Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Believing Not Being A Matter Of "choice": Is This Valid?


chaddjohnson

Recommended Posts

What do you all think about the following? Valid/invalid? Agree/disagree?

 

(read this under the assumption that god exists)

 

I would question the claim that God is not at fault for an atheist's going to hell, since--as I am convinced--man is a product of his environment (circumstances), and God is in control of that environment (those circumstances). I think we can and will only make decisions if we are convinced to doing so by our circumstances. Thus, if our circumstances--controlled by God--do not convince us to believe in God, then I do not see how a person should be at fault for not believing.

 

Same thing with believing the Bible is true. If a person's circumstances convince them it is not true, I do not see how they should be culpable for this disbelief. If God does in fact provide opportunities for people to become convinced, but they end up not becoming convinced--because the circumstances of those opportunities are not weighty enough to counter the person's disbelief--I fail to see how the person is at fault. I don't see how the concept of God giving man what he needs (i.e. "enough") to believe makes any sense if people make choices, as psychological studies have evidenced, based on their past and present circumstances--and, perhaps, genetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes a lot of sense to me, and I agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

(read this under the assumption that god exists)

...

 

Maybe this could be used as an argument against god's existence as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Maybe this could be used as an argument against god's existence as well.

 

I'm not sure, it very much depends on your definition of god. Just curious. How would you say it could be used as an argument against the existence of god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Maybe this could be used as an argument against god's existence as well.

 

I'm not sure, it very much depends on your definition of god. Just curious. How would you say it could be used as an argument against the existence of god?

 

I guess I would look at this more as an argument against the bible. If what I wrote is in fact valid--with the concept of god described in the Christian bible--then I think it would poke holes in the bible, and thus it would poke holes in the existence of god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I would look at this more as an argument against the bible. If what I wrote is in fact valid--with the concept of god described in the Christian bible--then I think it would poke holes in the bible, and thus it would poke holes in the existence of god.

 

Ok, you mean the God of the Bible. It would poke holes for some, but there are Calvanists who believe in predestination and they would probably not have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it ultimately boils down to the statement that man is a product of his environment.

 

Other than genetics, I believe we're blank slates from the moment we take our first breath. I'm certain that if I'd been born in India, I'd most likely be Hindu.

 

I don't believe there's a god who controls my environment or my circumstances, so to even consider that portion of the statement makes it irrelevant to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are describing is determinism; the idea that our actions are simply reactions to our environment. (I know it's a simplification, but I'm not looking to write an essay on determinism.) If you believe that someone can know the future, even if that someone is a deity, than determinism morphs into it's cousin, predestination.

 

If you are a determinist, as it seems from your post, than you are absolutely right. In fact, in a determinist world, the existance or non-existance of god is completely irrevelant. Whether it is god creating your environment, or nature, or lord xenu, or robots in a dystopian future your actions are a byproduct of that environment, including the action of believing in a creator. If you believe in a god, your environment led you to that conclusion, regardless of its veracity. Any god that holds us to our actions in a determinist world is a cruel son of a bitch, because there is no such thing as our actions, all our thoughts and deeds are reactions to the world around us, there is no free will.

 

If there is such a thing as free will however, than your point is invalid at worst, or too strongly worded at best. People do make decisions based off of the circumstances that led them to their current state, that is very true but that doesn't mean that people are constrained by their curcumstances.

 

Rather than derail your thread by yammering on about consciousness and free will and dualism and such, I'll stop here, just note that free will is a subject that garners a great deal of debate from the religious and non-religious alike, and there is a lot of great research available on the topic for someone interested in persuing it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.