Belief is not a choice

Last week I shared in the Skepticule Facebook group an article from Unbelievable? about an atheist woman who had become a theist (specifically a Christian, since Unbelievable? is a branch of Premier, which is a Christian organisation). My objection to the article was mainly that it was entirely based on the erroneous idea that belief is a choice. There followed this exchange (my comments in black, DWM's in blue):

David Ward Miller
Belief is not a choice?
Disbelief is not a choice?
Atheists who belief and Christians who disbelieve are not making a choice?
Is this a reference to no free will?
Please clarify, thx.
• 3 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller Can you choose to believe that two plus two equals five? Can you choose to believe the Moon is made of cream cheese? If you claim to believe something is true, or to believe that some specific thing exists, you are basing your belief on your experience related to that thing. I cannot look at a red tomato and choose to believe that it is, in fact, a purple pineapple.
 
Free will — or its lack — doesn't come into this. As an atheist I don't have a choice whether I believe in any deity. My disbelief in God is based on my epistemology — on how I can know things are true or not true. I don't claim that there are no gods, only that I have so far found no reason to believe that there are any. If I came across a reason that was sufficiently convincing, I would have no choice but to believe.
 
Some people may have a 'gut feeling' that something is true — others may be justifiably skeptical of the gut's reliability. When describing what and how they believe, some people resort to extensive use of metaphor (the article linked in the OP is an example of this). Metaphors are fine, until those using them mistake the metaphors for reality. The map is not the territory.
• 2 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
That was a lot of words to say you made the choice to believe there is no evidence for God. The highly intelligent atheist (at least equal to your intelligence) took a deep dive in the evidence and came to be a theist.
• 2 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller May I suggest you re-read my comment?
 
I did not make a choice to believe there is no evidence for God. I haven't stated there's no evidence for God. What I stated was: "I don't claim that there are no gods, only that I have so far found no reason to believe that there are any." I didn't choose to find no reason to believe. Indeed I stated that if I found convincing evidence I would have no choice but to believe. The fact that this former atheist (in the article) apparently found some evidence to believe is of very little use to me, since that evidence either wasn't presented, or wasn't evidence.
 
Clearly you think that belief is a choice. I don't, and as requested I've attempted to clarify why.
• 2 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Thx for responding.
//Indeed I stated that if I found convincing evidence I would have no choice but to believe. The fact that this former atheist (in the article) apparently found some evidence to believe is of very little use to me, since that evidence either wasn't presented, or wasn't evidence.//
 
I think you make my point. You would make a choice if the evidence was compelling to you. It is not. For her it is compelling so she choose to believe. You have “chosen” to reject that evidence as is not compelling to you. You made a choice to not accept that evidence while she did. 
 
—You believe the evidence supports naturalism world view without any deity. A choice. 

—She believes the evidence supports a theistic world view, changing her mind from atheism. A choice. 
—Other Christian’s look at the evidence and deconstruct believe there is insufficient reason to believe in any deity so believe the universe has no Creator or Designer deity. A choice.
 
Beliefs are a choice.
• 2 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
I think we are differing on our understanding of the word 'belief', and it may only be a matter of degree. My understanding is that a belief is the acceptance or acknowledgement that a statement is true, i.e. that it aligns with reality, with how things actually are, rather than aligning solely with, for example, speculation or hypothesis. Incidentally such a belief might be true, but if it's a belief not based on evidence it is therefore not justified, and therefore cannot be counted as knowledge.
 
One can choose one's standards of evidence, in the sense of deciding that certain criteria have to be satisfied in order to accept that something is true or is likely to be true, but that's a choice of standards, not a choice of belief. Belief comes automatically once those criteria are satisfied. If they are not satisfied, then for me no amount of 'choosing' will result in belief. This is why I say that I don't believe in the existence of any gods. Not because I actively believe that there are no gods, but because my criteria have yet to be satisfied.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Perhaps it’s a difference in semantics. 
 
You now say your standards for compelling evidence are better than hers—no god(s).

