the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

:) I enjoy your dissertations on theology. Wouldn’t attempt it, myself. :)

Everything I ever needed to know about atheists I learned in bible class (and it was all wrong)

Diana, will you accept my apology? I really didn’t mean to sound like I am “holier than thou” or anything like that. I’ve actually read enough of your posts to be sure that you have more conviction regarding atheism than most of us have regarding Christianity! And yes, you have done MUCH more reading and studying on the subject than I have ever had the desire to do! Please forgive me for being thoughtless!

However, I would also still love to have a conversation with you about the entire process. (Maybe YOU can convert ME, although I doubt it; I’ve had these convictions for well over fifty years, now.)

Keep writing! I love to read your posts!

Oh, Aunt Bann. I didn’t want you to take it as an attack. I’m sorry. Of course I accept your apology, but frankly…I don’t think you ever meant it the way it came across, so in my mind, you have nothing to apologize for. As a matter of fact, I should thank you, because you helped crystallize some impressions I’ve had for years but never found a way to put words to.

I love you! :)

d

Diana,
You know I am greatly sympathetic to your views. I share many (but not all) of them. One of the ideas you bring up gives me slight pause, and I would love to hear your further thoughts on it. Assuming (as I do) that you are completely correct in NOT BEING ABLE TO believe the basic tenets of Christianity, would it not be equally correct to presume that those who believe don’t “choose” either? This opens a can of worms that is both deliriously provocative and endlessly mind-numbing. If nonbelievers cannot believe, but believers can choose, the whole thing falls apart. If believers cannot choose but to believe and non-believers cannot believe, then never the twain shall meet, and we are all, in effect, pre-programmed. (This is not a good word, I realize, as it implies that there is a programmer. Instead, I should say, we are all set in our ways and cannot change.)
Therefore, there is no reason in the world for an atheist to attempt to show a believer the error of his/her ways either. If an atheist believes that he/she can convince a believer that God does not exist, he/she must also give room for the believer to do likewise. I might be parting hairs here, but they are hairs that do need to be parted.
I find a certain amount of freedom in the thought that I called myself a Christian at one time and do not any longer. At the same time, I must open my mind to the thought that I might someday reconsider, might decide to embrace Islam, or might finally pull an L. Ron Hubbard and start my own religion! Haha.
Agree? Disagree? I could be wrong, but since I’m admitting that I could be, does that mean I would be right? : )

No problem, Diana! I didn’t take it as an attack, but I did want to make sure that you KNEW that I didn’t mean anything bad when I said it. Not sure I’m making sense here, but I think you know what I mean.

Anyway, I also know that you love me, just as you know that I love you! “And that makes us even” as your Uncle Charles likes to say! lol

I enjoyed reading this. I can relate to a lot of those de-convertion feelings, though mine is quite recent and I’m still in the very early stages of figuring out where I stand.
My only question has to do with your idea of believing, and faith. The endless supply of money won’t be there, even if I believe it with all my heart, which I won’t, because it’s a fact. Facts, you can know, or ignore, but are not altered by your believing in them (or not). It’s different with God or whatever you call it: there is no way to KNOW him/it. Believing doesn’t apply to an endless supply of money in my pocket, but it can apply to God, because I can’t know he/it exists, or doesn’t. So, faith is the only thing to resort to. And whatever knowledge we have of God is indirect: bible, creation, the lot. I think that part could be reasonably objected.
However, I, like yourself, realized that believing is an act of free will, and I couldn’t do it because other people said I had to. The whole façade, the whole trying to be someone I wasn’t made me lose a lot of time and effort, and I’m still unsure whether it was worth it at all!

Hi, Tim! And thanks for visiting my little corner of the web. :)

You ask good questions. Let’s see….

“Assuming (as I do) that you are completely correct in NOT BEING ABLE TO believe the basic tenets of Christianity, would it not be equally correct to presume that those who believe don’t “choose” either?”

Absolutely. I thought I said that somewhere in there. Maybe not.

“This opens a can of worms that is both deliriously provocative and endlessly mind-numbing. If nonbelievers cannot believe, but believers can choose, the whole thing falls apart.”

Wait. You said before that believers couldn’t choose. Confused I am. But Yoda I’m not. :)

But anyway. At this moment, and for the past several years, I believe that people don’t have a choice whether they believe in a god or not. Many years ago, prompted by Christians asking me what it would take for me (or any atheist) to believe in God, I asked the inverse question in return: What would it take for you to stop believing in God?

While many atheists provided random answers to the question aimed at them, no Christian in my experience offered a single scenario which would make them stop believing. Not a single one.

I applied this question to myself. I admit I can think of no experience, no matter how radical, that I would feel compelled to explain with Goddidit. None.

So yeah. I think some people are inclined to believe and some are not.

“Therefore, there is no reason in the world for an atheist to attempt to show a believer the error of his/her ways either.”

No. I, for one, am quite thankful that someone bothered to explain their atheistic reasoning to me.

“If an atheist believes that he/she can convince a believer that God does not exist, he/she must also give room for the believer to do likewise.”

