The Paradox of Atheism and God

[PureX]

Hmmm ... seems like an obstinate denial of a sad truth. You're much to smart for it to be otherwise.

What sad truth? You don't seem to be able to articulate it. I can think about God any way I like, and no one can stop me. So can you. And so can everyone we know. So why do you keep insisting that "some other people" can't? Why can't they?

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmmm ... seems like an obstinate denial of a sad truth. You're much to smart for it to be otherwise.

@PureX said: How people choose to imagine the great mystery is their choice, made for their own reasons. And we are all free to do this

@MikeF said: Are all people free to do as you suggest? I would suggest any freedom in that regard is a relatively recent phenomenon historically and certainly not for the overwhelming majority.

I have a different spin on this. I don't think that people can choose to believe whatever they want to about God since I believe that free will is greatly circumscribed. What people believe about God is determined by many factors such as childhood upbringing and the totality of their adult experiences, including their education.

For example, I cannot just 'decide' to believe differently than I believe right now, since I believe what I believe for certain reasons I consider valid.
Unless I get new information that changes my mind I am going to continue believing what I believe. Most people don't change what they believe unless they are searching for something they don't think they have. If they already believe they have found the truth why would they change what they believe?

 

[PureX]

To say that "I won't" means that I can't is inaccurate. It's not true. One CAN change their mind, but they won't because they don't want to deny their current understanding of 'what is'. We COULD deny it, but we won't. Because we truly believe that what we believe to be true, is true.

You are not trapped. You could choose to believe something else. You just won't, because you're letting your beliefs dictate your reality. So the "trap" is of your own making. And therefor in you power to unlock.

 

[MikeF]

@PureX said: How people choose to imagine the great mystery is their choice, made for their own reasons. And we are all free to do this

@MikeF said: Are all people free to do as you suggest? I would suggest any freedom in that regard is a relatively recent phenomenon historically and certainly not for the overwhelming majority.

I have a different spin on this. I don't think that people can choose to believe whatever they want to about God since I believe that free will is greatly circumscribed. What people believe about God is determined by many factors such as childhood upbringing and the totality of their adult experiences, including their education.

For example, I cannot just 'decide' to believe differently than I believe right now, since I believe what I believe for certain reasons I consider valid.
Unless I get new information that changes my mind I am going to continue believing what I believe. Most people don't change what they believe unless they are searching for something they don't think they have. If they already believe that have found the truth why would they change what they believe?

I agree.

I would further contend that, depending on the culture and community that you are born into, there are varying degrees of enforcement on the indoctrinated belief system introduced in childhood. Enforcement that can range from strong disappointment from parents, extended family, and/or community, to shaming, shunning or ostracization, to legal consequences, including corporal punishment, imprisonment, and capital punishment. If there is a cost to choosing a belief system other than that prescribed by family, community or government, then such a choice is not free.

 

[MikeF]

What sad truth? You don't seem to be able to articulate it. I can think about God any way I like, and no one can stop me. So can you. And so can everyone we know. So why do you keep insisting that "some other people" can't? Why can't they?

See my post #524, which in essence says if there is a cost to choosing a belief other than that prescribed by family, community or government, then the choice is not free.

I would also say there is no freedom in being indoctrinated into a specific belief system as a child.

 

[osgart]

I agree.

I would further contend that, depending on the culture and community that you are born into, there are varying degrees of enforcement on the indoctrinated belief system introduced in childhood. Enforcement that can range from strong disappointment from parents, extended family, and/or community, to shaming, shunning or ostracization, to legal consequences, including corporal punishment and capital punishment. If there is a cost to choosing a belief system other than that prescribed by family, community or government, then such a choice is not free.

I've experienced this first hand with my family's Christian beliefs. Sometimes it's enforcement, other times it's just their natural attitude toward me not seeing reality correctly because I rebelled against Christianity.

I'll just say that a lot of people see reality through the goggles of Christianity and they truly see it that way. It's a very miserable thing to grow up under such a condition. However I still had the freedom of will to reject it. Yet the constant exposure to it leaves a lasting effect even on non believers.

As for the mystery of existence I embrace it. I also recognize God is something a lot of other people see it very differently from person to person, if they are allowed to think about it freely.

 

[MikeF]

I've experienced this first hand with my family's Christian beliefs. Sometimes it's enforcement, other times it's just their natural attitude toward me not seeing reality correctly because I rebelled against Christianity.

