NationStates Jolt Archive

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.

Maybe religion chooses you.

All the gods are up there and trading "human cards". Occasionally, they run to the store and buy booster packs to try to find rares for trade. :)

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.


Yeah course you can, in fact most of the religous people I know have chossen their faith has adults, free from interferance from freinds or family.

It is the only way.

A little of both I think. At a certain age people often lose the influence of their parents and think about it for themselves. These people either 1)become a stronger believer in that religion 2)Choose another religion 3)Continue in their current religion without truly believing it.

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.


I grew up in a home of non-practising Christians but I have studied the various religions that exist and I have to say that I consider myself to be an Agnostic-Buddhist (though I am finding myself more and more critical of Buddhism).

I was brought up in a rather christian family. So, as a kid, I learned that God existed and helped us through hardships. About when I was 12/13 it all stopped making sense and I quickly developed my "path" to Agnosticism/Atheism.
Whatever fits you, I guess.

You can choose religion just as you can choose anything else. All choices we make are influenced by things like the people around us, where we lives, etc.

the rate of conversion from one major religion to another (jewish to hindu for example) is very low.

the rate of conversion within major religions is somewhat higher but still low. (catholic to protestant for example)

protestants have somewhat of a history of shopping around. i certainly know many people who go to whatever fundamental-ish church has the best preacher or best congregation. that its "church of christ" rather than "southern baptist" doesnt seem to matter to them.

so it seems that for the most part you DONT choose your own religion. you go with whatever you were raised with and might tweak that a bit but not so much that an outsider would easily tell the difference.

the rate of conversion from one major religion to another (jewish to hindu for example) is very low.

the rate of conversion within major religions is somewhat higher but still low. (catholic to protestant for example)



I would say that this is pretty true, until you take into account non-practicing individuals. We have alot of people who grew up one religion and still claim it, but don't really care in the least or at least don't exhibit any of its tenets.

I would say that if you don't choose your own religious viewpoints, then you don't actually have any. If you don't choose your religion, you aren't actually religious.

It's like asking if you choose your own political viewpoints. If you just vote how your parent's voted, because that's how they voted, then you aren't thinking about it or even attempting to form your own political views. The same goes with religion.

I would say that if you don't choose your own religious viewpoints, then you don't actually have any. If you don't choose your religion, you aren't actually religious.

It's like asking if you choose your own political viewpoints. If you just vote how your parent's voted, because that's how they voted, then you aren't thinking about it or even attempting to form your own political views. The same goes with religion.


I agree wholeheartedly

You can choose religion just as you can choose anything else. All choices we make are influenced by things like the people around us, where we lives, etc.

QFT

I would say that this is pretty true, until you take into account non-practicing individuals. We have alot of people who grew up one religion and still claim it, but don't really care in the least or at least don't exhibit any of its tenets.

yeah, they say "im baptist" but since they only go to church on christmas and easter how true is it?

if pressed they probably parrot whatever they learned in sunday school as a kid. it just isnt very important to them.

i dont know. does their apparent lack of belief count as choosing their own (lack of) religion or do they count as not choosing because they spout whatever line they learned as kids?

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.

I was born to a familiy that were very active members of my religious community. But that didn't stop me from having doubts about what I had been taught. Eventually I came to a crissis of faith, were I had to know for myself that what I believed in was true, for myself, I couldn't be content to just accept what I had been taught any longer.

The experiance I had that convinced me I deem to be sacred, so I will not share it here, but suffice it to say I know beond all doubt that what I believe in is true, and I know it for myself, and found it out for myself. all the 'peer presure' element did for me was give me a place to start looking for my own answers, and I found them.

So, yes; I know that we do have free will to choose what we believe. Our familiy and friends can have a strong influence on us, but in the end no one can take away our ablity to choose for ourselves, nor can the faith of familiy or friends sustain us when in those crisses of faith that inevitably come our way.

I think you can - I grew up in a very, very devout Christian home, and I personally (I know this isn't a religion as such) am an atheist, though I do agree with a lot of the Buddhist philosophy.

Maybe religion chooses you.

All the gods are up there and trading "human cards". Occasionally, they run to the store and buy booster packs to try to find rares for trade. :)

DING..!

..and Loon wins another one. Will it be the big acid green plush dragon, or the "I'm with STUPID ->" T-shirt for your prize, young man?

:)

However the "choice" comes about, and it IS always a conscious choice, there always IS a choice made, and what you choose IS your religion, whether you call it "religion" or not.

yeah, they say "im baptist" but since they only go to church on christmas and easter how true is it?

if pressed they probably parrot whatever they learned in sunday school as a kid. it just isnt very important to them.

i dont know. does their apparent lack of belief count as choosing their own (lack of) religion or do they count as not choosing because they spout whatever line they learned as kids?

I would say it counts as not choosing - and quite obviously not caring. They have given little to no thought to it, and thus, in actuality, have no religious views of their own.

I was born to a familiy that were very active members of my religious community. But that didn't stop me from having doubts about what I had been taught. Eventually I came to a crissis of faith, were I had to know for myself that what I believed in was true, for myself, I couldn't be content to just accept what I had been taught any longer.

The experiance I had that convinced me I deem to be sacred, so I will not share it here, but suffice it to say I know beond all doubt that what I believe in is true, and I know it for myself, and found it out for myself. all the 'peer presure' element did for me was give me a place to start looking for my own answers, and I found them.

