Do Atheists have a choice in not believing in God?

[harvey1]

It seems that many atheists reason along these lines:

1) My mind is entirely a physical entity
2) This entity reduces down to quarks and leptons
3) Quarks and leptons do not allow free will
4) Hence, I have no free will
5) I am an atheist
6) Hence, I have no free will to be other than an atheist
7) Thus, I must interpret the evidence of the world as an atheist
8) Therefore, I can never be anything but an atheist unless the quarks and leptons configure differently in my brain in which I have no control over

This seems like fallacious reasoning to me. So, I'd like to ask, do atheists have free will to be theists, or are they chained to whatever the quarks and leptons do since they are not accessible objects?

[QED]

I knew you were crouched down in the weeds waiting to make your plunge to the kill! In any case, I acknowledge that religion has a great deal of ridiculous elements. I would have always acknowledged this to be so.

So why not display a bit more sympathy for those of us who rail against the many highly visible absurdities?

Well, the good news is that you'll know that I'm right in the end.

Yes, yes, and you'll be blissfully unaware that I've been right when it's your turn.

[harvey1]

So why not display a bit more sympathy for those of us who rail against the many highly visible absurdities?

I would if I thought that many of the people do so honestly and not as if they are in opposition to the very concept of God. For example, if I thought the concept of God was as silly as ETIs communicating to a select few people to write a sci fi novel that looks conspicuously like it was written with people living shortly after the theory of special relativity was established (without having any knowledge of later physics), then I wouldn't be hostile to the notion. For one, I wouldn't even be on a forum discussing it with those people (i.e., beyond a few comments) since I'd assume they have issues which go deeper than reason alone could address. If their argument did make sense, then I would continue to discuss issues with them and I would acknowledge that it made sense (and I would then become an agnostic to their beliefs). I would also be a lot more open-minded to their view if I realized that there's either a self-consistency to the universe (which means these folks are right), or there's many other worlds out there. I would figure that this alone means they are justified in believing something based on so little knowledge of which the atheist possibility I favor could turn out to be wrong. For example, if someone said that they believed a coin will turn up heads, I wouldn't look upon their belief as irrational since the coin may really turn up heads. I think anyone who out of hand thinks heads is unlikely ought to give pretty good reasons why that is so. If they cannot, then they ought to at least be agnostic about the possibility.

Well, the good news is that you'll know that I'm right in the end.

Yes, yes, and you'll be blissfully unaware that I've been right when it's your turn.

That's a wager that only I can collect on. I think most decision theorists would suggest that I place a bet on this...

[QED]

That's a wager that only I can collect on. I think most decision theorists would suggest that I place a bet on this...

Shame on you for being so materialistic then.

I wonder how all this relates to optimism and pessimism? I don't know about you but I tend to expect the worst in things because I hate being faced with unexpected adversities. So I figure that by anticipating an unfavorable outcome to developing situations I don't get let down, but instead receive a pleasant surprise if all turns out well. I'm starting to think that a fundamental principle like this might go along way to explain the starkly different interpretations we have of the same world.

I never could figure how hope got to be classed as a virtue

[Rob]

[T]ry to put yourself in my shoes. Someone is telling me that ETIs are communicating to human beings, and so they decide to transmit a very long, long, long message that only a few people have actually read--and they sent it apparently because they think a general message will cause panic in the streets.

I thought I did put myself in your shoes Harvey. Perhaps you did not read my words very closely, but I think I agreed with your reaction and reservations, and was it not Dave who is "telling [you] that ETIs are communicating to human beings"? I have tried to always use the word "purported" to accurately represent the internal claims of the Urantia Book without implying that anyone should accept them uncritically. What more would you ask Harvey?

I'm sorry, but that's a bizarre belief to me, and it just doesn't make any sense to not prejudge it given the extreme nature of irrationality to it.

No need to apologize to me Harvey, that was the exact thought that went through my mind when I first picked the book up: "Bizarre!" When I first started reading the Bible there were some bizarre claims therein too, but it did not stop me from reading it and utilizing other sources of knowledge (science, archeology, philosophy, comparative religion, etc) to evaluate its claims and gain not only understanding (i.e., I don't take it literally) but to appreciate its more elevated moral and spiritual content.

I suppose to many secularists it is in no way worse than a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, but personally I don't think so. A fundamentalist is explaining episodes that happened closer to the infancy of civilization, and therefore isn't making any claims that God or angels are actually talking to them now or even as recent as a few decades ago. I suppose adding ETIs into the mix really clinches it for me.

It seems Harvey you are for some reason either unable or unwilling to intellectually differentiate Dave's "presentation" of his "beliefs about" the Urantia Book, which is what you are reacting to, since you have not read the book, and are then projecting this experience with Dave onto anyone associated with the book. Is this really rational and reasonable Harvey? I certainly sympathize with your reaction to Dave's announcements, but you appear to be ignoring my questions above. Why is that? Are you able to examine the content of the religious texts of the world without having to accept all internal claims?

