Most of us will have ended up with either a set of religious beliefs, or be consciously aware of a lack of religious beliefs. Many people are absolutely sure that their beliefs are well-justified. But if you think this, what about those who don't believe what you believe? Why do they disagree?
One answer is that they've simply made a mistake, like someone who keeps mishearing a song lyric. Another is that they are ignorant, and explaining to them what the truth is and why it is so will be enough to convince them. Another still is that what's right for you isn't right for everybody, and other people are often right to go about things differently from your way. None of these beliefs tend to provoke furious anger towards unbelievers, as they're not to blame for their differing views.
However, there is a different belief, which sometimes fosters the idea that unbelievers are wicked and deserve extreme punishment, that of wilful ignorance. Namely: everyone knows deep in their heart, subconscious or whatever what the truth is, but they repress it, forcefully (though perhaps subconsciously) denying the truth because of weakness of (moral) character. So for a Christian who believes this, for example, even people living in pre-Columbian Mexico would have felt in their hearts the love of Jesus, but would have spurned it because it went against what their elders said and what society expected of them.
So, does anyone here believe in wilful ignorance? If not, why do you think others hold different beliefs to your own?
Originally posted by AcolyteWhere does RWillis-style skepticism fit into this partitioning?
Most of us will have ended up with either a set of religious beliefs, or be consciously aware of a lack of religious beliefs. Many people are absolutely sure that their beliefs are well-justified. But if you think this, what about those who don't believe what you believe? Why do they disagree?
One answer is that they've simply made a mistake, like so ...[text shortened]... elieve in wilful ignorance? If not, why do you think others hold different beliefs to your own?
Is it ignorance, being mistaken, "that's not right for me", or
something else entirely? I don't think it counts as wilful ignorance,
but none of the others seem quite right for it either.
Originally posted by AcolyteHi there,
Most of us will have ended up with either a set of religious beliefs, or be consciously aware of a lack of religious beliefs. Many people are absolutely sure that their beliefs are well-justified. But if you think this, what about those who don't believe what you believe? Why do they disagree?
One answer is that they've simply made a mistake, like so ...[text shortened]... elieve in wilful ignorance? If not, why do you think others hold different beliefs to your own?
You left out another option.
The beliefs held by a person may be wrong ,as in incorrect. This is not necessarily wilful ignorance, as they may not conciously know they are incorrect in their beliefs/assumptions.
Cheers,
Martin
About four years back I was arguing on behalf of rationalism against a Christian woman at a discussion website. The back-and-forth went on for several days, and then on a Sunday evening she posted that she had talked to others at her church about my arguments, and they counseled her to stop debating me, because it was clear to them that I had a "spirit of unbelief."
I think that was her polite way of saying that I have an anti-belief demon dwelling within me. 😕
Originally posted by AcolyteYour description shows that wilful ignorance is a sword that cuts both ways.
wilful ignorance. Namely: everyone knows deep in their heart, subconscious or whatever what the truth is, but they repress it, forcefully (though perhaps subconsciously) denying the truth because of weakness of (moral) character. So for a Christian who believes this, for example, even people living in pre-Columbian Mexico would have felt in their hearts th ...[text shortened]... ave spurned it because it went against what their elders said and what society expected of them.
For example: A believer may come to feel deep in their heart that Jesus isn't watching over them. He was just a man who lived a long time ago, possibly a great man but not divine, and the bible is just a book of old stories written by our ancestors.
But because of upbringing, conditioning, expectations of peers, etc they cannot let the feeling out. In your own words: "they repress it, forcefully (though perhaps subconsciously) denying the truth because of weakness of (moral) character."
That begs the question: Who is it easier for - The Believer who must reject a benevolent god to accept the bleakness of mortality? Or the unbeliever that rejects the love of Jesus, accepting a brief life on earth with nothing beyond because they cannot lie to themselves?
Originally posted by Paul DiracAhh,
About four years back I was arguing on behalf of rationalism against a Christian woman at a discussion website. The back-and-forth went on for several days, and then on a Sunday evening she posted that she had talked to others at her church about my arguments, and they counseled her to stop debating me, because it was clear to them that I had a "spirit o ...[text shortened]... think that was her polite way of saying that I have an anti-belief demon dwelling within me. 😕
l can see where you erred here. You mentioned rationalism and argument and religion in the same sentence as if there is a relationship between the three. l made that mistake with my Grandfather who was a baptist preacher all his life.
