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

Absolutely misguided: theism's mental block

That Facebook thread mentioned in my previous post has been growing, but it's become clear to me that the author of the Original Post has some serious misunderstandings about atheism, materialism and naturalism. In this she's far from unique, and since the mental block she's exhibiting is one that other theists apparently share I thought I'd jot down some explanatory notes about such notions that I can refer to if (when!) such brain-jams come up in future.

The first, exemplified in the OP referred to above, is the notion that without God everything is pointless. The theist is saying that if God does not exist there's no point to anything at all — that if human beings are "merely" matter, then they don't … matter.

This misconception is tied up with the theistic idea of absolutes and ultimates (as are most theistic misconceptions, I might add). In this case the theist maintains that there must be God-given purpose for human life to have any meaning. This idea is so ingrained into religious thinking that many theists (the OP author cited above included) cannot see beyond it. To them, the idea of a world without God is simply too alien to be entertained. Some even suggest that if God didn't exist, they would resort to crime, and care nothing for their fellows.

This scary prospect is evidence of the second, related, theistic preoccupation with absolutes — that of objective morality. Many theists claim that morality is impossible without a transcendent moral law-giver. They claim their own morals come from scripture, and that even an unbeliever's morals are based (or borrowed) from the same scripture. Faced with an atheistic insistence that morality can be derived from circumstances and consequences, theists will often ask, "But why should you care what is good or bad? What makes one action 'better' than another, if there's no ultimate objective morality?" So, absolutes again. But what makes scriptural morality — rules written in a book — any better than moral guidelines derived from careful consideration of the likely outcomes of moral decisions? The answer of course is that it isn't better, it's actually worse. Personally I'd rather be subject to a moral code derived from analyses of circumstances and consequences, than to the arbitrary moral edicts of a Christian with a crib-sheet.

It seems to me that moral philosophy, neuroscience, cosmology and indeed physics in general are moving steadily in the direction of materialism and determinism and away from outdated concepts of dualism, the soul, free will and absolutes. Yet theists cling desperately to these notions because without them their faith makes no sense at all.

---

This week's Jesus and Mo is apposite:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2013/08/21/soul/

Time to refocus?

I've made a number of statements in the past concerning my opinion of theology, describing it variously as "wild speculation", "a cloudy, indistinct field of contemplation that isn't susceptible to rational discussion", "piffle" and "lies, damned lies, and theology". I've expressed my exasperation with certain kinds of believers. I've engaged with believers online, in the knowledge that I'm unlikely to sway their beliefs. I've even critiqued an entire book of apologetics, at length. What has all this achieved?

My initial reasons for engaging were set out some time ago, and were based on two questions:

1. How come so many people claim to believe patently crazy stuff?
2. What can we do to mitigate the influence of crazy beliefs on everyday life?

The first is of academic interest, and something that I'd like to resolve at some stage (I have a few ideas), but it doesn't directly impact me or mine (except those of mine who actively subscribe to such views). So there's no pressing need for me to pursue it, other than curiosity.

The second is of paramount importance. Where crazy beliefs inform actions they can have seriously detrimental effect on many aspects of life. Practices and policies derived from unsubstantiated dogma need to be challenged where they conflict with rationally desired outcomes. And though their derivation from dogma may be obvious, substantiation based on evidence is the only acceptable justification.

Pursuing No. 1 above can become tiresome. For example, I've reached my nonsense-tolerance limit as far as presuppositional apologetics is concerned, and I'll no longer engage with it in any but the most cursory way. PA is a minority belief within the broader theistic morass (indeed it appears to be an undesirable bedfellow to much of that morass) so ignoring it will be of little consequence. There are other aspects of the theistic morass that I will still address, but from now on only in the context of real world consequences.

I am resolved to shift my emphasis not just for the sake of my sanity but as a result of concerns surfacing during the past year and coming to a head right now. Any nominally vocal atheist today will be aware of the threatened schism within the "atheist movement" — with one group attempting to rebrand itself as Atheism Plus. How successful this will be remains unclear, but I support the impetus to take atheism beyond the dictionary definition in order to achieve progress in particular areas of concern.

Skepticule co-host Paul Baird, in a post entitled "The Looking Glass War between Theists and Atheists", points out that among all the arguments, debates etc., there isn't actually much difference between those on opposite sides of the divide:

It does seem to me that there is a thin line between atheism and theism and that it's wrong to make any sweeping judgements based on whether one believes in a god compared to whether one does not. There are smart atheists, there are smart theists, there are theists with mental health problems and there are atheists with mental health problems too. It's as though it's the subject that attracts them all. It's like trainspotting with gods. We're all standing at the end of the same platform with our notebooks.

Which makes me wonder what on earth we are doing there. His final paragraph sums up the practical implications of it all, providing some perspective:

I just don't have the level of of enthusiasm to do the debates, exchanges of views or the research to participate in areas outside of the immediate impact of English Social Christianity on English Public Policy as it immediately affects my life and the lives of those close to me.

In a comment to the Facebook syndication of the post, Professor Paul Braterman makes an implicit, practical suggestion:

Some of my best friends are Christians. I long since decided that debating the existence of God is not a fruitful exercise, and that whatever harm may come from such belief should be the subject of criticism in its own right.

