Disbelief Is Not a Choice

[cleanhippie]

When the contemporary secular movement is compared to the gay rights movement, objections are sometimes raised by those who distinguish between the two on biological grounds. Whereas sexual orientation is not a choice, the argument goes, one's religious outlook is.

The great weight of science indicates that the first part of that argument is correct (i.e., one's sexual orientation is determined by biology), but the latter part is somewhat misleading and merits scrutiny. After all, though we can choose our religious affiliation, none of us can ultimately choose what we truly believe or don't believe. I disbelieve in unicorns and I could not choose otherwise, just as I also could not believe, absent new evidence that changes my understanding of geography, that New York is south of Florida.

The difference between sexual orientation and personal secularity is not that one is biological and the other is a choice, because both have causal factors that eliminate choice. The difference is that sexual orientation is determined entirely by biology, whereas religious disbelief is a combination of biology and environment.

--snip--

By creating a social and political environment where religion is presumed to be central to morality and patriotism, and where open personal secularity is seen as unacceptable, religious conservatives lower the likelihood that more will gravitate toward a secular lifestance. This is why they support laws, none of which were approved by the Founders, encouraging Americans to believe that they must trust in God (per the national motto), that the nation is under God (per the Pledge of Allegiance), and that we must have an annual National Day of Prayer. They want us to believe that America is a "Christian nation," because such a social and political environment strongly discourages personal secularity.

In such an atmosphere, where the overwhelming assumption is that God-belief is important, and where the general public lacks knowledge of science and doesn't truly value critical thinking, it wouldn't be accurate to say that most Americans choose belief. Rather, what is really happening is that the environment itself tends to produce individuals who believe, while it simultaneously creates barriers to secularity.

To be sure, the secular movement tries to slant the environmental factors in its favor also, but those efforts don't involve the intellectual dishonesty that the Religious Right utilizes. Secular Americans try to increase access to accumulated knowledge, encourage critical thinking, and create a social environment that does not scorn secularity. This is hardly diabolical.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201109/disbelief-is-not-choice

[bluerum]

1. Plants possess sexuality. Do we presume they also believe?

Does god exist without belief?

[cleanhippie]

3. Does god exist at all?

The lack of evidence to support any definition of "god" would suggest that the concept is all in our heads...

[tama]

36. ANY definition? ;)

If we would like to define God as All, where would you stop finding evidence? :)

[dmallind]

45. Where would you start finding evidence that it was God?

Otherwise you're just trying to suggest a different label for "all" that adds nothing.

[tama]

49. God is just a word

and the meaning of the word can be defined in many ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism is quite common definition, actually.

[dmallind]

54. I agree with your heading

So if God is just a word, what does applying the word to all things add to our understanding of either word or things? Pantheism typically goes beyond God as word and imagines a collective entity or essence for which there is, and can be, no evidence. If God is everyting there is no distinction between God and not-God and as such God is a useless term

[tama]

56. What's your beef

with the word 'god'? People use it, whether we like it or not, and as for me, I usually like to hear what people mean by that word instead of pushing my own beliefs. By listening, I learn. :)

[dmallind]

58. No beef - just no meaning in your suggested usage.

Honestly what's the difference between "God" and "Blarrg" here?

[tama]

63. Lots of emotions

and history invested in the word God. You are correct that in terms of Pantheism, the word 'God' is not necessary, however Pantheist meaning of the word - as e.g. Einstein used it - can create bridges of understanding and communication between science and religion.

[dmallind]

8. Plants do not possess speech. Do we presume speech is not biologically determined?

If you use an analogy to refute an argument, it's more effective to make it actually analogous.

[Angry Dragon]

31. Just because you can not hear plants

does not mean they have no speech...........

Many different ways to hear...........

[dmallind]

33. Oh Christ on a crutch you must be kidding. Surely you realize lack of audibility

is a mere speck in the ocean of reasons we can be certain that plants lack speech?

And no - there is only one way to hear. To have some kind of mechanism that captures the vibration of soundwaves and thence a processor capable of deciphering them.

I've seen some weird DU woo in my time from indigo children to moon-rapes, but vocalizing and auditory flora is up at the top. Little Shop of Horrors was fictional trust me.

[tama]

37. So

you are not aware that many people do hear voices and sounds without external mechanical cause? That is a fact.

It's up to interpretations and belief systems, if the "voices in the head" are considered auditory hallucinations, plants speaking or what ever.

[dmallind]

39. They don't HEAR voices - they hallucinate having heard them.

If the voices were actually sound that could be heard, they would be neither hallucinations nor "in the head".

