Figuring Out Religion

[jafs]

You don't have to change your beliefs, especially if you don't have any compelling reasons to do that.

The important thing to me is to understand that belief isn't knowledge, and that on some level we choose what we believe.

Then it's ok for me to believe one way, and for other people to believe differently - I don't have to convince them that I'm right and they're wrong, which is where a lot of conflict comes from.

It might be interesting to consider what sort of experiences/evidence you'd need to change that belief, or whether it's rock solid regardless of anything.

I'm not sure why people are getting stuck on "choice" and think it means a "capricious choice" without rhyme or reason - that's not what I mean at all.

[MachineGhost]

MG, aren't you the guy who believes in reincarnation?  Why all the hate for religion, when you have chosen to believe in perhaps the least conceivable explanation of life that exists?

"Least conceivable explanation" compared to some self-proclaimed messiah dying on the cross for my sins only a scant 2,000 years ago when the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old?  Really?  Seriously?  You think The Bible explains the nature of reality and how things came to be?  You better lay off the wacky weed, there!

I don't think I hate religion per se (aside from the exploitation or command and control aspects).  I hate the ignorance of its followers.  Is that a fair position to take when everyone is not as deeply intelligent as myself?  Probably not, but I can't help it and I can only choose to be respectful of other's beliefs I think are baloney.  I would bet you the same impetus that makes me feel sorry for Mountaineer, Xan and your fine self is the same sorry impetus that you all feel towards my "soul" not being "saved" by your "God".  So since we all have these emotions and impulses to deal with in practical terms, may the best knowledge win.

[MachineGhost]

I don't completely disagree with that statement.  But I've also found that Christians tend to understand atheism better than atheists do.  Atheists spend too little time figuring out how to really live and think consistently with their worldview.  They seem to be mostly against something (religion), but don't seem to understand the implications of their beliefs.

They are like Libertardians.  A cult of against, but not for.  However, everyone should be free to choose their own set of moral principles so long as it doesn't involve coercion against anyone elses.

[MachineGhost]

It's possible that what you believe can change, but as a result of choice?  I don't see it.

It can be a result of choice if you specifically expose yourself to knowledge that is against or contradicts what you currently believe.  It's not going to happen otherwise unless by coincidence or surprise.  The ego is very protective of its beliefs.

[MachineGhost]

This line of inquiry is interesting to me, because I think I'm with the believers on this. We don't choose what we believe; we just kind of find that we believe it because of our experiences, temperaments, etc. The people on this forum who have fallen away from Christianity didn't choose to stop believing in Christ; they simply found that their belief had crumbled all on its own because of the things that were going on in their lives and brains.

I don't believe that (pun intended).  You have the choice to hold onto false beliefs just as you do to let them "crumble away".  There is an emotional cost to discarding old beliefs in favor of new ones and not everyone is willing to pay the price.  If there is no emotional cost then old beliefs were no big deal in the first place.

When I say I'm being "respectful" regarding religion, what I mean is I'm not going around trying to kick the legs out from under True Believers like atheists or sadists do.  It's a very painful process to have your entire belief system shattered.  I should know as I've been through it many times.  But that's because I'm a deep thinker, eternally curious and never content with the status quo.  I've intentionally expose myself to those painful outcomes and still do.  If you ever decide to settle, the pain stops.  Someone on here has a tagline that says "belief is the death of intelligence" or something like that and it is aptly true.

[MachineGhost]

Dawkins is appalled that Craig would defend the Old Testament stories.  He finds the stories horrific.  But why?  Why would he or anyone else care about something as natural and pitiless as war and genocide?  The Bible stories, if true, are nothing more than another example of a purely naturalistic accident that carries no meaning.  If false, they're equally worthless.  In neither case is there anything to get upset about; nothing worth working oneself into a self-righteous, morally superior position ... it's just nature.  Everything is nature.  Relax, Richard, and accept it.  Accept it all.  Don't look for moral highground or lowground.  Don't moralize at all, for morality itself, as strong a feeling as it can be, it yet just another natural accident.  We're all equally accidental, and nothing that is done in this universe is "bad" or "good."  It simply is.  It is meaningless.

And your Christian babblydegook gives sense and meaning to the naturalistic order?  That contradicting, hypocritical, sadistic book known as The Bible?  Really?  Seriously?  Come on, you're just projecting.  You wanted there to be sense and meaning and the religion you picked really didn't matter.  Any of them would have done the job so long as it had everything you wanted.  After all, it is merely a set of beliefs you choose.