Never again.
Keep an eye out for those demons!
Cheers
Originally posted by nook7Actually, he didn't. It was the first option mentioned, the option that the person differing in belief "made a mistake." Please read a post before responding to it.
Hi there,
You left out another option.
The beliefs held by a person may be wrong ,as in incorrect. This is not necessarily wilful ignorance, as they may not conciously know they are incorrect in their beliefs/assumptions.
Cheers,
Martin
l disagree, he said "made a mistake" which is past tense. If "they" made a mistake and they are made aware of it and continue to do so that is a completely different matter.
He discusses the subject in the present continuous which therefore invalidates your comments.
As it does not address someone living unaware that they are MAKING a mistake in being incorrect in their beliefs etc.
It would be in your interests to read posts before commenting on them.
Originally posted by nook7Your starting arguments where the only thing an argument can do is spread dissent and make people red in the face. There is no difference, made a mistake, is making a mistake, the implication is that both versions are included in the original post. Either way, the belief is incorrect. Bringing up the idea that a different tense could be used in the phrase to mean a slightly different variation does nothing for the discussion at hand, which is "willfull ignorance," the idea that there is no mistake, but a supression, probably unconsious, of the truth. Got anything to say about that, or do you just want to start fights over trivialities?
l disagree, he said "made a mistake" which is past tense. If "they" made a mistake and they are made aware of it and continue to do so that is a completely different matter.
He discusses the subject in the present continuous which therefore invalidates your comments.
As it does not address someone living unaware that they are MAKING a mistake in being ...[text shortened]... in their beliefs etc.
It would be in your interests to read posts before commenting on them.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulPoint taken.
Your starting arguments where the only thing an argument can do is spread dissent and make people red in the face. There is no difference, made a mistake, is making a mistake, the implication is that both versions are included in the original post. Either way, the belief is incorrect. Bringing up the idea that a different tense could be used in the ph ...[text shortened]... e truth. Got anything to say about that, or do you just want to start fights over trivialities?
Cheers
Originally posted by AcolyteI think that people have a very strong tendency to believe what others tell them with confidence. In addition, people have a very strong instinctual need for feeling important; for feeling superior (in knowledge, closeness with a very important, powerful being, and in morality); for companionship (God is always with you); for some sort of absolute morality; and things like that.
Most of us will have ended up with either a set of religious beliefs, or be consciously aware of a lack of religious beliefs. Many people are absolutely sure that their beliefs are well-justified. But if you think this, what about those who don't believe what you believe? Why do they disagree?
One answer is that they've simply made a mistake, like so ...[text shortened]... elieve in wilful ignorance? If not, why do you think others hold different beliefs to your own?
Often people will be depressed or feel empty and unfulfilled, and they can help fill this void with a belief in something profound. When they do so they become embraced by a community that treats them with love and enthusiasm, so they become more popular.
Also people often will have a certain unformed sense of rightness and wrongness and of the nature of human nature. Religion can give structure to this sense in a way that feels right because it's mostly consistent with what instinct and experience tell us, but is more specific and the people who talk about it describe it with confidence. For example, it's true that sex can lead to a feeling of emptiness, and it can be used as a sort of 'drug' to escape unhappiness for a short time - but then the unhappiness comes back. Sex can lead to disease and children that the parents are not ready or willing to take care of. There is a special quality to sex with love that sex without love doesn't have - love itself. When Christians start talking about 'lust' as a 'sin' and the emptiness that comes from separation from God, this may strike a chord with someone who feels that emptiness and is dissatisfied with loveless sex.
People often want someone wiser than they to follow and be disciples of. My friend for a long time was on this constant quest for spiritual masters to be his 'guru'. He was seeking someone wiser than he to follow. God is like the ultimate extrapolation of this idea.
In short, religion gives psychological comfort. This, combined with social rewards is the root of why it exists I think.
