Choice?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

How do you choose to believe something? 

Often times I hear theists tell me that I just choose not to believe.  So, how do you choose to believe something that seemingly has no basis in reality?

all

[sobeit9]

I discovered my path basically by the Simone Weil route even though unaware of her in those days.  She is like this wonderful comet that passed by the earth stirring everything up.  As a lone wolf there is no school built around her which is why both Leon Trotsky and a Pope Payl V1 were influenced by her.  I don't feel guilty about discussing her since there is nothing to betray.  Sshe is our antidote to the "Great Beast."

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

This was basically me. I wasn't believing in what those around me were believing in whether religious, philosophical, or psychological.  Yet the more I experienced the inwardly meaninglessness of normal life, the more something told me that the source of meaning must be there behind all this chaos. As this personal question became intense, the question was answered as I discovered my path.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I like how you worded that.  You discovered your path. 

I don't have the same reverence for, well anything, that you do for Simone, but at least you understand something fundamental that seems to be lacking in most theological debates.  You don't feel guilty discussing her because there is nothing to betray.

People don't seem to understand that concepts stand or fall on their own.  You don't gain anything by making it personal.

all

[sobeit9]

All

People don't seem to understand that concepts stand or fall on their own.  You don't gain anything by making it personal.

It is this way with science which primarily functions with inductive reason so works from the bottom up.  However, when dealing with "meaning" everything is context.  So a concept to have meaning it must be put in context.

Can the number 4 have any meaning without first agreeing as to what the number one means?  But we know that four is not the highest number and for our purposes it is part of a span between one and ten and is worth 4/10ths.  But with ten spans of ten equalling one hundred, four is now 4/100ths.  The meaning of four is different from the isness of four.

This is why my tradition anyhow is taught as it is.  it consists of meanings within meanings and everything is connected on that basis. It allows one to see the picture of the elephant.  There is that old adage of blind people feeling the parts of an elephant but they will describe its wholeness differently.  But I am given a skeleton of the universe and asked to fill in the parts in context and verify if it makes sense as I try to experience meaning.  This is why Jesus taught in parables.  Just giving logical answers is out of context so void of meaning.

If a person is truly open to meaning it is impossible to take something personally for any length of time.  Once we begin to see it in context, it is so trivial that there is nothing to take personally.  I can still defend recognition of the Armenian genocide and conden genocide denial without being insulted because I'm part Armenian.  I just know that genocide is the bottom of the barrel as far as human hate crimes.  If people cannot stand united against the horrors of genocide and genocide denial, how is it possible to stand against anything but what offends ones personal selective morality?

When we put humanity as a whole into a higher context it is obvious that we are part of a living organism called humanity that is composed of human types and types within these types. We have the potential for individuality yet all are also ONE in the essence of humanity. This brings new meaning based on logic rather than platitudes.  They must be presented in the contrext of relative meaning or they are meaningless.

So concepts stand and fall on their own but their place as part of a continuum in the scale of relative meaning is something else.

   

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

People don't seem to understand that concepts stand or fall on their own.  You don't gain anything by making it personal.

It is this way with science which primarily functions with inductive reason so works from the bottom up.  However, when dealing with "meaning" everything is context.  So a concept to have meaning it must be put in context.

I agree.  I may be one of the rare atheists out there.  I will agree that science, while valuable in it's own right, has limitations and cannot be expected to cover every question.  I will agree that when looking for answers to such questions, you need to utilize other means.  I just disagree with the answers that are claimed to be found in such a manner. 

Can the number 4 have any meaning without first agreeing as to what the number one means?  But we know that four is not the highest number and for our purposes it is part of a span between one and ten and is worth 4/10ths.  But with ten spans of ten equalling one hundred, four is now 4/100ths.  The meaning of four is different from the isness of four.

That is exactly the issue.  The number 4 cannot have any meaning without agreement as to what not only what the number 1 means, but what numbers are in the first place.  I (or anyone who doesn't believe for that matter) cannot take any discussion of theology very seriously without getting the basics down first.  People tend (and I'm sure I am no different) tend to jump from on concept to one far down the road that realistically cannot be drawn from the first. 

An example would be the reasoning of people who feel that the universe needed a creator (which while I don't agree with, I can see how they come to that conclusion) and then use that to justify belief in a specific theology.  Point A does not lead to point B. At least not directly.  There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed first. 

This is why my tradition anyhow is taught as it is.  it consists of meanings within meanings and everything is connected on that basis. It allows one to see the picture of the elephant.  There is that old adage of blind people feeling the parts of an elephant but they will describe its wholeness differently.  But I am given a skeleton of the universe and asked to fill in the parts in context and verify if it makes sense as I try to experience meaning.  This is why Jesus taught in parables.  Just giving logical answers is out of context so void of meaning.