So, yes; I know that we do have free will to choose what we believe. Our familiy and friends can have a strong influence on us, but in the end no one can take away our ablity to choose for ourselves, nor can the faith of familiy or friends sustain us when in those crisses of faith that inevitably come our way.

yes but did you end up with a religious belief that is significantly different from your parents?

I would say that if you don't choose your own religious viewpoints, then you don't actually have any. If you don't choose your religion, you aren't actually religious.

Wrong-O there Demzilla. :)

Why? Because religion is not "a book". It is a "sense".

One MUST choose a religion just as one must choose how one looks at the world.

We all have the right to see "red" as "evil", but we don't have the right to not see "red".

(( If analogy, in general, is too tough for you, replace "see" and "red" with whatever sensory function and stimulus you prefer. ))


It's like asking if you choose your own political viewpoints. If you just vote how your parent's voted, because that's how they voted, then you aren't thinking about it or even attempting to form your own political views. The same goes with religion.

I disagree again.

Your political viewpoint in the above example is "follower of parents", which is a political choice.

The actual items you voted for need not represent your "political viewpoint".

If I'm a Democrat, and I vote only for democrats on principle, my political viewpoint is "follower of Democrats", not "democrat".

Wrong-O there Demzilla. :)

Why? Because religion is not "a book". It is a "sense".

Religion *should be* a sense. It should be individual. However, for many, "religion" is basically joining a club - with little to no thought given to the tenets of said club and *maybe* following said tenets unthinkingly. For these people, it is a "book", generally a book they haven't read, but instead take the word of others on.

One MUST choose a religion just as one must choose how one looks at the world.

If one never thinks about how one looks at the world, how has any choice been made?

We all have the right to see "red" as "evil", but we don't have the right to not see "red".

Indeed. And if we have no such "right", then there is no choice made. We do not choose whether or not we see red - we simply do or do not. We can choose how we interpret "red". And if we never think about it, then we never interpret it, and thus we have made no choice.

I disagree again.

Your political viewpoint in the above example is "follower of parents", which is a political choice.

No, it isn't. You haven't thought about the politics at all. You have simply taken the easy route and copied. A monkey can walk into a voting booth and pick all of the options on one side. No political choices have to go into it.

The actual items you voted for need not represent your "political viewpoint".

The point here is that the person in question has no political viewpoint. They haven't thought about it. They are simply following a monkey-see, monkey-do mentality.

I would say that if you don't choose your own religious viewpoints, then you don't actually have any. If you don't choose your religion, you aren't actually religious.

It's like asking if you choose your own political viewpoints. If you just vote how your parent's voted, because that's how they voted, then you aren't thinking about it or even attempting to form your own political views. The same goes with religion.

I disagree with this completely.

It doesnt seem to me that people actually choose their beliefs at all.

Weighing evidence and finding the best conclusion is not the same as choosing that conclusion.

Consider the statement "I am an atheist, but not by choice - I don't believe in God." It seems clear that 'choice' and 'believe' mean distinctly different things.

Take as another example a person who believes that X should be outlawed, but votes not to outlaw X. The person has chosen to vote against his beliefs, but has not changed his beliefs by making this choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Wrong-O there Demzilla.

Why? Because religion is not "a book". It is a "sense".


Religion *should be* a sense. It should be individual. However, for many, "religion" is basically joining a club - with little to no thought given to the tenets of said club and *maybe* following said tenets unthinkingly. For these people, it is a "book", generally a book they haven't read, but instead take the word of others on.

And yet,.. they have their beliefs. Since no one can have ALL knowledge of a particular cult's (enculturated religion) "theology", all people of that cult have varying degrees of belief about that cult.

But they all have beliefs, and those beliefs are their religion.


Quote:
One MUST choose a religion just as one must choose how one looks at the world.


If one never thinks about how one looks at the world, how has any choice been made?

My contention is that one has no choice BUT to "think about" the world, as that is what being in the world means.

The fact that the process by which one's choices have been made aren't rigorously scientific do not negate the fact that choices have indeed been made. Even if made extraodinarily passively.


Quote:
We all have the right to see "red" as "evil", but we don't have the right to not see "red".


Indeed. And if we have no such "right", then there is no choice made. We do not choose whether or not we see red - we simply do or do not. We can choose how we interpret "red". And if we never think about it, then we never interpret it, and thus we have made no choice.

That is an inherent (unalienable) right, to me. You may feel differently.

To NOT interpret a stimulus is impossible.

Thus via our inherent right (more correctly faculty) to interpret stimulii that reach us we make choices as to what we believe.

If you have eyes, and if you aren't color-blind, you DO see red, and you will put a meaning to it.

This is an utterly involuntary CHOICE, which sounds like a contradiction, but isn't because it's not the ACT of choosing that is voluntary but the INTERPRETATION of the stimulus that is voluntary.


Quote:
I disagree again.

Your political viewpoint in the above example is "follower of parents", which is a political choice.


No, it isn't. You haven't thought about the politics at all. You have simply taken the easy route and copied. A monkey can walk into a voting booth and pick all of the options on one side. No political choices have to go into it.

