Why I am not a believer

[Cerin]

Cerin, I'd love to discuss this with you, but I have to go right now, and get in my car, even though I firmly believe that there is a statistical chance it could lead me to my death in a fiery car crash ...

The statistical chance of a crash is a matter of fact, the acceptance of which doesn't require a firm belief, merely an intellectual awareness. I think it's clear that you do firmly believe that the statistical chance of your death is small enough to be outweighed by the benefits of driving today. I don't think this is a case (referring specifically to car crash statistics, not the other factors you mentioned) of the flesh being weak, but of your making a rational decision.


edit to clarify, and to explain edit

[Dave_LF]

If they don't attempt it, then I'd say they don't have a firm conviction about it, though if asked they would probably mentally assent to the abstract notion that cigarettes are harmful to the health.

And I'd say they've just decided, consciously or unconsciously, that the benefits justify the risks. Maybe once they experience the risks first-hand they'll change their mind (or maybe not).

Back on topic, I don't like these kinds of mind games where people are told they don't really believe what they say they believe. Especially in the context of a religion where not believing gets you damned for all eternity, it amounts to a form of psychological torture; whether you're doing it to yourself or to someone else (probably by preaching a sermon on James 2). One of many things I don't miss at all.

I'd say everyone has to be on board before you have what I'm calling belief.

In that case, I doubt anyone believes anything except that which is immediately obvious via the senses. Maybe I'm atypical, but no abstract belief in my mind is ever unanimous. Even if you confine yourself to the intellectual regions, a person's stated belief on a given issue typically comes down to which of several competing explanations seems the most likely.

ETA: The businessmen in my analogy aren't appetites, exactly. Rather, they're the agents who decide how you should behave in order to satisfy your appetites, which is pretty much what a business does. Maybe I should have called them corporate lobbyists.

[axordil]

Ax, how do you mean?

The unspooling of conflicting impulses, usually "higher" and "lower" ones, is what makes modern literature (that is, Shakespeare and after) literature. Usually the elephant wins, which is the stuff of tragedy.

[Cerin]

And I'd say they've just decided, consciously or unconsciously, that the benefits justify the risks.

Meaning, I think, that they believe it won't kill them.

Back on topic, I don't like these kinds of mind games where people are told they don't really believe what they say they believe.

I'm not sure if you're referring here to what we've been talking about. I'm not trying to tell anyone what they believe, I'm simply trying to explain my understanding of what the word 'belief' means. Naturally everyone is free to use the word in the way they please. I think there's a certain state of mind that leads to action, and that state of mind I'm calling (I think in accordance with the dictionary definition) 'belief'.

I'd say everyone has to be on board before you have what I'm calling belief.

In that case, I doubt anyone believes anything except that which is immediately obvious via the senses. Maybe I'm atypical, but no abstract belief in my mind is ever unanimous.

I guess it's how you define 'unanimous'. I'm not referring to a completely settled and static state of mind, just a conviction strong enough to lead to action (scholars and businessmen both on board).

ETA: The businessmen in my analogy aren't appetites, exactly. Rather, they're the agents who decide how you should behave in order to satisfy your appetites, which is pretty much what a business does. Maybe I should have called them corporate lobbyists.

[Dave_LF]

Back on topic, I don't like these kinds of mind games where people are told they don't really believe what they say they believe.

I'm not sure if you're referring here to what we've been talking about.

No; I was just remembering back to my days among the Midwestern Dutch Calvinists when I'd here similar arguments from pastors, authors, etc. taken to the logical conclusion that if you're not doing what the Bible says, you must not really believe it and you're probably going to hell*. Not directed at me personally (that wouldn't be passive-aggressive enough), but I made that final leap on my own. I'm cheating a bit by bringing it up in this thread since it is not strictly a reason I don't believe, but rather a thing I was glad to be free of once I quit.

*Calvinists are very good at taking ideas to their depressing logical conclusions; I trait I retained even when I left the church.

[vison]

I was never in a church, Calvinist or otherwise, but I am also one to take ideas to their depressing logical conclusions . . .

I put it down to being of Scottish and Norwegian descent. Both famously famous for taking ideas to their depressing logical conclusions and both very fond of hard, difficult, cold, depressing ideas about life. Even before the church found its way North, I suspect.

[axordil]

You ever read pre-Christian Viking sagas and myths? DEE-pressing.

As the author of "Cvtvre Made Stvpid" so eloquently summarized:

"We sail on down from our frozen shores
And havoc reek on you pallid bores
We cut off your hands and laugh
We cut off our hands and laugh
That's the kind of thing we do
Boy damn it's cold here."

[Primula Baggins]

How well I remember Grandpa in his threadbare funeral suit, sitting by the fire (a single coal) and reciting that in his asthmatic voice.

Good times. Good times.

[vison]

You ever read pre-Christian Viking sagas and myths? DEE-pressing.

As the author of "Cvtvre Made Stvpid" so eloquently summarized:

"We sail on down from our frozen shores
And havoc reek on you pallid bores
We cut off your hands and laugh
We cut off our hands and laugh
That's the kind of thing we do
Boy damn it's cold here."

I think that's wonderful. I've never seen it before. Thanks!!!!

Prim? Your grandpa had a coal? Jeez. And a suit? Jeez again. What a wuss he was . . . . Luxury.

[Dave_LF]

I put it down to being of Scottish and Norwegian descent. Both famously famous for taking ideas to their depressing logical conclusions and both very fond of hard, difficult, cold, depressing ideas about life.

Not to mention hard, difficult, cold, depressing living conditions.

And it is precisely those aspects of Anglo-Nordic culture that I find so appealing.

[River]

I was never in a church, Calvinist or otherwise, but I am also one to take ideas to their depressing logical conclusions . . .

I put it down to being of Scottish and Norwegian descent. Both famously famous for taking ideas to their depressing logical conclusions and both very fond of hard, difficult, cold, depressing ideas about life. Even before the church found its way North, I suspect.

No wonder my mom's family tends to be a melancholy bunch...they're Calvinists too. It's quite the dour mix.

[narya]

And I'd say they've just decided, consciously or unconsciously, that the benefits justify the risks.

Meaning, I think, that they believe it won't kill them.

Or they just have a strong belief in a benevolent (to them) Lady Luck.

if you're not doing what the Bible says, you must not really believe it and you're probably going to hell

I hope that doesn't include abstaining from clam chowder. If so, I'm doomed.