If you start thinking those are real voices being really heard, what stops your dreams from being real?

[tama]

42. What is real?

I would say the simplest answer to that question is that for you, real is what you BELIEVE is real. And then we could philosophize endlessly about the interpretation of the concept "real". Philosophical scepticism would be one place to start.

But this interests me, do you consider mathematics real or fiction?

Also your question about reality of dreams is interesting. It brought to my mind that once I saw in dream an item that was lost, after waking up checked the location and there it was - high on top of a bookshelve whe eye could not see. At that time I was interested in Castaneda and lucid dreaming.

[dmallind]

44. What is real in this sense? Simple - what can be verified and repeated objectively.

It's nothing at all to do with what I believe, or what anyone believes. If I record my voice I can use sound meters to see it is registering. I can play back the file and verify that others can hear the voice saying the same things it did for me. We can verify that the soundwaves remain essentially constant when played back on all capable machines and measured by different people. Thus the only way that this sound and the hearing of this sound is not "real" is if we play with silly Freshman solipsism.

Hallucinated voices on the other hand cannot be replicated, and cannot be shared and validated by others. Plants meanwhile still lack any mechanism with which to capture or translate sound waves - real or hallucinatory.

And yes real things crop up in my dreams from time to time - after all it's my brain creating the images so it will naturally use "packets" from my sensory perception. Now what about the rest of your dreams?

And before you try the gotcha crap yes there are real stories and real myths. They are just real in the context of widespread oruniversal meaning, not as objective phenomena. Icarus and the Sun is a real myth, but Icarus a real man did not really fly high enough on fake wings to melt wax.

[tama]

47. OK

if I understand you correctly, by "real" you mean classical physical processes in 4D-spacetime, ie. Minkowski space in science jargon. Minkowski space is a mathematical form, as is n-dimensional Hilbert space where quantum events take place, so I would like to ask again, do you consider mathematical forms real or imaginary "brainfiction/hallucinations"?

As for plants creating sounds, ayahuasca shamans say that it is the the holy plants that create the healing icaro-songs and shamans are just the "mechanism" for Ayahuasca plants' musical self-expression. :)

[dmallind]

53. Inasmuch as I can understand them, I consider mathematical formulae

useful descriptions of reality, but not objectively real per se. There are no formulae with independent existence as phenomena. It's the difference between the word "dog" and a dog.

And the shamans definitely are making it up as they go along if that's what they think.

[tama]

60. Hmm

assuming mind is just epiphenomenon of classical physics in 4D spacetime, how can mind imagine mathematics to describe not only 4D spacetime, but higher and infinite dimensions, quantum physics, theories of everything and all that jazz?

"And the shamans definitely are making it up as they go along"

LOL, I like that. But am I wrong to assume that you have never met a shaman or participated in ayahuasca seremony? So how do you know what you claim to know?

[cleanhippie]

41. People that hear sounds without an external source need to see a professional, asap.

That is a classic psychological illness, you know.

[tama]

43. Would you agree

that what you say is a culturally conditioned belief? :)

And to widen our horizons, not all agree:
"The position of the hearing voices movement can be summarised as follows:

* Hearing voices is not in itself a sign of mental illness.
* Hearing voices is experienced by many people who do not have symptoms that would lead to diagnosis of mental illness.
* Hearing voices is often related to problems in life history.
* If hearing voices causes distress, the person who hears the voices can learn strategies to cope with the experience. This is often achieved by confronting the past problems that lie behind the experience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_Voices_Movement

Also Socrates heard voices without external cause, he called the voice 'daimonion' and it instructed him not to do something (unwise), but did not tell him what to do.

[dmallind]

46. Hell *I've* "heard voices

and of course known full well that it's simply the result of a minor and harmless misfire in neurons and synapses. Nothing different from deja vu and just as real.

When I hear them frequently or start considering them as meaningful let alone objectively real, then I will indeed need professional help. So far so good.

[tama]

48. So in your opinion

was Socrates, who considered the daimonion's voice meaningfull - and helpfull and holy -, in need of professional help?

[dmallind]

52. Well Socrates himself may be apocryphal let alone his hallucinations

Since all we know of him comes from a self-serving hagiography by Plato, but given the "facts" as described, yes. Anyone who consistently hears internal voices and considers them as objective communication, let alone "holy", they need help

[tama]

59. objective communication?

Meaningfull communication does not require belief in objectivism, Randian or other.

