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

Unbelievably vague mystery

The latest Unbelievable? radio show is a discussion between Mike McHargue (who describes himself as a non-theist Christian) and Ben Watts (an atheist).

What, exactly, is a non-theist Christian? Perhaps it's an atheist who follows the teachings of Christ. Except, presumably, those teachings about God. Definitions aside, you might reasonably ask how someone becomes a non-theist Christian. In the case of Mike McHargue, you'll wait in vain for an explanation — or at least one that make sense. This non-theist Christian has a book to promote, and it would be ill-advised for him to make his position so abundantly clear that reading his book becomes redundant. Both Ben Watts and host Justin Brierley acknowledge that the book is well written, which is good, but I suspect that's as far as it goes. Based on what he did say in response to Ben's and Justin's questions, the book seems likely to be full of woolly mysticism. Mike claims to have found God in the waves on a beach. He agrees that his personal experience isn't evidence that anyone else is likely to accept, but then appears to claim that reason and logic are mired in the “enlightenment view”, and that his personal relationship with God (how does that work for a non-theist?) is “pre-enlightenment” and therefore more … what? … more real?

Here's the relevant blurb from the Unbelievable? website:

Mike McHargue – known as ‘Science Mike’ - was a Christian who lost his faith then found it again through science. He tells his story of coming back to faith through an experience on a beach and how he now puts science and Christian faith together.

Ben Watts is an atheist who grew up with a Christian Faith but lost it after going to university to study science. He engages with Mike on this week’s show.

A civil but unsatisfactory discussion, with many examples of “playing the mystery card”.

Mike's official book-trailer playlist on YouTube is professionally produced but mostly sound-bites — don't expect much insight into his actual position or beliefs. There are, however, words — and some slo-mo striding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL0-bbd9v3UEiYmYYlBpvhL5QurRxtOiVG&v=KSnnjQTuFYU

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

Gay marriage is not "bad for children" — Unbelievable?

Currently listening to the Unbelievable? podcast from a week ago — the one about the detriment that children allegedly suffer when brought up by same-sex parents:

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-gay-marriage-bad-for-children-Bobby-Lopez-James-Croft-Jacob-Clark

Direct audio download here:
http://cfvod.kaltura.com/pd/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_047ph51w/v/1/flavorId/1_0tcghp1u/name/a.mp3

Knowing in advance that James Croft was a participant, I expected him to shred the idea that same-sex parenting is detrimental, and so it proved. Bobby Lopez, in fact, turned out to be something of a conspiracy theorist. Jacob Clark, who was fostered for a short while by two gay clerics, also contributed, further supporting the case for gay parenting.

My own stance on this issue is that it should not be surprising that a family with same-sex parents will be different in some substantial respects from families with opposite-sex parents, but those differences will be small in comparison with the difference in families of any kind, due to the fact that people are in general fundamentally diverse.

Complexity, inevitability, and life — Evolution 2.0 on Unbelievable?

Listening to the latest Unbelievable? show from Premier Radio I was struck by what appeared to be a failure of imagination on the part of Perry Marshall, who was debating evolutionary biologist PZ Myers about the former's recent book, Evolution 2.0. Not being a biologist of any kind I'm unable to comment authoritatively on the actual mechanisms of evolution, but having followed PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula in the past (less so these days) I'm fairly confident he knows what he's talking about when it comes to his own subject. Perry Marshall's background, however, is in engineering and marketing, which on the face of it should make me wary of pronouncements that are outside his field of expertise.

Myers rubbished pretty much everything Marshall proposed, and given the above I'm prepared to accept that Myers is right and Marshall is wrong. The debate was fairly technical, but seemed to me to boil down to Marshall's claim that the “random” part of random mutation is insufficient to explain how evolution works (notwithstanding other aspects of evolution such as horizontal gene transfer).

At one point Marshall stated that the code in DNA could fit on a Compact Disc, and that if you eliminated “junk DNA” the code would be merely ten percent of what could fit on a CD. The core of his argument appeared to be disbelief that such a relatively small amount of information could produce the complexity we see in living organisms today. By comparison he cited the amount of code required to install modern computer operating systems such as Windows 10 and Mac OS X.

Marshall's engineering background has hampered his thinking here. Engineers who design systems, be they engines, bridges, or computer operating systems, need to specify mechanisms in minute detail (or make use of minutely detailed specifications already available) in order to make their systems work. This notion of "engineering ex nihilo" is what in my opinion leads to the essential failure-of-imagination exhibited by intelligent design proponents and creationists (of whom a disproportionately large number are engineers) — “it's all so complicated it must have been minutely designed by an intelligence of some kind.”

