Morally accountable for unbelief?

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.

I do not believe that physical death is the end of all opportunity for some human beings to decide.

I would add that probably no one who is able to read and write on this Forum falls into that catagory.

No one who is able to participate in these discussions would I encourage to postpone the opportunity to believe into Christ for salvation.

But that some people on earth have opportunity beyond their physical death? I assume that that is reasonable in some situations. Don't gamble on it.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

Half the problem is that you apparently totally misunderstood what you were asked. Nobody asked you to prove that the moon was made of cheese or anything else.
You were asked to choose to believe it was made of cheese despite the evidence to the contrary thus proving your free will in the matter.
Further, I have asked you to explain, should you fail to come to that belief, why you failed.

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.
Sometimes it is important to use examples to clarify things. So far I am not sure what you mean by 'free will' and you seem to be refusing to enlighten me.

It's a fools game.
It seems to me that you simply don't want to really discuss the issue. I and swissgambit have asked perfectly reasonable questions asking for clarification of your position and you seem to be deliberately avoiding clarifying. Why?

Originally posted by sonship
Don't gamble on it.

That is what the thread is all about. Can one choose to believe even as a gamble? Did you choose to gamble on it? Is that why you believe? Just in case?

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]

No, one doesn't decide to fall in love.

I don't think I said that logical/rational thought is the only thing that dictates our actions. Of course there is more to it. (But when it comes to forming beliefs, I think this part is there in every sane person.)

Originally posted by josephw
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 assu es. Therefore we are accountable for what we choose to believe because we have a free will.

Not just environmental conditioning, but also how we think, how we evaluate evidence.

Originally posted by josephw
[B]"Actually I was referring to his challenge to believe the moon is made of cheese."

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 anyth we are merely automatons programmed by our respective environments. It's a fools game.[/b][/b]

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

No, I didn't ask for that. I just asked you to choose to believe it was. Of course it is idiotic to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. That's patently false. But if I understand your position correctly, it should be possible for any of us to choose to believe that it is made of green cheese.

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.

Wow. You have no room to talk about others not being able to follow a discussion. I never said that we're not accountable for our choices. I said that forming beliefs is not something we can just choose to do.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]Why would I want to prove the moon is made of cheese? That is idiotic.

No, I didn't ask for that. I just asked you to choose to believe it was. Of course it is idiotic to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. That's patently false. But if I understand your position correctly, it should be possible for any of us to choose to believe that ...[text shortened]... able for our choices. I said that forming beliefs is not something we can just choose to do.[/b]

"I just asked you to choose to believe it was."

You didn't ask at all. You made an imperative statement. You said, "choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese".

You now say " ...forming beliefs is not something we can just choose to do."


Now we're back at the beginning.

In your opening post you said, "I do not think we can directly choose what we believe."

That's what you keep saying. Keep saying it. Soon you will actually begin to believe it.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I just asked you to choose to believe it was."

You didn't ask at all. You made an imperative statement. You said, "choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese".

You now say " ...forming beliefs is not something we can just choose to do."


Now we're back at the beginning.

In your opening post you said, "I do not think w ...[text shortened]... t's what you keep saying. Keep saying it. Soon you will actually begin to believe it.

I have always said we can't directly choose our beliefs. I only asked (or demanded, or whatever you want to call it) you to choose to believe something because you claimed we could.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I have always said we can't directly choose our beliefs. I only asked (or demanded, or whatever you want to call it) you to choose to believe something because you claimed we could.

Certainly, you can not honestly believe God programmed our DNA so that we have no choice in what we believe. That would mean our beliefs are already predetermined at birth just like our eye color. Is that actually what you are saying?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I have always said we can't directly choose our beliefs. I only asked (or demanded, or whatever you want to call it) you to choose to believe something because you claimed we could.

Sorry Gmbit, but I try to be as word specific as I can. I say what I mean and I, blah blah blah. So when I read your words I try to reply to exactly what you said based on how you said it. Perhaps I am too rigid.

Be that as it may, when I said, "we can choose to believe", it was in direct response to your assertion that "we can't directly choose our beliefs."

So, all of my arguments subsequent to your opening post were directed at those two opposing ideas.

I really don't want to argue. I was really hoping to simply discuss how we see things differently and discover why that is so, and just maybe, if by any means, we could gain something from the exchange.

What really scares me, i.e. causes me consternation, is the fact that there are those who willfully seek to obfuscate. For whatever reason.

I don't want to argue with that sort of person.

Originally posted by JS357
"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 other ...[text shortened]... ll consequences. In fact, that's why our rational decision-making systems arose.

There's no diversion here with the introduction of 'responsibility'. This thread topic relates to the subject of moral 'accountability', and so the subject of responsibility is basic to the discussion.

Regarding the rest, there's no threat for any regression here. One can simply find himself in a state of deliberation about what is or is not the case, or about what he ought or ought not do. Happens all the time. So, there's no commitment to the idea that one intends to bring about deliberation every time he does deliberate. Further as far as I know, no one here has suggested, or is committed to the idea, that a person makes a "decision to generally speaking, rely on the practice of rational deliberation..." or a "decision to generally speaking, choose practices on the basis of their success...." Again, there's no commitment here to the idea that one always intends to bring about his engagement in such things before engaging in them.

So, I don't know how any of this is relevant to my exchange with our friend suzianne. My point to her is simply that even if she is right in assuming that one is responsible or accountable for his choices, she doesn't simply get to assume here that beliefs are choice-based. That's question-begging, since that is supposed to be more or less exactly what is under discussion.

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 Your argument is based on the assumption that people are rational. People are not rational.

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' denomination.
Now I realize that within religions/denominations many of the members do not believe everything that religion/denomination has in its creed, but many members accept without evidence much of the creed and thus could be said to believe it based at least in part on the fact that they chose that denomination?

This doesn't really show that persons choose their beliefs. This is all still perfectly consistent with the idea that if one were inclined to choose to believe that P, the best he could do is choose to engage in steps that he has reason to think may eventuate in his believing that P.

The question is more like whether or not S can simply choose to believe that P as just a matter of volition. Your examples do not show that he can. Your examples are consistent with the idea that the best S can do is choose to associate with a certain denomination that professes belief in P; or choose to adopt the customs of this denomination; or choose his milieu to be one is that is self-reinforcing unto the belief of P. He may end up believing that P by enacting such a regimen. But it won't be directly a matter of his volition or resolve to believe it.

Originally posted by josephw
Sorry Gmbit, but I try to be as word specific as I can. I say what I mean and I, blah blah blah. So when I read your words I try to reply to exactly what you said based on how you said it. Perhaps I am too rigid.

Be that as it may, when I said, "we can choose to believe", it was in direct response to your assertion that "we can't directly choose our belie ...[text shortened]... eek to obfuscate. For whatever reason.

I don't want to argue with that sort of person.

Word specific is great, but fixating on the way something was said rather than the content of what was said is a convenient way to avoid discussion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Certainly, you can not honestly believe God programmed our DNA so that we have no choice in what we believe. That would mean our beliefs are already predetermined at birth just like our eye color. Is that actually what you are saying?

No.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is what the thread is all about. Can one choose to believe even as a gamble? Did you choose to gamble on it? Is that why you believe? Just in case?

That is not truly belief, then, is it?

In no way is "just in case" any form of belief. It's a hope to fool the final Judge, which isn't going to happen.