MetalGear_Ninty's forum posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That seems a bit like patting yourself on the back. Just because someone doesn't tell you how they arrived at their belief does not mean it wasn't something they put thought into. It would actually be a rare person that didn't question parental beliefs at some point. Parents are the main source when one is a child. Peers and outside influences become bigger sources when one enters teens. And belief is not something that you just do. It really is something that comes from within.LJS9502_basicWhat do you mean by 'within'? Who or what is within? It comes from the individual....not outside influences. That includes parents/family. They can only expose you. I'd image you're not religious and thus don't understand why one believes and wants to think it's because of x factor. But it's not. But what is the 'individual' or the 'self'? Don't outside influences help determine what exactly the individual is? I believe that our parents, peers, society and teachers help define the individual and form the self. Do you believe in the concept of soul? If you do then we have probably reached an impasse. My beliefs stem from a rejection of the concept of soul. If you don't reject the concept of soul, then you won't believe what I believe.
I agree. I agree, at least in terms of political and religious beliefs, that beliefs that are wholly and completely derived from reason are rare. What usually happens is that the individual will possess an emotional affect or disposition to a particular proposition or belief. They will then search for that evidence which reinforces that affect and try their best to discard evidence which contradicts their emotional disposition (confirmation bias). However, the degree to which this process occurs changes based on the individual. Some question their beliefs to a far greater extent than others, and will actively seek evidence or consider evidence which contradicts prior belief. If they think the contradictory evidence is strong enough, what will usually will happen is that there will be an attitude change. But my main point is, is that those prior attitudes (before intellectual inquiry) and emotional dispositions will largely be affected by paternal and social relationships - and the desire to question is largely a matter of individual differences. The fact that we are all on an internet forum discussing religion suggests that the people on this board are probably more 'truth-seeking' than your average Joe Bloggs on the street, That seems a bit like patting yourself on the back. Just because someone doesn't tell you how they arrived at their belief does not mean it wasn't something they put thought into. It would actually be a rare person that didn't question parental beliefs at some point. Parents are the main source when one is a child. Peers and outside influences become bigger sources when one enters teens. And belief is not something that you just do. It really is something that comes from within. What do you mean by 'within'? Who or what is within?[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Man you've had that avatar for a long time. I agree with you that it can't be based 100% on reason and logic, but my point was that I don't think it is devoid of reason either. Some people do choose to switch from one faith to another, though that is a minority. Perhaps a more telling study would be to investigate how beliefs on morality and the role of god(s) change over the lifespan. We would probably find that nations of similar culture tend to homogenize in their beliefs in god.
As you said it can't be 100% reason if they keep the same religion, but as chessmaster suggested we have to go on our own experience. OP's point however is that nobody actually chooses their religion. He did say that parents influence, and they do, but that doesn't mean nobody chooses their religion. If you are born Christian, your loved one dies and you stop believing in god then one day reconcile and become Christian again, you chose to be that way and I think that nearly everyone has a similar experience. They may not stop believing altogether but they will certainly doubt.
Then again, is anything ever 100% based on reason and logic?LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Even if what you were saying was true, this would still show a bias towards the beliefs of the parents and the home society, because those factors would greatly affect what information that person has access to - so we would be back to square 1 where the belief of the parents and the society strongly biases the beliefs inherited by the individual. So your argument has't really changed anything. Man you've had that avatar for a long time. I agree with you that it can't be based 100% on reason and logic, but my point was that I don't think it is devoid of reason either. Some people do choose to switch from one faith to another, though that is a minority. Perhaps a more telling study would be to investigate how beliefs on morality and the role of god(s) change over the lifespan. We would probably find that nations of similar culture tend to homogenize in their beliefs in god.Possibly, however that gives me the impression that they question "their" faith. ie: the faith they were raised on. Usually the choice is between their own faith or atheism, not their faith and another faith. My stance still remains that the large majority of religous people did not choose their own religion.
CptJSparrow
As you said it can't be 100% reason if they keep the same religion, but as chessmaster suggested we have to go on our own experience. OP's point however is that nobody actually chooses their religion. He did say that parents influence, and they do, but that doesn't mean nobody chooses their religion. If you are born Christian, your loved one dies and you stop believing in god then one day reconcile and become Christian again, you chose to be that way and I think that nearly everyone has a similar experience. They may not stop believing altogether but they will certainly doubt.
Then again, is anything ever 100% based on reason and logic? I agree. I agree, at least in terms of political and religious beliefs, that beliefs that are wholly and completely derived from reason are rare. What usually happens is that the individual will possess an emotional affect or disposition to a particular proposition or belief. They will then search for that evidence which reinforces that affect and try their best to discard evidence which contradicts their emotional disposition (confirmation bias). However, the degree to which this process occurs changes based on the individual. Some question their beliefs to a far greater extent than others, and will actively seek evidence or consider evidence which contradicts prior belief. If they think the contradictory evidence is strong enough, what will usually will happen is that there will be an attitude change. But my main point is, is that those prior attitudes (before intellectual inquiry) and emotional dispositions will largely be affected by paternal and social relationships - and the desire to question is largely a matter of individual differences. The fact that we are all on an internet forum discussing religion suggests that the people on this board are probably more 'truth-seeking' than your average Joe Bloggs on the street,
I know what I've read in this thread..and I know the mistakes you and a few others were making, so I don't have to re-read anything. Parents affect access to information which is a form of biasing decision. If you have tons of access to info about Christianity and hardly any about Zoroastrianism - then that will increase the likelihood ratio of a choice to follow Christianity instead of choosing to follow Zoroastrianism.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Parents and society affecting the choice set is not, however, what TC was arguing, and not what people in this thread were responding to. Perhaps you should re-read the OP.
