Morally accountable for unbelief?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think you need to look at philosophy but rather at psychology. I made a similar claim in another thread and was corrected and I now think that some people do in fact choose their beliefs. I know plenty of people who have:
1. Changed denomination/religion for marriage.
2. Wanted to become Christian and then shopped around for the 'best' denominat ...[text shortened]... Your argument is based on the assumption that people are rational. People are not rational.

All the crime in the world seems to me to prove many people are not rational. And then we have all those people that believe in the theory of evil-lution. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
All the crime in the world seems to me to prove many people are not rational. And then we have all those people that believe in the theory of evil-lution. 😏

If someone steals bread to feed his starving child,is this irrational?

Originally posted by RJHinds
All the crime in the world seems to me to prove many people are not rational. And then we have all those people that believe in the theory of evil-lution. 😏

And we have all those who believe in mythical sky fairies. Rationality is indeed a rare thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think you need to look at philosophy but rather at psychology. I made a similar claim in another thread and was corrected and I now think that some people do in fact choose their beliefs. I know plenty of people who have:
1. Changed denomination/religion for marriage.
2. Wanted to become Christian and then shopped around for the 'best' denominat ...[text shortened]... Your argument is based on the assumption that people are rational. People are not rational.

I'm not talking about what people say they believe. I'm talking about what they actually believe.

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is a head-scratching response to the OP.

Unless I am misreading you, you are saying that Paul implies that it is "inexcusable" for one to fail to form the belief that God exists. But that of course presupposes that one can be held accountable for his failing to form a belief. But that's the entire question under discussion here, whether or not t ...[text shortened]... sense.

Does Paul have any actual substantive reasons why he judges it as "inexcusable"?

It's not 'failure to form a belief'. It's refusal to believe. It is the active denial of God. And yes, you should be held accountable, or rather responsible, for your choices.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's not 'failure to form a belief'. It's refusal to believe. It is the active denial of God. And yes, you should be held accountable, or rather responsible, for your choices.

Yes, one is generally responsible for one's choices. But in case you haven't been paying attention, this thread was meant to usher in discussion regarding whether or not a doxastic state like belief is something that qualifies as choice-based in the first place. So, sorry, but you don't just get to assume that it is; that's called begging the question. If your claim is that lack of belief on the part of the atheist is generally a choice-based affair, then you need to actually provide some argument for that. Again, I would generally argue just the opposite, since deliberative belief formation is generally a passive process where the outcome is handcuffed to things beyond the agent's control, such as the evidence at his disposal.

So, I'll ask again: do you (or Paul) have any actual substantive reasons to think that it is "inexcusable" on the part of the atheist to be without the belief that God exists (even supposing hypothetically that God, in fact, exists)?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm not talking about what people say they believe. I'm talking about what they actually believe.

I realize that, but people are simply not rational and seem quite capable of choosing what to believe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that, but people are simply not rational and seem quite capable of choosing what to believe.

I think if a belief is personally recognised as a transitory position which may change given new information,that belief can be rational.Irrationality only arises if a person holds that belief to be absolute and cannot be changed.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, one is generally responsible for one's choices. But in case you haven't been paying attention, this thread was meant to usher in discussion regarding whether or not a doxastic state like belief is something that qualifies as choice-based in the first place. So, sorry, but you don't just get to assume that it is; that's called begging the question. ...[text shortened]... ut the belief that God exists (even supposing hypothetically that God, in fact, exists)?

"Yes, one is generally responsible for one's choices."

We can perhaps get away from the responsibility diversion in this thread, by saying one's choices will generally have consequences for him/her and others, regardless of whether he/she is or believes they are responsible for those decisions. Those consequences may include being held responsible by others and being treated accordingly.

"...deliberative belief formation is generally a passive process where the outcome is handcuffed to things beyond the agent's control, such as the evidence at his disposal."

Where does this person's decision to generally speaking, rely on th practice of rational deliberation upon evidence come from? I suppose it comes from the success this practice has demonstrated.

Where does the person's decision to generally speaking, choose practices on the basis of their success, come from? I suppose that people who don't do this, are at a reproductive disadvantage.

But then, is that a conscious "rational" conclusion; is there a conscious thought, "I will be at a reproductive disadvantage if I don't judge practices on how they affect my reproductive success? I suggest not; I suggest that there are emotion-based pain/pleasure systems that become built into the genetic code by natural selection, and the emotion-based systems that survive are the ones that help their bearers reproduce. They are surrogates for that deep motivation.

This regression ends at a non-rational, non-voluntary rule underlying decision-making and guiding us toward the decisions we make.

But still, if a person isn't, or claims not to be, responsible for his/her decisions on this basis, there are still consequences. In fact, that's why our rational decision-making systems arose.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It's not 'failure to form a belief'. It's refusal to believe. It is the active denial of God. And yes, you should be held accountable, or rather responsible, for your choices.

But that's just it. I don't think it's possible to refuse to believe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that, but people are simply not rational and seem quite capable of choosing what to believe.

I disagree with both statements. But then again, I am a person and thus not rational. 🙂

Edit: If you are merely saying that people sometimes make irrational evaluations, then I agree. But most are rational in the sense that they deliberate questions in their own mind even if they will not admit it. Also, to me, 'rational' means that there is some kind of thought process at work, even one that has some faults or room for improvement.

Originally posted by OdBod
If someone steals bread to feed his starving child,is this irrational?

Yes, because he should try begging and borrowing and praying to God. I am sure God would respond and make provisions.

Originally posted by Kepler
And we have all those who believe in mythical sky fairies. Rationality is indeed a rare thing.

It is not rational to belleve a lizard changed into a chicken of an ape changed into a man, but many people are deceived and discard rational thinking in order to believe the theory of evil-lution.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, one is generally responsible for one's choices. But in case you haven't been paying attention, this thread was meant to usher in discussion regarding whether or not a doxastic state like belief is something that qualifies as choice-based in the first place. So, sorry, but you don't just get to assume that it is; that's called begging the question. ...[text shortened]... ut the belief that God exists (even supposing hypothetically that God, in fact, exists)?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

From Paul's letter to the Romans.

The Instructor

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Edit: If you are merely saying that people sometimes make irrational evaluations, then I agree. But most are rational in the sense that they deliberate questions in their own mind even if they will not admit it. Also, to me, 'rational' means that there is some kind of thought process at work, even one that has some faults or room for improvement.

Many people exhibit symptoms of believing things despite the evidence. They are apparently aware of the conflict, but believe anyway.
I experienced something similar when I was in love. I did many irrational things that I knew were irrational, but did them anyway. I don't really know why. I think a lot of what we do or believe is triggered by instinctual processes that can't really be classified as rational thought.
When you see a snake and experience fear, are you being rational? Did you deliberate the question in your mind? I don't think so.