A question of faith

[avevale_intelligencer]

Following a series of links from a Tom Tomorrow cartoon, I came across this question in an article:

"Is faith a matter of choice? Is it an act of will? Are we therefore to be held accountable for the presence or absence of faith in our lives?"

The article was based on a letter (whether genuine or not I couldn't tell; I don't know the writer of the article) from an atheist feeling alone and alienated in a strongly Catholic (and conservative) family, and the article writer answered the letter to the effect that if the family truly believed that faith was a miraculous gift of God, they should accept the letter writer's lack of faith as just as much a "miracle" as their own faith.

This is, of course, based on the principle that anyone who can believe in a god must automatically be so credulous that they will believe absolutely anything no matter how inane, which I find somewhat problematic. (You believe in a God whose son died on a cross? Why won't you believe that the rain is caused by little goblins with buckets standing on the clouds? Oh, you're just being awkward.)

My own belief on this is that faith is a thing of two parts. On the one hand, there is, I think, a sense that some people possess and some don't. I don't think this sense conveys any actual detailed information, just a feeling of something vast and omnipresent that those who feel it identify with the deity of their choice. I don't have it myself, so I'm speculating in a vacuum, but people who I think do have it have told me that they do, and I don't see any compelling reason to disbelieve them. The other part of faith is indeed a matter of choice and an act of will, and it's whether or not you choose to acknowledge this sense. It's entirely possible that some have it and prefer to believe that it's a delusion, or just part of the normal background noise of their brain.

Thus we have four possible stances:

1. I have the godsense, and believe it gives me contact with my God.
2. I have the godsense, and believe it is of no significance.
3. I do not have the godsense, and do not believe in any God.
4. I do not have the godsense, but believe in a God anyway.

More on this when I come back from Richmond Fellowship appointment.

Comments

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

5. I have a mild version of the godsense, and I don't know whether it conveys information about anything outside my head. It might, it might not.

For an interesting take on accessing the godsense and related mental states, see Core Transformation.

[coth.livejournal.com]

What she said, more or less. I would have phrased it:

"I have the godsense, and believe it is significant, but I don't know whether, and don't feel any need to believe that, there is therefore a god."

[armb.livejournal.com]

That's exactly the stance I was about to suggest was missing.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It's a continuum. Nothing in life is as simple as "two (or four, or eight, or five hundred and twelve) kinds of people." There are an infinity of positions between--some people may have the godsense very strongly, others only vestigially, and some people may acknowledge it some days and not others. My own position varies practically from moment to moment between 3 and 4.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Could you please post the link to the article?

The reason is because I don't see any connection between your description in the first paragraph and your second one starting "This is, of course". I assume, therefore, that there must have been more in the original article than you posted.

On the face of it, I agree with the article writer. If the family accept that their faith is a "gift from God" then it is logical that if a person does not have that faith then that "gift" has been witheld from them by God. In your numbered stances, theirs is #1 and the atheist is #3, both are working from experience (or lack of it). The family's attitude, however, seems to be that the atheist is and extreme case of #2 (i.e. that they do have the "godsense" but they deny it).

I don't see anything there of the attitude you describe of "if you believe that (in which I do not believe) then you must believe everything else in which I do not believe". Certainly some people do have that attitude (which displays a definite lack of knowledge of logic), but not as far as I can tell the article writer.

(Amusing sideline: I originally managed to type 'athiest', which would be "the person most 'ath'". Whatever 'ath' might be...)

[grey-lady.livejournal.com]

I could argue that if the family accept that their faith is a "gift from God" but someone in the family does not have it, then it may not be that God has withheld the gift, only that the person in question has chosen not to receive it?

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Isn't that a subset of #2, that they refuse to acknowledge the "gift"? But yes, that is a possibility, that the family may be correct that it is the fault of the atheist that they either can't or won't believe. But on the third hand I would say that it the right of anyone to refuse a gift if they so desire, especially if it comes with a load of obligations.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Here (http://www.salon.com/news/religion/index.html?story=/mwt/col/tenn/2009/11/17/atheism) you go.

It may be that I've read it wrong, that and the writer sincerely believes that it makes sense for the God of the Catholics to want people to deny His existence. Having briefly been a Catholic, I don't see how anyone who has actually looked into their beliefs could entertain that idea, or expect anyone brought up in that tradition to believe such a thing...but I could be mistaken on that.

I don't say their impulse to convert is right--emphatically not--but by the lights of the religion they hold they are being reasonable, as is, by his/her lights, the atheist.

Your description of my description of the writer's attitude is out by a word--not "everything" but "anything" or more precisely "this one specific thing I just made up, their failure to believe which invalidates their position."

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything there where is says "You believe in a God whose son died on a cross? Why won't you believe that the rain is caused by little goblins with buckets standing on the clouds? Oh, you're just being awkward." Or even that it says "if you believe $one_thing (in which I do not believe) then you must believe $other_thing in which I do not believe". Or for that matter that the God of the Catholics wants people to deny his existence.

The article says, as I read it, that a rational and non-bigoted person will accept that other people have different beliefs and still ar good people. I know, and my impression is that the author knows, that at least some people who are practicing Catholics are rational and non-bigoted, and that those people do accept that other people have other beliefs and are still good people. The author seems to be saddened that the family mentioned seem not to be in that number (as the letter-writer portrays them) and probably cannot be educated otherwise.

