Good insight, Eris. I’m still waiting on that definition of biological life from Iconoclast.
Iconoclast,
Dang it. Just when I thought you understood…
It’s just plain “I AM”. And there are those of us who do believe that the Eternal Existential Reality is worthy of worship, which is why we worship Him.
My only question, at this point, since you decline to define life, is why will you not accept that either (1) you fail to understand the definition or (2) we fail to define it well enough for you? Why must you declare the matter now to be concluded as evidence that we are somehow bereft, deluded, or subsimilated? Do you always draw up these false dichotomies?
How so? The generalization (in my experience) is that beliefs are the result of experience, reflection, and projection from the same. I suppose we could take a poll to validate that generalization, if you too think people can actively choose to believe something (as opposed to just saying they believe it).
Your generalization was hasty because you offered two items, both absurd, as enough evidence to conclude that a person cannot make a choice to believe. It’s all the more astounding since it is exactly such a fallacy upon which you seem to think our faith is based!
You asked a man who bases his choices on reason to make a choice based on something else, when in fact it was also his choice to base his other choices on reason. Choices can be based on anything at all, including prejudice, emotion, deduction, experience, hedonism, and on and on and on.
You fail to understand how anyone could find it reasonable to believe in God, and so you conclude that people who believe in God are unreasonable. Yet, were you yourself a reasonable person, you would first ask upon what basis someone might believe in God. After an initial stumble or two, a dialog might then ensue in which the two of you learn from each other.
But this dismissive attitude belies the fact that your own choice is based on prejudice, and not reason.
Even if I stick to the non-absurd, the result is the same - I can’t choose to believe today is Thursday, when it is Wednesday. I can’t choose to believe something which, in reality, I believe is untrue. And if there is something for which I am lacking information - such as what my coworker will have for lunch - I can’t choose to actively believe she will have a ham sandwich. Perhaps you can, and many kudos to you.
Also - I’m not debating the nature of choice, but of belief. Choices can be based on a number of things - I never said they couldn’t.
I’ve done this many a time. It tends to boil down to “I had some experience I just can’t explain” or “It’s just faith” - neither of which leaves a whole lot of room for further discussion of the matter.
Again, it’s not a choice. In fact, it took four years of some serious reflection and thought to come to the realization that I no longer believed. I didn’t wake up one day and say “Hmmm, for today’s fun, I think I will choose to not believe in god.” For you to dismiss my own internal struggle (so to speak) as less than what it was is an insult.
Oh, really. Just because a person has free will doesn’t mean they can choose any old path you feel should be chosen for the sake of demonstrating it.
Here, for example. “You will die by jumping off this building.” “Nuh-uh, that’s not my experience. Prove it.” Silly.
The question comes down to believing what they feel is rational and what you feel is rational. Short of another epistemology thread (ugh) I think we may just be left with accepting that different people think different things for different reasons, and that by and large the reasons different people have for thinking different things seems— to them— to be reasonable.
And it really is a matter of questioning reason, not questioning what is being reasoned about. A definition of God isn’t going to help anyone here one bit because they already have come to the(ir) reasonable conclusion that god doesn’t exist. I understand that, by your reasoning, you should be right. I also understand that, by my reasoning, I should be right. If we disagree, clearly one of us must be wrong.
Is that reasonable?
And saying things like “believe the moon is made of green cheese”— something that, were it carried out, would leave you again with no means of verification— leaves plenty of room for discussion?
Whereas telling someone they are wrong because they believe in choice is hardly insulting at all; obviously they couldn’t have thought hard about the matter. If they did they’d agree with you!
OK, I’m afraid I must be missing your point. I cannot actively choose to believe I will live by jumping off a building (assuming one sufficiently tall to kill me) - experience, reflection, and then projection of the future consequences result in a belief I will die. It’s an automatic process.
Again, I’m not trying to argue that theists don’t have reasons for which they believe what they believe - I am sure they do. I’m not saying they choose to believe in something they know isn’t true. I’m saying we’re both constrained by the nature of belief, without judgement on that belief one way or the other. To tie it into whether I think theists are generally irrational is another matter altogether and muddles things.