But imagine a software programmer who has never encountered fractals is shown a picture of the Mandelbrot set, and is given the task of writing code to generate the same picture from scratch. Without knowledge of the simple equation that produces fractals the picture could indeed be generated, but I suspect the code would be somewhat large. Or imagine a manufacturer of breakfast cereal wants its packaging department to come up with a special gadget to ensure that each carton of cornflakes contains a gradation of flakes, such that the larger flakes are mostly towards the top of the carton and the smaller ones mostly towards the bottom. I'm sure such a gadget could be made, but it's not actually necessary as the cornflakes tend to sort themselves out this way on their own.

Such self-organisation is, in my view, an aspect of the discussion about complexity that is often overlooked. If things inevitably organise themselves in a particular way, trying to make them happen in other ways, against the natural order, will indeed require complex intervention. “Going with the flow” on the other hand, will often require no intervention at all. It seems to me that much of the complexity we see in nature is there because in a given environment, things tend to work out that way rather than any other, just like in a packet of cornflakes.

A small part of the Mandelbrot set

This is applicable in other systems too, such as how you organise your life. For instance, it makes sense to keep things you need regularly in designated places, so that you don't have to embark on a time-consuming search every time you need them. If you need to take something with you when you go out, you could set an alarm on your smartphone to remind you to pick it up at the appropriate time — or you could simply place the item where you will see it when you do go out.

To put this another way: don't expend energy trying to achieve things in spite of your environment. Rather, create, encourage and adjust your environment such that it allows those things to be achieved automatically. (There you go — who'd have thought a debate on evolution would lead to productivity advice and life-coaching?)

UPDATE 2016-01-04: Perry Marshall has published online his transcript of the debate, along with some restrospective comments:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-myers/
...And here's PZ Myers' response to the comments:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/03/perry-marshall-2-0/

UPDATE 2016-01-10: Looks like this will run and run. Perry Marshall has responded to PZ Myers' response to his comments on his transcript:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-mcclintock/

UPDATE 2016-01-12: ...and PZ Myers further responds here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/11/everything-existing-in-the-universe-is-the-fruit-of-chance-and-necessity/ 

UPDATE 2016-01-22: Will this never end? Perry Marshalls's next shot:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/telorexia/

...And possibly the last from PZ Myers?:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/12/my-last-post-on-perry-marshall/

---

PZ Myers' blogpost about his encounter with Perry Marshall is here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/01/another-day-another-creationist/

Does Humanism require God? (Doesn't everything?)

Today's Unbelievable? — scheduled to broadcast at 14:30 this afternoon — has already been downloaded by my podcatcher. It's a discussion between Angus Ritchie, co-author of a recent Theos paper on humanism, and Stephen Law, Provost of the Centre for Inquiry UK, who has critiqued the paper on the CfI blog. I listened to the show yesterday evening and posted the following comments in the Skepticule aka The Three Pauls Podcast Facebook group while listening:

Paul S Jenkins Listening now. Trying to resist the temptation to cheer on Stephen Law's points.
13 hrs · Like

Paul S Jenkins Angus Ritchie's reasoning is tied up with "intrinsic values". This is absolutism, and that's why it won't fly as a reasoned argument.
12 hrs · Like

Paul S Jenkins Stephen Law has just asked Angus Ritchie a serious and extreme question. Angus has not yet answered it.
12 hrs · Like

Paul S Jenkins Damn. Justin has moved the argument on, giving Angus a breather.
12 hrs · Like

Paul S Jenkins Now Angus is obliquely referencing Plantinga's EAAN.
12 hrs · Like

Paul S Jenkins Justin reminds us that Stephen Law debated Alvin Plantinga on a previous _Unbelievable?_
12 hrs · Edited · Like

Paul S Jenkins Justin is paraphrasing Angus's argument, and diluting it at the same time.
12 hrs · Like

Paul S Jenkins "If nothing ethically matters, it doesn't matter that nothing ethically matters." Brilliant. An excellent performance by our favourite Scruffy Philosopher.
12 hrs · Like

Worth a listen if you have views on humanism and what it entails (and what it doesn't).

(At the end of the show, host Justin Brierley read out some feedback on a previous one in which William Lane Craig apparently claimed that the existence of mathematics was evidence for the existence of God. For me, Norman Bacrac's feedback hit the nail on the head by stating that mathematics is a property of physical reality. I don't think I'll be listening to that one.)