Belief and choice

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Several people of an evangelical persuasion have told me that I am morally culpable for not believing that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour.

They claim that, having witnessed to me, I now have the choice to believe them or not. And because I freely choose not to believe them, I am therefore morally culpable, and indeed running the risk of damnation.

Well, I think that makes no sense. And I don't mean the dodgy metaphysics!

My argument is simple. Belief is not a matter of conscious choice. Hence, I can't be held responsible for my beliefs.

Choice is an activity in which I engage: it's something that I do.

Belief, in contrast, is a passive process: it's something that happens to me.

Suppose I consider some issue.

If the arguments and evidence for it strike me convincing, then I have no choice but to believe it.

If the arguments and evidence against it strike me convincing, then I have no choice but to disbelieve it.

If the arguments and evidence for it strike me as inconclusive, then am unable either to believe or disbelieve it; I suspend judgment.

At no point does the conscious choice enter the picture.

At least, this is what happens most of the time, and/or in non-pathological cases. If conscious choice ever did enter the picture, in opposition to perceptions of convincingness, then rationality would be subverted. One would be believing, not because one had objective grounds for a belief, but because one was subjectively striving to believe. But that just seems like a form of mental violence--forcing oneself to accept or reject propositions regardless of their perceived convincingness.

Should someone be held responsible, then, for not striving to believe something, if the grounds for believing it strike them as insufficient and passively give rise to their belief?

This strikes me as a very odd belief to maintain. Maybe if I only tried harder to believe it...

Why can't this go both ways? Isn't it possible that you are 'striving' to believe that Jesus is not your Lord and Saviour? Certainly there are manifest reasons to do so; the most prominent being fear of the aforementioned culpability! Though I would like to make clear that you are punished for your sins, not for your beliefs about Jesus. Your beliefs about Jesus, however, may serve to preserve you from the punishment you rightly deserve for the wrongs you have done.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
That implies that no one who is sufficiently informed could doubt the truth for Christianity for honest reasons; there would always be an iniquity biasing their process of ratiocination that leads them not to accept Christianity.

I think this may be the position of the Roman Catholic Church; Lucifershammer will advise. I also think that many other Christians would maintain this position.

However, some fideistic versions of Christianity (Kierkegaard, Unamuno) would not maintain this position. Indeed, quite the contrary; they would maintain that belief in God is not rationally justified, but is nonetheless emotionally warranted.

I believe the position is manifestly false. I think there are plenty of people who have honestly, dispassionately, and humanely considered whether Christianity (of one sort or another) is true, and have arrived at a negative conclusion.

Name one such person and the subsequent reasoning they gave for their disbelief. If the reasoning is sound, then it would be 'manifestly false'.

Originally posted by Darfius
Name one such person and the subsequent reasoning they gave for their disbelief. If the reasoning is sound, then it would be 'manifestly false'

bbarr.

Originally posted by Darfius
Why can't this go both ways? Isn't it possible that you are 'striving' to believe that Jesus is not your Lord and Saviour? Certainly there are manifest reasons to do so; the most prominent being fear of the aforementioned culpability! Though I would like to make clear that you are punished for your sins, not for your beliefs about Jesus. Your beliefs about ...[text shortened]... serve to preserve you from the punishment you rightly deserve for the wrongs you have done.

It's perfectly possible that someone might be motivated not to believe in Christianity, just as they might be motivated to believe in it.

But it's also possible that someone might accept Christianity, or reject it, not because they want to believe either way, but because they believe that is what the arguments and evidence point to.

My point is that, to the extent that belief is based on reasons that are subjectively credible, then, regardless of whether those reasons are actually credible, a person does not deserve to be praised or blamed for holding those beliefs, so long as they have done their best to weigh up the relevant reasons fairly in advance.

I think it would be unjust of God to punish sinners who didn't accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour more harshly that sinners who did, if the former had arrived at their subjectively credible non-Christian beliefs after weighing up the relevant reasons fairly.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It's perfectly possible that someone might be motivated not to believe in Christianity, just as they might be motivated to believe in it.

But it's also possible that someone might accept Christianity, or reject it, not because they want to believe either way, but because they believed that is what the arguments and evidence point to.

My point is ...[text shortened]... ir subjectively credible non-Christian beliefs after weighing up the relevant reasons fairly.