In old Soviet union political dissidents were often put in mental asylum. And it seems your world view is equally cruel and intolerant towards people whose experiences do not fit in.

[cleanhippie]

50. Not even a little. People that hear voices need to seek help.

[tama]

51. Why?

Why do you feel the need to stigmatize all people who hear voices as grazy? Even if they live normal lives and feel that have no problem with the voices or even benefit from them?

[cleanhippie]

55. Well, The APA considers that schizophrenia, a mental illness, that's why.

http://www.apa.org/topics/schiz/index.aspx


Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness characterized by incoherent or illogical thoughts, bizarre behavior and speech, and delusions or hallucinations, such as hearing voices. Schizophrenia typically begins in early adulthood.
Adapted from the Encyclopedia of Psychology



I think that pretty much settles this disagreement.

[tama]

57. Argument from authority

that deserves no respect, deserves no respect. :)

"What H.V.N. does dispute is that the psychological anguish caused by hearing voices is indicative of an overarching mental illness. This argument, disseminated through a quarterly newsletter, numerous pamphlets and speeches and alternative mental-health journals, are as voluminous and diverse as its membership. But H.V.N.’s brief against psychiatry can be boiled down to two core positions. The first is that many more people hear voices, and hear many more kinds of voices, than is usually assumed. The second is that auditory hallucination — or “voice-hearing,” H.V.N.’s more neutral preference — should be thought of not as a pathological phenomenon in need of eradication but as a meaningful, interpretable experience, intimately linked to a hearer’s life story and, more commonly than not, to unresolved personal traumas. In 2005, Louise Pembroke, a prominent member of H.V.N., proposed a World Hearing Voices Day (held the next year) that would “challenge negative attitudes toward people who hear voices on the incorrect assumption that this is in itself a sign of illness, an assumption made about them that is not based on their own experiences, is stigmatizing, isolating and makes people ill.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/magazine/25voices.t.html?pagewanted=1

We are social beings that yearn social acceptance, but often the normative world view stigmatizes, isolates and makes ill the people who one way or another deviate from what society considers normal and normative. Homosexuality, voice-hearing, etc. etc.

[cleanhippie]

62. Argument from facts and evidence, espoused by an authority on the subject.

Hearing voices = mental illness.

Period.

You can try to throw some more 1st year philosophy student woo my way if you want, but until as much study and research that has gone into diagnosing schizophrenia goes into what you are claiming, and the evidence concludes that to be true, then this is it. No two ways about it.

[tama]

64. I feel

that your belief system is not willing to discuss this subject openly. But if I'm mistaken and you are open to scepticism and criticism of current mainstream psychiatry, there is tons to read and study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

[cleanhippie]

65. Perhaps more thinking and less feeling is in order?

And I would LOVE to hear more about this belief system I have. Who knew, that until you came along to tell me about it, I didn't even know I had one!

[tama]

66. Oh,

is your belief that you have no belief system, in other words world view? Adopted opinions, values and emotional investment in those?

[cleanhippie]

67. Wait, you told me I have a belief system, and now you are asking me if I have one?

Come on tama, do try and be consistent.


Please tell me more about my belief system. You seem to know more about it than I do.

[tama]

68. OK

I'll have a go. You believe in liberal/progressive values and scientific realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism). You are partial to the hypothesis that mental processes are epiphenomenon of electrochemical neurological processes and you entertain sceptical attitude towards religious belief systems. You are also sensitive to the word "belief" and don't like your world view being called a belief system. :P

[cleanhippie]

70. Almost. I believe

you have good google-fu, rely a bit too much on wikipedia, and are a master of the cut-and-paste.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Not to mention alien...

sorry, one of my favorite movies. :)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

69. I think you are, rather inaptly, conflating speech with communication

They are separate, discrete concepts, one (speech) being a subset of the other (communication).

And even then, I'm not sure you can make a case that plants "communicate" anything beyond their physiological state.

[tama]

71. Do you

communicate anything beyond your physiological state?

(keeping in mind that physiological state and theories about it are separate, discrete concepts)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

73. The question isn't whether I communicate beyond my physiological state

It's whether a plant can communicate anything beyond their physiological state.

[tama]

74. Just seeking

clarification about the implicated presupposition that communication is not a physiological state?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

78. I think you're confused about what I posted

Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse...

Nowhere did I "implicate" that communication is not a physiological state.