Yes! Well, sorta. The problem is this: Most believers are motivated by emotion and/or ignorance. I don’t mean to be insulting, but when the chaff is separated from the wheat, these are the things that remain. Most atheists are motivated by reason, and they cannot shut it off in order to accommodate any special notions (no, they aren’t Spock, and they do feel love and anger, etc, but they aren’t prone to decide, based upon emotion, that an invisible, undetectable being has lived forever outside of time and invented humanity to worship him). So unless one is masquerading as the other, there is no point in trying to convince them.

That’s why I don’t. I try to get people to understand why I’m an atheist, something most of my atheist friends tell me is a waste of time. But it isn’t. Many people come to understand and respect my thoughts, even while they don’t agree.

d

Greetings, Mila! Happy to have you here.

“Facts, you can know, or ignore, but are not altered by your believing in them (or not).”

Absolutely.

“It’s different with God or whatever you call it: there is no way to KNOW him/it. Believing doesn’t apply to an endless supply of money in my pocket, but it can apply to God, because I can’t know he/it exists, or doesn’t.”

I’m not sure I follow you here. Are you saying believing in God - whether or not there’s anything to back the belief - will pay off in some way (like, emotionally)?

“So, faith is the only thing to resort to.”

Yes, and that’s my biggest problem with it.

“However, I, like yourself, realized that believing is an act of free will, and I couldn’t do it because other people said I had to.”

I think we may have a different idea of “free will,” because I was arguing that belief is NOT an act of free will. Quite the opposite.

Am I misunderstanding you?

d

I just wanted to say that I also love your cousin Becky.

I think there is, in fact, at least a part of believing that we ourselves chose, at some point. I know I believed, and then for some reason I didn’t anymore. But actually I think I meant something else: believing is an act of free will, because nobody can MAKE you believe.

About the knowing vs believing thing: believing doesn’t apply to money in my pocket that I know for a fact is NOT there, no matter how hard I believe it. In god, you believe or not, because there is no direct factual proof that he exist. If there was, there would be no point in faith: we would just KNOW that god or whoever does in fact exist.

I hope this makes it more clear… I’m sorry I suck at English.

Mila.-

I think I understand what you’re saying. I think believing does apply to what we know, as well, but it’s worthwhile to differentiate the two. We usually think of “knowledge” as something which is scientifically demonstrable” (although believers use the term to mean “really, really intense belief,” which muddies the waters). I think of belief as mental acceptance, whether or not something is demonstrable. IOW, I believe I have money in my pocket (something which is demonstrable, and I may be wrong all the same).

I used to believe, as well, but I wouldn’t say I “chose” it. I was not aware until I was 10 or older that there was a possibility that there was no god, at which point I began trying to believe. Perhaps some people can, at this point, choose it and thus believe it, but that simply doesn’t work for me. Hence, I don’t see it as an act of free will (trying to believe is an act of free will, but belief itself?).

The problem with a god is usually viewed as different from the problem with, say, the Loch Ness monster, or Bigfoot, or fairies, but it isn’t different at all. People are just more reticent to own that they don’t believe in a god because of the argument from popularity.

d

Diana,
I like your answers! As I said at the beginning, I share most of your beliefs, so I think you know I wasn’t trying to tie you up in any philosophical knot. I was actually doing something that you yourself alluded to in your answer.
I do think the main advantage of talking over things like this is NOT to change other people’s minds but to STRENGTHEN our own ideas and concepts of who we are. Which, I think, is what you were getting to when you expressed thanks that someone had explained their atheism to you. So, again, we are on the same page.
I do think argument as a means of changing other people is almost always a waste of time and effort. As you say, you can’t really reason with “faith.” I wish most Christians understood that it works both ways. I do think it is why Christians have a particularly hard time trying to sell their wares to nonbelievers. Christians don’t subject themselves to reason; why should they be able to reason with others? : )
I can learn a great deal from you, by listening to your ideas. Hopefully, you would think the same. That is more important, I would suggest, than changing someone’s mind.

Carry on.

P.S. In respect to your confusion over my “believers having/not having the ability to choose,” I was indeed saying that I believe they do not. The next sentence was merely a further statement, suggesting that if they COULD CHOOSE but nonbelievers COULDN’T, it would make for an unbalanced foundation of reasoning.

One last thought and I’ll yield the floor! This whole line of thought, in a way, establishes a certain amount of sympathy/understanding/pity/etc. toward all of these hypocrites who say one thing and are caught doing another. Obviously, they tried to believe something that they were not able to. It might be hard for a Christian to come out as a gay/lesbian. It might be even harder for them to come out as an agnostic or atheist!

Sorry to take over.
You provoke much thought! : )

Thanks, Tim. Indeed, I do believe that argument is the best medium for learning. I applied this when I taught. My most effective classes were little more than getting students to argue different sides of an interpretation/belief with me simply mediating (and I make a point, in uniform and in front of impressionable students, of taking any side - the whole point is to get them to do their own thinking).

And no worries, “take over” any time you wish.

One response occurred to me while I was reviewing your thoughts: people cannot be argued out of faith, indeed. Usually. As Sam Harris points out, this is because most of them were never argued into it.