The monkey's political viewpoint is that "the powers that trained me are to be followed and should be in power as they give me treats for doing as they've trained me".

That is the monkey's politics.

Politics are about responses to stimulii, not about thinking. If your response to "Who should be in power?" is "Let's think about this to make the best choice!", then that is your political response. (Which I agree with, by the way!)

If your response to "Who should be in power?" is "OUR GUY/CHICK!", then that is your political repsonse.

If your response to "Who should be in power?" is "Cheese", then that is your political repsonse.


Quote:
The actual items you voted for need not represent your "political viewpoint".


The point here is that the person in question has no political viewpoint. They haven't thought about it. They are simply following a monkey-see, monkey-do mentality.

My contention is that it's impossible to not have a political viewpoint, because a political viewpoint is simply another description of how you see the world.

Monkey-see-Monkey-do IS a political viewpoint, because it looks like one, it sounds like one, and politicians respond to it as if it were one.

If THAT PARTICULAR viewpoint is "bad" to you (as it is to me) then what needs to change to promote YOUR political viewpoint on this highly political matter?

yes

I disagree with this completely.

It doesnt seem to me that people actually choose their beliefs at all.

Weighing evidence and finding the best conclusion is not the same as choosing that conclusion.

You have to choose the axioms under which your evidence will be weighed. In this way, it is highly likely that you will reach a different "best conclusion" than someone else. You have to choose which evidence you find to be suspect, and which you do not (and why). And, in the end, you choose whether or not to live by whatever conclusions you have come to, or whether to discount the entire process and come to the conclusion that you have no conclusion. Your beliefs (if you truly have any) follow from quite a few choices.

Maybe "choose your beliefs" isn't the best way to put it, but the point was that religion must be your own - your own beliefs - not something you are parrotting unthinkingly.

Consider the statement "I am an atheist, but not by choice - I don't believe in God." It seems clear that 'choice' and 'believe' mean distinctly different things.

In this case, we are talking simply about an absence of belief - the implicit atheist stance. This cannot imply that "choice" and "belief" are distinctly different. What you have instead shown is that "non-belief" and "non-choice" are the same.

An explicit atheist, on the other hand, isn't simply saying, "I lack a belief in God," but is instead saying, "I believe that there is no God." To reach this conclusion, the explicit atheist must go through a process much like the theist - and ends up with a belief.

Take as another example a person who believes that X should be outlawed, but votes not to outlaw X. The person has chosen to vote against his beliefs, but has not changed his beliefs by making this choice.

...which, yet again, does nothing to support your statement that the belief in question was a choice. This person has chosen to do something that is against his beliefs - that is certainly possible. But the choice involved here isn't a matter of belief - it is a matter of action. That same person could choose to reexamine his beliefs about X, either with new axioms or simply as a reevaluation. he might even come to the conclusion that X should not, in fact, be outlawed, effectively choosing another belief.

And yet,.. they have their beliefs.

Not necessarily, no. One cannot have beliefs if one has not thought about them.

Since no one can have ALL knowledge of a particular cult's (enculturated religion) "theology", all people of that cult have varying degrees of belief about that cult.

Or they follow it without really believing anything at all. I don't consider "yeah, whatever he said," to be a belief at all.

My contention is that one has no choice BUT to "think about" the world, as that is what being in the world means.

Being in the world doesn't mean that you actually have to give any thought to it. A person can simply react as they have been trained, with no thought given.

That is an inherent (unalienable) right, to me. You may feel differently.

What is? I didn't disagree with your "right".

To NOT interpret a stimulus is impossible.

You don't have to assign any particular interpretation to "red". "Red" doesn't have to be bad or good or any other number of things. It can just be "red". Any interpretation placed upon red comes from a source other than merely seeing red.

If you have eyes, and if you aren't color-blind, you DO see red, and you will put a meaning to it.

I don't. Red, quite often, is just "red."

This is an utterly involuntary CHOICE, which sounds like a contradiction, but isn't because it's not the ACT of choosing that is voluntary but the INTERPRETATION of the stimulus that is voluntary.

Make up your mind. Is it voluntary or not? A second ago, you told me that I will place an interpretation on something, without any voluntary action. Now you are saying that the interpretation is voluntary.

Meanwhile, "involuntary choice" absolutely is a contradiction. If something is involuntary, there is no choice involved - not on the part of the person, anyways.

The monkey's political viewpoint is that "the powers that trained me are to be followed and should be in power as they give me treats for doing as they've trained me".

That isn't a political viewpoint, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Your comment is like saying, "When you decide whether or not you like the blue color in the background of the poll, that's a political viewpoint." Well, no, it isn't. That is a viewpoint on a color, not on politics, and is thus not a political viewpoint.

My contention is that it's impossible to not have a political viewpoint, because a political viewpoint is simply another description of how you see the world.

You can only come to a political viewpoint if you actually think about politics. Otherwise, you have no viewpoint on the subject.

It is perfectly possible not to have an opinion on something.

Monkey-see-Monkey-do IS a political viewpoint, because it looks like one, it sounds like one, and politicians respond to it as if it were one.

So if I fed you shit flavored and texturized to taste like chili, I would actually be feeding you chili? Or would it be shit?

