Belief and Responsibility

[aamirsaab]

...
Irrespectively, how is there justice if everything in the equation is looked at? How can torture for incorrect thoughts and conclusions be valid, even if there is a wonderful reward for the correct thoughts and conclusions?

This is why I used the quiz in my example.

He was making a point against the concept of hell. His argument was that belief is not motivated by choice, but by the conclusions you come to in life from a specific observation of natural phenomena and knowledge gained. He used the 1+1=2 analogy to demonstrate how you cannot forgo belief in something you understand to be true and then went on to contend how torture for thought should be considered immoral.

And he failed to include the core points i.e punishment and reward! The analogy is only half.

Any consequences of failing a test leading to a bad job are not set in stone. It is a passive consequence of a performance-based society which values those that might be more effective than those who are not. These are not punishments, and any self-respecting society that values people tries their utmost to ascend those weaker, and less intelligent than others to leading comfortable lives.
There is no talk of torture. There is no talk of the government actively punishing those who fail the tests. There is no suggestion of an infinite response, or a response of a lifetime. There is only failure at accomplishment.

End result is a crappy job or a good job. So once again (and try answering it this time) IS IT JUST, ON A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, FOR SOMEONE WHO FAILED HIS EXAMS TO ONLY BE ENTITLED TO A CRAPPY JOB? It's exactly the same concept; the result of a test that gives two outcomes - one good and one bad.

How do you get from me informing you I am not arguing against the concept of belief to your assumption that I have conceded that beliefs are motivated by choice? Does not follow.

You just told me the reasoning behind how people make a choice which affects what the believe in. Ergo, choose your belief.

Especially since I had said originally that people who change their religious beliefs change on the basis of new information and not through choice.

Which they accept as either true or false.

And you haven't addressed this.

I DID. Converts reverts choose which religion to follow. Ergo they choose their belief

Why not? Do you imagine apostates of any religion just suddenly decide one day that they are going to forgo all acquired knowledge? Do you not think that perhaps they go through a lengthy period of time of attempting to reconcile their beliefs with reality until they eventually realise they cannot do so and release themselves?

LOL apostates going through a lenghty process of deep and meaningful thought? Please go and talk to Ali sina, ayan hirsi, wafa sultan etc on why they apostacised. It had nothing to do with deep and meaningful thought, I can tell you that now. There was no logic behind their apostacy, they just couldn't hack it.

Do you imagine that people who convert to a religious ideology do so for the same reason that they felt like trying a new flavour of ice-cream? Or do you not think that perhaps they have over time, come across new information that they have been convinced represents a truth of a specific ideology? Sure, there can be coercien and manipulation employed by overzealous preachers (evangelical christianity, scientology) - but they only convince people that they ought to change their beliefs. They only convince people that they should develop a confirmation bias. Those that convert through others often drop out quicker than those that move from themselves.

They still choose to accept that information as true. Ergo they believe it.

Uh, no.

This is the third time you've stated that I am arguing against beliefs. I am not. I am arguing that belief is not a choice.

Er yes. I said converts make a choice of belief, you said no they don't. They clearly make a choice of beliefs hence they convert!

How can you 'choose to accept things'? What does that even mean?

Did I 'choose' to accept that it is the 10th of February 2010 today?

I already demonstrated this with the transformers analogy. Since you don't know what is in my heart, you cannot make any claims on whether or not that belief is true or not. So as far as you are concerned, it is my belief that transformers is the best movie ever and I have chosen to believe that transformers is the best movie ever.

 

[Dagless]

You are a the biggest troll I have ever encountered.

I am honestly starting to believe this too. They obviously know that every thought process where a statement is confirmed or denied is a decision based on logic (in humans and computers). I'm out, lets all agree to disagree (by choice ), and I'm sure those reading the thread have more than enough repeated information to make up their own minds.

 

[Froggy]

End result is a crappy job or a good job. So once again (and try answering it this time) IS IT JUST, ON A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, FOR SOMEONE WHO FAILED HIS EXAMS TO ONLY BE ENTITLED TO A CRAPPY JOB? It's exactly the same concept; the result of a test that gives two outcomes - one good and one bad.