No offense, but are you sure?  I do not see your tradition in the same light, and feel that the aspects of Buddhism that you employ are taken to mean things that they really don't.

If a person is truly open to meaning it is impossible to take something personally for any length of time.  Once we begin to see it in context, it is so trivial that there is nothing to take personally.

I think I see what you are saying, but being open to meaning is not what I would call it.  One needs to see what one is reacting to that makes it so they feel so personally about it.  If someone is capable of seeing, they would be open to whatever meaning is really there, but "open to meaning" sounds a bit loaded.  One needs not only to be open to meaning, but open to no meaning. 

I can still defend recognition of the Armenian genocide and conden genocide denial without being insulted because I'm part Armenian.  I just know that genocide is the bottom of the barrel as far as human hate crimes.  If people cannot stand united against the horrors of genocide and genocide denial, how is it possible to stand against anything but what offends ones personal selective morality?

couldn't tell ya.

When we put humanity as a whole into a higher context it is obvious that we are part of a living organism called humanity that is composed of human types and types within these types. We have the potential for individuality yet all are also ONE in the essence of humanity. This brings new meaning based on logic rather than platitudes.  They must be presented in the contrext of relative meaning or they are meaningless.

So concepts stand and fall on their own but their place as part of a continuum in the scale of relative meaning is something else.

That raises the question of where their place is, and if they are worthy of a place.

all

[Acumen]

All,

So, how do you choose to believe something that seemingly has no basis in reality?

What is the something you're thinking about?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

So, how do you choose to believe something that seemingly has no basis in reality?

What is the something you're thinking about?

From my POV, god. 

The concept has no basis in reality, and the arguments used to defend it seem contrived.  I often hear that I just 'choose' not to believe in it.  I am wondering how I could 'choose' to believe in it?

all

[Acumen]

All,

The concept has no basis in reality, and the arguments used to defend it seem contrived.  I often hear that I just 'choose' not to believe in it.  I am wondering how I could 'choose' to believe in it?

The notion of choosing to believe in God, I think, is terribly complex.  At most, people would only be able to give you some of the reasons they believe, and they wouldn't be able to scratch the cognitive surface as to why they actually believe.  My belief in God, for example, is grounded in some of the experiences I had with God in my church.  And of course, these experiences are "private" by definition in the sense that I cannot replicate them as proof that God exists.  These experiences give me confidence that my choice to believe is a good one.

Also, another reason I choose to believe is that I have a difficult time coming to terms with life as having no purpose.  If God does not exist and our existence is the mere result of matter interacting with the laws of gravity, then there is no good nor bad.  Doing charity work for the homeless is a waste of my time because it's morally as insignificant as playing X-box or sending this post.  Helping people live better lives is no better than helping oneself to the possessions of others.  When I die, there is no hope for anything else.  To me, such a picture is too bleak.  There is an awful lot of life-sustaining conditions here on earth for no apparent reason.

-Acumen     

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Acumen,

Two questions.

1.  Could it really be called a choice?  I agree that it would be near impossible to scratch the surface as to why you actually believe.  With something so complex and overpowering, could it be considered a choice?

Personally, I don't think so.  You believe.  With your experiences and the understanding of them that you have (be they considered proof by anyone else but you or not) you could not arrive at any conclusion other than the one you have. You could not get up tomorrow morning and decide that you were not going to believe anymore.  To convince you would be to demolish your personality block by block, shattering the core of what makes you, you. 

It's the same thing with me.  You could show me every single thing that you used to arrive at your conclusion, and explain every single one of them in detail, and it wouldn't convince me.  Realistically speaking, you could find a way to bring "God" down to my office and let me run tests on him and I'm still not going to buy that he is who you say he is. 

Objectively speaking, neither of our concepts of reality would stand up to an "choice" in this manner. They would tumble like a house of cards.  There are places where they isolate people who have had similar things happen to their concepts of reality.  They get good drugs there anyway.  To bad they really can't enjoy them.

2.  Why is such an outlook bleak?  To me it sounds realistic.

all

[Acumen]

All,

It's the same thing with me.  You could show me every single thing that you used to arrive at your conclusion, and explain every single one of them in detail, and it wouldn't convince me.  Realistically speaking, you could find a way to bring "God" down to my office and let me run tests on him and I'm still not going to buy that he is who you say he is.

There really is no way of demonstrating either arguments for or against the free will.  If my argument convinces you, then you could always say you didn't freely choose it, but cause and effect circumstances have shaped the way you received and processed the information, thus inducing the choice without a freedom the precedes it.  Unlike programs on a computer, we cannot map the entire thought processes or cognitive workings of the human brain in order to end this argument.  It will have to stay as it is, purely imaginative.

