The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Jersey Girl]

I'll give this a go right now. Given the late hour, may need to take another crack at it tomorrow.

Let me start by reposting the exchanges I was responding to and my reply to them. I don't want to lose the context in which I commented.

Nonetheless, for the most part, we have a choice to believe in and worship a creator God or higher power than ourselves.

No, we don't. I'm unable to chose to believe in the "creator God" you outline.

We don't have a choice to believe. If we believe, we have a choice to follow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my above, I see MG's declaration that "we have a choice to believe in and worship a creator God or higher power than ourselves."


I'm mainly responding to what MG said while picking up Morley's statement that he's "unable to choose to believe in the "creator God" that you outline". in the process.

I made a simple comment about cognition. How I think belief logically works.

Let's continue...

Yes, I believe what I wrote with regard to to god belief. It seems logical to me. If you'd like to challenge my thinking, please do it.

Well. I don’t know if your faith needs to be questioned so much so as the idea one’s free will with regard to a belief is written, so to speak, but actions are subject to choice.

I didn't ask you to question my faith. My faith had nothing to do with the response that I made. But okay.

If you (third person you) don’t have a choice but to believe in a god, then faith itself is an unavoidable state of belief for you.

You lose me with that statement. I didn't say we don't have a choice BUT to believe. I'm saying that belief isn't a choice. Maybe it is, I dunno. I think it's not an intentional choice that we make. I'll keep trying to follow you.

If I’m to believe that your programming, spiritual or otherwise, is unaffected by any factors that doesn’t lead to god-belief, then the immutability of your faith can’t just be constrained to belief, but also has to apply to actions. One necessarily leads to the other, and we’re now into the question of determinism. If you’re fated to believe in a god I don’t see how you could take any actions to disabuse yourself from that fate, thus your actions are also locked into place, only begetting more faith. You have no free will on this matter, if you have no free will on this matter.

- Doc
[/quote]

You mean philosophically? Still trying...you're going some place I didn't anticipate. I don't say that our programming (indoctrination) leads to an impenetrable state of god belief. I'm merely saying that belief isn't a choice. We either believe or we don't. Does our indoctrination have something to do with it? Yes, of course it does. Does the fact that many of us were indoctrinated early in childhood mean that we're locked into belief? Of course not. If we're not locked into god belief, we couldn't be fated to it.

You'll have to tell me if my comments are on point...to your point. I'm not sure that they are. I'm willing to continue. I get the feeling we're coming at it from different directions.

I merely attempted to correct a statement that I think explains how cognition works. I don't think god belief is a choice we make. I don't think one chooses to belief in god or not. I think one either believes in the existence of a god or lacks a belief in the existence of a god.

And when I say, god, I am not referring exclusively to the Christian god.

ETA: I feel like my response above is a mess.

[Jersey Girl]

That’s a deeply philosophical position you and Jersey Girl, if she believes that, are staking out. I find it highly problematic we’re deterministic with regard to belief, but at the same time we’re ‘free willistic’ with regard to action.

- Doc

Yeah, that's why I talk about how it seems to me. It might be determinism all the way down.

How does this automatically boil down to free will vs. determinism? Are those the only choices we have with which to frame the discussion?

If you develop a love for another person, is that a choice?

Oh lord, I just shot myself back 20+ years in message board time.

[Jersey Girl]

Gad if you are reading here, would you please look over my recent replies? Question me if you think it will help get me on track. Any track! Is philosophy the only way to examine a state of god belief? Can't we use cognition?

Do you see that Cam and RI on one hand, and I on the other hand, are using two different sets of tools to examine the same issue and if so, how can that work? Can it work if we are speaking two different languages?

with regard to god belief, I rely heavily on intuition. How can we communicate if I am coming at the issue from a cognitive, well really, a psychological perspective while they are coming at it using a philosophical perspective. Isn't that two different conversations?

[dastardly stem]

If we are convinced of something, like believing there's a god, we really have no choice but to believe. But that hardly suggests whatever it is that has convinced us is sufficient in a rational sense. We decide what's sufficient (and that may not be rational) and what tools work to convince us based on many things. If we want to believe and feel convinced by personal experience, we'll believe. If we are skeptical of personal experience and that's all we have for belief (as it seems to be the case) then I don't know how any such one could believe.

