God & godless alike.... choose respect first ?


VonNoble
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

.....snip... Your experiment does not isolate the variable (choice), therefore its results say nothing about the variable (choice). ....snip.....

Did you try the experiment that I suggested?

Ahhh, but your experiment gives no choice (at least on the first two) because these are not things where we have a real choice to make. Belief is something we choose to do without physical evidence. We have evidence that George Washington was the first U.S. president. We have evidence that there are windmills in the Netherlands, and there may be evidence that your great-grandfather was born in a schoolhouse ( I have not seen that evidence so I choose not to make a choice on that one at this time).

 

Well, kind of.

 

It really boils down to who or what you choose to believe. We all believe many, many things that we can not prove for ourselves. We take peoples word that these things are true, but if we can't even prove them to one another then it is still just belief. Whether you believe the minister, the cosmologist, the history books, or the politician you have still made a choice on who and what you believe

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 7:00 AM, mererdog said:

There is a simple experiment you can do.

Pick something that you have a belief about, but that is unimportant to your life. Something like "George Washington was the first president of the US" or "There are windmills in the Netherlands" or "My great-grandfather was born in a schoolhouse."

Now try to not believe it. Try to believe it isn't true.

If belief is a choice, there is no risk, because you can simply wait a week and then choose to believe it again.

If belief is not a choice, there is also no risk, because you will fail to change the belief.

 

An underlying truth about assumptions about faith being a choice is that they are the moral justification for punishing and rewarding people based on their faith- they are what make people feel good about engaging in religious discrimination. Which is not to say that everyone who believes faith is a choice will engage in religious discrimination. Necessary but not sufficient, dig?

I have chosen to believe that George Washington was the first U.S. President because I have chosen what is was taught in school and what has been written in the history books. That does not mean that I will continue to believe that if new evidence s b old arrive to suggest it is not true (historians have uncovered evidence that George Washington's real name was Igor Smith and changed his name to avoid prosecution in Maryland.)  I will believe there are wind mills in the Netherlands much for the same reasons as I have never been to the Netherlands to witness the wind mills myself. As far as my grandfather is concerned, I cannot believe nor disbelieve he was born in a school house as there are no existing records (if I am to believe the record keepers) regarding the specific details of his birth. I choose to believe what I do and can choose to disbelieve it as easily. Was that the experiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, VonNoble said:

.... and yet I both hear ya and understand 

 

von

 

 

Thank you for understanding.  If I protest, it's twisted to mean that I'm persecuting.  Or mean spirited.  Or squabbling.  At the same time, it's too outlandish and outrageous to ignore.  How to respond?

 

:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, VonNoble said:

I am not sure it can be characterized that way.

 

With faith we are not dealing with a tangible.   There is not a measurable cause-effect (fire = burn) (poison drinking = death)...... so the conclusions are less certain.   The reason applied far less straightforward.

 

Making a choice to believe without evidence is asking  someone to believe without knowing.     

 

You allow that that is NOT really a choice for some.    

 So here we can agree it is not a choice.   It is a “holding” position.    Allowing 1) they do not know 2) they are continuing to explore 3) allowing new information could move the needle 4) until new information is available.....it is not a choice

 

Hmmmm....undecided does not seem to be “lost” in my view.    That has a value judgement.

 

How does actively searching for new information and being fully engaged equality with being idle or stagnated?   

Help me to understand.

von

 

True, faith is not obtained via tangible evidence, which is why it boils down to a choice.. I believe because I've chosen to do so. Evidence is not a necessary ingredient in making a choice, we all make choices everyday without knowing the facts. I could also decide not to believe, that is also a choice.

 

My other point was simply that if someone is idle because of indecision, they have not made a choice. They may be waiting or seeking more information prior to making a choice, but in the meantime,  they are in that uncertain period of awaiting a resolution, and remain in that intermediate state as their indecision keeps them in limbo.

 

My scenario of being lost in the woods was just to express that a believer and non-believer make a choice, but the indecisive makes no choice and remains idle. But of course,  I guess you could define not making a choice as a choice?  I just think that indecision is the inability or refusal to make a choice.

 

These are just my opinions of how I look at things, ergo; no reason for anyone to take personal offense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

True, faith is not obtained via tangible evidence, which is why it boils down to a choice.. I believe because I've chosen to do so. Evidence is not a necessary ingredient in making a choice, we all make choices everyday without knowing the facts. I could also decide not to believe, that is also a choice.

 

My other point was simply that if someone is idle because of indecision, they have not made a choice. They may be waiting or seeking more information prior to making a choice, but in the meantime,  they are in that uncertain period of awaiting a resolution, and remain in that intermediate state as their indecision keeps them in limbo.

 

My scenario of being lost in the woods was just to express that a believer and non-believer make a choice, but the indecisive makes no choice and remains idle. But of course,  I guess you could define not making a choice as a choice?  I just think that indecision is the inability or refusal to make a choice.

