Belief a CHOICE?
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
I was saying that. You are the one who responded that my example was not sufficient.
What I come up against most often is not so much what people choose to belief, but what people believe without question, because it's the prevailing view of their culture or cultural sub-set, and which is received without question.
The assumption, for example, that a belief in God is irrational, illogical, unreasonable, etc,.
That Buddhism is a philosophy and nothing more;
That today we are more knowledgeable than we have ever been;
(A corollary to the above is the assumption that because we know more on a quantitative and material level about things, that we understand more about the qualitative and the spiritual.)
The assumption tha Intelligent Design (and its twin Creationism) is a viable theist doctrines;
That the 'secular argument' (as expressed by its most vociferous proponents) for the non-existence of God is reasonable, rational and logical;
That the deism of the Enlightenment was the product of theological insight, and not the product of a new and largely misunderstood physics;
That a science that, by its own axioms, works within the confines of nature can explain nature itself;
That the exercise of freedom is itself more important than the choices one makes.
That personal narrative equates to truth;
That nothing can be known absolutely;
That knowledge is superior to faith;
That faith is a deficit of knowledge;
That science by definition is agnostic if not atheist.
... I'm not saying that such opinions are in themselves wrong, opinions are nothing more than opinions, but the assumption that such opinions are somehow incontrovertible and scientifically credible, is mistaken.
Most of what most people unthinkingly assume to be the case is often blind faith in science and, quite often, amounts to little more than 'scientific superstition'.
The assumption, for example, that a belief in God is irrational, illogical, unreasonable, etc,.
That Buddhism is a philosophy and nothing more;
That today we are more knowledgeable than we have ever been;
(A corollary to the above is the assumption that because we know more on a quantitative and material level about things, that we understand more about the qualitative and the spiritual.)
The assumption tha Intelligent Design (and its twin Creationism) is a viable theist doctrines;
That the 'secular argument' (as expressed by its most vociferous proponents) for the non-existence of God is reasonable, rational and logical;
That the deism of the Enlightenment was the product of theological insight, and not the product of a new and largely misunderstood physics;
That a science that, by its own axioms, works within the confines of nature can explain nature itself;
That the exercise of freedom is itself more important than the choices one makes.
That personal narrative equates to truth;
That nothing can be known absolutely;
That knowledge is superior to faith;
That faith is a deficit of knowledge;
That science by definition is agnostic if not atheist.
... I'm not saying that such opinions are in themselves wrong, opinions are nothing more than opinions, but the assumption that such opinions are somehow incontrovertible and scientifically credible, is mistaken.
Most of what most people unthinkingly assume to be the case is often blind faith in science and, quite often, amounts to little more than 'scientific superstition'.
Gordian Knot
re: "I was saying that. You are the one who responded that my example was not sufficient."
I am not looking for examples of what one thinks they did in the past. I'm looking for a realtime demonstration in the present. If beliefs can be engendered by simply choosing to have them, then the object or issue in question should not make any difference, e.g., choosing to believe that leprechauns actually exist. You said that you can't do that.
re: "I was saying that. You are the one who responded that my example was not sufficient."
I am not looking for examples of what one thinks they did in the past. I'm looking for a realtime demonstration in the present. If beliefs can be engendered by simply choosing to have them, then the object or issue in question should not make any difference, e.g., choosing to believe that leprechauns actually exist. You said that you can't do that.
T
Tadashi
Guest
Really?? I'd have to ask your opinion (or critique) on Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason then. But I have to finish reading it first...
And I realize this is off-topic from this thread, so I'll start a new thread when I finish the book... could take a month, could be longer... I wish I had all the time in the world... I'm really looking forward to going to heaven so I can read all the books I've wanted with the eternity I'll have! lol...
Tad
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
You make me want to pick up my copy, it's been gathering dust for a couple of months, but I want to finish two other ones first. Like the Hagakure Thomas recommended.
T
Tadashi
Guest
You made me want to read Bushido too! which I found an audio version so I started listening to it a bit, but I thought, this one I really want to read it myself at my pace... so I'm gonna get a copy. And what was the other book that both Thomas and wil liked...? I need to search for it on the board... plus, I have about 20 books in my kindle already because it's so easy to buy with a tap of the finger...
I need to stop telling people I like reading when asked about my hobby... Not only people keep recommending books to read, but some also do give me books, like I received four books from my girlfriend's mother yesterday (though I didn't ask for them)! I'd feel bad not reading them or at least starting... just in case the subject comes up at the dinner table... I think Paine has to wait... again...
Sorry, totally off topic... I apologize...
Tad
"The Experience of God" by David Bentley Hart. I'm reading it now. It's philosophy, not theology, but it's got a fantastic critique of the contemporary atheist position.
The God of the Deists is founded on the idea that God can, and can only, be determined by the reasoned observation of the natural world. So we end up with a notion of God, cast in the shadow of the 17th century's scientific insight.
