The Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 12:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 10:46 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 6:21 pm

But IC. You seem to insist that humans can choose to believe or not believe what they believe. Is that true or is that not true?

Well, what do you believe about it? Or should I ask what the impersonal universe made you believe about it? Which is the right question to ask you?

So, since you didn't provide confirmation one way or the other

Actually, I did, if you noticed. You asked whether or not humans could choose to believe. And I pointed out to you that even in posing the question, you're having to assume they do. If they don't, if they can't, one cannot even ask the question.

Too indirect for you? I hope the point is now clear.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:14 pm And I pointed out to you that even in posing the question, you're having to assume they do. If they don't, if they can't, one cannot even ask the question.

Too indirect for you? I hope the point is now clear.

Uh IC, at the heart of the matter is "do we have free will?" (does free will exist). So you cannot assume that they can (choose to believe or not) because they can ask the question. It's not CAN we ask the question but did we CHOOSE to ask the question.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:14 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 12:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2026 10:46 pm
Well, what do you believe about it? Or should I ask what the impersonal universe made you believe about it? Which is the right question to ask you?

So, since you didn't provide confirmation one way or the other

Actually, I did, if you noticed. You asked whether or not humans could choose to believe. And I pointed out to you that even in posing the question, you're having to assume they do. If they don't, if they can't, one cannot even ask the question.

Too indirect for you? I hope the point is now clear.

OK. So a person can choose what to believe. At least that's cleared up now. So does that mean that you believe what you choose to? And what you choose is to believe the Bible? If so, then perhaps I should rephrase my point as "Well, believe what you choose." Instead of "Well, believe what you want." Just replace "want" with "choose" in the following:

Gary wrote:Well, believe what you want. Believe I'm going to Hell and warmongers, militant nationalists, greed-filled industrialists, and xenophobes are going to Heaven. Believe my mental illness is all my fault. Believe that my mental illness resulted from rejecting God. Whatever floats your boat and allows you to think highly of yourself. I think you've wasted your time on what is no more than 2000 year old human mythology. I may be the one diagnosed, leaving loons like you to run around free, barking at "leftists" and "atheists", but I guess that's the way an absurd, godless world works.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:14 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 12:47 pm

So, since you didn't provide confirmation one way or the other

Actually, I did, if you noticed. You asked whether or not humans could choose to believe. And I pointed out to you that even in posing the question, you're having to assume they do. If they don't, if they can't, one cannot even ask the question.

Too indirect for you? I hope the point is now clear.

OK. So a person can choose what to believe. At least that's cleared up now. So does that mean that you believe what you choose to?

No, I didn't choose in a vacuum, Gary. Nobody does, really. There's always got to be a reason involved. And in my case, it's that I saw what the Bible was saying, and found I had good reason to believe it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:04 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:14 pm
Actually, I did, if you noticed. You asked whether or not humans could choose to believe. And I pointed out to you that even in posing the question, you're having to assume they do. If they don't, if they can't, one cannot even ask the question.

Too indirect for you? I hope the point is now clear.

OK. So a person can choose what to believe. At least that's cleared up now. So does that mean that you believe what you choose to?

No, I didn't choose in a vacuum, Gary. Nobody does, really. There's always got to be a reason involved. And in my case, it's that I saw what the Bible was saying, and found I had good reason to believe it.

So you chose what seemed most reasonable to you. Can the same be said of people who choose other religions or belief systems? I mean, to you there's no other reasonable choice than believing the Bible. What if someone else feels drawn to Buddhism or Taoism but not the Bible? What do you make of that? Are they just wrong? And if so, how do you determine or measure "untruthfulness" when it comes to theology or religion?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:04 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:32 pm OK. So a person can choose what to believe. At least that's cleared up now. So does that mean that you believe what you choose to?

No, I didn't choose in a vacuum, Gary. Nobody does, really. There's always got to be a reason involved. And in my case, it's that I saw what the Bible was saying, and found I had good reason to believe it.

