Morally accountable for unbelief?

Originally posted by RJHinds
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.

I suggest you leave off the evolution for a while. It is causing you to behave in an irrational way. This is often the case with obsessions.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I do not think we can directly choose what we believe.* We can embrace certain experiences and examine certain forms of evidence while ignoring others. But once we've processed these, and become convinced of something, we can't just will it away.

If that's the case, does it make sense that we are held morally accountable (by a god or other religious a ...[text shortened]... J or other philosophically-inclined poster if there are successful arguments to the contrary.

What's the difference between what one believes and what one thinks? I can think about anything there is to think about, but I choose what to believe.

If one thinks not that one can choose what to think or believe, then a choice is made. I think about the existence of the universe, and I choose to believe it was created.

Originally posted by Kepler
I suggest you leave off the evolution for a while. It is causing you to behave in an irrational way. This is often the case with obsessions.

I am sure you do not wish to be confronted with anything that goes against your worldview of apes changing into men. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 instinctua fear, are you being rational? Did you deliberate the question in your mind? I don't think so.

There may be conflicting evidence, especially on difficult questions. All we can do in those cases is weigh the evidence and go with what we find compelling.

The two examples aren't really germane to the topic. Love involves not only our decision making process, but also emotional states of ourselves and others. A conflict of values sometimes arises, but this does not mean there is no decision-making process. Quite the contrary in many cases involving love - it can lead to longer and more intense deliberation.

Fear of a snake that is lethal strikes me as eminently rational.

Originally posted by josephw
What's the difference between what one believes and what one thinks? I can think about anything there is to think about, but I choose what to believe.

If one thinks not that one can choose what to think or believe, then a choice is made. I think about the existence of the universe, and I choose to believe it was created.

So prove it. Choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So prove it. Choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

Prove what?

You said you do not think we can directly choose what we believe, and I said something to the contrary.

Do you need me to prove to you that you' re an argumentitive automaton, or is that self evident?

If you want to pretend to be interested in discussing the topic you chose, and then reply to my post in a sophomoric manner, then I think you're right. You are indeed incapable of making a choice. You are merely a biological organism functioning according to environmental programming.

Termination eminent. You have no choice.

Originally posted by josephw
Prove what?

You said you do not think we can directly choose what we believe, and I said something to the contrary.

Do you need me to prove to you that you' re an argumentitive automaton, or is that self evident?

If you want to pretend to be interested in discussing the topic you chose, and then reply to my post in a sophomoric manner, then I think nctioning according to environmental programming.

Termination eminent. You have no choice.

He must have come from a monkey, baboon, or orangutan. 😏

You can watch some of his family show off their math skill here:

https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/XsZxKLBSVSb#105473622219622697310/posts/XsZxKLBSVSb

Here is a member of the other side of the family showing off.

YouTube

Originally posted by josephw
Prove what?

You said you do not think we can directly choose what we believe, and I said something to the contrary.

Do you need me to prove to you that you' re an argumentitive automaton, or is that self evident?

If you want to pretend to be interested in discussing the topic you chose, and then reply to my post in a sophomoric manner, then I think ...[text shortened]... nctioning according to environmental programming.

Termination eminent. You have no choice.

It was meant to start a train of thought. But I can't force you to play.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It was meant to start a train of thought. But I can't force you to play.

You started the train of thought in your original post and I followed up with what I thought was a reasoned response. You indicated that you don't believe we are able to make a choice about what to believe, but offered no evidence to support that opinion. I had hoped that my short and concise reply might contain even the merest bit of an idea that may not have occurred to you concerning the option of a free will.

The concept that we are unable to exercise volition that you promote without a shread of evidence is not that difficult to understand. What is difficult to understand though is how it is so when it is self evident that making choices is what we do every moment of everyday.

So what is the difference between choosing to believe one has no choice about what to believe and choosing to believe when one does believe one has a choice about what to believe?

What is it that the one who chooses to believe he has a choice knows that the one who believes he has no choice about what to believe doesn't?

The one who doesn't know he has a choice about what to believe can't know he has a choice about what to believe because he thinks he has no choice about what to believe.

He doesn't know what to believe, therefore he thinks he has no choice about what to believe.

Of a truth, reason will lead you to God.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Love involves not only our decision making process, but also emotional states of ourselves and others.

So does one decide to fall in love?

Fear of a snake that is lethal strikes me as eminently rational.
But most snakes are not lethal. I once owned a small house snake that was totally harmless, but I still could not help twitching at any sudden movement it made. Most of us have an instinctual fear of snakes.

Many of our actions are dictated by brain processes, but I do not think all of it can be correctly described as logical thought. When I touch type, I think of the word and my fingers do the rest. I don't think this proceeds via rational decision making based on evidence. It is more a case of trained circuits doing what they were trained to do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So does one decide to fall in love?

