Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
OK willbjammin, you've expressed a very logical, straightforward, no-nonsense take on the world, much as Art has. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you hold dear the ideas of scientific method, not jumping to conclusions, simplest explanation etc
To you, the idea of a higher power is a non-sensical one, it's surplus to requirements, it *may* be true, but you're not ready to throw your money down on one side or the other, and you remain skeptical on this and many other unknown areas of life.
|
If there is a higher power, I have no access to it. Because of that, I see no reason to alter how I live my life based on what a higher power would want. To change my life based on what a higher power would want would mean that I'm making assumptions about the nature of God, and I don't feel like I'm in a position to do that.
Quote:
So that's your worldview, those are your 'beliefs' - Now you and Art are also saying that you've chosen those beliefs. Let's try a thought experiment.
Do you think you could ever decide to throw up this view of the world and start believing whole-heartedly in a god or gods, or spirits etc? If someone offered you a hundred million dollars to completely convert to Catholicism (or some other arbitrary huge reward and equally arbitrary religious faith. - If you are reading this from a religious viewpoint, imagine embracing the logical/scientific model that the non-religious among us adopt) could anyone honestly train themselves to do that?
|
If you notice, this is your second reference to money. You're making an assumption that I care more about money than living well. The idea of changing beliefs as proof that beliefs are chosen is also non-sensical. If I have reasoned out why I have formed an understanding of this thing or that thing, or disagree with this thing or that thing, then I would need a catalyst of some sort to prompt the change in my worldview. Money as a reward is not a catalyst for me, it is meaningless. I don't think that I'm necessarily as "belief-less" as Art, at least in how I describe my existence. The reason for this is my propensity to observe the world and exist on metaphorical terms.
Starting with a basis of absurdity and an understanding of the inherent abstractedness of living in a world of thought, I know that directly interpreting anything as the thing-in-itself is impossible. Forming thoughts into words is a type of mediation of reality. On top of that, we are living in a mediated age. Most of what we know is a result of mediation of some sort, often being filtered through several sources before reaching us.
This discussion of the nature of my understanding of reality is important, because that factor shapes my ability to be skeptical and choose my views. My point is that education-level and being interested in honest living are huge factors in the ability to actively choose. Regardless, everyone does choose in some way or another, whether they know it or not.
So, to get back to your hypothetical questions - I couldn't just randomly change my views, and beliefs (as you call my views) aren't chosen in a vacuum.
Quote:
|
Let's say you had 3 months to convert and then had to stand in front of a group of people and convince them that you believed in The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Could you do it? Maybe you could convince them, but would you have honestly convinced yourself?
|
I couldn't do it in an intellectually honest manner.
Quote:
|
I really don't think it's possible, and this is why I'm saying that No, beliefs are most definitely not a matter of choice.
|
Giving a false choice, such as using money as the only reason to change your views upon something, does not disprove anything.
Quote:
|
If beliefs are a choice, then both you and Art are saying that you would be capable of changing those beliefs should a sitation arise like the one described.
|
No, our views can be changed by being given compelling reasons to do so.