So you chose what seemed most reasonable to you. Can the same be said of people who choose other religions or belief systems? I mean, to you there's no other reasonable choice than believing the Bible. What if someone else feels drawn to Buddhism or Taoism but not the Bible? What do you make of that? Are they just wrong? And if so, how do you determine or measure "untruthfulness" when it comes to theology or religion?

Aristotle helps us answer your question, Gary. If two opinions are genuinely equivalent and opposite, then it is possible both are untrue, or one is untrue, but it is impossible for both to be true.

When it comes to theology, we all have to make a choice about what to believe. That means we need to know what's "out there," so to speak, so as to be able to make a reasoned choice. And I think that when you do the comparison, if you do, you'll also know the answer to that question.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:04 pm
No, I didn't choose in a vacuum, Gary. Nobody does, really. There's always got to be a reason involved. And in my case, it's that I saw what the Bible was saying, and found I had good reason to believe it.

So you chose what seemed most reasonable to you. Can the same be said of people who choose other religions or belief systems? I mean, to you there's no other reasonable choice than believing the Bible. What if someone else feels drawn to Buddhism or Taoism but not the Bible? What do you make of that? Are they just wrong? And if so, how do you determine or measure "untruthfulness" when it comes to theology or religion?

Aristotle helps us answer your question, Gary. If two opinions are genuinely equivalent and opposite, then it is possible both are untrue, or one is untrue, but it is impossible for both to be true.

When it comes to theology, we all have to make a choice about what to believe. That means we need to know what's "out there," so to speak, so as to be able to make a reasoned choice. And I think that when you do the comparison, if you do, you'll also know the answer to that question.

Knowing what's "out there" in terms of a "spirit" world is unfortunately not within our abilities. We can fake it, fool ourselves, or assume we know, but we really don't know, in all honesty. So it's pretty pointless to say "we need to know what's out there" because it can never theoretically happen.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 6:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:54 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:25 pm

So you chose what seemed most reasonable to you. Can the same be said of people who choose other religions or belief systems? I mean, to you there's no other reasonable choice than believing the Bible. What if someone else feels drawn to Buddhism or Taoism but not the Bible? What do you make of that? Are they just wrong? And if so, how do you determine or measure "untruthfulness" when it comes to theology or religion?

Aristotle helps us answer your question, Gary. If two opinions are genuinely equivalent and opposite, then it is possible both are untrue, or one is untrue, but it is impossible for both to be true.

When it comes to theology, we all have to make a choice about what to believe. That means we need to know what's "out there," so to speak, so as to be able to make a reasoned choice. And I think that when you do the comparison, if you do, you'll also know the answer to that question.

Knowing what's "out there" in terms of a "spirit" world is unfortunately not within our abilities.

I don't think that's true at all. I think that most people simply have never tried.

You've referred to Aristotle, IC

That presumably means you've seen him discuss ethics and morality. Did he seem to be incoherent and/or inconsistent even though not basing on "given by the gods"? If not, then why are you arguing that a modern "secularist" cannot do so.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 7:45 pm You've referred to Aristotle, IC

That presumably means you've seen him discuss ethics and morality. Did he seem to be incoherent and/or inconsistent even though not basing on "given by the gods"? If not, then why are you arguing that a modern "secularist" cannot do so.

Oh, I don't give a blanket approval to everything Aristotle said. After all, he thought the brain was a radiator, and a woman was a disfigured man. He said some nutty stuff. But his laws of logic are not content-based...they're procedural. And they apply to all logical thought, without regard for any particular ideology or belief.

Aristotle was in the "natural law" tradition, which I would say is at best a flawed and partial way to look at ethics. But the secularism problem is not with the gods; it's inherent to secularism itself. It cannot ground any morality...and that would remain true, no matter what other schools of thought might say, or what real-world people who profess to be secular do. The key problem would only appear to those who attempted to live by way of secularism itself; and for them, it's quite terminal.

Morality is a structured system of active compassion, as a biological extension of the nature of humanity. Where there is no identification with others, there arises no compassion; without compassion, there is no morality.