2.  Why is such an outlook bleak?  To me it sounds realistic.

Because there is no real direction.  When I do something, I want to know if it's the right thing to do.  Without a God, there is no such thing as a good human being.  Saving someone's life is no better than murdering an entire race of people.  There is no definitive direction for our behavior other than what we, as a people, agree to do.  I would think that most people would not like the bleakness of this picture.  Most people presume in an objective right and wrong regardless whether they realize it must be tied to a Creator being.

-Acumen

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

It's the same thing with me.  You could show me every single thing that you used to arrive at your conclusion, and explain every single one of them in detail, and it wouldn't convince me.  Realistically speaking, you could find a way to bring "God" down to my office and let me run tests on him and I'm still not going to buy that he is who you say he is.

There really is no way of demonstrating either arguments for or against the free will.  If my argument convinces you, then you could always say you didn't freely choose it, but cause and effect circumstances have shaped the way you received and processed the information, thus inducing the choice without a freedom the precedes it.  Unlike programs on a computer, we cannot map the entire thought processes or cognitive workings of the human brain in order to end this argument.  It will have to stay as it is, purely imaginative.

But it's fun to talk about.   

2.  Why is such an outlook bleak?  To me it sounds realistic.

Because there is no real direction.  When I do something, I want to know if it's the right thing to do.  Without a God, there is no such thing as a good human being.  Saving someone's life is no better than murdering an entire race of people.  There is no definitive direction for our behavior other than what we, as a people, agree to do.  I would think that most people would not like the bleakness of this picture.  Most people presume in an objective right and wrong regardless whether they realize it must be tied to a Creator being.

This is another thing I never understood about theists.  From a perspective of someone who doesn't believe in a god, we apply meaning, and the meaning is similar to the one that we see theists applying and attributing to their god (my perspective).  But from a theists perspective, everything loses all meaning if there is no god.  Speaking as someone who doesn't believe in a god, yet still finds meaning on his own, such a position seems like nonsense.  There doesn't need to be objective right and wrong.  Our subjective versions work just fine.

And as far as what most people do, most people believe in a deity of some form. 

all

[Acumen]

All,

This is another thing I never understood about theists.  From a perspective of someone who doesn't believe in a god, we apply meaning, and the meaning is similar to the one that we see theists applying and attributing to their god (my perspective).

Right, but theists draw a different sort of distinction, which I think we brushed up against earlier.  There is a difference between fulfilling one's purpose and being useful.  If there is a Creator God, logic tells us that He made us for some reason.  His ways are higher and better than ours', and He knows what is best for us.  Fallible people want to be led by something great, something perfect.  This is true direction; this is true meaning.  If there isn't a Creator God, logic tells us that we exist for no purpose.  Sure, we can make due with what we got -- like making lemonade out of lemons.  However, we move about through life making decisions based upon ignorant, presumptive premises hoping we don't screw things up to the point that we can no longer fix them.  Our abilities to problem solve are limited.  Our choices are fallible.  The direction of our lives change constantly as life goals appear and disappear.  If you desire to call this meaning, then fair enough.  It can certainly be meaningful to people, I won't deny you that.

There doesn't need to be objective right and wrong.  Our subjective versions work just fine.

They work fine based upon what criteria?

-Acumen
 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,

This is another thing I never understood about theists.  From a perspective of someone who doesn't believe in a god, we apply meaning, and the meaning is similar to the one that we see theists applying and attributing to their god (my perspective).

Right, but theists draw a different sort of distinction, which I think we brushed up against earlier.  There is a difference between fulfilling one's purpose and being useful.  If there is a Creator God, logic tells us that He made us for some reason.  His ways are higher and better than ours', and He knows what is best for us.  Fallible people want to be led by something great, something perfect.  This is true direction; this is true meaning.  If there isn't a Creator God, logic tells us that we exist for no purpose.  Sure, we can make due with what we got -- like making lemonade out of lemons.  However, we move about through life making decisions based upon ignorant, presumptive premises hoping we don't screw things up to the point that we can no longer fix them.  Our abilities to problem solve are limited.  Our choices are fallible.  The direction of our lives change constantly as life goals appear and disappear.  If you desire to call this meaning, then fair enough.  It can certainly be meaningful to people, I won't deny you that.

<chuckle>

I am really enjoying the difference of perspective being addressed here.  Your post can basically be read as dealing with a persons comfort.  There is a part in there that I see as dangerous as well. 

You say: 

However, we move about through life making decisions based upon ignorant, presumptive premises hoping we don't screw things up to the point that we can no longer fix them.  Our abilities to problem solve are limited.  Our choices are fallible.  The direction of our lives change constantly as life goals appear and disappear.