I had an interesting discussion with several women the other night who had had losses in their family, namely spouses. When one of the women was crying another one said, "Well, you know God took him because he needed him in heaven."

I asked her what God needed him for. I often hear that kind of statement from ministers when a child dies. I find it rather odd and serving the purpose of helping the person avoid their discomfort of not knowing what to say or even being angry at God.

We say and think ideas that are incongruent with "the faith."

Originally posted by kirksey957
I had an interesting discussion with several women the other night who had had losses in their family, namely spouses. When one of the women was crying another one said, "Well, you know God took him because he needed him in heaven."

I asked her what God needed him for. I often hear that kind of statement from ministers when a child dies. I find it ...[text shortened]... or even being angry at God.

We say and think ideas that are incongruent with "the faith."

Your comments make me wonder whether attempts to systematically philosophize are often potentially harmful, because they deprive people of sources of consolation that require them not to think too clearly.

If reality is fundamentally hostile to human beings and their aspirations, do we really want to spend time proving this rigorously?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Your comments make me wonder whether attempts to systematically philosophize are often potentially harmful, because they deprive people of sources of consolation that require them not to think too clearly.

If reality is fundamentally hostile to human beings and their aspirations, do we really want to spend time proving this rigorously?

Sort of like "ignorance is bliss"?

When I was in England a few weeks ago I saw the Tempest by Shakespeare. There was a line in it that goes like this : "the truth you speak doth lack gentleness and a time to speak it in. You apply the rub when you should apply the plaster."

I'm not sure it is "harmful" to present reality, but I must be careful that "the truth" I may offer be about me. My experience is that not all consolations are equal. With these ladies, I tried to affirm their very presence without words being sufficient comfort.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
bbarr.

I asked for the named person's reasoning, as well. I wished to specifically avoid name dropping such as you did.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It's perfectly possible that someone might be motivated not to believe in Christianity, just as they might be motivated to believe in it.

But it's also possible that someone might accept Christianity, or reject it, not because they want to believe either way, but because they believe that is what the arguments and evidence point to.

My point is ...[text shortened]... ir subjectively credible non-Christian beliefs after weighing up the relevant reasons fairly.

And I would contend that no skeptic has weighed up the evidence fairly. I await bbarr's (or any other skeptic you claim weighed the evidence fairly) reasoning for further discussion.

Originally posted by Darfius
And I would contend that no skeptic has weighed up the evidence fairly. I await bbarr's (or any other skeptic you claim weighed the evidence fairly) reasoning for further discussion.

So are you saying that skeptics are dishonest? It's almost like you are saying there is only one answer here.

Originally posted by Darfius
I asked for the named person's reasoning, as well. I wished to specifically avoid name dropping such as you did.

You could try the General Argument from Evil threads he posted a while back.

Originally posted by kirksey957
So are you saying that skeptics are dishonest? It's almost like you are saying there is only one answer here.

It's not almost like he is saying it: he is saying it!

But even if acceptance of Christianity were rational--or, indeed, the only rational conclusion a thinking person could accept--it would still be possible for a skeptic to reject it without being motivated to reject it. His reasoning could be inadvertently flawed, through no fault of his own.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It's not almost like it: it is it!

But even if acceptance of Christianity were rational--or, indeed, the only rational conclusion a thinking person could accept--it would still be possible for a skeptic to reject it without being motivated to reject it. His reasoning could be inadvertently flawed, through no fault of his own.

Faith is supposed to be easy isn't it? Not.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Sort of like "ignorance is bliss"?

When I was in England a few weeks ago I saw the Tempest by Shakespeare. There was a line in it that goes like this : "the truth you speak doth lack gentleness and a time to speak it in. You apply the rub when you should apply the plaster."

I'm not sure it is "harmful" to present reality, but I must be careful tha ...[text shortened]... e ladies, I tried to affirm their very presence without words being sufficient comfort.

It's tough to strike the right balance. I personally feel inadequate comforting people, because what I believe doesn't offer a great deal of comfort.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
It's tough to strike the right balance. I personally feel inadequate comforting people, because what I believe doesn't offer a great deal of comfort.

Yea, I know. Like declaring Doctor Scribbles the winner of the debate between him and the demented spirit of Fred Phelps.