as kids are in my opinion more likely to continue to question them as they grow up and this can ultimately lead to them not believing, or conversely it could strengthen their believe. In these cases there is some element of a conscious choice. You then have others who just tend to accept the things they are told as they grow up and never think to question them or have reason to question them, although I would think the majority of people would question theirs believes from time to time. But I think the element of conscious choice is not as significant here if someone never questions what they have been told since they were a kid.

    But you also have to take into account what Barrington said and I firmly believe for some people its simply in their nature to believe and for others its in their nature to question, be a skeptic and not believe. I think this is largely dominated by a persons upbringing and their environment but ultimately their personality. I think some people feel a need to believe in a higher power or that there is something beyond this life. This could be for a sense of security, or a comfort in believing there is some element of order or reason behind all of us and the madness that goes on, that there is some reward for being a good person after all of this. I think this is mainly down to a persons personality, but of course upbringing and environment can effect a personality so these have to be considered.

    I think ultimately that even if we all had our minds wiped clear regarding religion and no one had ever heard of such a thing as a higher power, i.e. we were all set to a default atheist state but we all retain our current knowledge of the world around us, you will have some sort of split between those that will believe there is some sort of higher power and those that dont but I think this split will always come down to a persons personality.


  • #11
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Dades wrote: »
    Before this turns into a thread requesting and debunking antiskeptic's evidence

    You wish, you old empiricist ringfencer you :)

    can we just assume the answer to the question as far as he's concerned is "yes - for me it's a conscious decision"?


    I wouldn't fully agree. I don't think it's a conscious decision to believe there's a computer screen in front of me. More like a default reaction to the evidence that's there.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I wouldn't fully agree. I don't think it's a conscious decision to believe there's a computer screen in front of me. More like a default reaction to the evidence that's there.
    My point is - and I was doing you a favour - is that you didn't just choose it because it suited you. In the same way you aren't choosing to believe there's a screen in front of you, as the evidence removed the "choice" aspect completely.


  • #13
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    liamw wrote: »
    I'd agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Bu why doesn't everybody accept this 'high standard' of evidence that supports the outlandish claims of christianity? Where is this evidence? Is it hidden away from us all until we 'open our hearts'?

    EDIT: Aww Dades, that's no fun

    Sorry. I've been muzzled.

    :(:)


  • #14
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    ^^ Only to the extent that we don't need to empty your evidence box and the table and spend 10 pages reaching the unsatisfactory conclusion that we all see different things as evidence.

    Would be nice for that thread to stay on topic for one page.


  • #15
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,822 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Dades wrote: »

    Would be nice for that thread to stay on topic for one page.

    I hope you haven't your settings to 40 posts a page or you're being very optimistic :p:D

    The OP's point is one I bring up often when someone throws some variant of Paschal's Wager at me in real life. I don't believe and if I wanted to I couldn't choose to believe.
    However I think our brains make it easier once we hold a belief to strengthen it. We are all subject to confirmation bias subconsciously and need to actively be aware of it to avoid it. I think that's why we don't see mass conversions.


  • #16
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You don't believe in Christs resurrection for instance, because there is no good reason for you to believe it. Which is utterly fair enough. God is nothing if not reasonable.

    But he'll punish us for not believing it nonetheless. Yeah, reasonable :confused:


  • #17
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But he'll punish us for not believing it nonetheless. Yeah, reasonable :confused:

    Technical point: It's not you're not believing in eg: Christ resurrected that you'll be punished for. It's for the wrongdoing you know is wrong you'll be punished for. Now you might say you don't know God exists in order to know what absolute good and evil is. Unfortunately that defence doesn't deal with a knowledge of good and evil being installed in you at birth - if that is indeed what occurred.

    Technical point: It's a denial of what you do know to be the case (see above point about that knowledge installed at birth) that leads to your not being saved (and so being punsihed for your sin - which is reasonable) . Evidence of Christ resurrection is a subsequent event to your being saved - if you happen not to believe in Christs resurrection it's because you're not saved. Belief in Christs resurrection is 'merely' a marker or identifier of the fact you've been saved. According to the argument.