Monkey-see-monkey-do isn't a political viewpoint, as the person doing it has not thought about politics. It doesn't look or sound like a political viewpoint and politicians do not, in fact, respond to it like they would a political viewpoint. It looks and sounds like monkey-see-monkey-do and politicians know it means that they need not stick to any particular set of ideals - there are those who will vote for them no matter what they say and do. With actual political viewpoints, on the other hand, a politician has to weigh whether or not she will do something for or against a given viewpoint, and how that will affect the votes next time, etc, etc....

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are?

To a degree. What many people do not realise is the HUGE impact religion has on how you view the world, what you consider right and wrong etc. etc. Religion is much, much more than just believing in a supreme being. And many parts of the beliefs you were raised with will stay with you subconciously for the rest of your life - even if you change your main focus of belief to another system.

If that "brainwashing" is good or bad is another debate.

I know a few people who went looking for religion because of events in their life and just raided the 'Holy Texts' section of their local book-store and read them all to decide which religion to join.
No outside intervention (except god/gods/flying spaghetti monster of course)

You have to choose the axioms under which your evidence will be weighed. In this way, it is highly likely that you will reach a different "best conclusion" than someone else. You have to choose which evidence you find to be suspect, and which you do not (and why). And, in the end, you choose whether or not to live by whatever conclusions you have come to, or whether to discount the entire process and come to the conclusion that you have no conclusion. Your beliefs (if you truly have any) follow from quite a few choices.

Maybe "choose your beliefs" isn't the best way to put it, but the point was that religion must be your own - your own beliefs - not something you are parrotting unthinkingly.



In this case, we are talking simply about an absence of belief - the implicit atheist stance. This cannot imply that "choice" and "belief" are distinctly different. What you have instead shown is that "non-belief" and "non-choice" are the same.

An explicit atheist, on the other hand, isn't simply saying, "I lack a belief in God," but is instead saying, "I believe that there is no God." To reach this conclusion, the explicit atheist must go through a process much like the theist - and ends up with a belief.



...which, yet again, does nothing to support your statement that the belief in question was a choice. This person has chosen to do something that is against his beliefs - that is certainly possible. But the choice involved here isn't a matter of belief - it is a matter of action. That same person could choose to reexamine his beliefs about X, either with new axioms or simply as a reevaluation. he might even come to the conclusion that X should not, in fact, be outlawed, effectively choosing another belief.


I dont believe it is any more possible to choose axioms than it is to choose the beliefs they commit you to.

A person has the ability to draw hypothetical conclusions based on new axioms, but these do not have the motivating power of conclusions based on the axioms he actually uses.

"I dont believe in god, because I only belive things with good evidence for them. Assuming, though, that I believed things without good evidence, I would believe in god. All the same, I don't believe in god"

It seems as though beliefs motivate choices, not the other way around. It appears up in the air whether person A, in the absence of any factor extraneous to the issue, could vote against X if he believed X.

If he reconsidered the issue, and discovered that according to his axioms, he should change his mind, his choice would still be motivated by his beliefs, namely his belief in not X.

The process that a person goes through to come to a belief relies on axioms that he didnt choose. This is why a person has to be convinced; new axioms have to be built on some original axioms, even if those are as simple as modus ponens.

Dempub, Please come up with some examples of people choosing the axioms that determine what they believe.

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.

Well, you can only choose your religion if you have information on the available alternatives. On the other hand even without alternatives you should at one point be able to review your religion and question your faith and try to find out about the accuracy of your assumptions.
Of course that depends on your intelligence then.

I dont believe it is any more possible to choose axioms than it is to choose the beliefs they commit you to.

Then how, pray tell, are those axioms chosen, especially when there are multiple possible axioms? Are you suggesting that they are somehow imprinted genetically?

I know that in other areas of philosophy, there is no question about whether or not you choose your own axioms. Why would theology be different?

"I dont believe in god, because I only belive things with good evidence for them. Assuming, though, that I believed things without good evidence, I would believe in god. All the same, I don't believe in god"

And in this, there are quite a few choices. What types of things will you believe? How do you define "believe"? What constitutes "good evidence"? The answer for one person may be different from another. For some, it has to be empirical and repeatable. For others, personal experience might work. For some who think it has to be empirical and repeatable, a significant personal experience can change their minds.

You seem to be trying very hard to simplify human thought down into something much, much less complex than it actually is.

It seems as though beliefs motivate choices, not the other way around.

Such a statement implies, however, that beliefs cannot be changed. And yet, they can.

It appears up in the air whether person A, in the absence of any factor extraneous to the issue, could vote against X if he believed X.

Of course he could. One certainly has the ability to act contrary to one's beliefs in most cases.

However, the fact that the person, if he reexamined belief X, might instead come to belief Y, is equally certain. He might and might not, but the possibility is definitely there.

If he reconsidered the issue, and discovered that according to his axioms, he should change his mind, his choice would still be motivated by his beliefs, namely his belief in not X.

He doesn't have a belief in "not X" until he changes his mind - which was the choice in question. You've basically just stated that the result of the choice (the belief in "not X") caused the choice (the mind change). How can the result of something be the cause of that something?

Well, you can only choose your religion if you have information on the available alternatives. On the other hand even without alternatives you should at one point be able to review your religion and question your faith and try to find out about the accuracy of your assumptions.
Of course that depends on your intelligence then.