I'm not sure its fair to hold up Dawkins and other pop culture atheists as representative of the ideology, though.  I don't personally like Dawkins because he's an asshole unlike Hitchins was.  Assholes tend to have a mean reductionist self-nihilistic streak.  Are you surprised to find out I don't like Trump anymore?  Guess why.

[MachineGhost]

MG, I'll ignore your insults and agree with you on Dawkins.  I'm not a fan.  But he's frequently referenced on this forum, and he has established himself as one of the most prominent atheist voices in society today. 

Those weren't insults, they were sarcasm!  Exasperation!  But you True Believers never ever seem to describe exactly how your belief in your religion translates into completely understanding the nature and purpose of the universe, especially when you did not before you became a True Believer.  Err.  Does not compute.  Is it all faith that such is such so thus is so?  If so, I can deal with that and cease my pessant questioning.

[Xan]

You have the choice to hold onto false beliefs just as you do to let them "crumble away".

I disagree.  If you've reached the point of admitting that your beliefs have been false, then you already believe that they're false.  You can choose to keep going through the motions, yes, but you can't choose to go on believing something you actually don't.

You don't have to change your beliefs, especially if you don't have any compelling reasons to do that.

The important thing to me is to understand that belief isn't knowledge, and that on some level we choose what we believe.

Then it's ok for me to believe one way, and for other people to believe differently - I don't have to convince them that I'm right and they're wrong, which is where a lot of conflict comes from.

It might be interesting to consider what sort of experiences/evidence you'd need to change that belief, or whether it's rock solid regardless of anything.

Well, I think the important thing is to understand that on no level do we choose what we believe.  We can be persuaded, yes.  We can discover new evidence, or simply mature, or whatever else.  But none of that is a choice.

Take something very simple: you like Hawaiian shirts.  It's just something you like.  You could decide to stop wearing Hawaiian shirts despite your preference for them, certainly.  But can you truly choose to stop liking them?  Rather, it's the case that if you wake up one day and "choose" to stop liking them, it's because you in fact already stopped.

Let me ask you this: what sort of experiences/evidence would you need to change your belief that you can choose your beliefs, or is it rock solid?  Because I'm pretty sure the science is with me on this.

[jafs]

Well, we just disagree about this, apparently. 

Can you give me an example of a religious belief that you have that you feel you aren't choosing on any level to believe?  I don't need to convince you that my view is correct, but I'd like to understand what you're saying.

Liking Hawaiian shirts isn't a very good analogy to faith, in my view.

And, just to make sure, we're on the same page up until that point?  That religion is about the "unknowable", and that "belief" isn't "knowledge"?

[MachineGhost]

I disagree.  If you've reached the point of admitting that your beliefs have been false, then you already believe that they're false.  You can choose to keep going through the motions, yes, but you can't choose to go on believing something you actually don't.

Isn't that what I said?  Humans are perfectly capable of being two-faced or hypocritical in professing to believe one thing while not really believing in that thing at all in their deepest hearts of hearts.  And many times this conflict is unconscious otherwise psychology wouldn't have such a field day!

I'd say going through the motions while feeling like a conscious hypocrite is part of the process until you find another set of beliefs to replace the bad feeling.  Belief is ultimately about emotional stability.  In unconscious conflicts, it's more than likely further adopted beliefs are aimed at building up the conflict from being revealed consciously rather than replaced.

[MachineGhost]

Well, I think the important thing is to understand that on no level do we choose what we believe.  We can be persuaded, yes.  We can discover new evidence, or simply mature, or whatever else.  But none of that is a choice.

Since you're a True Believer, is this supposed to imply we're all automatically handed the path to your "God", but we "choose" to reject his "Revealed Wisdom", i.e. the proverbial "Fall From Grace"?

Well I disagree with that philosophy, obviously.  I also disagree that you can't just choose what beliefs you want to be in your mind.  I've done that several times.  In some cases it was simply an emotional choice and then you start being interested in/finding out the now contrary evidence to support the new state of harmony.  And this happens a lot easier when you're not so reason and logic oriented, i.e. young.

[MachineGhost]

Let me ask you this: what sort of experiences/evidence would you need to change your belief that you can choose your beliefs, or is it rock solid?  Because I'm pretty sure the science is with me on this.

BTW, the science isn't with you on this at the quantum physics level.  There you literally do choose what you can observe.  Time travel, instantaneous teleportation, being everywhere at the same time, etc. it exists all down there and the central organizing factor is [human] consciousness.  Since this is the fundamental for all of our existence, what do you think this suggests about the higher orders of our physical reality?