The problem with the analogy is that a person can tell for sure the exam is true and is completely familiar with the potential outcome and above all the person chooses to take the test. With religion, one doesn't choose their test (=life) nor do the know which rules to act by (=which religion is true, if any).

 

[Skavau]

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread there are people who are not religious who revert to Islam based only on the facts, therefore confirmation bias doesn't hold up.

I have not disputed that. I merely referenced confirmation bias as a factor for people. It is always the reason for all denials.

If anything the bias is to reject.
Did I say anything which indicates cognitive dissonance?

No. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking in general:

Why do you think cognitive dissonance exists?

I don't disagree with any of this.

Okay

Everyone is an exceptional cognitive scientist. You either believe we are responsible for our own actions or you don't. Its that simple. It seems to me you don't, and its a belief I see as incorrect.

You realise an action is different than having and/or maintaining a belief?

I, and most Muslims, base their belief on fact. If it could be shown without doubt that it was wrong then our viewpoints would change. I don't think anyone would dispute that. The appeal of Islam is that it makes sense.

There we go then. You have just told me that you would not, or could not conclude that Islam is false unless it could be shown that Islam was wrong.

So what problems do you have with my argument exactly?

Yes, and I say it is a choice, and have stated my reasons. Our difference of opinion in this matter could be added to my list of reasons since we have both seen the same evidence but differ on belief of which is correct.

The fact that people have differing opinions on what they observe has nothing to do with the argument against belief being a product of choice. There are many factors as to why people observe the same thing and come out with many different conclusions.

Its not incorrect information because 2 people could recieve the same information but one may believe and one may not. Their reasoning mechanism is who they are. You are trying to say that the reasoning mechanism is 100% a product of their environment/upbringing and so they cannot be held responsible for it, but this is not the case. If it were the case we wouldn't have criminals.

Actually, I'm not saying that at all.

Read my argument. My argument is that people believe things based on what convinces them is true. Not that people believe things based on just choosing things to be true.

 

[aamirsaab]

The problem with the analogy is that a person can tell for sure the exam is true and is completely familiar with the potential outcome and above all the person chooses to take the test. With religion, one doesn't choose their test (=life) nor do the know which rules to act by (=which religion is true, if any).

I am aware of the flaws in the analogy - no analogy is going to parallel the test of life completely. Thus, I am instead highlighting the concept of punishment and reward based on the outcome of a test (which is based on a belief) since this is the closest thing at a concepual level.

I get no brownie points in paricipating in these kinds of discussions but if one wishes to argue on the basis of justice and belief, then we have to use an analogy that at least works on SOME conceptual basis. If you have no goal to reach, what are you competing for?

 

[Skavau]

This is why I used the quiz in my example.

Huh?

Sorry, you've lost me.

And he failed to include the core points i.e punishment and reward! The analogy is only half.

Huh?

I don't get it. I really do not think you understand the argument being presented. He merely referenced the simple 1+1=2 analogy to show how belief is not a choice and then from establishing belief not being a choice, argued that one should not be punished for it. He did not compare it to the Islamic understanding of paradise and hell - but used it to produce a little ethical argument against it.

End result is a crappy job or a good job. So once again (and try answering it this time) IS IT JUST, ON A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, FOR SOMEONE WHO FAILED HIS EXAMS TO ONLY BE ENTITLED TO A CRAPPY JOB? It's exactly the same concept; the result of a test that gives two outcomes - one good and one bad.

It is not ideal for anyone to live in squalor or work in a job that they do not wish to work in if they desire to live better. The objective of society should be to try and have everyone accomplish if possible. Whether someone actually 'deserves' the job they get depends entirely on their own situation, so I cannot make a blanket claim on all underperformers in that respect. I would ask you though that if I was to claim that yes, it is just for someone who failed their exams to only receive a poor job - what would that mean in the context of paradise vs. hell? Just because I may claim that some rewards are valid, and some punishment is acceptable does not mean I would have to accept all forms of punishment and reward as valid based on this.