I have a corollary which he doesn’t consider, but which is a reality: Many believers clearly BELIEVE their religion is built upon evidence and reason (despite the obvious requirement for faith). They honestly think there’s evidence that God exists and Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected. Upon these assumptions, they add faith. For these people - and you never know who they will be - asking the right questions can make a huge difference.

d

Well now. I couldn’t pass up all the fun here and not comment, especially considering the fact that dissenting voices make for a more interesting discussion.

This idea (oh, boy, aren’t those two words revealing? It’s funny how often people use those two words together, “this idea” as a way to seemingly start from an objective viewpoint but really it demonstrates some degree of disagreement, discontent, or impending refutation rather transparently. I guess the cat’s out of the bag already. Oh well) of believing or not believing being disconnected from choice seems a bit problematic to me. You assert that those who sincerely believe do so because they are compelled in some way and that those who do not believe are equally compelled, or, as you say in response to Tim, “I believe that people don’t have a choice whether they believe in a god or not.” It seems though that you are here expressing belief in a higher power the same way that Christians do: a Christian would say “I’m this way because God made me this way” and the atheist would say “I’m this way because genetics made me this way.” Each position has a deity. If you do not have a choice, then there must be some force which configures you in that way, since, obviously, you did nothing yourself and made no decision to believe in a god or not believe.

I look much more favorably upon the idea that we in fact choose to believe in the way that we do. I would go so far as to say that we all are believers, but simply that we believe in widely varying paradigms. IMO, a term that needs to be introduced here is conscious or conscientious choice (which I think is a more precise designation for the type of choice you are refuting). Many people have opinions, beliefs, perspectives, etc, that are largely unexamined. I would say that most, if not all, of us have certain underlying assumptions of which we are unaware but which nonetheless shape the way we view the world. These assumptions therefore have not yet entered the realm of conscious or conscientious choice. So, when looking at religious individuals, because of the way they were raised (looking at how someone was raised is, to me, simply way to trace the genesis of operative assumptions) to view the world, they may seem to believe by default because they don’t realize that certain assumptions are in place which make belief almost inevitable. For instance, a child raised and inculcated with the idea that nature and its processes are mysterious and incomprehensible will be presented with evidence to solidify that perspective like plant and animal growth, the vastness of the solar system, the complexity of a spider-web, etc, and this evidence combination of assumption and evidence can then be used for the conclusion: therefore there exists a creator and that creator is god.

What sometimes happens, though, is that the specifics of that assumption, evidence, conclusion undergo modification but with strangely similar results. The child may begin to study science only to find out that his evidence was off and that those “mysteries” are quite explicable within a scientific paradigm. This new information may lead to excising the conclusion about a creator as well. But, and here’s the rub, the assumption continues to do its work. As the scientist who was once a child continues on in scientific exploration, there comes the recognition that quarks, or the deepest parts of earth’s ocean, or distant universes, or string theory, etc, are ACTUAL mysteries (unlike those banal non-mysteries like spider-webs). Religion has no bearing on the scientist’s existence any longer because it cannot help explain the real mysteries. What all this means is that the same assumption facilitates the validity of seemingly different evidence. The same assumption is what makes it possible to find evidence for a perspective and come to whatever conclusions. The point is that the assumption never came under any scrutiny during the entire process from believing in a god to not believing. Either way, there still remains the operative idea that nature is mysterious, that there is some sort of order present, and that there are means to understand it eventually (whether through religious or scientific means). So, we ask, “Was this person compelled to look at the world in this particular fashion? Was there a choice?” If we don’t recognize the unexamined and pivotal assumptions, we could conclude that what we are looking at is compulsion, but, really, what we have here are choices made without recognition that the seemingly compulsory means were really just latent assumptions.

Of course, my few paragraphs about the will are simply part of the conversations that have been going on for centuries. Kant, for instance, is one who was very uncomfortable with the idea of the absence of will. He worried that if we maintain that people think and do thinks based on creation (which could mean religious or genetic for us), then there was no way to hold people accountable for what they do. If a person thinks or does something simply because their nature compels him or her, then how can punitive measures be enforced (or, iow, what grounds are there to say that the way one person was created is better than another)? For that matter, if there is no will, then we can have no “oughts” (people ought to be treated equally, people ought to have rights, people ought to have food, etc) because all we have is nature. No one should or should not be a certain way because no one has any choice in the matter. Rapists, therefore, should not be punished because they are only acting on their natures and have no choice but to rape.

Wait a minute. Now I’ve gone to far, right? Yeah, actually I would agree. The comment about rape is a bit hyperbolic and even inflammatory, but in place for a reason. I don’t know how far you and others would go on the compulsion issue, but it has to stop somewhere, because, almost no one is actually of the opinion that rapists are just doing what’s in their natures as we all are and so they therefore should not be punished. So choice must come into play so that we, as people and as a society, are able to assert that certain things, like being an arrogant, offensive, and thoughtless Christian are wrong, and others, like being a thoughtful and considerate person of reason are right.

