Age of Reason

[Ethos]

My apologies for a moderately misleading thread title. Rather than debating the age at which a person is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong (standard definition), I'm curious to hear thoughts on the age at which a person is able to rationally adopt life-long instruction as a choice. (within the context of religion)

Specifically this is a thread responding to a quote in another post. I decided it would be appropriate to create a new line of discussion rather than further alter another.


Everybody actively chooses what they believe, and everybody bases that belief on their personal reasoning, feeling, and emotions. In that regard it's exactly the same as a political belief

I'm not certain this is a completely accurate statement. Young children could not be said to actively "choose" their system of religious belief, and while most of us (thankfully) don't engage in politics (in the Democrat v Republican sense) from an early age, we are exposed to religion from birth.

In this sense, I would suggest a person who spends their developmental years belonging to and participating in a religion has far less conscious "choice" over their faith than their political standing, which tend to develop later in life.

In this case, could both sets of beliefs truly be considered "actively chosen" by the individual?

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Well, no. The word "actively" would seem to imply that multiple alternatives were compared, tested, etc. before a conclusion was drawn. This is simply not what happens in most cases. I personally do not know anyone who actively considered multiple religions before adopting any one of them as their own. I know people who have done this after belonging to the faith of their parents for most of their lives, but even then only a small number.

[Ethos]

Certainly we can't have a position which says a person's faith is never their own choice, but then I agree that a child hardly has options in that regard. If we accept that a person's "default" religious affiliation is going to be imposed on them by their parents, at what point can we consider that faith a choice on the part of the recipient?

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

I'm really not sure. Obviously there comes a point in their development when they're capable of evaluating their own position, but given that most people stick with the faith that was imposed on them from birth do people generally give a rigorous critique of their own faith and objectively consider the alternatives, or do they simply rationalize the beliefs they already hold? I would tend to think the latter a much more common occurence.

[Ethos]

I'm really not sure. Obviously there comes a point in their development when they're capable of evaluating their own position, but given that most people stick with the faith that was imposed on them from birth do people generally give a rigorous critique of their own faith and objectively consider the alternatives, or do they simply rationalize the beliefs they already hold? I would tend to think the latter a much more common occurence.

Realizing of course that most people have no reason to evaluate their faith in that manner. Abdicating responsibility in this way isn't appealing, but I'm not sure we can rightly call some of these characteristics "choices" in the traditional sense. Is it accurate to say an imposed component of life (religion, diet, etc) becomes a "choice" even when the individual is intellectually capable of picking an alternative?

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

No.

4
5
6

[dittohead not!]

I'm not so sure that faith is ever based on reason. It seems to be based on feelings, perhaps an inner feeling that god is telling you that one faith or the other is the right one.

Sometimes, faith is simply based on an innate need to belong to something, so we try to convince ourselves that a particular church's teachings are true in order to be accepted into a group. It can be lonely to not belong, and to belong is to believe.

It seems to me that reaching conclusions by actual reason, logic, and fact is the diametric opposite of accepting something by faith.

[Dangerrmouse]

The followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn have faith that he is pink, while having never been seen he must logically be invisible.....

[lawman]

Realizing of course that most people have no reason to evaluate their faith in that manner. Abdicating responsibility in this way isn't appealing, but I'm not sure we can rightly call some of these characteristics "choices" in the traditional sense. Is it accurate to say an imposed component of life (religion, diet, etc) becomes a "choice" even when the individual is intellectually capable of picking an alternative?
I'm with Lumpen on this. I think everyone has "reason," and indeed a responsibility, to evaluate their faith, and their other beliefs as well, as part of being a mature and self-aware human being. If one abdicates that responsibility and simply continues to take things for granted, accepting them uncritically, then no, we can't call that a choice in any meaningful sense.

To revisit the initial question, though, about age... Piaget's theory of cognitive development suggests that Stage 4, "formal operations" (in which people are able to comprehend abstract concepts and think about them analytically) typically begins no sooner than age 10-12... although sometimes as late as 15, and with the caveat that some people never advance to this stage. This corresponds well with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which find that kids are unable to process Level 2 thinking ("conventional morality," based on either interpersonal relationships or social order) until around age 11, and increasingly so throughout the teen years. (Note, though, that most people in his studies don't reach Level 3, "postconventional morality," based on social contract and/or universal principles, until their 20s, if at all.)

So I think it's fair to say that the middle school years are the earliest age at which children might be expected to make serious choices about the religion their parents handed them -- and, as a corollary, it's an age at which it would be very useful to teach them about comparative religion and thus give them the chance to consider that choice in an unbiased environment.