You just told me the reasoning behind how people make a choice which affects what the believe in. Ergo, choose your belief.

No I didn't. When people engage in self-analysis over their beliefs, they may privately brainstorm and eventually arrive at specific conclusions (or become stuck in dissonance).

Which they accept as either true or false.

Right. So what does accepting something as true or false based on information, however unwelcome - have to do with choosing your beliefs?

I DID. Converts reverts choose which religion to follow. Ergo they choose their belief

No you didn't.

You've just repeatedly claimed that converts choose their religion without substantiation.

LOL apostates going through a lenghty process of deep and meaningful thought? Please go and talk to Ali sina, ayan hirsi, wafa sultan etc on why they apostacised. It had nothing to do with deep and meaningful thought, I can tell you that now. There was no logic behind their apostacy, they just couldn't hack it.

I'm not talking about apostates of Islam but apostates of any religion. This argument has nothing to do with individual apostates. It has to do with the reality that people who do lose faith do it over a period of time after much self-analysis. They do not choose to just forgo their understanding at will.

I have no reason to share your contempt with the above individuals. I have no access to their path to apostasy and neither do you.

They still choose to accept that information as true. Ergo they believe it.

Right. I am not denying they do believe it. You're not focusing on my core point:

I am not disputing belief, I am disputing that to believe something is the product of choice. What is this semantics?

Er yes. I said converts make a choice of belief, you said no they don't. They clearly make a choice of beliefs hence they convert!

Uh, I am arguing that belief is motivated by choice.

I am not arguing that belief does not exist.

I already demonstrated this with the transformers analogy. Since you don't know what is in my heart, you cannot make any claims on whether or not that belief is true or not. So as far as you are concerned, it is my belief that transformers is the best movie ever and I have chosen to believe that transformers is the best movie ever.

Huh?!

This... has nothing to do with anything. I am not commenting on what is in your heart (although ironically, you feel in a position to comment on certain apostates hearts). I am not commenting on whether any belief, no matter if I accept it or not is actually true. I am talking about the nature of belief.

If you seriously believe that the Transformers (I've not watched it) is the best movie ever - then great. However, you cannot sincerely claim otherwise because that is not what you believe. Similarly, I understand it to be the 10th of February. I cannot sincerely contend otherwise unless presented with compelling evidence that it is not.

 

[Froggy]

I am aware of the flaws in the analogy - no analogy is going to parallel the test of life completely. Thus, I am instead highlighting the concept of punishment and reward based on the outcome of a test (which is based on a belief) since this is the closest thing at a concepual level.

I get no brownie points in paricipating in these kinds of discussions but if one wishes to argue on the basis of justice and belief, then we have to use an analogy that at least works on SOME conceptual basis. If you have no goal to reach, what are you competing for?

The falw is a major one and it compleetly ruins the analogy. The analogy works only if the existence of god and the test were public knowledge and I think the very point of this debate is students being punished for not passing a test they don't even know they're taking..

 

[Chuck]

Read my argument. My argument is that people believe things based on what convinces them is true. Not that people believe things based on just choosing things to be true.

Do I have a choice to believe that your above argument makes no sense at all. :crickey:

 

[Froggy]

Do I have a choice to believe that your above argument makes no sense at all. :crickey:

Why no sense at all?

 

[Dagless]

Read my argument. My argument is that people believe things based on what convinces them is true. Not that people believe things based on just choosing things to be true.

I'll respond to this one part because it seems my argument from before is not clear enough. I did understand your argument but I suppose I differ on what you call "convincing".

For me convincing IS choosing... to convince someone you must adhere to the values and rules someone holds in their mind. These values and rules are in fact what makes them them.

Therefore, whatever they choose out of free will must adhere to this set of rules and whatever convinces them must also adhere to this set of rules.

The set of rules is in effect the person. Nobody follows anything which is at odds with their set of rules (ie. them). The rules are not a seperate entity.

 

[Chuck]

Why no sense at all?