I'm sorry, but it is a LEAP OF FAITH to associate the science fiction behavior at the quantum physics level with any one of those 5,000 religious claims of a so-called "God".  It's not hard to project a feeling of awe and mystery onto whatever "God" concept you already believe or are predisposed to believe.  And being an agnostic is already a predisposition to believe in the "God" concept.  Doubt is the mother of all fuckups, so please choose your beliefs very, very carefully.

[jafs]

That's one of the interesting consequences if you don't believe in the ability to choose your beliefs.

Traditional Christian theology, as expressed many times in this thread, is that God offers you the opportunity of salvation, but you have to choose it, if I understand that correctly.  And, that choice is framed as accepting Jesus as your Savior, which usually means believing he's the Son of God and died for your sins.

If you can't choose whether or not to believe that, then salvation is predestined, which is a Calvinist sort of belief, but not mainstream.

[MachineGhost]

If you can't choose whether or not to believe that, then salvation is predestined, which is a Calvinist sort of belief, but not mainstream.

Indeed and Calvin was a miserable asshole who suffered from hemmorhoids and wanted everyone else to share in his misery.  See how it all fits together?  Calvin is to Dawkins what Hobbes is to Hitchens.  There's a one for everyone.

[Mountaineer]

If you can't choose whether or not to believe that, then salvation is predestined, which is a Calvinist sort of belief, but not mainstream.

Indeed and Calvin was a miserable asshole who suffered from hemmorhoids and wanted everyone else to share in his misery.  See how it all fits together?  Calvin is to Dawkins what Hobbes is to Hitchens.  There's a one for everyone.

MG,

Do all assholes suffer from hemorrhoids if given enough time?  On a serious note, I think you suffer from optical rectitis. 

... M

[Xan]

Well, we just disagree about this, apparently. 

Can you give me an example of a religious belief that you have that you feel you aren't choosing on any level to believe?  I don't need to convince you that my view is correct, but I'd like to understand what you're saying.

Liking Hawaiian shirts isn't a very good analogy to faith, in my view.

And, just to make sure, we're on the same page up until that point?  That religion is about the "unknowable", and that "belief" isn't "knowledge"?

I think you're projecting here.  You find the other option (in this case, religious belief) to be so ridiculous that you can't fathom anybody actually believing it, and so you conclude they must be doing this "choose to believe" thing.  Whereas with Hawaiian shirts, you can see how some people would be predisposed to liking them, and others not.


And, just to

That's one of the interesting consequences if you don't believe in the ability to choose your beliefs.

Traditional Christian theology, as expressed many times in this thread, is that God offers you the opportunity of salvation, but you have to choose it, if I understand that correctly.  And, that choice is framed as accepting Jesus as your Savior, which usually means believing he's the Son of God and died for your sins.

If you can't choose whether or not to believe that, then salvation is predestined, which is a Calvinist sort of belief, but not mainstream.

You're describing Arminian theology, also known as "Decision Theology", which was invented in the late 16th century.  In that system, there's something called "common grace", which enables people to choose to be saved (by taking hold of the rest of the grace, or something).  Maybe somebody else could explain this better.  In any case, it's not traditional Christian doctrine.  (Well, as a Lutheran, I don't think so, anyway.)

The traditional Christian doctrine is that we are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ.  We are dead in our sins until we are saved.  We can't choose to be born again any more than we chose to be born in the first place.

For Calvinists, this means complete (or "double") predestination.

For Lutherans, those who are saved were saved entirely by God, and those who aren't are condemned as a result of their own sins.  Yes, this is a paradox, and we can't really explain it.

For Roman Catholics (at least, since the counter-reformation) (and maybe Eastern Orthodox?), believing is all well and good, but that's just the beginning of being made righteous in an Aristotelian sense, that is, you become righteous by doing good works.

So I don't think decision theology is necessarily the "mainstream".

[Libertarian666]

For Lutherans, those who are saved were saved entirely by God, and those who aren't are condemned as a result of their own sins.  Yes, this is a paradox, and we can't really explain it.

I can explain it. Because God is entirely good, He is responsible for all good things whereas all bad things are someone else's fault.

Hope that helps. 

[jafs]

We're not going to get anywhere if you continue to misconstrue my point of view.

I'm not sure why you want to do that - it makes conversation difficult.  I majored in religious studies, and seriously considered the ministry several times - I'm not hostile to religion nor do I find religious belief "ridiculous".

If you want to discuss this, I'd appreciate it if you would give me an example of beliefs you haven't chosen, so I can understand what you're trying to say here.

If not, we can just give up on this one if you like.

The first site when I googled salvation has a definition - "deliverance from sin..., believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ."  And, then another site has - "The deliverance, by the grace of God, ...granted to those who accept by faith God's conditions...and faith in the Lord Jesus."