But on the other hand, there must also be some things which are predispositions or else we have a very difficult time explaining (and some try on both sides of the line) why sexual attraction functions the way it does. Why do people have sexual urges is the question that causes most people to conclude that there are certain elements of our existence over which we have little initial control. I am of the opinion that these inborn elements are drives (some call it “drive theory”). These drives compel us towards certain things, but I would also assert that we must also make choices on whether or not to act on the drives, and, if we decide to act, how exactly we will act. Sex is the obvious example which needs little example. But even then, looking at drives is not cut and dry because, like we discussed in Eric’s seminar, even something as seemingly straightforward as “I’m gay/straight/bi” is not so simple because the object of attraction, “men” or “women” are categories that are almost impossible to nail down. So if we can’t exactly define sex/gender, then how can someone be acting on a transparent drive to be sexually involved with a particular gender?

Belated disclaimer: I know I’m using tangents to illustrate my point and that I run the risk of derailing the conversation especially because of the somewhat controversial nature of my assertions, but know that I’m writing to you, Diana, primarily and am therefore speaking from the space we share in our studies as hopefully familiar ground to each of us. To others reading, I hope my comments don’t prompt a discussion about sex and gender formation except if such a topic relates to present topic(s) established by Diana.

Ok. Back to what I was saying. If we can agree that both predisposition and choice are part of this existence, then we can move on to the question of “belief.” I can agree with the perspective that says that certain people are able to believe in a god more easily than others because of the way they are wired, but such an assertion does not of necessity negate the will. A person encounters information and must make a choice of how to process and internalize it. Some, when faced with the information that our solar system revolved around the sun, internalized it as poor research, dangerously false, and anti-Christian, while others, internalized the information of evidence of God’s grandeur and love that he would reveal such information. Same information, wildly different conclusions. One person can look at all the violence and hatred in the world and conclude “this is proof that god does not exist, else why would he/she/is permit such horrors.” while another person could see that same and conclude “this is proof of the extent of God’s love for us, that He will not force us to believe in Him and behave in certain ways even if it comes at a great cost to us.” I’ve heard both of these conclusions. So which is right? Difficult to say without asserting one’s own paradigmatic viewpoint. We can only try to make a conscious and conscientious choice in which we seek to understand why we want to view something in a certain way and recognize that there are other ways to view the same information.

This raises another similar issue, one which Mila asserted and to which you adamantly agreed, “Facts, you can know, or ignore, but are not altered by your believing in them (or not).” Not really, actually. Facts, actual facts, those things which are demonstrable both empirically and repeatedly and to which no viable opposition exists, are only useful in an argument when they are contextualized. A statistic, for instance, if its method of procurement is verified and accepted as valid, says nothing in and of itself but must be contextualized. So I would say that a fact does actually change based on your belief because an invalid fact is no longer useful, meaning that if I take a particular fact (for many it was a “fact” that the earth was the center of our solar system) and reject it, it is altered. If I can convince others that a particular fact is invalid, then I can foment the formation of a new fact that the once thought of “fact,” is now antiquated and, therefore, no longer a fact.

I bring this up because I have often heard the argument from both theists and atheists that “if you’d only look at the facts, at the evidence, and if you have half a brain, you’d realize that [insert perspective] is undeniably correct.” I simply don’t agree. And I don’t agree because I think choice is so important and potent in the way it makes it possible to view the same information/phenomenon/argument and come to radically different conclusions.

I understand why you would be offended by arrogant Christians who try to convert you, but are you that much different? They see themselves as possessing information you have as yet not been privy to, but that seems similar to the way you assert (very eloquently, I might add) that atheists are people “who have not only spent their lives thinking about something you accept unquestioningly but who have a greater education than you do, and who have forgotten (more than likely) more about the world’s religions than you will ever know.” Here you privilege a specific epistemological framework in which the quantity of both time spent and knowledge of religion in general makes you more able to have an opinion about its validity. Implicit in your assertion is that many Christians simply do not posses your knowledge, and, therefore, their opinions are not as valid. This says more about how people attribute value to certain things (axiology) than it does about who is more able to preach their particular perspective. The problem arises when someone ends up thinking that which he or she values caries with it some sort of authority, whether it be a Christian talking about how many hours he or she has spent in some religious service, or an atheist talking about how many hours have been spent pondering and reading a vast amount of books on a variety of topics.

Christians as well as atheists (and people in general) love to straw man their opponents. This activity seems almost inevitable once a person, and then a group, confidently comes to the conclusion it knows something others do not, and must then account for the disparity. As my final remark, I will repost one of Tim’s last comments and replace certain words to demonstrate how it could easily show up in a discussion between Christians. I have actually heard the same types of comments from Christian leaning individuals on many occasions which simply dismiss other perspectives outright.

“Comment from: Tim [Visitor]
Diana,
I like your answers! As I said at the beginning, I share most of your beliefs, so I think you know I wasn’t trying to tie you up in any theological knot. I was actually doing something that you yourself alluded to in your answer.
I do think the main advantage of talking over things like this is NOT to change other people’s minds but to STRENGTHEN our own ideas and concepts of who we are. Which, I think, is what you were getting to when you expressed thanks that someone had explained their religious convictions to you. So, again, we are on the same page.
I do think argument as a means of changing other people is almost always a waste of time and effort. As you say, you can’t really reason with “the world.” I wish most non-believers understood that it works both ways. I do think it is why non-believers have a particularly hard time trying to sell their wares to Christians. Non-believers don’t subject themselves to reason; why should they be able to reason with others? : )
I can learn a great deal from you, by listening to your ideas. Hopefully, you would think the same. That is more important, I would suggest, than changing someone’s mind.