I'll just say that a lot of people see reality through the goggles of Christianity and they truly see it that way. It's a very miserable thing to grow up under such a condition. However I still had the freedom of will to reject it. Yet the constant exposure to it leaves a lasting effect even on non believers.

As for the mystery of existence I embrace it. I also recognize God is something a lot of other people see it very differently from person to person, if they are allowed to think about it freely.

I would broaden "people see reality through the goggles of Christianity" to "the goggles of their Faith" or "belief system".

It also seems to me that for some ardent believers of a particular Faith, they are ardent in that particular Faith for no other reason than accident of birth. Had fate seen them born in another Faith culture, their Faith would be just as ardent in the dissimilar belief system. If true, would this be an argument against freedom of choice in belief?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll just say that a lot of people see reality through the goggles of Christianity and they truly see it that way. It's a very miserable thing to grow up under such a condition. However I still had the freedom of will to reject it. Yet the constant exposure to it leaves a lasting effect even on non believers.

As I have probably told you in the past, I thank God every day that I was not raised as a Christian. I guess I should also thank my parents, who were raised as Christians but decided to drop out of Christianity as adults, before their children were born.

That is not to say that I might not have discovered the Baha'i Faith and become a Baha'i if I had been raised as a Christian, but it certainly would have been less likely. Most Baha'is in the western world in my age bracket were raised as Christians, but most Christians do not become Baha'is, since most children who were raised as Christians are thoroughly indoctrinated and thus remain in Christianity as adults.

It is much more common for people to drop out of Christianity and become nonbelievers than it is for them to drop out and become a Baha'i and I can certainly understand why that is the case.

 

[Trailblazer]

It also seems to me that for some ardent believers of a particular Faith, they are ardent in that particular Faith for no other reason than accident of birth.

That is probably true for the majority of people, although it is not rue for me, since I was not raised in any religion or believing in God.
I came to belief in God and the Baha'i Faith during my first year of college.

 

[osgart]

I would broaden "people see reality through the goggles of Christianity" to "the goggles of their Faith" or "belief system".

It also seems to me that for some ardent believers of a particular Faith, they are ardent in that particular Faith for no other reason than accident of birth. Had fate seen them born in another Faith culture, their Faith would be just as ardent in the dissimilar belief system. If true, would this be an argument against freedom of choice in belief?

I think that people have an imaginative ability to make things real for themselves and other people. A lot of things take on reality when they
actually don't exist. From my experience I freely rejected the religion I grew up in without realizing the influence it had on me otherwise. The constant subjection to the values, moral codes, and religious ways of thinking was something I had to deal in terms of. I wasn't aware of that effect until I had more experience with different people and different ways of thinking.

The freedom was internal, yet externally there was no such freedom. The parts that affected me internally was because I had no other alternatives at the time. I had to make the best of what was available. Freedom of choice I think is something a person works toward rather than something that happens immediately.

Also there may be emotional benefits to some beliefs that a person may guard with a passion. Beliefs that empower them and motivate them to a high degree. They'll be strongly averse to dispassionate objective, searches for truth where it doesn't feel right to them, because their emotions are not engaged with the results.

 

[PureX]

See my post #524, which in essence says if there is a cost to choosing a belief other than that prescribed by family, community or government, then the choice is not free.

The choice is still completely available. Even if one has to keep it to themselves. You are confusing enforced behavior with enforced thought. We can force people to pretend they believe whatever, but we cannot actually make them believe it. Do you understad the difference here?

I would also say there is no freedom in being indoctrinated into a specific belief system as a child.

ALL kids are "indoctrinated" into the culture they are born into. It's no more difficult for any one kid than another. It's only difficult when they choose to think outside the cultural norms, and that is their choice. But that's true of ANY person in ANY culture. This is a prejudice of yours that you don't think trhrough so that you can maintain it. Maybe it's time for YOU to think outside the atheist cultural norms.

 

[MikeF]

ALL kids are "indoctrinated" into the culture they are born into. It's no more difficult for any one kid than another. It's only difficult when they choose to think outside the cultural norms, and that is their choice. But that's true of ANY person in ANY culture.

Absolutely! I'm glad we're in agreement! I would only say that you seem rather cavalier about the difficulty associated with imagining and adopting ideas outside of cultural norms. I would also suggest that difficulty increases the greater the ideas diverge from cultural norms.

This is a prejudice of yours that you don't think through so that you can maintain it. Maybe it's time for YOU to think outside the atheist cultural norms.