I think that is an accurate assessment of the situation.  We do move through life making decisions based upon ignorant and presumptive premises.  Hopefully we are concerned that we would screw things up to the point that we can no longer fix them because we recognize that our ability to solve problems are limited and our 'choices' fallible.  Not only that, but our lives do change direction constantly and goals do change.  What we wanted 10,20, or 30 years ago may not be the same thing, and in some cases my even be completely opposed to what we used to want. 

However, what worries me is the thought that (some) theists think that that is not the way it is.  They think that they are making decisions based not upon ignorant and presumptive premises, but upon the word of god.  They are not worried about screwing things up to the point that they can no longer be fixed, because it is all part of god's plan.  They don't care that our ability to solve problems is limited, because "god's is not". 


It grants too much comfort.  That the concept allows some to feel whole and like they matter is no issue.  It is that it also allows for a loss of accountability that is. 

There doesn't need to be objective right and wrong.  Our subjective versions work just fine.

They work fine based upon what criteria?
 

Ours.  The only one we have to go off of. 

all

[Acumen]

All,

However, what worries me is the thought that (some) theists think that that is not the way it is.  They think that they are making decisions based not upon ignorant and presumptive premises, but upon the word of god.  They are not worried about screwing things up to the point that they can no longer be fixed, because it is all part of god's plan.  They don't care that our ability to solve problems is limited, because "god's is not".  It grants too much comfort.  That the concept allows some to feel whole and like they matter is no issue.  It is that it also allows for a loss of accountability that is.

Let's play the devil's advocate a little.  Is accountability a good thing?  And if so, then why?

All:  There doesn't need to be objective right and wrong.  Our subjective versions work just fine.

Acumen:  They work fine based upon what criteria?
 
All:  Ours.  The only one we have to go off of. 

Okay, but why do you say they "work" just fine?  If they work fine, then they must work in a particular direction that's considered fine.  What standard or guide to you use to determine that the direction is fine?  And why?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All,
Let's play the devil's advocate a little.  Is accountability a good thing?  And if so, then why?

As a whole, yes.  It is a good thing to be accountable for your actions.  I hear often the argument from theists that god holds you accountable for actions that you might have gotten away with while alive.  If you believe in a deity in such a manner, and you modify negative behavior that you otherwise feel you would get away with for this matter, good for you. 

However, there another side to this.  If you believe that the deity will forgive you, or that you are acting according to its plan, you may do things that you would otherwise not do, and expect forgiveness, or shift accountability to that deity, we run into a different problem. 

Okay, but why do you say they "work" just fine?  If they work fine, then they must work in a particular direction that's considered fine.  What standard or guide to you use to determine that the direction is fine?  And why?

I say they work fine, because they do.  They work in the direction dictated by society.  Usually.  When they don't society will take action against those who do not conform.

all

[Acumen]

All,

As a whole, yes.  It is a good thing to be accountable for your actions. 

Right, but why is it a "good thing?"

I say they work fine, because they do.  They work in the direction dictated by society.  Usually.  When they don't society will take action against those who do not conform.

Okay, are you saying that subjective versions of right and wrong "work fine" because society will take action if those subjective rules are broken?

-Acumen

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Right, but why is it a "good thing?"

Because it brings congruence with societal norms.  "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms, and what they describe are described so because of how society views them. 

Okay, are you saying that subjective versions of right and wrong "work fine" because society will take action if those subjective rules are broken?

No, just because my subjective opinion is that they work fine. 

all

[Acumen]

All,

Because it brings congruence with societal norms.  "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms, and what they describe are described so because of how society views them.

So basically, you agree that accountability is good because society views it as such.  Would this also hold true if society viewed genocide as acceptable?

No, just because my subjective opinion is that they work fine.

So they work fine because that's your opinion?

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

So basically, you agree that accountability is good because society views it as such.  Would this also hold true if society viewed genocide as acceptable?

If society viewed genocide as acceptable, then you wouldn't be asking me that example. 

So they work fine because that's your opinion?

No, it's my opinion that they work fine.

all

[Acumen]

All,


If society viewed genocide as acceptable, then you wouldn't be asking me that example.

And this really doesn't answer my question. 

The American slavery of the 19th century is a black eye in the history of our culture.  Many of the southern states didn't treat them like indentured servants, but more like cattle (well, a little better than cattle because they had some rights).  The southern half of our society viewed slavery as a business necessity, and therefore it was an acceptable practice.  By 1800, the southern states had almost a million slaves as opposed to the north that had a little over 35 thousand.  By 1860, there were almost 4 million slaves in the south, but the northern states were hesitant to make an issue over it.  Obviously, we know how the story ends.

Using the type of argument you're alluding to, it seems you would have sided with pro-slavery movement because it was an accepted standard of society.  Even many of the Christian churches didn't oppose it except the Episcopalians and Presbyterians.  My question is, if society accepted it, was it "a good thing" back then when society accepted it?

-Acumen