[Ethos]

I'm with Lumpen on this. I think everyone has "reason," and indeed a responsibility, to evaluate their faith, and their other beliefs as well, as part of being a mature and self-aware human being. If one abdicates that responsibility and simply continues to take things for granted, accepting them uncritically, then no, we can't call that a choice in any meaningful sense.

Doesn't the individual make the choice not to perform these mental actions? In this case, it would still be a choice, just not one that is especially complex.



To revisit the initial question, though, about age... Piaget's theory of cognitive development suggests that Stage 4, "formal operations" (in which people are able to comprehend abstract concepts and think about them analytically) typically begins no sooner than age 10-12... although sometimes as late as 15, and with the caveat that some people never advance to this stage. This corresponds well with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which find that kids are unable to process Level 2 thinking ("conventional morality," based on either interpersonal relationships or social order) until around age 11, and increasingly so throughout the teen years. (Note, though, that most people in his studies don't reach Level 3, "postconventional morality," based on social contract and/or universal principles, until their 20s, if at all.)

So I think it's fair to say that the middle school years are the earliest age at which children might be expected to make serious choices about the religion their parents handed them -- and, as a corollary, it's an age at which it would be very useful to teach them about comparative religion and thus give them the chance to consider that choice in an unbiased environment.

Would it then also be fair to say that once a person has exited college (or the teen years), they have made a conscious choice in regard to religious faith - whether to evaluate their existing beliefs or take them at face value - and they are then fully responsible for the consequences thereof?

Ethos

[MikeD4o7]

My apologies for a moderately misleading thread title. Rather than debating the age at which a person is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong (standard definition), I'm curious to hear thoughts on the age at which a person is able to rationally adopt life-long instruction as a choice. (within the context of religion)

Specifically this is a thread responding to a quote in another post. I decided it would be appropriate to create a new line of discussion rather than further alter another.



I'm not certain this is a completely accurate statement. Young children could not be said to actively "choose" their system of religious belief, and while most of us (thankfully) don't engage in politics (in the Democrat v Republican sense) from an early age, we are exposed to religion from birth.

In this sense, I would suggest a person who spends their developmental years belonging to and participating in a religion has far less conscious "choice" over their faith than their political standing, which tend to develop later in life.

In this case, could both sets of beliefs truly be considered "actively chosen" by the individual?

Ethos

The context of the other thread was in relation to people voting for a presidential candidate. You could argue that young children might not "choose" their religion at that point, but I would say they will by the time they're 18, even if they just choose to keep believing what they were brought up with.

[Ethos]

The context of the other thread was in relation to people voting for a presidential candidate. You could argue that young children might not "choose" their religion at that point, but I would say they will by the time they're 18, even if they just choose to keep believing what they were brought up with.

I decided the concept deserved its own thread. The context doesn't matter, for the considerations are the same.

What is your position on the matter? You do not sound like you particularly agree. Do you believe a 5 year old has chosen his or her religion?

Do you think that someone who has spent 17 years observing one faith has the ability to automatically "choose" another once they turn 18? What happens at 18 that does not happen at 15 or 22?

Ethos

[whatever]

I'm really not sure. Obviously there comes a point in their development when they're capable of evaluating their own position, but given that most people stick with the faith that was imposed on them from birth do people generally give a rigorous critique of their own faith and objectively consider the alternatives, or do they simply rationalize the beliefs they already hold? I would tend to think the latter a much more common occurence.

You assume that "choice" must only come from "rigorous critique" of an object and its alternatives. Most people make their choices in life without much thought. It is nevertheless a choice.

And why would you think that the second is the more common occurance? It's seems to me, what you seem to be saying is that if they still have faith after they have thought carefully about their religion, then it must be rationalisation.

So most people choose to stay in the religion they grew up with, to me that seems a rational choice: why would a person choose to change something that has worked for them, continues to work for them, and has been a part of their lives since they were kids, even if they could find some small faults with it? Religion has become so entwined with our traditions and way of life, it had better be something big that should move a rational person to make such a big change (cost-benefit analysis). Would you stop having Christmas dinner in favour Chinese Reunion Dinner simply because it's less crowded to travel during that time of year?

[whatever]

I decided the concept deserved its own thread. The context doesn't matter, for the considerations are the same.

What is your position on the matter? You do not sound like you particularly agree. Do you believe a 5 year old has chosen his or her religion?

Do you think that someone who has spent 17 years observing one faith has the ability to automatically "choose" another once they turn 18? What happens at 18 that does not happen at 15 or 22?

Ethos

Not if by "choose", you mean making decisions from a clean plate, like going into a new restaurant and chooing a dish on a menu.

There's really no way to say at what age a person can be said to "choose" their religion. To change religion, their belief in God has to radically change. That can happen at almost any age in life.