It looks like Lutherans do believe that God creates the very faith that is needed, rather than people choosing that.  Is that why you dislike my view so much?

[Xan]

We're not going to get anywhere if you continue to misconstrue my point of view.

Not trying to.  Really.

If you want to discuss this, I'd appreciate it if you would give me an example of beliefs you haven't chosen, so I can understand what you're trying to say here.

Sorry, I missed your request for a list.  I'm not sure I can satisfy it.  I haven't chosen ANY of my beliefs or preferences.  I like Beethoven, but I didn't choose to.  I'm a Lutheran (http://www.lcms.org/belief-and-practice), but I didn't chose to be; I discovered that I was.  I'm not sure what you're looking for.  Do you have a list of things which you chose to believe?

I'm not sure that will get us anywhere, because you'll list some things, and I'll point out that you actually believed them before any choosing was done, and you'll disagree.

[MachineGhost]

Do all assholes suffer from hemorrhoids if given enough time?  On a serious note, I think you suffer from optical rectitis. 

ROFL.  I've no idea...  but it could be possible.  Know of a study?

We could always ask Trump.  Two makes a trend!

P.S.  I've never understood how it was Hobbes that said life was nasty, brutish and short instead of Calvin.  Calvinism makes the Puritans look like prostitutes.  He must have had his entire gut painfully spooging out of his asshole!

[Mountaineer]

Do all assholes suffer from hemorrhoids if given enough time?  On a serious note, I think you suffer from optical rectitis. 

ROFL.  I've no idea...  but it could be possible.  Know of a study?

We could always ask Trump.  Two makes a trend!

Study?  No.  Only my personal ass-a-dote but I do not choose to repeat the study using the scientific method, or for that matter, any other method. 

... M

[jafs]

Well, you've accused me of being an "unbeliever", finding religious belief "ridiculous", and "projecting" so far.  It's almost as if you're trying to start a fight with me.

I already gave you a good example from my beliefs, that people are basically good.

Beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are significantly different from preferences, like liking classical music or Hawaiian shirts.  Although, some people may think that one's religion is just a product of one's upbringing, as are some preferences like those - I like classical music, in part, I'm sure, because I was exposed to it growing up.

How did you come to "discover" that you were Lutheran?

[Mountaineer]

Well, you've accused me of being an "unbeliever", finding religious belief "ridiculous", and "projecting" so far.  It's almost as if you're trying to start a fight with me.

I already gave you a good example from my beliefs, that people are basically good.

Beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are significantly different from preferences, like liking classical music or Hawaiian shirts.  Although, some people may think that one's religion is just a product of one's upbringing, as are some preferences like those - I like classical music, in part, I'm sure, because I was exposed to it growing up.

How did you come to "discover" that you were Lutheran?

My answer to the bolded (by me) question - very cryptic summary:

Born and raised Methodist —> religious studies in college that focused the 10 or 12 major world religions —> Abstainer —> Presbyterian —> Baptist —> Episcopalian —> Methodist —> Baptist —> Reformed Presbyterian —> ELCA —> several courses in religion with a focus on Eastern Orthodox —> occasional visitor to Assembly of God, Baptist, and very minor visits to Roman Catholic marriage and funeral services —> LCMS.  I discovered I was a confessional Lutheran, and always had been but did not know it, when I started attending the LCMS church.  Basically, the LCMS faithfully interpreted Scripture by using Scripture and was thus the most free of sinful man’s influence on meaning.  It just “knew” their doctrine was correct from my education/training of thinking critically.  That is all from my perspective.  From God’s perspective, I think He wanted me to first have a variety of experiences so I would understand the options (I tend to question most everything as to the why, how, what) but ultimately He wanted me where I ended up.  God has been and is in control of the whole process.

... Mountaineer

[jafs]

Well, that's interesting, of course.

But it doesn't really get at what I'm trying to talk about - you say that you discovered you had always been Lutheran, meaning that you believed things that were in line with Lutheran theology.  How you came to believe those things is the real question.

[Mountaineer]

Well, that's interesting, of course.

But it doesn't really get at what I'm trying to talk about - you say that you discovered you had always been Lutheran, meaning that you believed things that were in line with Lutheran theology.  How you came to believe those things is the real question.

EVERYTHING is a gift from God.  How did I come to believe that?  EVERYTHING is a gift from God.  I doubt that is a satisfactory answer for you but who knows.    I'm not sure it is possible to explain why one has a certain belief if one does not believe in an external source of "something" being in charge.  Circular?  Probably.

... Mountaineer