[tama]

83. Not you then

just the physiological state of communication implied in the words "communication beyond physical state" did. :)

Physical states of plant communication are fascinating, and there may be many others beyond what is currently understood, e.g. besides an apple tree, with solemn gravitas, dropping its fruit of communication on Newtons head, which under stood its branches and shade. Thus manifesting that fruitfull communication of bees and flowers can manifest also as physical state of communication of gravity of the matter sensed and theorized. ;)

[thereismore]

2. The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims, such as "God exists".

So the default position is that of an atheist. It is not a choice. Theism is a choice.

[cleanhippie]

4. Agreed, we are ALL born atheist, every single one of us on the planet.

Choosing or having a religion forced upon you happens second.

[humblebum]

26. Haven't we crossed that bridge before? What an absurd statement. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

27. I'd be interested in hearing what's so absurd about it n/t

[cleanhippie]

29. Good luck, getting a straight answer.

You should just hit yourself in the face with a hammer and save yourself the trouble. You will thank me later, I promise.

[deacon_sephiroth]

30. I'd only do that if my ancient guide to life told me to

See, I've got this book... and it tells me how people lived in the middle east a few thousand years ago, but according to the book I'm still supposed to live like that. So I'll see if I can find a refrence for all this face-hammering business. IF NOT, I must consider you a false teacher and get you stoned... er HAVE you stoned.... you know what I mean.

[cleanhippie]

28. Of course you find it absurd; it's reality.

[kwassa]

76. It is an absurd belief of some atheists.

There is simply no way to know what babies believe when they are born, as they are incapable of expressing their beliefs. Atheism is not the default; no one knows what the default is.

[laconicsax]

77. We can know what babies don't believe.

Name a religious belief that doesn't have to be learned and you can safely assume that it's something innate.

[darkstar3]

79. +1

[NMMNG]

81. You're being absurd

God writes belief in him on the babies of Christian and Jewish parents. Allah does the same for babies of Muslim parents. Miraculously if Christian parents adopt internationally, God writes belief in him onto their baby, who would otherwise have believed in some false god like Allah, Shiva, Ganesha or the like--or even in no gods like those babies in China.

[laconicsax]

82. OTG!!!

:rofl:

[Warpy]

6. Are you sure about that?

It seems to me to be pretty hard wired in a lot of people, a variation on the "Third Man Factor," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Man_factor

What the Wiki article fails to mention is that the phenomenon can be triggered by electrical stimulation of the brain during neurosurgery, demonstrating a physiological origin.

Theists can't be convinced there is no god because it's completely contrary to their own experience of a presence in their lives. That presence would seem to be hard wired in many of them.

[dmallind]

10. Propensity and possession of attributes are different things

There is a propensity to believe in gods and suchlike in human psychology - and neuroscience, true. Just as there is a propensity to violence, and to sexuality. But people can be peaceful and asexual given enough either conditioning or reinforcement both negative and positive. And that "enough" need not be excessive brainwashing. Many people manafe to avoid fighting physically without being brainwashed by pacifists for example. Belief is surely not hard-wired any more than these, so the same relatively simple methods that stop people from beating each others' brains out (education mostly - not in the GED/PhD sense but as in instruction and awareness) should suffice in suppressing the propensity to believe in an equal ratio of the population.

How many people here have managed to avoid exercising their hard-wired propensity for physical violence as an adult (can't count myself, but outside paid work I can)? Would avoiding belief take any more effort or education?

[thereismore]

14. Yep, see my post #12. nt

[thereismore]

12. They are susceptible to belief of a God. Any God. If they had been born in Iran,

they would swear that Allah is the God and Mohammed is his Prophet. As they were born here, they say that Jesus is the God and Mohammed is a false prophet. Whatever works for them.

People are born with a sense for sweet taste, but that does not mean that eating sugar is good for them.

[dmallind]

15. True - nor does it mean we all gorge on chocolate and cake even though we might want to

Me on the other hand..... ;)

[Humanist_Activist]

40. The feeling of "presence" doesn't mean much, until it interpreted by your...

cultural upbringing or current belief structure. Some, particularly followers of the Abrahamic religions, will interpret this presence as a Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, various saints or Mary. Those with different upbringings will call it Ganesh, Shiva, or Brahma, and yet others as the spirits of ancestors, or of nature, and still others as products of their brains. Those who suffer some type of mental illness most likely combine this with hallucinations thinking gods, demons, ghosts, aliens and others are talking to them.

None of this means there's a physiological basis for theism, which itself has to be taught, but of simply the presence of a third party, whose purpose or name has to be taught or imagined by people when they develop the means of doing so. Indeed, children with imaginary friends may partly be a manifestation of this part of the brain during key development periods, we wouldn't call those gods, or even religious, now would we?