She says her standards are better than yours—God. 

Both choices.
 
By your definition of belief you attempt to avoid it and those who disagree with you do believe. 
 
It seems you do actively believe there is no deity. You even passionately fight for that belief. I respect that too. But you made a choice in your “belief” there is no deity. 
 
What you believe in—your world view—excludes any deity. That belief of what you deem as true is a personal choice in my opinion. Her world view includes God and is a choice as she changed her opinion. 
 
Choice is the issue here.
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"You now say your standards for compelling evidence are better than hers—no god(s)."
 
I haven't said this. Nor do I know what her standards are — the article doesn't state them.
 
"It seems you do actively believe there is no deity."
 
This is the exact opposite of what I thought I stated — to be clear, I do not actively believe there are no gods. I am merely reserving belief until my evidential criteria are satisfied.
 
As for "passionately fighting" for my belief, I merely stated that belief is not a choice, and in response to your first comment I explained why. And my worldview doesn't actively exclude anything — it's open to anything that meets my standards of evidence for its existence. It's true that I've chosen those standards based on my understanding of their validity, but my belief in the truth-value of anything that is tested against them is dependent on the result of that test, independent of choice.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
So the standards of evidence for what we believe is a choice, not the belief that results from those standards? 
 
What do you believe based upon whatever? 
Are those beliefs not then a choice? 
What does she believe based upon whatever? 
Are those beliefs not then a choice?
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"So the standards of evidence for what we believe is a choice, not the belief that results from those standards?"
 
That's how I see it. If a belief is the result of something else (in this case 'standards of evidence') that same belief can't also be a direct result of choice. Therefore belief itself is not a choice. Which is why I can't choose to believe what the Moon is made of. I can, however, choose to accept certain standards of evidence, and if evidence meeting those standards convincingly suggests that the Moon is not made of cream cheese I have no choice but to believe it.
 
If you're extending the idea of 'choice' to cover absolutely everything we do, then I suppose you could legitimately maintain that belief is a choice, because everything in that scenario is a choice, by definition. But then choice becomes a meaningless concept because it fails to distinguish anything from anything else.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
So what belief is based on is the choice. That clarifies what you think. 
 
Is is fair to say you believe your standards of evidence are valid and believe her standards are not valid or insufficient. I’m not addressing the specific standards, just the comparison. 
 
So you both can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently based upon your interpretation which is based upon “standards”?
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"So you both can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently based upon your interpretation which is based upon “standards”?"
 
Standards of evidence, yes. But belief itself is not an act of will. I don't choose to believe one way or the other — what I believe is the result of what evidence I accept as valid.
• 23 h
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Interesting.
//Belief is not an act of the will//
 
I’m on the road… will ponder this.
• 23 h

Where is God hiding? (warning: contains sarcasm)

“Atheists often object that God should just make himself clearly obvious if he exists. So why doesn't he?”

The above is how a link on Facebook introduces an article in Premier Christianity magazine entitled “Why is God hidden?” with the strapline “Joshua Parikh tackles the tricky question of why God's existence isn't more obvious to nonbelievers.”

The article begins by exposing the author's bias from the outset, so at least we know where he's coming from:

“The so-called hiddenness of God has been an existential problem for believers and non-believers alike for thousands of years.”

“So-called hiddenness” — so you know, not really hidden.

After a brief introduction to the problem of God's “perceived” absence (so you know, not really absent), Joshua Parikh outlines three arguments:

1. The context of hiddenness

The reason why you think God's hiddenness is a problem is that you've been cherry-picking. You've only looked at places where evidence for God is absent, and ignored places where there is evidence. What is this evidence? Miracles, of course! For example, miracles related by “highly regarded” scholar Craig Keener, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, and an ordained minister. Not that he has any stake in this, naturally.

2. The problem on our end

Non-believers are resistant to the idea of God, so they can't see him, or his works. “...if the argument is that non-resistant non-believers exist, then this is not obvious.”