 

These are just my opinions of how I look at things, ergo; no reason for anyone to take personal offense.

 

 

When you quote Scripture to have God spitting out Agnostics -- you are being offensive.       More precisely, you are bringing God in, to confirm your offensive "opinion".

 

We have already had this discussion.  This is your turn to cite the inerrancy and goodness of Scripture, yet again missing the point.

 

You have insulted me.  I have taken offence.  Telling me that I should not be offended, because it is only your opinion -- is not constructive.  

 

:sigh2:

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

Was that the experiment?

You have stated that you have chosen to believe that George Washington is the first U.S. president. You have stated that you can choose to disbelieve it. The experiment is designed to test these claims. The way to test the claims is to choose differently. So... Choose to believe he isn't the first.

 

Don't wait until you are convinced by new evidence. That does not prove choice.

Don't wait until the belief fits your world-view and gains the ring of truth. That doesn't prove choice.

Just try to choose to believe that George Washington was not the first U.S. president, despite having no good reason for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

True, faith is not obtained via tangible evidence, which is why it boils down to a choice.. I believe because I've chosen to do so. Evidence is not a necessary ingredient in making a choice, we all make choices everyday without knowing the facts. I could also decide not to believe, that is also a choice.

We can disagree.  Choosing to act or not act might be a reflex or an instinct or an actual decision.    It is sometimes a tangible choice.   Sometimes an emotional quagmire.   Some times a primordial answer ... distilled and hardwired into our psyche so much so we do not fully understand it.

 

I want to believe my loser nephew.   I want to have faith in him.   According to your thinking I can just choose to believe him.   He says he has changed.

 

My sister tells me I just do not understand the kid....I am wrong about him...I do not know  him like she does

 

The Johnny-come-lately experts give testament to all the reasons my instinctive response should be overcome.    They have statistics and proof I simply am wrong in feeling as I do.   

 

At times not making a decision is the right one.   Not every situation require action.   Not does every question needs (or has) a definite answer.   

 

Sometimes we just don’t know.    We all learn to live with uncertainty.   No choice can trump a bad choice.

 

standing up and admitting you do not know...takes as much courage as those who sit pretend.  

 

(I know you truly believe..just to make sure I was not referring to you).... but I do know more than a few pretend to believe ....than  will admit it publicly.   Some of them clergy.   

 

They act without faith.  They act without belief.   

 

Having faith is not a matter of choice to me.    But I certainly can accept you see the other side of that.

 

von

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

You have stated that you have chosen to believe that George Washington is the first U.S. president. You have stated that you can choose to disbelieve it. The experiment is designed to test these claims. The way to test the claims is to choose differently. So... Choose to believe he isn't the first.

 

Don't wait until you are convinced by new evidence. That does not prove choice.

Don't wait until the belief fits your world-view and gains the ring of truth. That doesn't prove choice.

Just try to choose to believe that George Washington was not the first U.S. president, despite having no good reason for doing so.

After a couple of days of playing with this...and getting some egghead friends to join in the attempt... it has certainly opened some pithy and interesting new chatter.   Again I say.... brilliant.   

Thx 

von

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

It really boils down to who or what you choose to believe. 

So choose to believe that Washington was not the first US president. Choose to believe the evidence saying that he is is wrong. Choose to believe every history teacher you ever had was wrong about this. Choose to believe your parents and everyone you respect is wrong. If it boils down to a choice, choose differently.

Beliefs based on the evidence are just beliefs based on belief in the evidence. If belief is a choice, you can choose not to believe the evidence. Others believe things that go counter to the evidence. How do they do this, if you cannot choose to do so? What does that tell you about your claim that other beliefs are choices?

 

If you chose to believe, you can choose to disbelieve. If you chose to disbelieve, you can choose to believe. This is the accusatory part of the claim. The part that tells others they just aren't trying hard enough. The part that accuses the atheist of ignoring history, and the Christian of ignoring science. The part that points fingers and assumes ill will.

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

After a couple of days of playing with this...and getting some egghead friends to join in the attempt... it has certainly opened some pithy and interesting new chatter.   Again I say.... brilliant.   

Thx 

von

I am bad at accepting compliments gracefully, so I will choose to believe you never said that.

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mererdog said:

So choose to believe that Washington was not the first president 

Ok

Done.

I now believe John Hanson was the very first president. 

The first president.

23 minutes ago, mererdog said:

This is the accusatory part of the claim. The part that tells others they just aren't trying hard enough. The part that accuses the atheist of ignoring history, and the Christian of ignoring science. The part that points fingers and assumes ill will.

 

So now I ask you..... if belief is not a choice then how can people, given the same information or lack thereof,  believe  differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

Ok

Done.

I now believe John Hanson was the very first president. 