[lawman]

Would it then also be fair to say that once a person has exited college (or the teen years), they have made a conscious choice in regard to religious faith - whether to evaluate their existing beliefs or take them at face value...?
Not quite. It would be fair to say that by the time a person has reached that point, he or she is almost certainly capable of making a conscious choice about such things. We cannot necessarily assume that any particular individual has actually done so, however.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this, though... what subsequent judgments or social policies depend, in your estimation, on the assumptions we make about this?

[MikeD4o7]

I decided the concept deserved its own thread. The context doesn't matter, for the considerations are the same.

What is your position on the matter? You do not sound like you particularly agree. Do you believe a 5 year old has chosen his or her religion?

Do you think that someone who has spent 17 years observing one faith has the ability to automatically "choose" another once they turn 18? What happens at 18 that does not happen at 15 or 22?

Ethos

I'm not sure at what age I would say somebody makes a "choice", but the point is that it IS a choice as opposed to some inherent trait passed down in our genes. People at some point make a choice to keep believing what they believe, to slightly alter their beliefs, or to change them completely.

[Ethos]

Not quite. It would be fair to say that by the time a person has reached that point, he or she is almost certainly capable of making a conscious choice about such things. We cannot necessarily assume that any particular individual has actually done so, however.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this, though... what subsequent judgments or social policies depend, in your estimation, on the assumptions we make about this?

The origin of the thread is from the "protection for atheism" discussion where it has been asserted a number of times that racial discrimination is wrong because race is an inherited trait while religious discrimination is acceptable due to it being a choice, rather than genetic.

My understanding of human psychology, as well as personal experience, would indicate otherwise however. More on this in my next response.

Ethos

[Ethos]

I'm not sure at what age I would say somebody makes a "choice", but the point is that it IS a choice as opposed to some inherent trait passed down in our genes. People at some point make a choice to keep believing what they believe, to slightly alter their beliefs, or to change them completely.

I would suggest most individuals do not in fact "choose" their faith. While I eventually chose my atheism, I do not recall having chosen to become a Christian earlier in my life. Do you remember the moment in your own where you made a conscious choice to adopt your own religion?

Beliefs may not be genetic in the same was race is, but that does not necessarily promise a person's beliefs are consciously picked for themselves. If I might employ an analogy, we could consider religion to me much like an accent. Now certainly a person's accent is not genetic, however it also could not by any stretch be considered a "choice".

So perhaps you need to adopt a new rationale for accepting religious prejudice while rejecting racial prejudice since your logic in this case is inherently flawed.

Ethos

[DrWho]

Finding your own path is harder for some people than for others but it is still up to the person to make their own decisions while no one is tested beyond their ability to resist. The older you are the more you are solely responsible for your decisions. All are without excuse for rejecting the truth and all are credited for accepting it.

[dittohead not!]

Finding your own path is harder for some people than for others but it is still up to the person to make their own decisions while no one is tested beyond their ability to resist. The older you are the more you are solely responsible for your decisions. All are without excuse for rejecting the truth and all are credited for accepting it.

Is that truth based on reason and fact, or based on what someone says you should believe?

[DrWho]

Is that truth based on reason and fact, or based on what someone says you should believe?

It is based on my life experience coupled with my god-given ability to reason and evaluate the Bible.

Finding your own path is harder for some people than for others

This is the way I see the world. it is not fair or equal and the Bible never says it is.


but it is still up to the person to make their own decisions

Every adult is responsible for making their own decisions. Again my own observations which have not been contradicted by what I find in the Bible.

while no one is tested beyond their ability to resist.


I first saw this biblical idea before I thought it. But as I have gone through life it has been confirmed to me by my own observations.

The older you are the more you are solely responsible for your decisions.


Strictly my own observations as a former shrink.


[QUOTE]
All are without excuse for rejecting the truth and all are credited for accepting it.

I am not the one evaluating excuses or offering credit. I can only go on what I have been told. But it does logically follow from the above observations.

[Ethos]

Finding your own path is harder for some people than for others but it is still up to the person to make their own decisions while no one is tested beyond their ability to resist. The older you are the more you are solely responsible for your decisions. All are without excuse for rejecting the truth and all are credited for accepting it.

This doesn't really tell me anything about where you believe the line is drawn regarding the cognitive ability of children versus adults and its relation to religious faith. As a former shrink, I am sure you understand that children (ages 5 - 10, give or take) are incapable of analyzing highly complex decisions and the consequences inherent to those choices.

Unless you believe it is unreasonable to assert that a young child has no choice regarding the faith he or she is expected to observe by their guardian(s), it is fair to question whether or not a young adult with perhaps 20 years of experience in a single faith truly has made a conscious "choice" to continue following that religion. At the very least one could point out that early church-going experiences are on parallel with classical conditioning models.