Carry on.”

So, to sum up, I think we all choose to believe what we do even if we have not scrutinized the assumptions at work which enable the beliefs, whatever they may be. Also, empiricism, which is often a tenant among atheists (based on my experience) requires faith (in terms of its validity) just like Christianity.

Of course, I could be wrong on all this. I openly admit that, but I do so because I think doubts keep me open to shift the way I think about my existence and things in it, even if I think I’m correct in my thinking. Oh, and sorry about the length. Prolix is my middle name.

Hi, Jem!

I admit I’m in a bit of a hurry and haven’t made it through all that yet, but unless you’re using a much looser definition of the term “deity” than is usually meant, I object to your characterization of atheists believing in a “deity.”

I should read the rest before I comment further.

Thanks for the post, though. I will catch it later today. :)

d

Just to be clear. When I say “deity,” I do not mean a being or unified governing power, I mean it as (one of the ways) the OED defines it, “an object of worship” where worship means “to regard with extreme respect.” So, deity then would be the object of extreme respect. I bet you’ll have some interesting arguments to refute what I’ve said, but I at least want my slight(s) to be clear so they can be properly refuted. ;)

Cool, as long as I know which definition we’re using, I’m cool with that. I consider science and logic worthy of extreme respect, so no arguments there. I do not toss myself off buildings because gravity is “only a theory,” for example….

I assume, however, that you do not regard your god as an “object” of extreme respect, unless we’re again using the “subject” meaning of “object.” I assume you regard your deity as a being which exists and which is worthy of respect.

So I assume you consider them both worthy of respect, yes? Then you have two deities?

I shall now refill my wine glass and go read the book you wrote. :D

d

Hi, Jem. :)

The easiest way for me to respond to your thoughts without forgetting my reactions (and thus, possibly valuable thoughts) is to respond as I read it. I was accused once of being combative because I prefer this format, so I feel obliged to offer my apologies if you take it that way. It certainly isn’t meant to offend; rather, it is meant to show which points I consider worthy of agreement, clarification, or (possibly) disagreement. Hopefully, in the process of focusing on exactly what you’re saying, I will not overlook the bigger ideas; if I do, please point them out.

OK.

…believing or not believing being disconnected from choice seems a bit problematic to me. You assert that those who sincerely believe do so because they are compelled in some way and that those who do not believe are equally compelled, or, as you say in response to Tim, “I believe that people don’t have a choice whether they believe in a god or not.” It seems though that you are here expressing belief in a higher power the same way that Christians do: a Christian would say “I’m this way because God made me this way” and the atheist would say “I’m this way because genetics made me this way.”

If by “higher power” you mean a god, then I will of course disagree. If by higher power you mean “something beyond my control, such as genetics,” I agree.

If you do not have a choice, then there must be some force which configures you in that way, since, obviously, you did nothing yourself and made no decision to believe in a god or not believe.

Agree.

I look much more favorably upon the idea that we in fact choose to believe in the way that we do.

The thesis. :)

I would go so far as to say that we all are believers, but simply that we believe in widely varying paradigms.

I agree that we are all believers, yes.

IMO, a term that needs to be introduced here is conscious or conscientious choice (which I think is a more precise designation for the type of choice you are refuting).

I agree, but to my mind, the idea of “choice” necessarily entails a conscious act (so “conscious choice” strikes me as redundant). No?

Many people have opinions, beliefs, perspectives, etc, that are largely unexamined. I would say that most, if not all, of us have certain underlying assumptions of which we are unaware but which nonetheless shape the way we view the world. These assumptions therefore have not yet entered the realm of conscious or conscientious choice. So, when looking at religious individuals, because of the way they were raised (looking at how someone was raised is, to me, simply way to trace the genesis of operative assumptions) to view the world, they may seem to believe by default because they don’t realize that certain assumptions are in place which make belief almost inevitable. For instance, a child raised and inculcated with the idea that nature and its processes are mysterious and incomprehensible will be presented with evidence to solidify that perspective like plant and animal growth, the vastness of the solar system, the complexity of a spider-web, etc, and this evidence combination of assumption and evidence can then be used for the conclusion: therefore there exists a creator and that creator is god.

Again, I agree. :) Absolutely. I thought I went into this, but if I did, I certainly did not articulate it as well.

Not that that surprises me, Prolix.

What sometimes happens, though, is that the specifics of that assumption, evidence, conclusion undergo modification but with strangely similar results. The child may begin to study science only to find out that his evidence was off and that those “mysteries” are quite explicable within a scientific paradigm. This new information may lead to excising the conclusion about a creator as well.

Again, I agree. (I was going to try to address the paragraph this came from all at once, but you make so many good points that I feel compelled to break it up.)

But, and here’s the rub, the assumption continues to do its work.

By this, I assume you mean “assumption” per se - the actor is assuming either way. Yes?