Approached this way, with God seen as standing at the apex of the world, it's understandable that one ends up with God as some kind of celestial architect or artificer.
Such a God is actually closer to the Demiurge of antiquity, its an anthropomorphic projection that bears little resemblance to the God of the Christian or Hindu Traditions, it's the God that Greek philosophy had consigned to the Cave when Logos superseded mythos.
This timeless idea reprises itself in every age, in Pelagianism, in the Medieval esoteric schools, in Freemasonry, in the 'New Thought' Christianity of the 18th and 19th centuries, the God of the Romance Movement and its theological notions evident in HPB's Theosophy and Steiner's Anthroposophy, the neo-gnosticism in the New Age and The Matrix ('the architect').
It's the God that the 'new atheism' rails against, in their ill-informed assumptions about what they believe the great theist Traditions actually declare, which is why they so consistently miss the mark.
The Age of Reason assumed — for reasons it itself cannot reasonably affirm — that the Cosmos is essentially reasonable, and therefore God must be reasonable, and that whatever one considers unreasonable can be dismissed. So away with Revelation. Away with miracles. Away with Scripture beyond a few moral and ethical aphorisms, away with all the supposed superstition of religious practice, and mystical insight ...
Sadly, it's convenient today to assume this position is still viable, when so much scientific discovery has moved on some considerable distance from the Age of Enlightenment and consigned most of its beliefs to the wastebasket of history, it's just a shame people still cling to their outworn notions because of their superficial populist appeal.
Take Benjamin Franklin:
It's riddled with inconsistency and metaphysical abstractions that occur when science abandons its foundational axioms in favour of a frankly superstitious speculation, as the above quote from Franklin evidences.
Philosophy has moved on (on the European continent, at least. The Anglo-American 'analytic school' still has its feed stuck firmly in the mud of empiricism, hence philosophical relativism with all its moral dilemmas). Science has moved on. Theology has moved on. But popular opinion always lags somewhere behind, and the appeal of the image of God as the exemplar of nature (human nature in particular) endures ...
T
Tadashi
Guest
Thanks, Thomas, for the title of the book! I'll check it out.
I think if we continue with this conversation, we're gonna highjack rstrats's thread, so I'll start a new one about the Age of Enlightenment.
Tad
I think if we continue with this conversation, we're gonna highjack rstrats's thread, so I'll start a new one about the Age of Enlightenment.
Tad
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
Not sure if this will complicate (probably) or simplify (hopefully). Factor into the puzzle the truths or beliefs, if you will, of rebirth and our Divine Nature.
The former will help explain the strong convictions and definite mental tendencies (vasanas) we have now, which we accept or believe. Every past lifetime we reinforce with more faith or conviction a belief, the more powerful it becomes in this single lifetime. It become patent, not necessarily true but clear and among the dominant ideas we have.
If we really want and seek the truth, then our Divine Nature will stimulate & guide us in the more truthful direction. Even our belief in That is an effect of That Presence within.
The former will help explain the strong convictions and definite mental tendencies (vasanas) we have now, which we accept or believe. Every past lifetime we reinforce with more faith or conviction a belief, the more powerful it becomes in this single lifetime. It become patent, not necessarily true but clear and among the dominant ideas we have.
If we really want and seek the truth, then our Divine Nature will stimulate & guide us in the more truthful direction. Even our belief in That is an effect of That Presence within.
Simplified it for me. Nice post.
This is the touchpoint, as I see it:
We (the Abrahamics) do not see human nature as inherently divine, if it were, as we see it, we would be perfect, we would need nor want for nothing.
We believe that 'in Him we live and move and have our being' as the philosopher and the apostle said, but that life and movement and being — that which identifies itself as itself — is not Him, although, to quote Augustine, 'you are more me than I am myself, and I am more myself when I am in you'.
There ... that's really confused things now ...
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
Thomas, if inherent divinity meant perfection now, then a seed would be identical to a tree.
We are not that far apart, for does not Peter say:
We are not that far apart, for does not Peter say:
It is, in essence.
The same way that the human embryo is a human person.
We participate in the Divine, that's the way we see it.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Didn't you set up the though experiment to understand people who say they choose to believe things? If the people who choose to believe things say the experiment is flawed, don't you think that is relevant? What is the purpose of it?
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
If we don't choose to believe things, who or what does? A belief is a temporary position taken in the absence of a complete set of facts. I believe that Honda motorcycles are more reliable than Harley Davidson motorcycles. I chose to believe that based on personal and anecdotal evidence. It's not something that I "know", it's something I believe. I chose to believe it. Belief is like handicapping the horses. You take a partial knowledge set, add your hunch, and place a bet.
L
LilieKatz
Guest
Belief is internal. You can choose what you want to believe.
Life style is what people cannot change.
Life style is what people cannot change.