Originally posted by AcolyteFirst of all, I think your definition of wilful ignorance is a little flawed. If they know the truth, deep down, how can it be "ignorance"? And, if it is repressed subconsciously, how can it be "wilful"?
Most of us will have ended up with either a set of religious beliefs, or be consciously aware of a lack of religious beliefs. Many people are absolutely sure that their beliefs are well-justified. But if you think this, what about those who don't believe what you believe? Why do they disagree?
One answer is that they've simply made a mistake, like so ...[text shortened]... elieve in wilful ignorance? If not, why do you think others hold different beliefs to your own?
Let me give an example of what I think "wilful ignorance" might be. Suppose I'm a kid from a rather laissez faire family. Now, suppose I decide I do not want to attend school. Since I'm allowed to have my own way, I never learn about wonderful things like (say) evolution. This is what I would think of as being "wilfully ignorant". If there were no schools in my area, I might still be ignorant, but not wilfully so.
Coming back to the Mexicans; unless someone in their community has had a personal revelation or apparition of some sort (which has been known to happen), you wouldn't expect them to know about the love of Jesus etc etc. But the reasonable Christian would still expect them to feel certain things - that there is a God, that mankind is sinful and in need of salvation, that there is "something out there" that is not to be found in their own religion etc. etc. In other words, the reasonable Christian would expect them to feel the right questions, though they may not have all the answers (because revelation hasn't reached them yet). This is not wilful ignorance.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was hoping someone would challenge my definition - I wasn't quite clear on what I wanted to say myself. I was thinking more of Latin "ignoratio", which can mean not knowing, but can also mean pretending not to know, but I couldn't think of a good way of expressing it. If you have important questions which have answers but you make no attempt to find them, in a sense you are deliberately ignoring the questions; also believers may feel that anyone who makes a sincere effort to find God will do so, so anyone who hasn't found the essential answers hasn't really tried.
First of all, I think your definition of wilful ignorance is a little flawed. If they know the truth, deep down, how can it be "ignorance"? And, if it is repressed subconsciously, how can it be "wilful"?
Let me give an example of what I think "wilful ignorance" might be. Suppose I'm a kid from a rather laissez faire family. Now, suppose I de ...[text shortened]... ave all the answers (because revelation hasn't reached them yet). This is not wilful ignorance.
The reason I brought it up is that IIRC some Bible passages refer to unbelievers rejecting God rather than simply being unaware of Him, but elsewhere it says that the truth is hidden to unbelievers, so I wondered how Christians interpret this.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI have to agree with acolyte's original definition. Since you can have two seperate levels of consciousness, the "unconscious" or "subconscious" and the actual waking mind, one can have the will and the other the ignorance.
First of all, I think your definition of wilful ignorance is a little flawed. If they know the truth, deep down, how can it be "ignorance"? And, if it is repressed subconsciously, how can it be "wilful"?
Let me give an example of what I think "wilful ignorance" might be. Suppose I'm a kid from a rather laissez faire family. Now, suppose I de ...[text shortened]... ave all the answers (because revelation hasn't reached them yet). This is not wilful ignorance.
On a completely different track, you can know of the existance of some grouping of knowledge and purposfully, or wilfully, ignore it. For instance, I have been exposed to basketball stats for most of my life, and deep down inside I could very well have a storehouse full of this information. However, my conscious mind has no use for it, so if you ask me a basketball question, I will remain "ignorant" of the answer, even if under hypnosis it could be reveal that I actually "knew" it, that is had it stored in my mind, to begin with. On a more somber note, the same can be said of traumatic events in one's life. One can purposefully forget these things, that is, become wilfully ignorant of them.
All acolyte seems to be doing is taking this concept and applying it to religion, and the way people often think about religion. Either you know the Love of God and are supressing it because it is inconvinient or even painful to accept, or contrarily you know deep inside that God had nothing to do with evolution and you purposefully forget it because it would damage your view of life or whatever.
prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es
To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias.
To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.
Not that it needed explaining, but if people don't learn to negate all authority including intellectuall authority, either growing up or when fully matured, then this becomes the foundations for their beliefs ie,
"An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts."
As some famous scientist said "Its harder to crack prejudice, than it is an atom " he also said
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
Simply, people believe what makes them feel better, disregardful of the truth.