Also, to be clear, restricting the choice set only biases beliefs inasmuch as the individual would have otherwise chosen a belief outside of that choice set. Therefore, to say it biases beliefs, you would be suggesting that individuals would be more likely to choose another religion, but not any more likely to be atheist.
chessmaster1989
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Atheism is just one belief. Of course if one person is less likely for some reason to choose one particular religion or belief system, then they are more likely to choose another religion or belief system as a result (but not necessarily any one religion in particular). I'm not sure what your point is?
NB: People in this thread were seemign to suggest that parents don't affect faith or have little affect on religious belief, whilst also exaggerating the role of personal autonomy in religious belief. That was what I was arguing against. The fact that a tiny of minority of people convert to a different religion doesn't change much.Â
You haven't provided a legitimate argument that the role of personal autonomy has been exaggerated, since you have not distinguished between restrictions of choice sets and restrictions of information conditional on those choice sets. Most of the responses in this thread (including by and large the TC) are relevant to the latter (where autonomy is relevant), while your own claims are more in line with the former (where autonomy is less relevant).
You're using the wrong language here - I am not sure I said anything about 'choice sets', which would suggest that parents would make it impossible for a child to eventually any particular belief. Rather, I'm arguing that the restriction on information affects the likelihood of an agent possessing a particular belief or set of beliefs. Since parents affect the flow of information to an individual, the parent affects the likelihood that an individual will accept a belief or not. The likelihood is conditional on the information an agent processes. The parent affects the information input to the agent. Ergo, the parent affects belief.Even if what you were saying was true, this would still show a bias towards the beliefs of the parents and the home society, because those factors would greatly affect what information that person has access to - so we would be back to square 1 where the belief of the parents and the society strongly biases the beliefs inherited by the individual. So your argument has't really changed anything.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
This is not correct. You are using an assumption of individuals having complete information on every religion, which of course is not true. However, the issue at hand is information and critical examination of a specific religion - an individual can rationally follow a religion without knowledge of other religions.
chessmaster1989
Parents and society affecting the choice set is not, however, what TC was arguing, and not what people in this thread were responding to. Perhaps you should re-read the OP.
Also, to be clear, restricting the choice set only biases beliefs inasmuch as the individual would have otherwise chosen a belief outside of that choice set. Therefore, to say it biases beliefs, you would be suggesting that individuals would be more likely to choose another religion, but not any more likely to be atheist.
I know what I've read in this thread..and I know the mistakes you and a few others were making, so I don't have to re-read anything. Parents affect access to information which is a form of biasing decision. If you have tons of access to info about Christianity and hardly any about Zoroastrianism - then that will increase the likelihood ratio of a choice to follow Christianity instead of choosing to follow Zoroastrianism.I'm not sure what you are getting at. Atheism is just one belief. Of course if one person is less likely for some reason to choose one particular religion or belief system, then they are more likely to choose another religion or belief system as a result (but not necessarily any one religion in particular). I'm not sure what your point is?
NB: People in this thread were seemign to suggest that parents don't affect faith or have little affect on religious belief, whilst also exaggerating the role of personal autonomy in religious belief. That was what I was arguing against. The fact that a tiny of minority of people convert to a different religion doesn't change much.Â
I think it is greatly misleading to suggest that an adult's choice of religion is a completely free and independent decision making process that is purely based on reason. If that were the case, than the proportion of people believing a particular doctrine would be homogenously spread throughout the globe. This is clearly not the case; if you are born in India, you will most likely become a Hindu, if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you will most likely be a Muslim etc.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] I believe that everyone has a time in their life where they question their faith. Like you said they are heavily influenced by upbringing but ultimately they make the choice.chessmaster1989
This is not correct. You are using an assumption of individuals having complete information on every religion, which of course is not true. However, the issue at hand is information and critical examination of a specific religion - an individual can rationally follow a religion without knowledge of other religions.
Even if what you were saying was true, this would still show a bias towards the beliefs of the parents and the home society, because those factors would greatly affect what information that person has access to - so we would be back to square 1 where the belief of the parents and the society strongly biases the beliefs inherited by the individual. So your argument has't really changed anything.[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]You're right OP, people are mindless sheep who don't question their beliefs and faith :roll:Jolt_counter119
The idea that no one chooses their religion is false, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of people are heavily influenced to believe a specific religion with hardly any choice, or thought put into it. Or do you really believe that the majority of people of Irish or Italian heritage all simply chose to be catholic because they studied each religion, and catholicism just happened to personally speak to them?
I believe that everyone has a time in their life where they question their faith. Like you said they are heavily influenced by upbringing but ultimately they make the choice. I think it is greatly misleading to suggest that an adult's choice of religion is a completely free and independent decision making process that is purely based on reason. If that were the case, than the proportion of people believing a particular doctrine would be homogenously spread throughout the globe. This is clearly not the case; if you are born in India, you will most likely become a Hindu, if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you will most likely be a Muslim etc.
Log in to comment