Now, I am interested in known Harvey, given your philosophical definition of God above, what your response to the following questions would be: “What form of communication (if any) does God in your view engage in with us humans? By what means (if it occurs at all) does this communication take place? And given the fact a photon is a energy-particle, are there other forms of information transfer in the universe?

You see I don't believe that God communicates physically at all.

Where did I say above Harvey God communicates "physically"? I didn't, you are misinterpreting my words and reading into them Dave's communications with you. My questions have not one iota to do with Dave's ETI claims about the book.

Nor do I think that God exists in space either. I think that God transcends space and time while also being omnipresent with respect to space and time.

I would agree; this is a philosophically reasonable assertion.

As an analogy think of the fibonacci sequence seen in sunflowers. The fibonacci sequence structure doesn't communicate to the sunflower the structure that the sunflower should follow, there's a "just is" nature that the fibonacci sequence structure represents which the sunflower exploits for its own benefit. Similarly, our interaction with God is based on a "just is" nature that we naturally follow because we happen to fall into certain state space relations with respect to God's mind and will.

So are you saying that God predetermines our "state space" and we "just .. happen to fall into" it? I can somewhat conceptualize this with regards to the fact I didn't not choose my parents, but this then raises further questions regarding "free will" and our ability as conscious, self-reflective beings to make "choices" and thereby, relatively speaking, determine outcomes and paths. Now I know that some argue this is all just "apparent," a sort of illusion, but is this what you too are arguing?

You refer above to "God's mind and will." Do you philosophically believe that we, as self-conscious beings have or are able to utilize "mind and will?" Or are we unable to contribute anything (in terms of free will choice) to the "state space" we happen to find ourselves within?

It [personality] plays a role like the sunflower's structure plays a role. When the sunflower evolved it hit upon a certain structure that exploited certain design efficiencies, and that's how I think of human personalities. If we are giving, loving, joyful, and forgiving type people (i.e., expressing the fruit of the Spirit), then we quite naturally hit upon a very important divine structure that is ultimately part of God's will for the universe.

So "personality" is an evolved "pattern"? It sounds like you are more in agreement with QED than you like to admit It is similar to the Buddhist idea of no-self on some levels, perhaps. Do you think there is any self-identity beyond the physical life?

What do you mean by "quite naturally hit upon"? Is this a deterministic "hit upon," or do we by chance "hit upon" and "choose" this "divine structure" after we realize its meaning and value? What role (if any) does the "mind and will" of the "we/you/I" hitting upon the divine state play in this reality?

Well, the good news is that you'll know that I'm right in the end.

What end is that Harvey? And who will being doing the knowing?

[harvey1]

So are you saying that God predetermines our "state space" and we "just .. happen to fall into" it?

No, I would say that we choose our state spaces by choosing the person that we become. So, I would say that we do have free will.

So "personality" is an evolved "pattern"? It sounds like you are more in agreement with QED than you like to admit It is similar to the Buddhist idea of no-self on some levels, perhaps. Do you think there is any self-identity beyond the physical life?

Sure, but it is only in the act of choosing that we identify ourselves as to the person we are/will be/have always been.

What do you mean by "quite naturally hit upon"? Is this a deterministic "hit upon," or do we by chance "hit upon" and "choose" this "divine structure" after we realize its meaning and value? What role (if any) does the "mind and will" of the "we/you/I" hitting upon the divine state play in this reality?

It plays a very significant role in that our choosing answers why we are what we are.

Well, the good news is that you'll know that I'm right in the end.

What end is that Harvey? And who will being doing the knowing?

I would say that the end is at death, and we will be doing the knowing.

[Rob]

Hi Harvey,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you on many points, and would love to expore others.

If you don't mind, do me a favor. List the ten most relevant, informative, insightful, or important books addressing the philosophical issues we are discussing. Perhaps I can find the time to read them.

For now, I gotta run and get my girls, and they keep my pretty busy as they are a handful.

Till next time,

Tot Ziens.

[Bugmaster]

It seems that many atheists reason along these lines:
1) My mind is entirely a physical entity
2) This entity reduces down to quarks and leptons
3) Quarks and leptons do not allow free will
4) Hence, I have no free will
5) I am an atheist
6) Hence, I have no free will to be other than an atheist
7) Thus, I must interpret the evidence of the world as an atheist
8) Therefore, I can never be anything but an atheist unless the quarks and leptons configure differently in my brain in which I have no control over

Well, #1 and #3 is are unproven assumptions, and #7 is a bit shaky semantically (what do you mean by "must") ? I'll leave the discussion on #8 and the mind/body duality for our other threads -- you know how I feel about that issue already :-)

Other than the weak #7, I'd say that this argument is valid, but not sound. A better argument might be:

1). God exists, and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless.
2). God created me (directly or indirectly).
3). Being omnipotent and omniscient and timeless, God has laid out the entirety of my actions at the moment of my creation.
4). I'm an atheist.
5). This means that God wanted me to be an atheist for some reason. Otherwise, he would've made me a Christian, or a Hindu or something.

This argument is also not sound, of course (because #1 and #2 are unproven assumptions), but it could become sound once a person acquires faith (thus making #1 and #2 sound).