Here I am confused. How can I be exhibiting prejudice when we are in agreement on this?

 

[PureX]

Absolutely! I'm glad we're in agreement! I would only say that you seem rather cavalier about the difficulty associated with imagining and adopting ideas outside of cultural norms. I would also suggest that difficulty increases the greater the ideas diverge from cultural norms.

Actually, the difficulty increases in direct proportion to the degree one "believed" in those ideas in the first place. The enemy of the open mind is not religion nor cultural indoctrination. The enemy is "true belief". It's the lack of honest skepticism.

Here I am confused. How can I be exhibiting prejudice when we are in agreement on this?

We are not in agreement on the source of the closed mind. You blame it on religion. But it's not religion (or political propaganda, or greed, or stupidity, or whatever other ideological impediment) that closes people's minds. It's the inclination to "believe in" them. To accept them as "the truth" when we cannot possibly know them to be so. It's the rejection of doubt.

 

[MikeF]

Actually, the difficulty increases in direct proportion to the degree one "believed" in those ideas in the first place. The enemy of the open mind is not religion nor cultural indoctrination. The enemy is "true belief". It's the lack of honest skepticism.

We are not in agreement on the source of the closed mind. You blame it on religion. But it's not religion (or political propaganda, or greed, or stupidity, or whatever other ideological impediment) that closes people's minds. It's the inclination to "believe in" them. To accept them as "the truth" when we cannot possibly know them to be so. It's the rejection of doubt.

Do you see the inclination to "believe in (x)" and the rejection of doubt a hardwired and inescapable characteristic of every human being? Alternatively, is it something that, like other human traits, varies in its expression, such that "closemindedness" of individuals in a given population might be graphed as a bell curve?

Since we seem to agree that one can be indoctrinated in cultural ideas, some of which, I hope you agree, specifically reject doubt of their tenets, be it political, religious, etc., can the opposite be done? Can cultural beliefs systems be indoctrinated that accept doubt and facilitates keeping peoples minds open, in your opinion?

 

[PureX]

Do you see the inclination to "believe in (x)" and the rejection of doubt a hardwired and inescapable characteristic of every human being?

I think it is a universal human inclination, but most likely to varying degree. And like everything else, is greatly influenced by individual circumstances. Some people are innately inclined to be skeptical, and some are taught by life to be that way. Some are innately given to delusions of self-righteousness, and some are taught by circumstance to be that way. Most of us fall somewhere in between and slide one way or another depending on the issue at hand.

But regardless of the source, I think "belief" is a mind-trap that we should try to avoid.

Alternatively, is it something that, like other human traits, varies in its expression, such that "closemindedness" of individuals in a given population might be graphed as a bell curve?

What good would that do anyone, though? It's like graphing "conservatives" for their lack of imagination. They 'believe' imagination is mostly useless, or even bad. So they mostly don't employ it. What is the graph going to achieve, then?

Since we seem to agree that one can be indoctrinated in cultural ideas, some of which, I hope you agree, specifically reject doubt of their tenets, be it political, religious, etc., can the opposite be done? Can cultural beliefs systems be indoctrinated that accept doubt and facilitates keeping peoples minds open, in your opinion?

Of course they can, but it seem you're starting to forget that cultures are the product of people. Can a culture learn to maintain and appreciate skepticism? Sure. But will one aver? It's not likely. Close-minded is not a "cultural ideal", it's an innate human inclination. And it becomes a cultural ideal because it is an innate human inclination, not the other way around.

The human ego tells us that we're right even when we're wrong. And if for whatever reason we do not recognize and take control of this psychological mechanism, we will probably succumb to it. We will become "true believers" in or own self-righteousness to a point where we can't conceive of our being wrong. We can't/won't look for how it might be so because we want it to be so. We like thinking that it's so. And we will use our politics, our religion, our philosophy, and our social behavior to support this delusion of our own self-righteousness. We'll happily doubt everyone else's presumed righteousness, but never our own.

 

[MikeF]

I think it is a universal human inclination, but most likely to varying degree. And like everything else, is greatly influenced by individual circumstances. Some people are innately inclined to be skeptical, and some are taught by life to be that way. Some are innately given to delusions of self-righteousness, and some are taught by circumstance to be that way. Most of us fall somewhere in between and slide one way or another depending on the issue at hand.

OK, good. I think we are on the same page here.

But regardless of the source, I think "belief" is a mind-trap that we should try to avoid.

