I did not choose to become an atheist; reasoning, logic, and reliance on evidence and personal experience naturally led me down this path.
But conversely, does that mean theists cannot choose to believe there is no god and that religion is a sham?
Are they trapped by their lack of choice in what to believe? ... am even I?
There are plenty of choices. People seek them out all of the time. When I learned there was no Santa Claus, that was it for me tho I attended many religious institutions as a curiosity. Just don't sign their visitors book or your asking for a visit.
Wait, are you saying you chose to stop believing in Santa Claus? It would stand to reason that you could then choose to start believing in Santa again...
Yes. People do it all the time. And you DID choose to become an atheist. YOU used reason, logic and reliance on evidence to make up YOUR mind.
You could have easily chosen to ignore reason, logic and evidence and continued to be a believer. People do THAT all the time.
You had a choice and you chose. Don't devalue your agency by denying you have it.
I think the latitude that one has in the freedom to choose what to believe and to learn about new "choices" is tempered by the emotional content in the choice. In an intellectual, academic sphere, one can absorb and accept many new ideas. In areas that touch a nerve and fire up emotions - politics, religion, relationships - emotions are more likely to short-circuit logic.
You cannot. Period. @Fernapple is more diplomatic in his response, and it will probably turn less people off than my blunt 'no' by saying "at best". But if you couple what he said, "only chose from the selection offered to you by your brain" with the correct statement @skado made, "People can believe only what they find believable" you can start to get a sense of the truth. You can't choose what propositions enter your conscious mind as options, and you can't choose which of those options your brain doesn't immediately reject as implausible/impossible. You also don't choose the physical or chemical composition of your brain at the point any of these "choices" need to be made. (Nor do you choose to be born, who to be born to, what they believe, how and where they raise you, what they expose you to, etc. People will argue that they eventually get to choose where they live and what they expose themselves to, but...) It's in these options that remain after all that that people believe they have free will. If you look at the science, though, you'll see that there's no room left, so to speak, for free choice.
Skado made a correct statement...?
Maybe miracles ARE real...
You could add that nobody beats their heart, nobody breathes and nobody operates the rods and cones in their eyes as such functions are regulated by the autonomic nervous system.
We can choose whether or not to consider or reject or accept what another person says. To state that we automatically accept or reject what is said or written negates the notion of reflection and criticial evaluation. When you reject what someone says or writes do you simply do so because it does not accord with your beliefs/memories or do so on the basis of reasoned experience?
If someone who lives on the streets would like to own an original Carl Shelby 427SC Cobra, it is unlikely that he will ever own one based on continuation of life on the streets, so some choices/changes have to be made to make it a reality.
Well, I guess we could all sit in a room full of nihilists with a paper bag over our heads and say that everything is worthless and meaningless and that we can never know anything. There are those who identify with the main characters in Albert Camus’s The Outsider and Sarte’s La Nausea. Then there are those who are plagued by 'eschatalogical thoughts and metempsychosis' that is, they are plagued by such notions.
@ASTRALMAX Yes, you could add all that, and everything else, as nothing is actually under your control.
There are plenty of layers you're ignoring though.
To say it negates critical reflection as a loophole that allows for free will ignores everything involved in creating the framework for said critical reflection. You didn't choose everything that you were exposed to. You don't know why you came out of those experiences thinking something is bad instead of good. Even if you have said convictions you think line up with the type of person you want to be (which that too you'd have to question where it came from), you still have no control over whether or not you have a chemical imbalance, tumor, etc. that results in your critical reflection finding a result differently than you would have otherwise.
Ultimately, though, if you look at the science, you'll see that no matter how much contemplation or time passes between the question and answer, the decision is still made in the subconscious before you are consciously aware. Any reasoning you can give for why you choose something is actually nothing but post-hoc rationalizations.
@JeffMurray I think it was Thomas Szasz who said that psychoanalysis is the only profession that can conceive of acts without actors. Even much of what Carl Jung wrote cannot be tested using scientific methods, he was not concerned with scientific testing. The Viennese Tweedledum and the Swiss Tweedledee could not even reach an agreement.
Of course. people will tend to use post-hoc rationalizations for their thier beliefs, especially, to justify their actions.
It is true that many events that occured in our lives were not based on choice but certainly not all of them.
@ASTRALMAX It would be a tedious exercise, but you're more than welcome to name one and we can trace it back to see if we can't find a point where there was factors you didn't choose or couldn't control. If you think we can just take a singular choice at face value with no background, consider Sam Harris' thought experiment below.
At best, you can only choose from the selection offered to you by your brain via your own experiences, and those ideas offered to you by your own culture. Which means that the ideas of cultures you have no contact with, and ideas which no one including yourself have ever thought of, are forever off the menu. Which may well be many fundamental truths about the universe.
Another big factor is, that humans are basically lazy. Which is an evolved survival strategy that once helped us to save time and energy, in the days when food was hard to come by, and hunting time consuming. And cowardly, we fear doubt and uncertainty. But those factors mean that, we tend naturally therefore, to prefer short simple answers lacking in nuance and complications.
Yet the universe is we know, complicated and filled with important detail, which means that our in built bias, in favour of simple answers, may well be a bias leading us away from truth and understanding. Even worse we may tend to choose to believe lies rather than truths, because lies can be made up and deliberately engineered to be simple and easy, in order to be favoured by that bias. Being able to choose may not always be helpful.
(I like this, may well post it. Thanks for the inspiration.)
Given that no individual can learn everything in any one life time and that the body of information and knowledge is growing, therefore, any kernels of knowledge in other cultures that may come to our attention does so in snippets.
I daresay that many people’s choice about what to ‘believe’ is to a large extent based upon that which they identify with and is not always based in reason.
I wonder to what extent are our choices are based on memories of the past and or choices based on opposition wherein some/many people only feel alive.
You choose what to believe every day. In fact, every moment of every day. It's all based on choices, which are made by what is most likely to be true (in that individual's head), so your basic premise is flawed. It may feel like determination created your path but it was your determinations based on choices.
Ok, I can swallow that reasoning.
Our beliefs (how we see the world) are based on our education and experience.
We can change our beliefs when we get get new information or experience.
I never believed in an invisible being who resides somewhere beyond the clouds. As a young child dropped off at Sunday school, I was highly skeptical. It was clear the Bible is just a book of stories written by men.
Never believed in an invisible god.
We each have to start somewhere . A lot of people are brain washed as small children as to what are the basics of life . They then build on those basic ideas , and many never question the basics they began with . The further along they progress , the harder it is to return back to the beginning and start over .
I can choose to be happy despite life events that cause people to recoil in horror.
And I chose to remove myself from some of it, at great risk.
I can choose to not become addicted to crap when I noticed had a bent for it.
So yeah, i Choose to be rational.
Good question. I find many believers that claim honestly that they would have the same religion if brought up in other countries where that religion is little known and not practiced. They seem to not have rationality or logic.
I have a few friends who mirror that sentiment, claiming they would still follow Jesus, even if they were born in Indonesia. It just goes to show how little thought they put to answering the question.
I base my choice of what I count as credible on the relationship between that to which I assign credence and the benefit that assignation gives to my quality of life. I find the claims of medicine, cosmology, mathematics, physics and geoscience to be credible. I also find that the ruthless application of logic and reason also benefits my quality of life.
I find the claims of all religions to be absurd, irrational and dangerous.
Ergo I am an atheist.