Ignoring the mind to make major life decisions.

[Realworldjack]

I think we can all agree there are a number of members on this site who were once Christian. Some of these folks will even admit to truly embracing the faith, with all their heart, and soul.

Moreover, these folks seem to insist, that they did not use the mind, (or as one member here insisted) "they did not use it properly" to make such a major life decision, and they would now like us to believe, that it was the use of the mind which caused them to reject the faith.

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

[Mithrae]

I think we can all agree there are a number of members on this site who were once Christian. Some of these folks will even admit to truly embracing the faith, with all their heart, and soul.

Moreover, these folks seem to insist, that they did not use the mind, (or as one member here insisted) "they did not use it properly" to make such a major life decision, and they would now like us to believe, that it was the use of the mind which caused them to reject the faith.

For the record I certainly used my mind as a Christian - I'd like to think reasonably well, for a lad of that age - and it was not exclusively my mind which caused me to reject Christianity.

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

I think we all have a tendency to over-estimate our own agency and choice in the paths we take through life, both religious and non-religious people in both spiritual and secular matters. And that's even assuming we have some 'free will' at all: Ironically it is more commonly non-religious folk who doubt or deny that we do, which makes the supposition that religious belief is a poor choice all the more strange.

But even assuming some free will, we're still heavily influenced by our genetics, hormones, family and friends, education, culture, society and circumstances. If at the age of 20 I'd had friends more interested in staying home watching movies than going clubbing and getting laid, I might have remained a Christian for a few more years. Or if I'd decided to keep chatting with an interesting pair I met a few months before my loss of faith - on the day I decided (briefly) to give up all my worldly possessions and just 'happened' to meet for the first and so far only time in my life some folk from a tiny group doing the same thing - perhaps I'd still be a Christian today.

At the time of course I told myself that my loss of faith was an intellectual conclusion based on the impossibility of reconciling God's goodness with the genocide and slavery in the Old Testament: But it's not as if I had only just then at age 20 discovered those passages. Heck, I'd even largely dispensed with the dogma of biblical inerrancy a year or two earlier so there was nothing really compelling me to view those passages as God's will at all. So it seems pretty certain that that it was at least as much other factors - the draw of other 'worldly' interests, and even moreso dissatisfaction with the dry dead world of churchianity - as the intellectual challenges which drove my decision.

However it was a lot more comfortable to place all the fault on Christianity and imagine myself on the high ground of intellectual objectivity, rather than acknowledge that I was down here in the mud and confusion and conflicting interests of real life, just as the biblical authors and for that matter everyone else professing answers and wisdom are. Granted, plenty of folk both religious and non-religious do openly say that they're down here in the mud... but then we still go on to act if our mud and confusion is somehow cleaner and less confused than those poor misguided Christians/atheists/whoever we disagree with.

[marco]

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

Seen through the eyes of realism, the decision is not, as you say, a major life decision. In 1 Corinthians Paul says: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." There may have been some element of this in the decision to discard a faith which was loud with sometimes nice but silly hymns: "Let us with a gladsome mind, praise the Lord for he is kind" or "Hobgoblin nor foul fiend can daunt his spirit."

As a boy I believed and I don't regret that belief; it was satisfying and offered meaning. As a teenager I was attracted to questions of existence and in particular to the existence of God. Old rituals, old incantations, genuflections and pretend piety were things to be discarded. In the history of mankind there are better teachers than Paul; better genealogies than those that traced Jesus through David back to Neanderthal man, with nomenclature provided.

I am still fascinated by those people who are highly intelligent and embrace Christianity. I have no doubt that Muhammad has his genius supporters too. Reason tells me that Christianity is not for me. It's not a decision that has changed my life in any remarkable way: nature is still nature, death still a hazard ahead.

[Jagella]

It's not a decision that has changed my life in any remarkable way: nature is still nature, death still a hazard ahead.

Many apologists greatly exaggerate the impact religious beliefs might have on people. As far as I can tell, Christians live lives much like unbelievers do. They don't seem any better off or happier than atheists are. Perhaps because of this lack of difference that religion might make on a person's life, some people have coined the term "apatheist" to describe people who just don't care if the claims of religion are true or not. To them Christianity is just a lot of nonsense that's not relevant to what they need to do to get by. Heck, I've met some atheists who don't even know what an atheist is!

I'm not an apatheist. Religion does have a big impact on our lives and often in a harmful way. I care enough to speak put against that harm.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 2 by Mithrae]

But even assuming some free will, we're still heavily influenced by our genetics, hormones, family and friends, education, culture, society and circumstances.

So then, you seem to be answering the "question for debate" with the answer that, "none of us may have control over what we believe."

But you see, I am referring to folks who claim to have been very active Christians, for a good number of years. They now claim to have rejected Christianity, and their claim now is, they did not use the mind to make the decision to become a Christian, and it was the use of the mind which caused them to reject Christianity.

However, as I have demonstrated with two different members of this site, while the mind has changed, the decision making seems to be no different than the way in which many Christians decide to become Christians.

In fact, this was so plain, and evident, that another member came in, in an attempt to defend, but half way through scolding me, he had to admit, that I was correct, and the only option he had was to attempt to make the argument that this could have been intentional, in an attempt to demonstrate to Christians just how sloppy their thinking is.

However, the author of this post, never came in to tell us his intent, and had every opportunity to do so, and then all of a sudden we have another member who comes in, who was once a believer, who admits to not using the mind, and gives the same exact evidence of the thinking of Christians, who do not use the mind.