  • #18
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Technical point: It's not you're not believing in eg: Christ resurrected that you'll be punished for. It's for the wrongdoing you know is wrong you'll be punished for. Now you might say you don't know God exists in order to know what absolute good and evil is. Unfortunately that defence doesn't deal with a knowledge of good and evil being installed in you at birth - if that is indeed what occurred.

    Technical point: It's a denial of what you do know to be the case (see above point about that knowledge installed at birth) that leads to your not being saved (and so being punsihed for your sin - which is reasonable) . Evidence of Christ resurrection is a subsequent event to your being saved - if you happen not to believe in Christs resurrection it's because you're not saved. Belief in Christs resurrection is 'merely' a marker or identifier of the fact you've been saved. According to the argument.

    Yeah you've made this silly point a million times. We're being punished for our sins but those who are saved aren't punished for theirs because god has arbitrarily chosen to "save" them and not others. Basically god's an asshole. When two people have committed exactly the same sins and only one of them is punished because the other is "saved", the punishment has nothing do with sin. It's down to the whims of the metaphysical equivalent of a kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill


  • #19
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yeah you've made this silly point a million times. We're (to be - a.s.) being punished for our sins but those who are saved aren't punished for theirs because god has arbitrarily chosen to "save" them and not others.

    Not at all arbitrarily as the point made plain.
    me a minute ago wrote:
    It's a denial of what you do know to be the case (see above point about that knowledge installed at birth) that leads to your not being saved (and so being punished for your sin)

    Those who deny are lost. Those who desist from denying are saved. Where's "arbitrarily" in that?


  • #20
    witchgirl26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,482 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    I think it is a choice to believe or not. I do believe & i've made that decision and am happy with it. Others I know have chosen not to believe & they are just as happy with their decision.

    Some people subconsciously WANT to believe in God. They need to believe in God because it comforts them. It's the balance that religion is based on. You don't believe in God, you'll burn in Hell for eternity. But believe in God and follow him, and you'll have a good life and be rewarded in Heaven. People, even those who you'd think wouldn't place their faith in something so unproven and doubtful, subconsciously don't want to risk being wrong.

    I suppose I do beleive in God because it comforts me. That said the God I believe in would not let people burn in Hell for all eternity for not believing in Him. I do believe in an afterlife and I think, whether you believe in God or not, what you do in this life determines how you'll spend your afterlife.
    That's the fear that religion has drilled into them

    Religion has never drilled fear into me and the "What if you're wrong" is not the reason I've chosen to believe in God. It's a lot more personal than that to me.

    Just a viewpoint from some who does believe. That said I'm not trying to convert anyone (just in case someone thinks I am). Like I said, it's all a personal thing in my mind so I respect others choice to believe or not.


  • #21
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yeah you've made this silly point a million times.

    And yet you continue to make the same mistake.
    We're being punished for our sins

    You are inheriting the price of sin which was ordained from the beginning, i.e. death.
    but those who are saved aren't punished for theirs because god has arbitrarily chosen to "save" them and not others.

    No, thats an assumption on your part.
    Basically god's an asshole.

    Well, you make your choices.
    When two people have committed exactly the same sins and only one of them is punished because the other is "saved", the punishment has nothing do with sin. It's down to the whims of the metaphysical equivalent of a kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill

    Well, no-one is entitled to be forgiven, so those who aren't are getting what they deserve. Those who are, are receiving an undeserved gift. That its done so arbitrarily is only your assumption.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,655 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    witchgirl26 wrote: »
    Religion has never drilled fear into me and the "What if you're wrong" is not the reason I've chosen to believe in God. It's a lot more personal than that to me.
    From what I can see, in your case you have chosen to strip the belief in God of uncomfortable elements that would have prevented you from choosing to believe in him.

    So by removing Hell, and no doubt other things attributable to God, you have paved the way for you to be comfortable with this belief. You have no logical justification for doing this - you have simply used your own conscience to mould a God from the raw materials others are made from.

    But it's a good example for the thread.


  • #23
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Onto your add-by-edit.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    When two people have committed exactly the same sins and only one of them is punished because the other is "saved", the punishment has nothing do with sin

    Two sins by two different people attract two punishments for two people. In the case of a saved person the punishment is transferred to Christ. So punishment appears to have everything to do with it.