The first sentence is only true if religion is truly just a set of "available alternatives." The thing is, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of choosing between one "set" religion and another. You don't have to choose between Islam and Christianity and Hinduism as other people describe them. In fact, I would argue that doing so implies a faith in your religious leaders, not in any type of higher power. While interaction with others of different beliefs can certainly be helpful in an examination of your own beliefs, it is not absolutely necessary.

The first sentence is only true if religion is truly just a set of "available alternatives." The thing is, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of choosing between one "set" religion and another. You don't have to choose between Islam and Christianity and Hinduism as other people describe them. In fact, I would argue that doing so implies a faith in your religious leaders, not in any type of higher power. While interaction with others of different beliefs can certainly be helpful in an examination of your own beliefs, it is not absolutely necessary.

What?

I think a person definitely can choose his religious beliefs.

I was raised in a home where they are basically extremely amoral agnostics who had their children baptised and ocassionally went to religious services because they thought it would make them look better somehow. (Although they seem to have stopped, I guess it's no longer cool to do or something).

I remember the first thing I was thinking was the possibility of a deity that created everything. I can remember sitting in my basement at three and four years old and thinking so hard about it, trying to figure out the nature of the universe, and also to imagine if it could really go on forever.

So I was an atheist from perhaps the age of six to seventeen. Then because of a lot of things it became clear there was a God. I looked around so many religions and was looking at Islam, but some of the beliefs just didn't seem quite right to me. Then I found Catholicism/Eastern Orthodox Churches and I realized that all my preconceptions about Christianity were from 'Christians' who didn't know the first thing about Christianity or Protestant beliefs.
So I feel that I 'chose' my religion. I mean, I know what really happened what that it was revealed to me by my deity, but for practical conversation I chose it. In the end I went with the Roman Catholic church since I was already baptized into that rite as a child. A friend is trying to convince me to swtich to the Melkite rite but I don't see how it matters. Same beliefs, different small tradition.

I just think you're drawn to things. Your predisposition will determine whether you believe it or not.

What?

Boiled down into two sentences: You don't need "available alternatives." You don't need someone else to give you your religion.

Boiled down into two sentences: You don't need "available alternatives." You don't need someone else to give you your religion.

By the nature of religions whose beliefs are passed down through people a person does. Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Traditional Christianity especially since it relies on apostolic succession.

Of course you can choose your religion.

We have someone on NS that has already changed from one relgion to another TWICE just this year.

You can be whatever you want or nothing at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
And yet,.. they have their beliefs.


Not necessarily, no. One cannot have beliefs if one has not thought about them.

Then it's not their belief is it?


Quote:
Since no one can have ALL knowledge of a particular cult's (enculturated religion) "theology", all people of that cult have varying degrees of belief about that cult.


Or they follow it without really believing anything at all. I don't consider "yeah, whatever he said," to be a belief at all.

That's fine. Consider what you wish.


Quote:
My contention is that one has no choice BUT to "think about" the world, as that is what being in the world means.


Being in the world doesn't mean that you actually have to give any thought to it. A person can simply react as they have been trained, with no thought given.

You show yourself hide-bound to "thinking about it", whatever that means to you.


Quote:
That is an inherent (unalienable) right, to me. You may feel differently.


What is? I didn't disagree with your "right".

?


Quote:
To NOT interpret a stimulus is impossible.


You don't have to assign any particular interpretation to "red". "Red" doesn't have to be bad or good or any other number of things. It can just be "red". Any interpretation placed upon red comes from a source other than merely seeing red.

It's the "Gestalt" of the situation.

But the redness of somethng WILL evoke some "red-oriented" response in you.


Quote:
If you have eyes, and if you aren't color-blind, you DO see red, and you will put a meaning to it.


I don't. Red, quite often, is just "red."

Good for you! May your world be richer!


Quote:
This is an utterly involuntary CHOICE, which sounds like a contradiction, but isn't because it's not the ACT of choosing that is voluntary but the INTERPRETATION of the stimulus that is voluntary.


Make up your mind. Is it voluntary or not? A second ago, you told me that I will place an interpretation on something, without any voluntary action. Now you are saying that the interpretation is voluntary.

Meanwhile, "involuntary choice" absolutely is a contradiction. If something is involuntary, there is no choice involved - not on the part of the person, anyways.

You have no choice to see, but you have a choice in interpretation.


Quote:
The monkey's political viewpoint is that "the powers that trained me are to be followed and should be in power as they give me treats for doing as they've trained me".


That isn't a political viewpoint, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Your comment is like saying, "When you decide whether or not you like the blue color in the background of the poll, that's a political viewpoint." Well, no, it isn't. That is a viewpoint on a color, not on politics, and is thus not a political viewpoint.

Your CHOICES of behavior, based on your beliefs ARE your politcs.

If blue ballots make you ACT in a particular way in society (in the world) then that is a part of your politics.


Quote:
My contention is that it's impossible to not have a political viewpoint, because a political viewpoint is simply another description of how you see the world.


You can only come to a political viewpoint if you actually think about politics. Otherwise, you have no viewpoint on the subject.

It is perfectly possible not to have an opinion on something.

Your view is not mine.

Why? Because I see politics as EVERY ACTION you take in the world, and apparently you don't.

Those who are lazy, unlike yourself, think about the "whys" of politics, but that doesn't make "monkey-see" politics any less a force in politics.