As the scientist who was once a child continues on in scientific exploration, there comes the recognition that quarks, or the deepest parts of earth’s ocean, or distant universes, or string theory, etc, are ACTUAL mysteries (unlike those banal non-mysteries like spider-webs).

Absolutely. Just like rainbows and the orbits of planets and “the paths of the sea” once were.

Religion has no bearing on the scientist’s existence any longer because it cannot help explain the real mysteries.

I just want to clarify here. Judging from context, you are using the phrase “real mysteries” in reference to string theory and quarks, etc. However, I consider the questions religion wishes to answer real mysteries, as well.

What all this means is that the same assumption facilitates the validity of seemingly different evidence.

Perhaps I’m off in left field here, but I think it’s our different basic assumptions which lead to conflicting interpretations of available evidence. The theist believes a god or gods created everything; the atheist believes all we see is ultimately explicable via science (and as a corollary, it is meaningless to assert or believe in the existence of something which scientific inquiry cannot reasonably support).

Or maybe I’m missing the basic assumption we agree on, but it would have to be something vague like there will always be something we must take on “faith”? No. That one doesn’t work, either. I’ll await your clarification, then.

The same assumption is what makes it possible to find evidence for a perspective and come to whatever conclusions. The point is that the assumption never came under any scrutiny during the entire process from believing in a god to not believing. Either way, there still remains the operative idea that nature is mysterious, that there is some sort of order present, and that there are means to understand it eventually (whether through religious or scientific means).

Is the bolded bit your base assumption? I agree with it, and yes: we do make this basic assumption.

So, we ask, “Was this person compelled to look at the world in this particular fashion? Was there a choice?” If we don’t recognize the unexamined and pivotal assumptions, we could conclude that what we are looking at is compulsion, but, really, what we have here are choices made without recognition that the seemingly compulsory means were really just latent assumptions.

Um. I’s gittin confused now. :)

Let’s see if I have you. You’re saying, I think, that all of our conclusions are based upon unexamined assumptions, ultimately. If I am correct, I don’t yet see how that implies choice. I’m reading on….

Of course, my few paragraphs about the will are simply part of the conversations that have been going on for centuries. Kant, for instance, is one who was very uncomfortable with the idea of the absence of will.

I think we all are. :) Discomfort with an idea doesn’t reflect its reality one way or another, however.

He worried that if we maintain that people think and do thinks based on creation (which could mean religious or genetic for us), then there was no way to hold people accountable for what they do. If a person thinks or does something simply because their nature compels him or her, then how can punitive measures be enforced (or, iow, what grounds are there to say that the way one person was created is better than another)?

I think there is something to this, but when it’s stated like this, it’s bifurcation. It is tempting (and easy) to vote for “rule by an iron rod,” but it isn’t fair to human nature, which is far more complex than that.

For that matter, if there is no will, then we can have no “oughts” (people ought to be treated equally, people ought to have rights, people ought to have food, etc) because all we have is nature. No one should or should not be a certain way because no one has any choice in the matter. Rapists, therefore, should not be punished because they are only acting on their natures and have no choice but to rape.

I think you’ve mistaken my view, which is probably my fault. I do believe there is free will. I can choose, for example, to write a thoughtful response to your post or to simply blow it off. I can choose what I’ll have for breakfast, usually. :) I can choose lots of things. I haven’t claimed we have no free will. I have claimed that we cannot choose to believe in something simply as an act of will.

I may very well be bifurcating, myself, I admit. It kinda feels like it, but I can’t spot it.

But on the other hand, there must also be some things which are predispositions or else we have a very difficult time explaining (and some try on both sides of the line) why sexual attraction functions the way it does. Why do people have sexual urges is the question that causes most people to conclude that there are certain elements of our existence over which we have little initial control. I am of the opinion that these inborn elements are drives (some call it “drive theory”). These drives compel us towards certain things, but I would also assert that we must also make choices on whether or not to act on the drives, and, if we decide to act, how exactly we will act. Sex is the obvious example which needs little example. But even then, looking at drives is not cut and dry because, like we discussed in Eric’s seminar, even something as seemingly straightforward as “I’m gay/straight/bi” is not so simple because the object of attraction, “men” or “women” are categories that are almost impossible to nail down. So if we can’t exactly define sex/gender, then how can someone be acting on a transparent drive to be sexually involved with a particular gender?

Excellent explanation. Again, I agree. The world and humans are not so simple, even when we would prefer to believe they are.

Belated disclaimer: I know I’m using tangents to illustrate my point and that I run the risk of derailing the conversation especially because of the somewhat controversial nature of my assertions, but know that I’m writing to you, Diana, primarily and am therefore speaking from the space we share in our studies as hopefully familiar ground to each of us. To others reading, I hope my comments don’t prompt a discussion about sex and gender formation except if such a topic relates to present topic(s) established by Diana.

No worries. :)

Ok. Back to what I was saying. If we can agree that both predisposition and choice are part of this existence, then we can move on to the question of “belief.”

I agree, so ok. :)

I can agree with the perspective that says that certain people are able to believe in a god more easily than others because of the way they are wired, but such an assertion does not of necessity negate the will. A person encounters information and must make a choice of how to process and internalize it. Some, when faced with the information that our solar system revolved around the sun, internalized it as poor research, dangerously false, and anti-Christian, while others, internalized the information of evidence of God’s grandeur and love that he would reveal such information. Same information, wildly different conclusions.