3. What God's hiddenness brings

Hiddenness is apparently a good thing, for several reasons:

1. Hiddenness builds character.
2. Hiddenness gives Christians opportunities to preach at non-believers.
3. Hiddenness allows God to throw his revelations into sharp relief, which he couldn't do if he was obvious.
   

The author concludes this meagre bowl of unbelievably weak sauce with the following paragraph:

"For more answers, I recommend Blake Giunta’s excellent website BeliefMap.org, but I think these all point to a story by which Christianity can fully answer the difficult question of why God remains apparently hidden, however troubling it may seem."

Probably a good idea, as this article on its own is nowhere near good enough.

Belief in God is not "properly basic"

Stephen Law's undercutting defeater for “properly basic” belief in God held no sway with his debating opponent Tyler McNabb on last week's Unbelievable? radio show.

Stephen Law presented sound philosophical arguments demonstrating that Tyler McNabb's belief was not justified. But Tyler McNabb announced that he was nevertheless going to continue believing it anyway. Towards the end of the discussion host Justin Brierley suggested that perhaps the popularity of “properly basic” belief was that it allowed believers to continue believing while avoiding any requirement to present compelling evidence.

In as much as they have a choice (given the unlikelihood of doxastic voluntarism), I think believers can choose between belief on the basis of evidence, or belief on the basis of faith. One or the other, you don't need both. In my view, however, neither will give you a rational basis for belief in God.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-belief-in-God-properly-basic-Tyler-McNabb-vs-Stephen-Law

Direct link to mp3:

http://cfvod.kaltura.com/pd/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_tum2zwcz/v/1/flavorId/1_pndt9izi/name/a.mp3

Britain is no more a Christian nation than a White nation

Coel Hellier reflects on what the reaction would be if David Cameron had described Britain as a "White country":

Britain is no more a Christian nation than a White nation | coelsblog

If Britain is a Christian nation then it is also a White nation. The majority of the population is white and our history and cultural heritage are predominantly White. Nearly all of our institutions and our cultural traditions derive from people who were white.

Once again we have a demonstration of why secularism is the obvious way to go.

Evidence Unseen (and probably unavailable)

Back in September I posted about James M. Rochford’s Evidence Unseen — Exploring the Myth of Blind Faith, which was free on Kindle at the time. Here’s my brief review of the introduction. I should make it clear, however, that I’m probably not the intended audience for this book. Over the years I’ve become fairly settled in my atheism, though I’m still on the lookout for new arguments for the existence of any gods. So far I’ve not found anything that’s convincing, but I don’t want that fact to shut me off from considering additional arguments.

Unfortunately the book does not start off well. The acknowledgements are couched in enough obsequious faux humility to induce a bout of nausea. But maybe that's just a style issue.

We begin with “Introduction: Who Needs Faith?” Essentially this is an argument implying the “god-shaped hole”, and it’s in three sections, the first being “Don’t Dump Your Brains Out”. Immediately we come up against the irony of claiming that Jesus used evidence, when the evidence that he did so is merely asserted:

Throughout his life on Earth, Jesus appealed to evidence—such as his miracles, his resurrection, and his fulfillment of messianic prophecy—in order to validate his divinity (Lk. 24:25-27; 44-46)._{[Location 154]}

Rochford is arguing against fideism, which he attempts to refute mostly by quoting from the New Testament. This, to me, is putting the cart before the horse, but Christian apologists seem to do this a lot — placing their evidence for the truth of the Bible subsequent to arguments based on Biblical texts, as if they know the evidence for the truth of the Bible is flimsy but will be more readily accepted after substantial prior grooming.

The second section of the Introduction is “Don’t Be Afraid To Take A Step Of Faith”. Here Rochford is equating “faith” with “trust” — presumably based on evidence — but also claiming there’s a choice involved. There isn’t. If you are disposed to believe things on evidence, then you’ll believe something when sufficient evidence is available, not before. It all depends on what you consider "sufficient", but again, that's not something you can choose. (Check out doxastic voluntarism on Wikipedia.)