    I find it hard to believe you've not grasped this most basic of Christian doctrines. You're not trolling me Sam :)?


  • #24
    witchgirl26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,482 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Dades wrote: »
    From what I can see, in your case you have chosen to strip the belief in God of uncomfortable elements that would have prevented you from choosing to believe in him.

    So by removing Hell, and no doubt other things attributable to God, you have paved the way for you to be comfortable with this belief. You have no logical justification for doing this - you have simply used your own conscience to mould a God from the raw materials others are made from.

    But it's a good example for the thread.

    It's not exactly that - it's more that I don't believe in the "vengeful God" stereotype or the whole "fire & brimstone" thing. I do believe that religious or not, if you do bad in this life, you will be punished accordingly in the next. I just don't count not believing in God as doing bad.

    There are many uncomfortable elements as you refer to them that I still believe in (and that I do struggle with the belief at times because of) but I have never, since childhood, believed in the traditional view of Hell.


  • #25
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    witchgirl26 wrote: »
    It's not exactly that - it's more that I don't believe in the "vengeful God" stereotype or the whole "fire & brimstone" thing. I do believe that religious or not, if you do bad in this life, you will be punished accordingly in the next. I just don't count not believing in God as doing bad.

    There are many uncomfortable elements as you refer to them that I still believe in (and that I do struggle with the belief at times because of) but I have never, since childhood, believed in the traditional view of Hell.

    FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.


  • #26
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not at all arbitrarily as the point made plain.

    Those who deny are lost. Those who desist from denying are saved. Where's "arbitrarily" in that?

    Onto your add-by-edit.


    Two sins by two different people attract two punishments for two people. In the case of a saved person the punishment is transferred to Christ. So punishment appears to have everything to do with it.

    I find it hard to believe you've not grasped this most basic of Christian doctrines. You're not trolling me Sam :)?

    Oh I've grasped it, I just don't see anything "reasonable" about it. What you're describing is not a punishment for sin. If the punishment was for sin then all sin would be punished equally, i.e. in exactly the same way and not with your punishment being given to someone else (see my above point re god being an asshole btw). What you're describing is a punishment for denying that your sins are sins.

    I doubt you'll claim that saved people never sin so are you saying that those who commit sin without realising it are damned and those that know something is a sin but do it anyway are saved?


  • #27
    witchgirl26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,482 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    Galvasean wrote: »
    FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.

    I don't see how that would be something that atheists or agnostics would be worried about though.....


  • #28
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    You claim that god instilled the knowledge of what is sinful in us at birth and all we have to do is stop denying this knowledge and we'll be saved. But the vast majority of the world are not christian and presumably a small subset of them are actually saved rather than just thinking they are so it appears that most people never manage it.

    Personally if I loved people and wanted to save them from damnation I'd use a method that wasn't going to lead to about 99% of people failing the test.

    But then I'm not an asshole.


  • #29
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Galvasean wrote: »
    FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.

    And some would believe in annhilationalism I'm sure.


  • #30
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Oh I've grasped it, I just don't see anything "reasonable" about it. What you're describing is not a punishment for sin. If the punishment was for sin then all sin would be punished equally, i.e. in exactly the same way and not with your punishment being given to someone else (see my above point re god being an asshole btw).

    Sin involves a debt. Debts can be transferred between parties so long as all are willing. Furthermore, debts can be paid off in various ways - it not being necessary to pay off your mortgage debt in money, you can equally pay it off with your house.

    You're construct doesn't really operate in the day to day of real world. Yet you impose it on this specific case.

    ??

    I doubt you'll claim that saved people never sin so are you saying that those who commit sin without realising it are damned and those that know something is a sin but do it anyway are saved?

    We all know* we do wrong (even if we don't all attach the lable "sin" to it). So knowingly doing wrong clearly isn't the basis that separates the saved and the lost


    *providing God has indeed equipped us with that knowledge. Which either is or isn't the case - it's not dependent on your viewpoint.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell.
    Might be worth putting to the poll there? I'm sure that a very basic issue like that would have 100% agreement amongst believers!


Advertisement
Advertisement