Aaaahhhhh! Now I’ve got you! I think. :) My interpretation of what you just said, to make sure: One may discount inconvenient information to an amazing degree in order to protect one’s contingent belief.

I agree this applies to some people - I’ve seen it, too - but do you believe it applies to everyone? If so, why?

I don’t think it does apply to everyone. I’m not arguing that anyone is perfectly able to discern reality from fiction by being fair to all demonstrable facts, but I believe many people work ever closer to that goal. The trick of getting past your biases is to first recognize them and work against them. Easier said than done, I know, but scientists who wish to be taken seriously as genuine contributors to human knowledge do everything in their power to override their own biases. I believe lay people who are (1) aware of their own biases (and who isn’t?) and (2) sincerely after the truth, even if it means they must admit they are wrong, can do their best to be fair to the evidence. This is, IMO, the opposite of disregarding inconvenient information.

Thus, while I agree that while many people tend to do that and thus do choose their beliefs, there comes a certain point (in education, usually) at which people can no longer do it while protecting their sacred cow.

One person can look at all the violence and hatred in the world and conclude “this is proof that god does not exist, else why would he/she/is permit such horrors.” while another person could see that same and conclude “this is proof of the extent of God’s love for us, that He will not force us to believe in Him and behave in certain ways even if it comes at a great cost to us.” I’ve heard both of these conclusions. So which is right?

Depends upon one’s understanding of what a god or the God is.

This also depends on whether you wish to argue that logic doesn’t apply to god or gods. But that’s a losing battle. First, what do you use to argue it, if not logic? (Mmmmmmkay. Logic doesn’t apply to god or gods, but it does apply to humankind. It’s difficult to make the argument for this, but just to avoid that one, I’ll concede it. The problem then is how we decide which god is the right one, since all gods need to be exempt from logic at one point or another?)

Difficult to say without asserting one’s own paradigmatic viewpoint.

Yes. Until one is trapped into explaining what he means by “God,” which is, of course, his own paradigmatic viewpoint. However, I’ve never met a notion of God that cannot be logically destroyed.

We can only try to make a conscious and conscientious choice in which we seek to understand why we want to view something in a certain way and recognize that there are other ways to view the same information.

First, I’m distracted by this, so I’ll ask: what’s the difference between a choice which is conscious and a choice that is conscientious?

On your main point: I think you’re making an assumption here that we all view things the way we want to, which is begging the question in the classic sense. Yes, some people do manage to avoid inconvenient facts to an amazing degree; it does not follow that all of us thus choose what we believe, even according to your explanation. Some of us are unable to disregard inconvenient facts. (The inconvenient fact I have a huge problem with is logic, in case you’re wondering.)

The ability to decide what to believe applies to some, but not all. I’m not sure if the ability to ignore or disregard science (demonstrable reality) is a matter of nature and/or nurture, but I’m quite certain that some of us - myself being the prime subject at this moment - cannot choose what to believe, or even what facts to accept. Facts are demonstrable; rejecting them is an act of wilful ignorance. Thus, I cannot choose to believe in a god.

This raises another similar issue, one which Mila asserted and to which you adamantly agreed, “Facts, you can know, or ignore, but are not altered by your believing in them (or not).” Not really, actually.

Wot.

Facts, actual facts, those things which are demonstrable both empirically and repeatedly and to which no viable opposition exists, are only useful in an argument when they are contextualized.

The idea that “facts do not alter whether or not you believe in them,” and “facts are only useful in an argument when they are contextualized” are not mutually exclusive. I agree with both. I’ve had many discussions in which a statistic was produced where I accept the result (which is a fact), but I question the method. But statistics themselves are not facts. Statistics are percentages based upon a (hopefully representative) segment of the population in answer to (hopefully unbiased) questions. Facts, though, are unaltered by whether we believe in them. Facts are, by definition, either demonstrably true or false (i.e., a concept whose truth can be proved). Thus, only the result of the poll which produced the statistic is a fact.

A statistic, for instance, if its method of procurement is verified and accepted as valid, says nothing in and of itself but must be contextualized. So I would say that a fact does actually change based on your belief because an invalid fact is no longer useful, meaning that if I take a particular fact (for many it was a “fact” that the earth was the center of our solar system) and reject it, it is altered. If I can convince others that a particular fact is invalid, then I can foment the formation of a new fact that the once thought of “fact,” is now antiquated and, therefore, no longer a fact.

I included this just because I believe that the idea that a “fact” - like, the earth is the center of the universe - can be disproved. This is a very good point. What is the difference between a belief and a fact?

In this case, we learned with further evidence that this was not, in fact (heh), a fact. Those who rejected it because it was in opposition to what their faith had told them were not paying attention to science; they were not attending to the data. IOWs, they didn’t care what was demonstrable both empirically and repeatedly and to which no viable opposition exists (and Argument from Popularity is not viable opposition; it’s just sizeable opposition). The fact did not change.

But like I said, this is a classic distinction between belief and fact. “Fact” remains roughly what you’ve defined it as (although opposition of any amount does not change it; it just changes the popular conception, and popular conception is not equal to fact).