[b]Fear of a snake that is lethal strikes me as eminently rational.
But most snakes are not lethal. I once owned a small house snake that was totally harmless, but I still could not help twitching at any sudden movement it made. Most of us have an instinctual fear of snakes.

Many of our actions are dictated b ...[text shortened]... ng based on evidence. It is more a case of trained circuits doing what they were trained to do.[/b]

"...trained circuits doing what they were trained to do."

True. And if that is all we are made of then we have no choice as to what to believe. We would merely respond to our environment based on programming.

But 'believing' isn't just a function of trained circuitry.

Originally posted by josephw
But 'believing' isn't just a function of trained circuitry.

And I say that sometimes it is.
How about you address SwissGambits challenge and explain why you could not choose to believe the moon is made of cheese. I think he is trying to understand what you mean when you claim to choose your beliefs. Do you choose them based on the evidence, or regardless of the evidence. If based on the evidence, then is it really choice? I think it helps to get us all on the same page in understanding what we mean by 'choice'. Refusing to answer simply leaves us all failing to communicate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I say that sometimes it is.
How about you address SwissGambits challenge and explain why you could not choose to believe the moon is made of cheese. I think he is trying to understand what you mean when you claim to choose your beliefs. Do you choose them based on the evidence, or regardless of the evidence. If based on the evidence, then is it reall ...[text shortened]... ding what we mean by 'choice'. Refusing to answer simply leaves us all failing to communicate.

The question is, "morally accountable for unbelief"?

According to Gambits opening post the inference is that we are not accountable because we are unable to choose what to believe, that what we choose to believe is essentially predetermined by environmental conditioning.

While much of what we believe may indeed be the case it is still illogical to assume that we are without free will.

That's really the question isn't it? Without free will we would not be accountable. Only logical, no? In fact morality wouldn't even be an issue if we were not conscientious of the consequences of our choices.

But we are aware of the consequences of our choices. Therefore we are accountable for what we choose to believe because we have a free will.

Originally posted by josephw
The question is, "morally accountable for unbelief"?

Actually I was referring to his challenge to believe the moon is made of cheese. I think it would help to clarify your position if you could explain whether you could believe that and if not, why.

According to Gambits opening post the inference is that we are not accountable because we are unable to choose what to believe, that what we choose to believe is essentially predetermined by environmental conditioning.
I think he puts it more in terms of evidence. It is I that is going for the environmental conditioning angle.

While much of what we believe may indeed be the case it is still illogical to assume that we are without free will.
And now we come to the question of what free will really is in your view. Is it the ability to choose at random regardless of the evidence? If not at random then based on what? Intuition? Feelings? Desire?

But we are aware of the consequences of our choices. Therefore we are accountable for what we choose to believe because we have a free will.
Actually no, we are often not aware of the consequences of our choices, and that is SwissGambit's whole argument ie if he is not aware of the existence of God, then how can he be held accountable for not believing in him? Or put another way, if he is not aware that there are negative consequences to not believing in God, how can he be held accountable for not doing so?
In fact, I fully agree with SwissGambit on that point in that when we believe based on evidence then we do not have free will in the sense you seem to use and we do not make a choice, we simply follow the evidence. If we see objects fall when we drop them, we believe that future objects will fall when we drop them, we simply do not have the free will to believe otherwise. We do not have the free will to believe the moon is made of cheese.

My argument however is that when the evidence is indecisive, we often do make a choice based on personal preference, intuition, instinct or some other process that does not necessarily involve thought and logic or evidence. I suspect that belief in things like 'luck' or 'bad luck' involves more than logical thought and evidence and to some extent we can actually choose whether to believe walking under a ladder is bad luck.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I was referring to his challenge to believe the moon is made of cheese. I think it would help to clarify your position if you could explain whether you could believe that and if not, why.

[b]According to Gambits opening post the inference is that we are not accountable because we are unable to choose what to believe, that what we choose to bel ...[text shortened]... o some extent we can actually choose whether to believe walking under a ladder is bad luck.

[B]"Actually I was referring to his challenge to believe the moon is made of cheese."[/b]

Why would I want to prove the moon is made of cheese? That is idiotic.

I answered Gambits posts. You should have been able to follow. It wasn't that complicated.

That you would suggest I answer so erroneous a postulation as to proving the moon is made of anything other than what is made of underscores the lack of cohesive thought generated within these boards. I quit posting in here months ago because it is just too boring to constantly have to reason with folks that can't follow a series of logical thought progression to its conclusion, but instead trail off into realms of thought not consistent with even their own original argument.

It is perfectly clear from Gambits opening post that he doesn't believe we have the ability to make a free will choice as to what to believe, and therefore are not morally accountable for any choice we make.

Gambit offered no evidence to support that ages old argument. I replied with what I believed was a reasoned response to that idea. It defies reason and logic to believe we are morally unaccountable, and lack the capacity to make moral judgements, and that we are merely automatons programmed by our respective environments. It's a fools game.