Short, answer it looks like jibber jabber, to be honest. Anyhow, my opinion, you don't have to agree. You have a choice :statisfie

 

[aamirsaab]

The falw is a major one and it compleetly ruins the analogy. The analogy works only if the existence of god and the test were public knowledge and I think the very point of this debate is students being punished for not passing a test they don't even know they're taking..

Whilst it is a valid point and I accept it completely, that's not what anyone has argued up until now. Instead, they are arguing on the basis of punishment for failing a test - not that they were unware of the test to begin with.

That's why I bought up the example of a quiz/exam setting, which involved a punishment for failure i.e a crappy job. I know that this eventuality is not gauranteed (and neither is heaven or hell because you have until you die to believe in Allah ---> which noone seems to be listening to!) but on a conceptual level of punishment/reward, it works as a comparable to heaven/hell. Crude yes, but at least the point can be illustrated to some degree. If you have another analogy that fits the bill, please feel free to use it.


But the current and main contention is this: the athiests (unless of course Lynx is following another religion) are adamant that beliefs are not chosen, whilst the muslims (mainly me and ferown), so far, have been arguing otherwise.

 

[Lynx]

Skavu, You are one patient person! I am actually in awe at how difficult it is for some people to grasp simple things...especially after how well you've spoon fed the argument to these guys.

I can understand how perhaps my syllogism in the OP may have been unclear (which is sad since I put it into a syllogism to avoid ambiguity) but to have the explanation drag out for this long is ridiculous. Anyway..

Ferown, you continuously say you can't believe ridiculous things without evidence...you're conceding the argument because you are showing that you are incapable of choosing to believe in x where x is a statement that is backed by no apparent evidence. Do you get it? You can't choose to believe in x because you don't have evidence. It's impossible for you to choose to believe in x (where x is anything absurd like 1+1=3) right? When you say you can 'choose' to believe whatever you want then you are saying you can believe in absurd statements too but now you're telling me you can't believe in whatever you want, so you've contradicted yourself.


aaamir: You don't get the argument after 4 pages.

 

[Dagless]

Ferown, you continuously say you can't believe ridiculous things without evidence...you're conceding the argument because you are showing that you are incapable of choosing to believe in x where x is a statement that is backed by no apparent evidence. Do you get it? You can't choose to believe in x because you don't have evidence. It's impossible for you to choose to believe in x (where x is anything absurd like 1+1=3) right? When you say you can 'choose' to believe whatever you want then you are saying you can believe in absurd statements too but now you're telling me you can't believe in whatever you want, so you've contradicted yourself.

Did you read what I said? The choosing is you. I might not believe in x, but someone else might see x and believe in it. The decider is the person. You can't seperate the 2.
I will try to explain why your argument is flawed one last time:

Person A looks at Belief 1 and 2, Belief 1 makes sense to him so he believes it.

Belief 1 makes sense because of his internal set of rules (these rules ARE him, they are his personality, his experience, his core personality, his conscious, etc.).

The set of rules are not set in stone, they are the type of person he is, constantly growing and changing, based on what HE wants. He maybe a person who is open to ideas, he may not be, he maybe someone who likes to rob people, and then later decides he doesn't want to rob people because its wrong and stops.

You are saying Person A chose Belief 1 and therefore could not choose belief 2. That is like saying "the door is open" after someone opens it. BUT you see he could believe 2 IF his internal set of rules were different (maybe one day they will be, who knows), but this doesn't mean he had no choice because the internal rules are HIM.

This is not the same as someone believing 1+1=3 and if you can't see that re-read my previous posts.

I think the bottom line is that we understand each argument (well I understand yours, I hope you know what I mean by now). Its just our answers are very different and so each response looks like nobody is reading what the other is saying.

If the internal rules were set in stone from birth then I would probably agree that the choice cannot be real because it is based on something which cannot be changed... but while I write this I've remembered a verse which says that some people go too far and so God seals their hearts so they can never see the truth. So maybe some people can never see no matter how much they change/are shown?