To acknowledge that beliefs, even if NOT thought out, ARE THE BASIS of political action is to have a useful tool.


Quote:
Monkey-see-Monkey-do IS a political viewpoint, because it looks like one, it sounds like one, and politicians respond to it as if it were one.


So if I fed you shit flavored and texturized to taste like chili, I would actually be feeding you chili? Or would it be shit?

It would be shit.

But, if it were done cleverly enough, I would believe it was chilli, and would ask for more if I was hungry.

Beliefs are acted upon NOT based on their ACTUAL VALUE as truth, but on how strongly the believer holds them to be true.


Monkey-see-monkey-do isn't a political viewpoint, as the person doing it has not thought about politics. It doesn't look or sound like a political viewpoint and politicians do not, in fact, respond to it like they would a political viewpoint.

A vote cast by a "monkey" (legality aside) hold precisely the same political value as one cast by you.

The value of politics is in getting things done, and if the "currency" of politics is the raw number of votes, it doens't matter at all from whom those votes came, or what the voters politics were.

Two monkeys trumps you.


It looks and sounds like monkey-see-monkey-do and politicians know it means that they need not stick to any particular set of ideals - there are those who will vote for them no matter what they say and do. With actual political viewpoints, on the other hand, a politician has to weigh whether or not she will do something for or against a given viewpoint, and how that will affect the votes next time, etc, etc....

That's all nice for making the politician responsible to responsible voters, but what happens when the voters "political viewpoint" is that of the monkey?

Having a political viewpoint that you've thought about is great, but every voter HAS a political viewpoint whether they've thought about it or not.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and pudding (votes) from monkeys taste just as good to politicians as pudding (votes) from thinking people.

Boiled down into two sentences: You don't need "available alternatives." You don't need someone else to give you your religion.

Hear Hear..!! :)

Boiled down into two sentences: You don't need "available alternatives." You don't need someone else to give you your religion.

But, how will I know what to believe without someone to explain what those hard-to-read bibles (or similar books) say?

I chose sorta between my dad's Catholicism and my mom's Unitarian Universalism, choosing the latter. However, the details of my beliefs differ from my mom's.

Then it's not their belief is it?

Exactly my point.

You have no choice to see, but you have a choice in interpretation.

Precisely! And religion, beliefs, political viewpoints, etc. - these things are all interpretations, not the actual stimuli. We cannot actively control every stimulus that will affect our religion, beliefs, political viewpoints, etc., but our interpretations of those stimuli are our choice.

It would be shit.

Precisely.

A vote cast by a "monkey" (legality aside) hold precisely the same political value as one cast by you.

Not really. Politicians are well aware that some people are going to vote "red" or "blue" no matter what the party does. They do not have to modify their actions at all to please those people. However, in order to get elected, a politician generally needs more than just the "monkeys." He needs not consider the viewpoints of the "monkeys", because the "monkeys" are just going to push red or blue. He does, however, have to consider the viewpoints of those who have them - if he wants their vote. As such, a person who actually has political viewpoints on which they vote will affect politics much more than a "monkey".

I think religion is fun! I love to learn new things about different cultures (though always non-existing cultures... I don't know exactly why) I still remember looking up all the information about the dieties of Tamriel when I was playing Morrowind or I always liked the Planescape dieties and planar divinity (though I always love the arcane side of magic). The only thing I never understood about religion is, paradoxically, how can anybody believe in that :p Sure it's pretty interesting, but to believe in such things? I understand if one starts to believe when he's through hardships and just needs some hope (false hope, but you can trick your own mind into believing it's true... at least for a short time) but other than that?
Maybe those people just need constant hope? :confused: Doesn't that get old and the feeling of hope deteriorates? Maybe someone could explain me why exactly believers believe? :) Please

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.

I think it's a combination of both. What I went through is, I've been raised "culturally" Christian, meaning that my family isn't religious. However soon after my 14th birthday I started questioning my religion (I know some of you have seen me when I was still Christian), and I was kind of scared to leave behind my religion because I'd gone to church a few too many times and didn't want to face Hell. However I made the move and became an agnostic theist, and this is where I am today :).

I think it depends on the environment a kid grows up in. A kid in a devout Christian community could stay Christian provided s/he stayed off NSG's religion threads, but the same kid could turn agnostic/atheist/something else if s/he felt that it wasn't right.

To each his/her own, I guess.

I think religion is fun! I love to learn new things about different cultures (though always non-existing cultures... I don't know exactly why) I still remember looking up all the information about the dieties of Tamriel when I was playing Morrowind or I always liked the Planescape dieties and planar divinity (though I always love the arcane side of magic). The only thing I never understood about religion is, paradoxically, how can anybody believe in that :p Sure it's pretty interesting, but to believe in such things? I understand if one starts to believe when he's through hardships and just needs some hope (false hope, but you can trick your own mind into believing it's true... at least for a short time) but other than that?
Maybe those people just need constant hope? :confused: Doesn't that get old and the feeling of hope deteriorates? Maybe someone could explain me why exactly believers believe? :) Please

Do you really expect a good answer to that question when you start out by belittling the beliefs you want explained?

Boiled down into two sentences: You don't need "available alternatives." You don't need someone else to give you your religion.

then how exactly does one wind up believing in one over another?