Given 'belief' is in quotes, I'll take it in context of what was said above. It just got me thinking that a belief that belief is a mind-trap seems like a catch-22, or some such.

Alternatively, is it something that, like other human traits, varies in its expression, such that "closemindedness" of individuals in a given population might be graphed as a bell curve?

What good would that do anyone, though? It's like graphing "conservatives" for their lack of imagination. They 'believe' imagination is mostly useless, or even bad. So they mostly don't employ it. What is the graph going to achieve, then?

I think you missed my intention. I wasn't suggesting literally graphing. I was simply striving for an analogous illustration of how belief/skepticism might be variably expressed as opposed to uniformly expressed across individuals and might appear as a bell curve if graphed. Your comments above indicate that you see it as variable.

Can cultural beliefs systems be indoctrinated that accept doubt and facilitates keeping peoples minds open, in your opinion?

Of course they can, but it seem you're starting to forget that cultures are the product of people. Can a culture learn to maintain and appreciate skepticism? Sure. But will one aver? It's not likely. Close-minded is not a "cultural ideal", it's an innate human inclination. And it becomes a cultural ideal because it is an innate human inclination, not the other way around.

The human ego tells us that we're right even when we're wrong. And if for whatever reason we do not recognize and take control of this psychological mechanism, we will probably succumb to it. We will become "true believers" in or own self-righteousness to a point where we can't conceive of our being wrong. We can't/won't look for how it might be so because we want it to be so. We like thinking that it's so. And we will use our politics, our religion, our philosophy, and our social behavior to support this delusion of our own self-righteousness. We'll happily doubt everyone else's presumed righteousness, but never our own.

Is there a current institution that actively works to mitigate the problem you describe above?

 

[PureX]

OK, good. I think we are on the same page here.

Given 'belief' is in quotes, I'll take it in context of what was said above. It just got me thinking that a belief that belief is a mind-trap seems like a catch-22, or some such.

It would be except that we CAN know that we DON'T know without having to know WHAT we it is that we don't know.

I think you missed my intention. I wasn't suggesting literally graphing. I was simply striving for an analogous illustration of how belief/skepticism might be variably expressed as opposed to uniformly expressed across individuals and might appear as a bell curve if graphed. Your comments above indicate that you see it as variable.

I suspect that what you were leaning tpward was a graph that indicates that "religious" people are less inclined to be open-minded. To which O would respond that it's a 'chicken and egg' relationship. That humans create the religion they want, and then practice them because they want to.

Is there a current institution that actively works to mitigate the problem you describe above?

It's not an "institutional" problem. It's a human problem. And religions are as actively trying thwart the problem is they are actively enabling it. And to be honest, I'm not seeing any other cultural institutions addressing it especially well. either. Education tries, but it's just as subject to human egotism and phony self-righteousness as religion is. Commerce and politics thrive on dishonesty, so they're no help. Philosophy is too abstract for most people and art is too intellectually elitist. And in spite of the idolatry of scientism, science as an endeavor is too practical for the task.

 

[MikeF]

It would be except that we CAN know that we DON'T know without having to know WHAT we it is that we don't know.

Alrighty, I'll accept that.

I suspect that what you were leaning tpward was a graph that indicates that "religious" people are less inclined to be open-minded. To which O would respond that it's a 'chicken and egg' relationship. That humans create the religion they want, and then practice them because they want to.

No, actually. I was thinking more broadly to the universal human inclination, as outlined in your post #535.

It's not an "institutional" problem. It's a human problem. And religions are as actively trying thwart the problem is they are actively enabling it. And to be honest, I'm not seeing any other cultural institutions addressing it especially well. either. Education tries, but it's just as subject to human egotism and phony self-righteousness as religion is. Commerce and politics thrive on dishonesty, so they're no help. Philosophy is too abstract for most people and art is too intellectually elitist. And in spite of the idolatry of scientism, science as an endeavor is too practical for the task.

I used the word 'institution' for lack of a better term. We are speaking of social indoctrination, and although that starts at the family level, societal norms are transmitted through the entities you reference, including religions, political institutions, educational institutions, Philosophy, and Science, all of which you reference in post #535.

So, however you want to label the organizations or entities that transmit and indoctrinate beliefs, my questions is whether any of them recognize the problem you describe as the innate human inclination to be closed-minded, and it seems above that you feel religions do, although ineffectively. You have discounted the other listed entities for various reasons, including science.