 

[Skavau]

Oh, name change

Did you read what I said? The choosing is you. I might not believe in x, but someone else might see x and believe in it. The decider is the person. You can't seperate the 2.
I will try to explain why your argument is flawed one last time:

No-one is disputing that people observe the same things and come to different conclusions. This is due to people holding different understanding and ideals concerning reality prior to their observation of x. They could have experience in different fields of knowledge and different experience in different forms of natural phenomena, had a predisposition to desire different things to be true (we all have some level of a confirmation bias) and ultimately could notice different things about x.

Person A looks at Belief 1 and 2, Belief 1 makes sense to him so he believes it.

Belief 1 makes sense because of his internal set of rules (these rules ARE him, they are his personality, his experience, his core personality, his conscious, etc.).

Okay, so how does a belief making sense to someone (which it has to in order to continue being a belief) based on what he understands through his past experiences mean it is a choice? If he is concluding things based on what he has observed previously in his life then how is he operating from a position of choice?

the set of rules are not set in stone, they are the type of person he is, constantly growing and changing, based on what HE wants. He maybe a person who is open to ideas, he may not be, he maybe someone who likes to rob people, and then later decides he doesn't want to rob people because its wrong and stops.

You are confusing want a person wants with what a person can believe. The state of being 'open-minded' (it is often misused) is a consequence of an indoctrination-free upbringing and a lifestyle which encourages understanding through evidence (amongst other things). No-one just chooses to be open-minded anymore than they decide to retain a system of insular absolute truth.

Anyone by the way, can say what they like. They can profess belief in anything and can go into denial. Those are based on what people want, what they perhaps think is ought not what is.

Again, the example is simple. If you cannot profess to sincerely believe in say, a unicorn, or a minotaur, or any non-descript mythological creature then you can't choose your beliefs. Your beliefs are based on more than that. They are at the base something that you consider to be true, and at times - the framework for a self-sustaining system of beliefs that you consider integral to your character.

Or am I wrong? Can you suddenly just sincerely believe that minotaurs, leprechauns etc exist?

You are saying Person A chose Belief 1 and therefore could not choose belief 2. That is like saying "the door is open" after someone opens it. BUT you see he could believe 2 IF his internal set of rules were different (maybe one day they will be, who knows), but this doesn't mean he had no choice because the internal rules are HIM.

This does not make much sense to me. It might be your sentence structure, or how I read it.

If the internal rules were set in stone from birth then I would probably agree that the choice cannot be real because it is based on something which cannot be changed... but while I write this I've remembered a verse which says that some people go too far and so God seals their hearts so they can never see the truth. So maybe some people can never see no matter how much they change/are shown?

That's an interesting conclusion you've entangled with there - and I have indeed observed the verse you're referencing, much more I've seen Muslims come to conclusions on it that differ.

If God seals us from knowledge, then he immediately absolves us from all responsibility. Do you believe that to be true, or moral?

 

[Lynx]

Did you read what I said? The choosing is you. I might not believe in x, but someone else might see x and believe in it. The decider is the person. You can't seperate the 2.
I will try to explain why your argument is flawed one last time:

Person A looks at Belief 1 and 2, Belief 1 makes sense to him so he believes it.

Belief 1 makes sense because of his internal set of rules (these rules ARE him, they are his personality, his experience, his core personality, his conscious, etc.).

The set of rules are not set in stone, they are the type of person he is, constantly growing and changing, based on what HE wants. He maybe a person who is open to ideas, he may not be, he maybe someone who likes to rob people, and then later decides he doesn't want to rob people because its wrong and stops.

You are saying Person A chose Belief 1 and therefore could not choose belief 2. That is like saying "the door is open" after someone opens it. BUT you see he could believe 2 IF his internal set of rules were different (maybe one day they will be, who knows), but this doesn't mean he had no choice because the internal rules are HIM.

This is not the same as someone believing 1+1=3 and if you can't see that re-read my previous posts.

I think the bottom line is that we understand each argument (well I understand yours, I hope you know what I mean by now). Its just our answers are very different and so each response looks like nobody is reading what the other is saying.