Anyone can choose which religion they follow, but their are restraints that may sway your choice such as
1) Culture: If everyone around you is Jewish (including your family) and you stay in that culture, you'll probably remain Jewish.
2) Laws: If Catholicism is outlawed, you will be more willing to convert to Anglicanism, or whatever else there is. This isn't to say everyone will switch immediately, people are not as selfish as that. Many will die for their faith. But you're certainly LESS likely, especially if yoy convert (that is, you go out of your way to choose the illegal religion).
3) Present beliefs: This changes more than the top two, but in terms of probability, atheists will probably not become Hindus and Muslims will not become polytheistic. Like I said, this can change a lot, but the religion you find is more likely than not to be similar to your current one.
4) Personal experiences: Slightly different from beliefs. If you go to Catholic school and are beaten everyday by mean, scary nuns, when choosing a religion you might avoid Catholicism. That does not mean you don't believe what Christians, or even Catholics believe, but unpleasant memories will put this religion down on your list.
5) Conversion experiences: Laugh if you will, many people have had visions or some other experience connected to a deity. That is not the same as saying the vision was true, but it certainly was for them. This is a major factor in choosing religion.
6) Personal gain: Unfortunately, people have joined a religion only so they can profit from it. This actually does not fit perfectly on the list, because you're not really "converting", you're just paying lip-service to get ahead.

One cannot have beliefs if one has not thought about them.

why the hell not? there is nothing in the nature of 'belief' that requires anything more than some person cognitively holding some proposition to be true. they don't have to have examined the proposition in any way at all beyond mere assent to it.

then how exactly does one wind up believing in one over another?

Once again, we get back to this idea that one's religion has to be packaged together by someone else.

My answer to this is, one doesn't believe in "one over another." One figures it out for oneself. Every individual religion is going to be different, just as every individual philosophy will.

Do you really expect a good answer to that question when you start out by belittling the beliefs you want explained?

I am sorry, I didn't mean to belittle anything. I just stated that religion is interesting to study. It's really impressive what the human mind is capable of creating. I was just wondering what makes people into believing it. Every religion was always for me like reading a great book, but jumping from page to page and slowly connecting all the pieces into one great image, adjusting it with any contradictory fact to incorporate it. It's intellectually wonderful but nothing more. I'd like to know what it is the other people see that make it more.

Quote:
A vote cast by a "monkey" (legality aside) hold precisely the same political value as one cast by you.

Not really. Politicians are well aware that some people are going to vote "red" or "blue" no matter what the party does. They do not have to modify their actions at all to please those people. However, in order to get elected, a politician generally needs more than just the "monkeys." He needs not consider the viewpoints of the "monkeys", because the "monkeys" are just going to push red or blue. He does, however, have to consider the viewpoints of those who have them - if he wants their vote. As such, a person who actually has political viewpoints on which they vote will affect politics much more than a "monkey".

The power of someone with a thought out political viewpoint is that they can muster those with similar viewpoints and aggregate a "block" vote.

BUT, if there are more monkeys voting than "thinkers" voting, the thinkers will be trumped by the monkeys.

I'm glad that we agree on so many of the other things, though.

See,.. actually,.. we don't disagree on too much at all, do we? :)

Once again, we get back to this idea that one's religion has to be packaged together by someone else.

not 'has to be'
empirically is, in the vast majority of cases

or do you have something else that would explain the obvious historical and geographical facts about religious adherence?

why the hell not? there is nothing in the nature of 'belief' that requires anything more than some person cognitively holding some proposition to be true. they don't have to have examined the proposition in any way at all beyond mere assent to it.

How do you assent to something without examining it first? If you haven't examined it, your "assent" isn't really assent, it's mere lipservice.

One cannot "cognitively hold some proposition to be true" without examining it. They may say that they hold it to be true, but the least amount of prodding will reveal their statement to be untrue.


not 'has to be'
empirically is, in the vast majority of cases

Not really. Even those who claim to be members of "prepackaged religions" when you start talking to them, don't believe or hold to all the tenets of said religion. This is one of the issues that those who conduct religiosity studies have run into. Just asking someone, "What religion are you?" tells you next-to-nothing about their actual religious beliefs. You have to talk, in depth, to each individual if you actually want an accurate picture.

or do you have something else that would explain the obvious historical and geographical facts about religious adherence?

People who want power will do what they can to get it and "the mob" will often follow them, regardless of personal belief - often because they have yet to truly form personal belief and are told that doing so is wrong.

How do you assent to something without examining it first? If you haven't examined it, your "assent" isn't really assent, it's mere lipservice.

assent only means that you say that you accept it as true. if some person is presented with a proposition Q, and they immediately say, "i believe Q", then that person has assented to it with out examining it.

it's really quite easy.

One cannot "cognitively hold some proposition to be true" without examining it. They may say that they hold it to be true, but the least amount of prodding will reveal their statement to be untrue.

prodding = getting them to examine their beliefs, yeah?

people find out that they are holding false beliefs or beliefs that conflict with other beliefs they are holding all the time. but this is only possible if they didn't examine them in the first place.