An excellent strategy, and one I will endeavour to follow from now on.

Engage with PA BS? No thanks.

There's a reason practitioners of presuppositional apologetics (PA) use the word "presupposition". They presuppose not only the existence of the Christian God (which to an unbeliever is a frankly laughable methodology), but also that logic and reason are in some sense supernatural or "transcendent". That's why PA is based on the TAG — the transcendental argument for God.

The presuppers admit their argument is circular, but claim everyone else's is circular too, challenging people to account for their ability to reason, but without using reason to do so. Another ploy is to demand people explain how it is possible for them to know anything, if they don't claim to have absolute certainty: "Is it possible that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know?" Any claim that absolute certainty is impossible is met with "Are you absolutely certain of that?" — to which the answer, logically, is no. It all boils down to basic epistemology: how do you know anything?

At bottom, the only thing that anyone can claim to know with anything approaching certainty is that "thinking" is going on somewhere, somehow — because the acknowledgement of that fact is simultaneously its demonstration. Beyond that, we have only inferences from our perceptions to guide us in assessing the reality of the external world.

We could indeed be wrong about the external world, and it seems likely that we have been wrong about it in the past and to a certain extent remain wrong about it in the present. But we use our perceptions to build mental models of reality that appear to be largely self-consistent. This doesn't of itself make the models "true" — in the sense of being accurate representations — but Okham's razor demands that we do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Okham's razor is also why we do not unnecessarily posit supernatural agency in the absence of evidence for such agency.

Similarly, if we hypothesize that we are living in the Matrix — which is a possibility that cannot be definitively refuted — we have multiplied entities unnecessarily in order to explain our perceptions: we have the world as we perceive it (which gives us the illusion of reality) plus the world of the Matrix in which our reality is but a simulation. Our mental models fit both these "realities", and Ockham's razor should encourage us to discard the one that includes the superfluous entity. (It doesn't stop with the Matrix — the world of the Matrix could itself be a simulation within another world, which could be a simulation within yet another ... and so on. Ockham is our essential friend here.)

Parallels can be drawn with the Christian theistic worldview, in which we have the world as we perceive it, plus the world containing such additional entities as God, the Devil, angels, demons, miracles, Heaven and Hell. The world "as we perceive it" does not include these additional entities, because they don't actually impinge on our senses (that is, there's no evidence for them), and so positing them as part of a worldview is a gratuitous violation of parsimony — to which Ockham shall apply his blade.

The central foundation of PA, and its fundamental misconception, is the matter of absolutes. The TAG is based on absolutes and that's why it fails. Logic and reason are not absolute, objective entities existing "outside" of the Universe — they are intrinsic to existence, to cause and effect, and therefore to ask someone to "account" for logic and reason without "using" logic and reason is like asking someone to describe something without using adjectives, or to speak without speaking, or to think without thinking. The point here is not that these things can't be done — the point is that they're not necessary.

An agnostic manifestly confused

Via the New Humanist blog I came across this Slate article by Ron Rosenbaum: "An Agnostic Manifesto". Paul Sims (NH editor) describes it as "excellent", but I can only hope he's being ironic. He invited comments on the New Humanist blog, so I posted the following:

Much of this comes down to definitions. Agnosticism and to a lesser extent atheism are oft-misunderstood terms. Even theism as a description of a certain kind of religious belief leaves a lot undefined.

With this article Ron Rosenbaum is engaging heavily in the straw man fallacy. Richard Dawkins, forever portrayed as the ArchAtheist, says clearly in The God Delusion (in his chapter entitled "The God Hypothesis") that he is agnostic on the matter of the existence of God.

Rosenbaum is also mistaken if he thinks that science purports to "know everything". If that were the case there would be no point in science continuing, as there would be nothing left to discover. There's no evidence that scientists the world over are quitting their jobs and attempting to find something else to do. Science isn't yet — nor is it ever likely to be — redundant.

Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.

Whether "most" atheists have or have not considered this is a moot point, but it has been addressed, by Lawrence Krauss, Adolf Grünbaum and others. There's also the entirely acceptable response, "We don't know," which Rosenbaum rightly describes as the agnostic position, and which most of the so called "New Atheists" (or to use a term I've seen recently, "Gnu Atheists") would embrace wholeheartedly as valid. Their position on the existence of God is derived not from a dogmatic stance, but on the balance of probabilities. It's a position based on evidence, and on logic. And most important, given this discussion, it's open to revision in the light of new evidence and new arguments.

Rosenbaum on Aquinas:

His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of "uncaused causation" to be created in the first place.

When someone talks about a source of "uncaused causation" they're unlikely to feel obliged to explain the cause of that source. It's in the description.

I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don't believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything.

I don't believe there's a reputable scientist that does believe science can prove or disprove everything.

Straw man, straw man, straw man.

(Rosenbaum's confused article was picked up by Jen Peeples on yesterday's Atheist Experience  TV show (#669) The mp3 audio of the show is available for download, and the Blip.TV video version is embedded below.)

http://blip.tv/file/3984616