The third and final section of the Introduction, “Don’t Give Up The Search”, contains arguments that appear strictly binary: either God doesn’t exist, or the Christian God as described by Jesus in the New Testament does. This is the false dichotomy of Pascal’s Wager, which Rochford fully invokes in the following passage:

According to Jesus, our Creator loved us so much that he died for us. 

Can you even imagine a more egotistical thought? I can’t. God died for us. This is the very height of egotism. If human beings invented this message, then they have imagined the most conceited concept in human history. God died for us. It’s absurd! Hundreds of years ago, people believed the entire universe circled around Earth. While this is pretty self-centered, it doesn’t hold a candle to the message of the Bible; God died for us. How narcissistic would you have to be to believe something like this?

Unless, of course, it's true._{[Location 258]}

The problem here, of course, is that if it's not true, what is? The non-existence of any gods is not the only alternative. What if Islam is true, or Hindu polytheism?

At the end of the introduction Rochford fires this parting shot:

If you’re a close-minded person, then I doubt any of the evidence in this book will persuade you of the truth of who Jesus was and claimed to be._{[Location 315]}

The implication is clear (and vaguely insulting), which is why I don't think this book is aimed at atheists. But Rochford seems to be arguing against apatheism here, which is odd, because apatheists won’t be reading his book.

So that’s the introduction. Is it going the same way other apologetics books seem to go? Pretty much, but stay tuned while I continue to read.

My blog is a spiritual springboard?

If you're reading this on a decent-sized monitor you'll see at the top-left a search box and the words "Next Blog»". These are provided by Blogger (this is a Blogger blog). It's been a while since I clicked on the "Next Blog»" link, so today I gave it another go. Or rather, about a dozen goes. I was puzzled to find it linked each time to a blog of distinctly spiritual character — bible quotes, God-talk, prayers, Christianity, even a blog authored by a pastor.

After eight or so of these clicks I lost count, and was about to give up at nearly a dozen when I landed on a page with not a bible quote in sight. But scrolling down I found it was the blog of someone who gives Tarot readings. That, however, was a fluke — another click landed me in the goddy again and I gave up. I assume Blogger is (inappropriately) routing these links based on the content of this blog, and the preponderance of linky-Jesus isn't merely random coincidence.

The link is up there on the left — see if you get the same results.

On another matter, I've attempted a degree of consolidation here, importing some older posts from the blog I had before this one, along with any comments — which is why the Intense Debate sample on the right probably looks a bit haywire. It should settle down after a while, and then Evil Burnee will be super-spiffy and together, all set for 2014.

God's not dead, he just doesn't believe in confirmation bias

Last night I got caught up with the latest Unbelievable? podcast. It was billed as "Evidence, atheism and the case for God" featuring Rice Broocks, who has written a book titled God's Not Dead. From his description this tome sounds like a standard apologetics portmanteau covering various arguments and evidences for the existence of the Christian God.

Opposite him was atheist David Beebee, a listener to the show who had read the book and who politely stated that he found it unpersuasive. In fact it was politeness all round, including Broocks' physicist-in-tow Brian Miller. Justin Brierley acted as neutral host and it was all very civil (which — along with last week's show featuring Keith Ward and Michael Ruse — made for less stressful listening than the previous two Unbelievables).

Rice Broocks is an American preacher, so he has the apologetic delivery honed to a fine art, and Brian Miller had clearly mastered the exposition of his subject. In contrast David Beebee wasn't the most articulate of atheists, but he made an excellent point about Broocks' double standards with regard to evidence and the acceptance of consensus. The point must have struck home, because neither Broocks nor Miller answered it. So Beebee repeated it later in the show, and still they didn't answer it. It was probably the only point he needed to make; he stuck to it, and it appeared to expose a crucial flaw in the book's reasoning.

Beebee's point was this: In God's Not Dead Broock accepts evidence and consensus when they support what he believes, but denies it when they don't. I think it's unlikely Broocks and Miller haven't heard this criticism before, and equally unlikely they didn't understand Beebee's point — he made it more than once, at different times in the programme. But they dodged it every time.