The first president.

 

So now I ask you..... if belief is not a choice then how can people, given the same information or lack thereof,  believe  differently?

 

By accepting information as true, without objective verification.

 

There are some basic questions, that make false information less likely.  Is this true?  How do I know that it's true?  Is it verifiable?  Is it falsifiable?  

 

Speaking only for myself -- I wish to believe what is true and to not believe what is false.  Some beliefs have to be conditional.  Even then, I like to go with what seems probable.  Of course, some things which seem probable, turn out to be false.  When this happens, it is necessary to release the false and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

. So now I ask you..... if belief is not a choice then how can people, given the same information or lack thereof,  believe  differently?

Different nervous system. Different endocrine system. You and I do not process the same information in the same way. We can't process information in the same way. We can't choose to do so, any more than we can choose to have the same fingerprints.

Beyond that, no data set exists in a vacuum and no two people share identical experiences. We have all had different inputs, and while any specific difference may only be slight, we're talking about as many experiential differences as there are seconds in a day. It adds up, you know?

And what it adds up to is a mental framework that dictates how we react to new information.

 

The obvious example of how this works is people who literally dont speak the same language. They will not react the same way to hearing the same words, you know? And they don't choose to react differently, it just happens as an unavoidable result of their inherent differences.

 

Now consider the schizophrenic suffering from delusions. Did he choose these beliefs? Can he choose to believe differently?

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

.....

 

Now consider the schizophrenic suffering from delusions. Did he choose these beliefs? Can he choose to believe differently?

I thought we were talking about normal folks here. If we're talking about the mentally unstable then, at least for me, all bets are off. 

 

I'll have to stop now and just say that I choose to believe that you have chosen to believe that you have no choice in what you believe. 

 

I however, choose to exercise my free will to choose which unprovable claims I will or will not believe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

I thought we were talking about normal folks here. If we're talking about the mentally unstable then, at least for me, all bets are off. 

 

I'll have to stop now and just say that I choose to believe that you have chosen to believe that you have no choice in what you believe. 

 

I however, choose to exercise my free will to choose which unprovable claims I will or will not believe. 

 

 

I like to make a distinction between probability and belief.

 

It is highly probable that tomorrow, there will be Sunrise.  I expect this to happen.  I don't believe it.  Of course, if something does happen to the Sun or the Earth; we won't be around to discuss it.

 

:mellow:

 

"Choosing" to "believe" an unprovable claim is a separate issue.  IMO

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

I thought it was just heard the following...

Belief is not a choice; it remains an unfulfilled promise.

 

The “not chosen” are not at fault for the selection process...

 

I thought it was interesting.

von

 

In my opinion -- "not chosen" is a minefield of invisible assumptions.  The presumption is built in, that you want faith.  That having faith is a good thing.

 

The classic question, which is put to Agnostics and Atheists, is --- "What would it take for you to believe in God?"

 

The answer, with some variation, is also classic.  "I don't know.  God would know what it would take to change my mind.  So far, it has not happened."

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

In my opinion -- "not chosen" is a minefield of invisible assumptions.  The presumption is built in, that you want faith.  That having faith is a good thing.

 

The classic question, which is put to Agnostics and Atheists, is --- "What would it take for you to believe in God?"

 

The answer, with some variation, is also classic.  "I don't know.  God would know what it would take to change my mind.  So far, it has not happened."

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Ah.... glad I threw that out... I was texting with teammate in my Philosophy class.   I see the points you raised.   Good ones.    

Thx (very much)

 

von

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

When you quote Scripture to have God spitting out Agnostics -- you are being offensive.       More precisely, you are bringing God in, to confirm your offensive "opinion".

 

You have insulted me.  I have taken offence.  Telling me that I should not be offended, because it is only your opinion -- is not constructive. 

 

If your offended by a bible verse, I can't help that..  Nor do I comprehend how a person can be insulted by something they don't even believe is true? If my opinion is biblical, your real problem is with the bible.. There are 31,103 verses in the bible, buckle-up. :)

 

15 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

I want to believe my loser nephew.   I want to have faith in him.   According to your thinking I can just choose to believe him.   He says he has changed.

 

Having faith is not a matter of choice to me.    But I certainly can accept you see the other side of that.

 

 

I'm just defining choice differently than you.. Wanting to believe your nephew, but choosing not to, is a choice. Your gut feeling about him overrides your desire to believe he's changed, so your decision (choice) is not to believe he's really changed. Having an instinctive response can be the basis of a persons choice too.

 

To me, having faith is a choice, just as not having faith is a choice. You simply hear something and choose to believe or not believe it.. Having faith is not a matter of choice to you because you've chosen not to believe, but having a negative rather than an affirmative reaction to something does not negate choice.  What you seem to be saying is something like; I don't want to get married, so marriage isn't a choice for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share