I’ve never said I don’t believe in choice. I’ve merely stated that belief isn’t based on an active choice to believe a concept. In other words, I don’t think true belief amounts to fooling yourself.
Super_head it is interesting that you can conclude that you will die if you jump off a building because of your experience and reflection. Because experieces with ones surroundings reforces the existence of God.
Back to the OP. It is hard to say what God is with the conditions set upon us. Thinking hard. I still believe Duck had the best answer when he said God is. Ok, so some what to know what is after the God is. Well, almost any word or thought you can add would apply. I say this because without God, nothing you could add to the is part would be without God. Ok. If you want to say God is the anti-christ. No, that does not apply.
About God not being expressed by words to be understood does not mean God is not. Take and object that a child has not seen and tell the child to tell you what the object is. If the child has never experienced the object before, he/she would have a hard time explaining it. Sure they could tell you what the see or how the perceive it. But, just because the can not exactly what it is does not mean the object is not there. This also applies to God. Just because we are not giving answers that satisfy you questions does not mean God does not exist.
As to choosing to believe in either the presence or the absence of the Divine -
Let me try to express it this way. You know those perceptual illusions? The ones where it can be a beautiful woman or an old hag, and can flip between, or the Netter cube one, where the cut out corner can also be steps on the inside, or the faces-vase one? Figure-ground illusions. When faced with these situations one can choose to percieve one or the other, even if one appears to you at first, it can be pointed out how the other interpretation is also viable, and then you can see it.
Faith, in either direction, is somewhat like this perceptual process. The universe is an ambigous experience. Some of us percieve only the beauty, some only the hag, some can appreciate that the data can support either perception and have chosen to believe that one is more likely.
Well, then perhaps I’m missing your point. Are you a determinist? As well, you say it is an automatic process… what, exactly, is an automatic process? Is it “I experience X, I have previously experienced Y, and thus I have no choice but to accept the conclusion C?” If that is the case, how do you know the limitations of what sort of conclusion one can draw? Why couldn’t a person come to the conclusion that they can actively choose to believe in God or they can actively choose to believe in choice? If they could, what does that say about the automatic process? If they cannot, why does it seem like they can?
Sorry to grill you like this, just interesting is all.
I think that last sentence sort of begs the question. Could you rephrase?
Interesting view, but I don’t see it as beauty vs hag. The universe that I perceive today (as an atheist) is no less beautiful than I thought it was when I was a Christian. In fact, personally, I have come to appreciate life and the universe more as an atheist (your mileage may vary) than I ever did when I believed in god, an afterlife, and the works.
If they truly could, then I’d be impressed. I’ve yet to mean anyone who says “I choose to believe in X” meaning that they actually, consciously said to themselves “I will believe X.” (anecdotal)
I don’t think theists choose to believe any more than I think atheists choose not to believe.
I can try - I don’t think belief = choosing to postively accept something you don’t think to be true. In other words, in belief involves actively choosing a position then one could say “I believe the sky is green, even though I don’t.”
As a more illustrious example that thinking the sky is green, consider the case of the person in denial. You say evidence forces people to come to a conclusion automatically, and yet we can witness people who clearly ignore the evidence in front of them, and maintain a position from that. If the process is automatic, shouldn’t everyone agree on the same things?-- I guess that’s what I’m saying. If we see the same evidence, why would we be compelled to see two different truths? Isn’t that more of a choice (which evidence means what, or which evidence is important enough to consider)?
I simply have a hard time seeing that, say, solving the general solution of a first order linear differential equation is automatic. Though the sky=green is, on its surface, an interesting argument, one can easily turn it to a matter of perception and rehash the old “is your blue the same as my blue” scenario.
Perhaps I erred in using the beauty-hag example. No implication of atheists as seeing only the hag was intended. There are theist who see only the ugly, atheist who see much beauty in the world. Use convex-concave Netter cube or faces-vase. The point is that we choose how we interpret/percieve the same ambiguous information.