Here is a link to my first response to this, and the rest of the conversations are on this thread if you are interested.

ref:Re: Loss of Faith--What's there to lose?

My whole point is, simply because one can change the mind, would not in any way guarantee, they have the ability to change the way they think, and it would also not be a guarantee nor evidence that what they once believed would be in error.

At the time of course I told myself that my loss of faith was an intellectual conclusion based on the impossibility of reconciling God's goodness with the genocide and slavery in the Old Testament: But it's not as if I had only just then at age 20 discovered those passages. Heck, I'd even largely dispensed with the dogma of biblical inerrancy a year or two earlier so there was nothing really compelling me to view those passages as God's will at all. So it seems pretty certain that that it was at least as much other factors - the draw of other 'worldly' interests, and even moreso dissatisfaction with the dry dead world of churchianity - as the intellectual challenges which drove my decision.

And you see, I have no problem with this in the least, because you seem to be saying, you simply lost interest. My problem comes in with those who claim they investigated nothing whatsoever to make the decision to become a Christian, and they now want us to believe that it was the use of the mind that caused them to reject the faith, and that there would be no reasons to believe as they once did.

However, as has been demonstrated their thinking shows no change in the least, which seems to mean, only the mind has changed.

Granted, plenty of folk both religious and non-religious do openly say that they're down here in the mud... but then we still go on to act if our mud and confusion is somehow cleaner and less confused than those poor misguided Christians/atheists/whoever we disagree with.

I do not know what any of this would have to do with the OP, but I can tell you that I do not have an attitude of, "those poor misguided folk", because I understand clearly that I could be the one who is, "misguided."

Again, my problem is with those who were once totally, and completely convinced about something, only to now have changed the mind, and go on to insist they must, and have to be correct, and there would be no reason to believe as they once did.

[PinSeeker]

QUESTION FOR DEBATE: If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged? Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

Don't we all think things (possibly with what we think is certainty at that point) and then come to change our minds at some later point? Yes, we all do that with all kinds of decisions, major and life-changing or not. It's really more a matter of the heart, or the absolute center of the person... who you are at the core of your being. Now, with your mind, you can, in a manner of speaking, fool yourself (unintentionally of course) for a time as to what your heart really is concerning a matter, right? But you're heart is still what it is, whether you understand it correctly or not.

Okay so this works at least three ways --

1. If you decide against something with your mind, you may realize at a later point that at the core of your being, you were mistaken in deciding what you decided... and thus change your mind to what it once was.

2. If you decide for something (again, with your mind), you may realize at a later point that at the core of your being, you were never truly there at all... and thus change your mind and reject what you once decided for.

3. You may know what your heart is concerning a matter, but for at least one of many reasons decide to go against your heart for a time.

In summary, one is who/what one is. In any case, your real self will sooner or later prevail. Once cannot -- for long, anyway -- be untrue to oneself. One cannot run, either unintentionally or intentionally, from himself/herself -- speaking from a Biblical standpoint, who God made him/her to be -- for very long. Because of that, we are all (or should be, anyway) examining ourselves all the time. Time and truth are on the same side.

And concerning Christianity specifically, this is exactly what John (and thus God) is saying in his first epistle:

• "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Realworldjack]

Some people's thinking matures as they grow older.

It's not surprising that some will leave childish beliefs behind in the process.

[William]

There are many folk who identify as being 'Christian' who also proclaim that 'the mind' is not a good thing to be engaging with in relation to faith-based beliefs which have become nonnegotiable. This nonnegotiability stems from the idea that thinking logically about what one puts their faith in, is dangerous to that very faith and thus should be avoided.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Realworldjack]

If one can make such a major life decision without the use of the mind, or without "using it properly", would a change of mind be any sort of guarantee, that the mind is now engaged?

Your question seems to me, at least, to require one to have mind-reading powers. How can I guarantee to you that my mind is now engaged, if all I say to you is that I've changed my mind, even supposing it is?

Or, is it possible to claim to have changed the mind, without the mind actually being engaged?

Yes, it's possible to say the words...? Did you mean to ask something else?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by Realworldjack]

In fact, this was so plain, and evident, that another member came in, in an attempt to defend, but half way through scolding me, he had to admit, that I was correct, and the only option he had was to attempt to make the argument that this could have been intentional, in an attempt to demonstrate to Christians just how sloppy their thinking is.

Nope, not what I meant at all. I said something on the order of "to show he's able to speak their language", without me putting a negative connotation on it. I may be misremembering but didn't I say something about not immediately putting to these "mindless" Christians (I only use that word here in context of the OP, not as a pejorative) a logical thesis, given the unfamiliarity these Christians will have with thinking like that?

My whole point is, simply because one can change the mind, would not in any way guarantee, they have the ability to change the way they think, and it would also not be a guarantee nor evidence that what they once believed would be in error.

Okay...so let's look at Hypothetical Christian Jim. Jim was, for the first twenty years of his life, a fundamentalist Christian. In that he believed and taught a literal reading of the Bible. His mode of thinking is "If it's in the Bible, it's true, no ifs, ands or buts".
You lose contact with Jim for a few years. You eventually meet up with him again, only to find he's now dropped the religion. He now doesn't have a religion, he says that what he once believed in is now more likely false, he says he was greatly mistaken before.
Would you describe him as still having the same way of thinking?