For me, some time back, I decided I had to be rational, as best as I can make rational work. As I decided that, I looked at what I believed, and was at that point forced to accept I don't believe there's a God. And I can't find any rationally sufficient reason to accept belief. When I ask believers why they believe, all I hear are a bunch of irrational reasons, insufficient to maintain belief. I think I could go back to belief, if I could be convinced there's something rational to belief.

On that, I think maintaining some levels of conversation on this is important for all parties. And it's tough to do when it appears believing in God is an irrational belief. It dead ends quickly when in conversation that gets pointed out. The believer wants to maintain it's rational to believe for their own reasons.

[Res Ipsa]

Gad if you are reading here, would you please look over my recent replies? Question me if you think it will help get me on track. Any track! Is philosophy the only way to examine a state of god belief? Can't we use cognition?

Do you see that Cam and RI on one hand, and I on the other hand, are using two different sets of tools to examine the same issue and if so, how can that work? Can it work if we are speaking two different languages?

with regard to god belief, I rely heavily on intuition. How can we communicate if I am coming at the issue from a cognitive, well really, a psychological perspective while they are coming at it using a philosophical perspective. Isn't that two different conversations?

for what it's worth, I agree that you and I are using different tools but are arriving at the same conclusion.

[Morley]

Pretending that belief is a choice turns belief into a default virtue, as in "choosing God"--which is why MG beats his fingers bloody typing out about choosing to believe in a "creator God." As far as I know, the Christian scripture that the idea of "choosing belief in God" comes from actually says something subtly different.

"...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:2, 15).

One serves by doing. The emphasis is on behavior.

[Morley]

What do you think, MG 2.0? Where are you on all this?

[Jersey Girl]

Gad if you are reading here, would you please look over my recent replies? Question me if you think it will help get me on track. Any track! Is philosophy the only way to examine a state of god belief? Can't we use cognition?

Do you see that Cam and RI on one hand, and I on the other hand, are using two different sets of tools to examine the same issue and if so, how can that work? Can it work if we are speaking two different languages?

with regard to god belief, I rely heavily on intuition. How can we communicate if I am coming at the issue from a cognitive, well really, a psychological perspective while they are coming at it using a philosophical perspective. Isn't that two different conversations?

for what it's worth, I agree that you and I are using different tools but are arriving at the same conclusion.

I'm not even sure that we are arriving at the same conclusion. For example, I think that my reply to Cam is a muddled mess because I was trying to fit my thinking into his mold, grab on to his perspective, and use it to express myself and it doesn't work.

[huckelberry]

Pretending that belief is a choice turns belief into a default virtue, as in "choosing God"--which is why MG beats his fingers bloody typing out about choosing to believe in a "creator God." As far as I know, the Christian scripture that the idea of "choosing belief in God" comes from actually says something subtly different.

"...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:2, 15).

One serves by doing. The emphasis is on behavior.

Morley, I think you make an important point. I am unsure if belief is always a good (or bad) thing. Sometimes it is trivial and unproductive. There have been more than enough times belief has generated evil.

You have lost me on your new image. An odd duck? well not a duck but perhaps a naturalists observation of a distinctive bird?
Any chance by Darwin?

[Morley]

Pretending that belief is a choice turns belief into a default virtue, as in "choosing God"--which is why MG beats his fingers bloody typing out about choosing to believe in a "creator God." As far as I know, the Christian scripture that the idea of "choosing belief in God" comes from actually says something subtly different.

"...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:2, 15).

One serves by doing. The emphasis is on behavior.

Morley, I think you make an important point. I am unsure if belief is always a good (or bad) thing. Sometimes it is trivial and unproductive. There have been more than enough times belief has generated evil.

You have lost me on your new image. An odd duck? well not a duck but perhaps a naturalists observation of a distinctive bird?
Any chance by Darwin?

It's art appropriate for this discussion, I think. Some see duck, some a rabbit.