Not really. Even those who claim to be members of "prepackaged religions" when you start talking to them, don't believe or hold to all the tenets of said religion. This is one of the issues that those who conduct religiosity studies have run into. Just asking someone, "What religion are you?" tells you next-to-nothing about their actual religious beliefs. You have to talk, in depth, to each individual if you actually want an accurate picture.

that is an issue of transmission and enforcement of orthodoxy. it doesn't change the fact that people mainly wind up holding the general package of the particular religion of their culture. religions are not constantly created from scratch, nor is their distribution random.

I think religion is fun! I love to learn new things about different cultures (though always non-existing cultures... I don't know exactly why) I still remember looking up all the information about the dieties of Tamriel when I was playing Morrowind or I always liked the Planescape dieties and planar divinity (though I always love the arcane side of magic).

How the religion of a people clothes their society is a GREAT, and entertaining, way to get into the mind of a member of that society.


The only thing I never understood about religion is, paradoxically, how can anybody believe in that :p Sure it's pretty interesting, but to believe in such things?

We are spoiled in this (western) culture, physically and emotionally.

We "have no need" for such silliness because we've replaced hope with a striving determination to MAKE our travails better.

That is a great thing.

But it also affords us the opportunity to discover why that "urge to believe in god" is there.

Some simply deny that there is an urge. They will actively argue against the necessity of god, and "prove", rationally, that such a thing is very VERY silly.

Others take the opportunity to find the seed of truth in the need that they see for a god, and try to purify the concept of what god really is.

In other words, I do not believe in the big bearded guy in the sky who likes to screw around with things.

I believe in the simple god that is the source of all comfort. (Heavy accent on the "ALL".)


I understand if one starts to believe when he's through hardships and just needs some hope (false hope, but you can trick your own mind into believing it's true... at least for a short time) but other than that?

Each person has to discover for themselves WHY god should exist for them.

A good way to do this is to ask yourself, "IF god DID exist, why would he NEED to exist?"

The answer to this is utterly personal, and starts the journey of discovery.


Maybe those people just need constant hope? :confused: Doesn't that get old and the feeling of hope deteriorates? Maybe someone could explain me why exactly believers believe? :) Please

Believers believe because belief is necessary.

It REQUIRES belief to not be paralysed with fear that in the next second your existence will end due to some unforseeable disaster.

The only relief to this anxiety is to simply believe that you will continue. This is an act of faith,.. in fact THE act of faith.

This "belief", that we will continue, is clothed by the mind as the mind can do, which is always some form of "comfort-giver", who allows us to concentrate on the details of life and give "him" the BIG worry about our mortality.

Any "god" that is not this comfort-giver is a personification of our existential anxiety, and is thus a "false god".

That's why there are a plethora of "false gods" (demons, polytheism in general, etc) and only one "true god".

The "true god" (god) is simply to simple for most people to accept as meaningful.

He's not NEARLY fun enough..! :)

And we all know how people CRAVE fun.

I think this is somewhat of a tricky topic. Looking back, I've always been an Agnostic even though I never knew it until I was around 12 or 13. For some people it could be quite the opposite.

Maybe religion chooses you.

All the gods are up there and trading "human cards". Occasionally, they run to the store and buy booster packs to try to find rares for trade. :)
Damn you, LG, damn you, you http://planetsmilies.net/party-smiley-7481.gif!!! :D

That was the first thought to cross my mind on reading the thread title! :rolleyes: And there you already are. :(

I believe you "choose" that religion which appeals most to you, hence, yes, religion chooses you somehow... :p
Otherwise, I don't believe you'd stick to it, truely.

Only the agnostic is truly free . . .


of everything but doubt.

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.
My view on it goes something like this: Your environment growing up plays a big role in picking which religion you are. Generally, if you're raised, say, Lutheran, there's a far bigger chance that you'll grow up to be Lutheran than convert to an obscure Amazonian variety of animism later in your adult life.

I would say that this is mainly because if you grow up around a lot of Religion A (it could be anything), your experiences of the divine will most likely be within the context of that religion, thereby forming an association for you between God(s) and Religion A.

I like the idea of religion but I could never 'choose' one. My logic tells me such things are foolish at best and deadly at worst.

All these religion threads got me thinking about how people "choose" their religion. I think most people choose it through peer pressure. I grew up in a Christian home, so to a large extent I consider myself a Christian. If I had been raised in Saudi Arabia, it seems likely that I'd be a Muslim.

Even the people who convert to another religion, often do so because someone they trust talks them into it.

Do we really have "free will" to choose what religion we are? For myself, I couldn't just decide out of the blue to be a Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, though FSM-ism might be possible.

It depends. Parents tend to decide the religion for their children. Some grow up and stop or change to something else.

My wife and I decided to let our daughter make that choice.

A person the decides to join a Religion will probably have greator faith then one that had it decided for them.

Some grow up and stop or change to something else.

though really only if they live in a culture that tolerates that. and even then, most won't.

Choices aren't made in a vacuum. Everything you've learned and experienced will inform any choice you make. So, in a sense, you can't choose your religion with complete independence, you either follow what you've known all your life or you rebel, but it's still a response to your conditioning.

I like the idea of religion but I could never 'choose' one. My logic tells me such things are foolish at best and deadly at worst.

What do you "like" about the idea of religion?

How can your "logic" be used to construct the circumstances by which you can "get" what you'd like from religion, that wouldn't be "foolish" or "deadly"..?