Jason Lisle doesn't know everything (and neither do I)

Jason Lisle, presup creationist, has a blog. He recently posted an article espousing the "How do you know?" tactic when dealing with unbelievers. His egregious assertions, I felt, deserved similar treatment:

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 7, 2013 at 6:57 am

The Christian worldview alone makes it possible for us to answer these questions and have genuine knowledge. This is because knowledge stems from the nature of God (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3).

How do you know this?

[Dr. Lisle: God has revealed it in His Word. Did you not read the verses?]

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 19, 2013 at 2:12 pm

How do you know the words are true?

[Dr. Lisle: If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.]

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 21, 2013 at 9:22 am

“If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.”

It’s possible to know things without justification.

[Dr. Lisle: In logic and philosophy, knowledge is actually defined as "true, justified belief." So it is impossible to have knowledge without justification. You can have beliefs without justification, but not knowledge.]

For example, I know that I am thinking (whatever “I” might be defined as), and I’m certain of that — it’s self evident.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that? How do you know that you are the one doing the thinking? If you cannot even define "I" then how can you be certain that "I think?"]

Also, I know that I don’t know everything, and I’m certain of that too.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that you don't know everything? Unless you know everything, how can you be certain that what you think you know is actually true, and therefore "known?" By the way, I agree with your belief that you don't know everything. But I maintain that you can't really know even that without relying upon Christian principles.

This is also self evident (that is, the contrary is impossible).

[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]

In those two examples, my certain knowledge is independent of anything other the existence of the entity referred to as “I”,

[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]

therefore it is false to say that it depends on the truth of particular words of scripture (or anything else, for that matter).

[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]

I didn't see Lisle's final responses immediately, but when I got around to addressing them he had closed off comments on his blogpost. So I didn't get a chance to counter-respond, and his action in arbitrarily guillotining all comments has resolved me not to comment on anything else he writes on his blog.

Nevertheless, the weakness of his final responses needs pointing out.

[Dr. Lisle: In logic and philosophy, knowledge is actually defined as "true, justified belief." So it is impossible to have knowledge without justification. You can have beliefs without justification, but not knowledge.]

Despite Lisle's comment, it is possible to have knowledge without justification. Here's the definition of axiom: "A self-evident or universally recognized truth." If it's self-evident, I don't need justification, or evidence, to support it.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that? How do you know that you are the one doing the thinking? If you cannot even define "I" then how can you be certain that "I think?"]

I didn't claim that I was was the one doing the thinking. I merely claimed that an entity designated by "I" was thinking. It doesn't matter who or what that entity is — it is irrefutably thinking.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that you don't know everything? Unless you know everything, how can you be certain that what you think you know is actually true, and therefore "known?" By the way, I agree with your belief that you don't know everything. But I maintain that you can't really know even that without relying upon Christian principles.]

Lisle is asking me how I know that I don't know everything. Really? He's suggesting that I could be mistaken about not being omniscient? If I were mistaken about not being omniscient, that would mean I was, in fact, omniscient. But how can an omniscient being be mistaken? I don't think Lisle has thought this through. It appears that he's claiming there is only absolute certainty about everything — omniscience — or no certainty about anything. But I have shown that it is indeed possible to be absolutely certain of something, and I gave a couple of examples. His assertion that knowledge is only possible by relying on Christian principles is just that — an assertion, and he has not shown how he can know that his source for that claim is true.

[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]

I did not make that assertion. I asserted that it is self-evident that I am not omniscient. I made no assertion about the impossibility of omniscience.

[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]

(1) Lisle isn't following the argument. I do have certain knowledge that I am not omniscient — see above. (2) There is an entity that is thinking, else the assertion could not have been made (how is something asserted, if not by an entity of some kind?), and if an entity is thinking, it clearly exists — see Descartes.

[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]

Lisle quotes scripture without giving any justification for its truth value, and then just repeats what he said before as if he didn't read the argument. As for "Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge" — I just have.