If the internal rules were set in stone from birth then I would probably agree that the choice cannot be real because it is based on something which cannot be changed... but while I write this I've remembered a verse which says that some people go too far and so God seals their hearts so they can never see the truth. So maybe some people can never see no matter how much they change/are shown?

I take it you agree that beliefs aren't choices but rather shaping our personality to accept certain beliefs is where the 'choosing' takes place. Is this correct? If so, how on Earth do I 'shape my internal rules' to make it accept things I wouldn't normally believe in?? This seems equally out of my control as my beliefs are.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Heres an initial reaction (from a Christain perspective) to this argument courtesy of RandyE from Reasonable faith.

LOL. This argument ignores free will. Also, if true, it's completely pointless, as no one can choose to believe what it says anyway.

(3) seems to be the main culprit here. It seems (3) is logically equivalent to

3* If we cannot choose not to believe 1+1=2, then we cannot choose any belief.

Of course, if that follows, then it also follows that if we believe 1+1=2, it is not due to the faculty of the will, for then we would have chosen such a belief. So if not the will, then what? It seems physical determinism is all that is left. That is usually enough to dissuade many philosophers.

However, something further should be discussed here. If belief is simply a physical reaction on a given set of circumstances, why is it that some beliefs are, for all intents and purposes, universal? What are the chances of that? Why is 1+1=2 universal in scope but not other beliefs, such as the belief that aliens have invaded in secret, etc.? So then it seems we must say something to the effect that beliefs are formed when conditions sufficient for its truth exist relative to our intellectual capacity. But that certainly doesn't account for disagreements among intellectual equals given similar backgrounds on a wide variety of subjects, exposed to the same evidence. It seems some other method of individualized choice is at work.

Further, (3) attempts to prove the lack of free will by equivocating. A truth such as 1+1=2 is self-evident, basic (some say foundational), and constantly both taught by elders and confirmed by experience and intuition. A truth such as "black holes exist" may be taught by elders, but falls woefully short in the latter two categories. The truth of God's existence falls into this latter category, where I believe it to be intuitive, and to a small extent, experiential, but hardly as simplistic to prove as 1+1=2. This alone should account for the lack of universality.

 

[Lynx]

Salaam

Heres an initial reaction (from a Christain perspective) to this argument courtesy of RandyE from Reasonable faith.

Hi, I was hoping for a Christian perspective.

I can't comment on the free will thing since I don't see what my argument has to do with Free Will (it actually has nothing to do with free will).

To answer about universal things such as 1+1=2 (There is, I believe, a culture which does not have any concept of numbers so they don't have a 1+1=2 FYI) some things are universal because their evidence is overwhelming. This is exactly my point, if one had the ability to choose their beliefs then one should have the ability to choose not to believe in 1+1=2. Being convinced is not a matter of choice it's a reaction when one is faced with an overwhelming body of evidence or a proof that is incredibly convincing.

 

[VizierX]

This is intended for anyone who believes the following: God will send a person to hell if that person does not believe in God.

1.Hell is a punishment
2.If someone is punished for not doing x when x can't performed by that person, then the executioner of that punishment is unjust.
3.Nobody can choose what to believe or we would be able to choose not to believe 1+1=2
4.We can't choose not to believe in 1+1=2
5.Therefore, no one can choose what to believe (3,4)
6.God sends people to Hell for not believing in God
7. Therefore, God does something unjust (1-6)


Any takers !

You're equivocating. 1+1=2 is an analytic, deductive truth. The claim that God exists is a metaphysical claim about reality i.e. a synthetic claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic-synthetic_distinction

 

[Skavau]

You're equivocating. 1+1=2 is an analytic, deductive truth. The claim that God exists is a metaphysical claim about reality i.e. a synthetic claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic-synthetic_distinction

Irrelevent.

The point was that you don't just arbitrarily choose what to believe (as pascal's wager would have you do). You have to be convinced first. If you are not convinced of something that is actually true you are merely misinformed, and at worse excessively ignorant.

Is that a reasonable grounds for eternal torture?