The position of the author is a very long way from the position of some of my friends, who do indeed say "if you believe in God why don't you believe in unicorns?" and think that they have won some sort of point.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

"I would think that people of both good faith and goodwill would accept your atheism as simply another miracle."

Which to me means "if they believe that their faith is a gift from God, why don't they believe that your atheism is a gift from God?" Which, as I said, is nonsensical in a Catholic context. But, as I also said, I may have misread it.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Hmm.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure I can't will myself to disbelieve in gravity, or negative numbers, or pi.

So I don't see why I should be expected to affect other things that I believe by an act of will.

So it looks to me like the family of this poor lonely person is being unreasonable to expect this person to affect zir belief in God by an act of will. Especially when they don't even think their *own* beliefs are an act of will, if I'm understanding correctly.

I'm really glad my family isn't like that.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

You have direct experience of the effects of gravity, yes? So it isn't a matter of faith, it's experience. Every time you have dropped something it's fallen down, not up, I expect. How about quarks? I find it very easy to not believe in the existence of quarks, since as far as I am aware no one has ever actually seen one (they may have seen some effects which could be explained by them, but then the same is true about religious miracles).

However, I agree that if they think that their own faith is not a matter of will then they are being inconsistent to not treat someones lack of faith as also being not subject to will.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Objects falling down is a matter of experience. Newton's theory, that there is a force that exerts itself between masses, could be viewed as a matter of faith--one could believe in some alternative explanation (I suppose).

It's perfectly possible to will oneself to believe, or not to believe, something. Whether it works or not depends on a number of things--the absurdity of the thing believed, how soon contrary evidence shows up, one's state of consciousness and one's reasons for doing it among others. People at position 4 in my list have willed their belief--it might be argued by a theologian that they have more "faith" than those who have the godsense to back their belief. Assuming anyone besides myself believed in the godsense, of course.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Indeed, people believed in alternative explanations for gravity before Newton (and a lot after). In fact we still do not have an explanation for why gravity exists and behaves the way it does, only that it does seem to behave in that manner.

I believe in the godsense. Or at least, I believe that it is at least a reasonable explanation for why some people seem to have a mode definite belief which seems to be based on something more than just a wish to believe. Quite what it is they are sensing, I don't know.

Yes, I would agree that a person who hasn't experienced and yet believes has more faith than one who has experienced. It takes little faith to believe that fire burns after you have touched one (or several), it takes a lot if you have never experienced fire at all and only had it described to you. Or snow for that matter (and I do know people who became adult and had only heard and read about snow).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It's perfectly possible to will oneself to believe, or not to believe, something.

I'm confused--by "will oneself to believe" do you mean "try to believe, by an act of will" or do you mean "succeed at believing, by an act of will"?

If the former, I agree- I could try to believe, and so could anyone; I don't think it would make any more difference than trying to flap my arms and fly to the moon, but I could certainly *try*. If the latter, I don't agree. By an act of will I could lie and claim to believe, or by an act of will I could pretend to believe and imagine what it would be like if I did and then try to pretend I perceive things that way, but I don't see that as being the same as actually succeeding at believing.

Of course, I am interpreting "belief" as "being fairly certain" rather than "tentatively accepting for now." Which may be making a difference--I am pretty sure I could tentatively accept something for now as an act of will, that being very much like suspending disbelief when partaking of a work of fiction.

And, somewhat off the subject, actually I think I do have the "goddess-sense" you described, having vaguely perceived something like that once or twice. But I've vaguely perceived lots of things once or twice and I suspect most of them were illusions. And even if what I perceived in that case was correct (unlike the water I see on the highway on hot days, or the walls melting or the bed rocking when I'm sick, to pick a couple of examples)--it was absolutely nothing like what most people who make claims about God claim that God is like, which kind of suggests we can't be talking about the same thing.

I didn't "will myself to disbelieve" the experience--I just suspect it's not real, the way I suspect the water isn't real when I get there and the road is dry or the bed isn't rocking when nobody else mentions the earthquake.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm quite willing not to believe in the square root of minus one. I see no need for it though people who (claim to) know more about electronics than me seem to find it useful.

And as an agnostic (or indeed as anyone else, but I happen to be an agnostic) I can't tell whether the sense of the numinous that I get on certain occasions is a strong godsense, just an aesthetic effect or a weak godsense or an advanced form of indigestion. (I've got lots of those!) I do tend to believe in 'something' but I know I can be wrong dead easily.

M.Cule
Passing Civil Servant...

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

How about we agnostics: I do not have the godsense. I have no idea whether that means that the godsense is a genuine perception that I do not share or a mass hallucination that I do not share, I only know that whatever it is, I don't share it.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

There's also "I do not know whether I have the godsense or not," which is perhaps a subset of 2 or 3, or both. As I said, it's a continuum, and I don't claim to have mapped all the significant points on it.

[ahriman-gonzo.livejournal.com]

6-Godsense is a load and it really doesn't apply to me.

And how dare you refute beleif in the Rai Goblins.
Hersey htat is.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your contribution.