Originally posted by @fmf When it comes to superstition - by which I mean a belief in supernatural causality and supernatural things like immortality - no, not really. I think if someone is a profoundly religious Muslim, for example, who is convinced of the truth of all the tenets of their faith, I don't think there is some kind of 'free will' that can be brought to bear on all those notions and assumptions that can lead to a decision to not believe them.
So how do you explain the conversion of a person from one religion to another apart from free will?
Originally posted by @js357 I assume you agree that an idea can be "credible" before all the facts are known about its truth. "Credible" being rather like "plausible."
I think it is possible for just about anything to be credible to someone somewhere. Just as the credibility/incredibility of something can split a group of people down the middle. But in matters of belief, faith, religiosity, superstition and supernatural phenomena etc., the difficulty is that the "before all the facts are known about its truth" thing refers to "facts" that religious people assert they are in possession of at the same time as (in many cases, anyway) admitting that they can't prove them and never will; indeed, they might be inclined to say that I will realize they were right, and I was wrong, after I die and what they've been saying all along will have been proven to be true.
Originally posted by @dj2becker So how do you explain the conversion of a person from one religion to another apart from free will?
They come to realize that the specific superstitious theories and assertions appeal to their imaginations and start to have the effect that religious beliefs have on people. Having realized that this is so, they might want to demonstrate their 'free will' to me by choosing not to believe those new religious ideas when in fact they instinctively feel that they are true.
Originally posted by @js357 The example I used is global warming and two options are that human activity is causal/not causal. Whether both are "credible" at this point in time is a question. Perhaps the theological equivalent is whether we have free will and are causal (and therefore responsible) agents in the narural world. Do you think the idea that human activity is causal of global ...[text shortened]... le" being rather like "plausible."
At bottom I am interested in whether this thread has legs.
It's very late here. I've just finished a piece of work for an 8 am deadline "tomorrow" a.k.a. later this morning! I'm off to bed. Your questions deserve the attentions of a rested head. More anon.
Originally posted by @fmf Does my screed kicking off my 'Was I forced to be a Christian for 25+ years?' thread offer some kind of answer to this question, in terms of my view on religious belief and free will?
I will look at it and if motivated to comment, will do so on that thread. Thanks.