Saying that anything is "hardwired" is foolish to say the least, empathy is "hardwired" in nearly all of us, yet raise someone in a cruel enough upbringing, and they can become a sociopath, incapable of empathy. We have inclinations towards certain things, due to our evolutionary development as a social species, most of these things are quite good, such as our inclination for empathy, as I just used, others are neutral or negative, such as this feeling of a third party.

To give a slightly better example, another so called "hardwired" inclination would be the sense of who is in your in-group and who is in your out-group. This manifests in humans as tribalism, to put it in general terms, however, depending on your upbringing and personal beliefs on the subject, this can manifest itself as patriotism, nationalism, racism, religious superiority, etc. Your "tribe" can be your race, your country, people of your religion, or it can also be all of humanity despite these differences. The inclination itself is so general that it can manifest as all of these and even more.

The same could be said for any other natural inclination we have, our interpretations of them has to be taught to us, imagined by us, or learned about on our own. I strongly doubt that all atheists lack the ability to detect a third party presence, I would hazard a guess that most of us simply recognize it as imagined in our heads.

[rug]

5. How do you explain these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics

[dmallind]

16. Perfectly simple - exactly the same way I explain former believers

There is nothing about atheism or belief that prevents all susceptibility to persuasion given sufficient (subjectively of course) evidence. Doesn't matter how many times we explain the biochemistry behind religious visions for one - those who have them will often accept them as proof of the vision's reality. From your POV it doesn't matter how supposedly sophisticated your arguments may be for free will or theodicy or Hell - considering them seriously will often lead to believers losing their belief.

[rug]

17. Ergo, a considered choice.

[dmallind]

18. Any - and I mean ANY biological propensity of psychology can be overcome

Fight or flight can be overcome - and is routinely by, for example, all competent police officers in the field.

Sexual urges can be overcome - and is routinely by for example all honest priests.

Does that mean these are nothing more than considered choices?

Religion is a weird hybrid, because almost all of us have the hard-wired propensity to seek reassurance and flee uncertainty that spawns it, yet none of us is born with a specific religious belief. The "natural" state then would most likely be to make up your own satisfying stories or accept those of your neighbors. But the plasticity of the brain dictates how likely we are to believe any given story based on prior inputs. I could no more accept Catholicism than you could accept the FSM.

[rug]

19. Out of curiosity, what religious beliefs were you raided with?

[dmallind]

20. kind of half-assed Methodist/Cof E

I have the propensity to look for patterns, to want positive answers and to hate "I don't know" just like everyone else. More or less than others? No idea, but I have them. I was a vague apathetic believer for much of my youth in the typical British sense, but the habits that were integrated into how my brain works by a solid albeit routine public school education (again in the British sense) rendered me completely incapable of religious belief without evidence that can be verified. Whenever I hear claims of any nature that contradict or exceed precedent I review and evaluate them as objectively as I am able. Once that method becomes the brain's way of making decisions, religion is a tough sell. Could I change my mind? Surely - but it would take an Elijah demonstration.

An example helps perhaps. I cannot explain in any but the most pedestrian detail why summers are warmer than winters. Astronomy and climatology are not my forte. But I don't need to investigate that they are, because precedent and experience tells me so. However when I heard for the first time, embarrassingly recently and IIRC on DU, that the Sun is closer in winter than in summer, it contradicted what I thought I understood. A fairly constant heat source further away normally raises the temperature less. I didn't DECIDE to be skeptical about the claim. I did not CHOOSE to need evidence and validation before I accepted it. It's just, now, the natural way my brain evaluates new info. In this case I found the explanation did not in fact contradict what I understood, just what I expected. The reasoning was sound, just new to me personally, so now I accept it. I can't accept any claim that seems, even falsely, to contradict my understanding, without that validation now.

Hopefully this example further shows that atheism is not an active disbelief either. I did not hear the sun was closer in winter and respond "No - I believe that's impossible as an act of faith!" I responded "That doesn't jive with what I understand - I will reserve belief until I find convincing evidence". I evaluate religious claims no differently. That response is not a choice for me.

[rug]

21. Thanks for a thorough response.

[dmallind]

22. ok - genuinely curious on response in retun. nt

[rug]

23. Me?

Raised Catholic, still Catholic. Catholic schools from kindergarten in NYC until I dropped out of college. Altar boy and choir boy. So, I'm retty steeped in it. Can't say I've had a bad experience with the Church or its people. To the contrary, The breadth and history of the Catholic Church fascinates me. I've never had a problem distinguishing the horrible things people have done in its name from the purpose of the Church. The present scandals pale in comparison to past scandals.