But how do we know fact? I agree that there’s a problem here: we only know anything to the best of our ability - and what we are able to understand is rarely if ever equivalent to popular conception - and that, we label “fact.” Our knowledge is limited only by our technology and reason. Denying technology and reason based upon desire to believe otherwise does not change fact.

I bring this up because I have often heard the argument from both theists and atheists that “if you’d only look at the facts, at the evidence, and if you have half a brain, you’d realize that [insert perspective] is undeniably correct.” I simply don’t agree. And I don’t agree because I think choice is so important and potent in the way it makes it possible to view the same information/phenomenon/argument and come to radically different conclusions.

Alas, I’ve heard the same. So on the basics here, I agree with you. We do have a propensity to believe certain things (and thus, a propensity to reject ideas which do not fit with our paradigm). I’m still not clear, however, on how you can choose to believe.

I understand why you would be offended by arrogant Christians who try to convert you, but are you that much different? They see themselves as possessing information you have as yet not been privy to, but that seems similar to the way you assert (very eloquently, I might add) that atheists are people “who have not only spent their lives thinking about something you accept unquestioningly but who have a greater education than you do, and who have forgotten (more than likely) more about the world’s religions than you will ever know.” Here you privilege a specific epistemological framework in which the quantity of both time spent and knowledge of religion in general makes you more able to have an opinion about its validity.

I wouldn’t say I’m more able to have an opinion. Clearly, this is not the case. Quite the contrary, actually. The more I learn, the harder it is for me to have an opinion about anything. :) It’s been my experience that the less education/experience a person has, the easier an opinion - nay, a conviction - comes to them.

Concerning Christians who believe they have information I have yet to be privy to, who are thus similar to me, I agree in a very shallow sense. That is, obviously they begin by assuming they understand/know more about the divine than I do. However, simple questioning proves this is not the case.

I do, however, privilege a particular epistemological framework. My framework is the same one they privilege for everything non-religious in their lives, as well as to all competing faiths. I’m simply suggesting they apply all their rules across the board. When and if they do, they’ll encounter a dilemma: which faith is the right one? This question cannot be answered if any person’s reasoning is to be applied across the board. And thus, is any faith correct? is a natural question to ask in its aftermath.

They may not posses your knowledge, and, therefore, their opinions are not as valid.

Absolutely.

If a person asserted to you that his unlearned opinion was as valid as yours and thus, all rivers flow from north to south, would that make his opinion as valid?

No. The less educated an opinion is, the less valid it is. If you want to argue with me on this point, just save your breath for the Flat Earth Society.

This says more about how people attribute value to certain things (axiology) than it does about who is more able to preach their particular perspective. The problem arises when someone ends up thinking that which he or she values caries with it some sort of authority, whether it be a Christian talking about how many hours he or she has spent in some religious service, or an atheist talking about how many hours have been spent pondering and reading a vast amount of books on a variety of topics.

It looks to me like you are conflating demonstrable knowledge with belief.

Do you have a baseline from which you work to determine truth? What is it?

Christians as well as atheists (and people in general) love to straw man their opponents. This activity seems almost inevitable once a person, and then a group, confidently comes to the conclusion it knows something others do not, and must then account for the disparity. As my final remark, I will repost one of Tim’s last comments and replace certain words to demonstrate how it could easily show up in a discussion between Christians. I have actually heard the same types of comments from Christian leaning individuals on many occasions which simply dismiss other perspectives outright.

Appropriate, because I think Tim is a Christian - or at least a theist. :)

Also, empiricism, which is often a tenant among atheists (based on my experience) requires faith (in terms of its validity) just like Christianity.

I think you’re equivocating “faith” here.

“Faith,” to a Christian, is why you believe what you do (Heb 11.1 basically says you believe because you believe; your beliefs are the reason you have to hope for what you believe in). In my case, “faith” is complete trust or confidence in someone or something, such as, well, gravity. It’s scientifically demonstrable and even predictable, as opposed to faith in God, which is neither.

Our beliefs are based upon very different things.

My original comment was that belief is not something you can choose. You have argued that people choose it by deciding which “facts” to believe and which to ignore, which I have observed myself, so I have no quibble on that front (IOWs, choosing to believe is contingent upon acts of wilful ignorance).

I have said this before and I’ll repeat it: I tried to believe (and felt the shame and guilt and pain of being unable) for years, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Why? Because no matter how cool the notion was, I simply couldn’t bring myself to believe it. Some people may indeed choose to believe and disregard unwelcome information in their efforts to maintain their faiths, but I’m not built that way. I simply cannot dismiss logic. Thus, there’s at least one person in the world who is unable to “choose” belief, as I cannot wilfully ignore facts, regardless of how inconvenient they are to my paradigm.

d

Jesus!

Wasn’t trying to out-prolix Jem. In my efforts to be clear, though, I sometimes get pretty lengthy myself. Maybe I should have just asked this: what inconvenient facts do you (Jem) disregard in order to choose your own faith?

d

Well…sorry, Jem. I didn’t mean to overwhelm with sheer volume or baffle with bullshit…or worse: to offend.

d