I am fascinated that you think religions in general recognize and address the problem. It would seem to me, for any of these institutions or entities to have a chance at combating closed-mindedness as we have been describing, they would have to be open to continual reevaluation of every one of their stated beliefs. I do not see that happening in religion in general, or overall. Perhaps you have in mind a specific subset or denomination of religion that maintains sufficient skepticism at its core to accomplish it. I have yet to come across such.

Science, on the other hand, I see as having this idea of continual reevaluation at its core, yet you dismiss it as too practical, whatever that means. I can only conclude that you have too narrow a working definition of what science is. To my mind, it is simply an endeavor for knowledge acquisition that acknowledges human flaws and fallibility, and actively works to mitigate those flaws and fallibilities in the knowledge acquisition process. It matters not what the subject matter is, if human fallibility is accounted for and actively mitigated, such as the innate closed-mindedness we have been describing, then it is being done in a scientific manner. I just do not see similar mechanisms for mitigating human fallibilities in either religion or philosophy.

 

[PureX]

Alrighty, I'll accept that.



No, actually. I was thinking more broadly to the universal human inclination, as outlined in your post #535.



I used the word 'institution' for lack of a better term. We are speaking of social indoctrination, and although that starts at the family level, societal norms are transmitted through the entities you reference, including religions, political institutions, educational institutions, Philosophy, and Science, all of which you reference in post #535.

So, however you want to label the organizations or entities that transmit and indoctrinate beliefs, my questions is whether any of them recognize the problem you describe as the innate human inclination to be closed-minded, and it seems above that you feel religions do, although ineffectively. You have discounted the other listed entities for various reasons, including science.

I am fascinated that you think religions in general recognize and address the problem. It would seem to me, for any of these institutions or entities to have a chance at combating closed-mindedness as we have been describing, they would have to be open to continual reevaluation of every one of their stated beliefs. I do not see that happening in religion in general, or overall. Perhaps you have in mind a specific subset or denomination of religion that maintains sufficient skepticism at its core to accomplish it. I have yet to come across such.

Science, on the other hand, I see as having this idea of continual reevaluation at its core, yet you dismiss it as too practical, whatever that means. I can only conclude that you have too narrow a working definition of what science is. To my mind, it is simply an endeavor for knowledge acquisition that acknowledges human flaws and fallibility, and actively works to mitigate those flaws and fallibilities in the knowledge acquisition process. It matters not what the subject matter is, if human fallibility is accounted for and actively mitigated, such as the innate closed-mindedness we have been describing, then it is being done in a scientific manner. I just do not see similar mechanisms for mitigating human fallibilities in either religion or philosophy.

You seem to imagine that such indoctrination can be "corrected". And it can be in theory. But it won't be in practice. Because the "dogma" is what the people want it to be. The "rulers" use it to rule while the followers want someone to follow. It's mankind's animalistic "pecking order" so deeply ingrained in our DNA that we can't even see it, let alone contradict it. And this has been the bane of our existence since we achieved civilization.

 

[MikeF]

You seem to imagine that such indoctrination can be "corrected". And it can be in theory. But it won't be in practice. Because the "dogma" is what the people want it to be. The "rulers" use it to rule while the followers want someone to follow. It's mankind's animalistic "pecking order" so deeply ingrained in our DNA that we can't even see it, let alone contradict it. And this has been the bane of our existence since we achieved civilization.

Yes, we are part of the animal kingdom, the same as any other animal, and as such come with pre-programed instinctual behaviors that will continue to influence our behavior despite our emergence from a purely instinctual existence. Thankfully we are not a slave to instinctual behavior and can act and behave counter to a reflexive instinctual response. Socialization helps strengthen and codify this ability to act counter to instinct.
Hence, I'm more optimistic that we can move beyond static dogma to a more dynamic form of socialization. Progressive, incremental change is ongoing such that what is being indoctrinated improves over time. The development of societies with strong protections for free expression and exchange of ideas provide the space and opportunity for more choice and more freedom in belief. Now, with the internet age, access to information and ideas is becoming available to those in societies that do not have strong protections for free expression and exchange of ideas as well. But this is a far cry from your assertion in post #519 in which you said "I can't think of any reason why any human could not choose to conceive of God in any way they like. Nor why they would not have been able to do so at any time in the past." Given all the reasons we have discussed, including the intrinsic nature of human beings and the power of indoctrination, your assertion simply does not hold up, most especially in the past.