Theologically, contrary to the usual criticisms, there is a very long intellectual and rational tradition running through it going back centuries. Once you understand its starting point in revelation, and there are only a handful of them, it's applied a rigorous intellectual scrutiny to them.

So, I'm pretty content with my beliefs. On the other hand, if i wasn't raised in it and baptized in it, I doubt i would have overcome the obvious objections to the institution. I suppose that's one reason baptism is called a gift.

[dmallind]

32. Good to know - but more curious about your take on the non-biographical parts

Yes I'm certainly aware of the Catholic educational and philosophical tradition. Not surprisingly I have little sympathy with increasingly acrobatic apologetics in a world that has rapidly filled up gaps in naturalistic understanding during the span of that Catholic intellectual tradition, but outside ontology the Catholic institutions and orders have done some fine work. It's often fun for example to spring the fact on the typically ignorant fundies that one of the great initiators of the "big bang" theory they like to excoriate was a Jesuit priest, and that the major layman-scientific criticism against it was that it smacked of creationism compared to the steady state theory espoused by Hoyle, who ironically is now a fundy hero for his facile "jumbo jet in a junkyard" (mis)analogy.

[rug]

34. I'm not sure I follow.

If you're referring to the topic of the OP, belief or disbelief is certainly a choice in my opinion. I don't think anyone is compelled to belief or disbelief. For starters, atheism has meaning only in contrast to theism. It's really a matter of rejecting, by whatever standard one chooses, or accepting those beliefs. Secondly, history is replete with individual and mass changing of beliefs, from the christianization of Europe, through the Islamic conversion of North Africa and Iberia, to the nazification and denazification of Germany. Raw force aside, people easily changed their beliefs, to the extent they considered them at all. Those who didn't are termed martyrs to whatever cause they clung to. But that too was a choice, notwithstanding Luther's famous quote: “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!” Humans have the capacity to change their opinions and beliefs, no matter whether the standard is scientific evidence, scripture, logic or conscience. It is far from a biological trait even though biology, psychology and sociology play significant roles in accepting or rejecting belief.

[dmallind]

35. Explain then, hypothetically of course, how you could decide that Pastafarianism is correct

and that you should become a follower of the FSM.

[rug]

61. Its roots can quickly be traced to The Onion.

[PassingFair]

72. LOL "...raided with".

Precisely!

[rug]

75. The hand of God.

[msongs]

7. religious believe is totally a choice, biology has nothing to do with it.

religious belief is learned behavior

[dmallind]

13. For the vast majority of us, behavior learned without choice however.

If all kids were kept from religious indoctrination until say 12 yrs old or so, and from peer pressure until at least 18, this would be a perfecvtly sufficient counterargument.

[dtexdem]

9. The decision to make up one's own mind IS a choice.

And that may well lead to disbelief.

[dmallind]

11. The more we find out about the brain, the less certain this looks. nt

[NMMNG]

24. It isn't

I lost my faith after being a Christian for 20 years. I'd had doubts for some time. I tried to ignore them, and to squelch them with more prayer, more Bible reading and old-fashioned denial. Ultimately it didn't work and I had to admit I no longer believed. I could no more choose to believe again absent undeniable evidence of gods than I could choose to believe the earth is flat.

[Deep13]

25. I don't know about all that, but I chose nothing.

I slowly learned the fact and despite mental residence on my part I had to accept that there is no god. Belief means one accepts something as true, not that he or she wants it to be true.

[iris27]

80. We often set up a false dichotomy between "biological" vs. "choice".

My lack of belief is the result of having made an effort to really study the religion I followed in depth, and springs directly from the things I learned in that time.

With the evidence I have available to me now, it would not be possible for me to make myself believe anything else. I could attend services, pray, read the Bible, etc., but it would be nothing more than going through the motions.

Suppose you woke up in a world tomorrow where the vast majority believed vampires were real, to the point of warding their homes with garlic, carrying vials of holy water like pepper spray, and lobbying for legislation that would require all corpses to be pre-emptively staked before burial. You could ape their behaviors, but you could not make yourself believe through sheer force of will.

(Note: This is not intended as a comparison between God and vampires with the intent of deriding religion. It has been pretty much impossible in the past for me mention ANYthing that most adults lack belief in, to use in explaining the way I see the world, without someone then assuming I'm trying to belittle their faith.)