Ethos

[DrWho]

This doesn't really tell me anything about where you believe the line is drawn regarding the cognitive ability of children versus adults and its relation to religious faith. As a former shrink, I am sure you understand that children (ages 5 - 10, give or take) are incapable of analyzing highly complex decisions and the consequences inherent to those choices.

Unless you believe it is unreasonable to assert that a young child has no choice regarding the faith he or she is expected to observe by their guardian(s), it is fair to question whether or not a young adult with perhaps 20 years of experience in a single faith truly has made a conscious "choice" to continue following that religion. At the very least one could point out that early church-going experiences are on parallel with classical conditioning models.

Ethos

As a father I can tell you that my 6 yr old has a fairly well established sense of his own ideas and has made it clear to us that he will decide when he is ready or not to be baptised. I don't encourage this attitude in him but he has it nevertheless. As he gets older I see more and more independence in him even at this young age. Despite his general contrariness he is strongly influenced by the adults around him though I expect it will lessen as his independence increases.

My two year old has no idea what religion even is.

I used to work professionally with kids who had serious emotional problems and many of them were much less capable of directing their own life course, in religion or any other field, than my 6 yr old, even though they were often well into their teens. They were exceptional.

Traditional Jewish thought was that at the age of 13 a person became responsible for their own conduct, implying that they had made a choice. This was commemorated by a Bar Mitzvah (sp?).

If I were forced to draw a line I too would draw it at 13, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think this is a developmental stage as much as it is a continuum along which people progress at various rates.

[Ethos]

If I were forced to draw a line I too would draw it at 13, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think this is a developmental stage as much as it is a continuum along which people progress at various rates.

Obviously there will be exceptions, but I can accept 13 as a starting point for discussion. The purpose of the thread is to ask whether we can correctly claim that someone at and beyond the age of 13 has actively chosen their faith. Even once a person reaches the moment in mental development (or continuum, if you prefer) where they are able to understand and evaluate the multitude of factors involved in making life-altering decisions, each of us does not then sit down to consider our religious beliefs, making a choice to follow them going forward.

Would you say the average 13-year-old has chosen their religion?

Ethos

[DrWho]

Obviously there will be exceptions, but I can accept 13 as a starting point for discussion. The purpose of the thread is to ask whether we can correctly claim that someone at and beyond the age of 13 has actively chosen their faith. Even once a person reaches the moment in mental development (or continuum, if you prefer) where they are able to understand and evaluate the multitude of factors involved in making life-altering decisions, each of us does not then sit down to consider our religious beliefs, making a choice to follow them going forward.

Would you say the average 13-year-old has chosen their religion?

Ethos

In America the average anything has chosen their religion and it is the religion of materialism serving the God of money. Most people don't seriously consider anything deeper than the bottom of a glass of Pepsi.

OK that is just hyperbole. But 200 years ago American religion was described as being 100 miles wide and 2 inches thick and that is just as true today. (I may have paraphrased a bit) How does anyone judge Christianity when most of its self-proclaimed followers are anything but Christian - they are just American hedonist more than anything else.

[MikeD4o7]

I would suggest most individuals do not in fact "choose" their faith. While I eventually chose my atheism, I do not recall having chosen to become a Christian earlier in my life. Do you remember the moment in your own where you made a conscious choice to adopt your own religion?

Beliefs may not be genetic in the same was race is, but that does not necessarily promise a person's beliefs are consciously picked for themselves. If I might employ an analogy, we could consider religion to me much like an accent. Now certainly a person's accent is not genetic, however it also could not by any stretch be considered a "choice".

So perhaps you need to adopt a new rationale for accepting religious prejudice while rejecting racial prejudice since your logic in this case is inherently flawed.

Ethos


Accents are meaningless, and religious beliefs are definitely not. You may be born into them in the same way, but if religion is a part of your life, then it's something you think about. You may choose to immediately suppress any doubts you have about your religion, and I realize that's what many people do, but even that is a choice.

Also, every person that thinks rationally employs religious "prejudice". I will never vote for a Scientologist, nor will I ever vote for a Pagan that identified Aries as his central god of worship.

Now do you really think that's because I have some sort of prejudice that's equivalent to racism, or do you think it's because there are good REASONS not to vote for people that hold those beliefs? If needed, I can explain the logical reasons why I would never vote for them.

[dittohead not!]

In America the average anything has chosen their religion and it is the religion of materialism serving the God of money. Most people don't seriously consider anything deeper than the bottom of a glass of Pepsi.

OK that is just hyperbole. But 200 years ago American religion was described as being 100 miles wide and 2 inches thick and that is just as true today. (I may have paraphrased a bit) How does anyone judge Christianity when most of its self-proclaimed followers are anything but Christian - they are just American hedonist more than anything else.

That's very true of the vast majority, and also true of many followers of other religions as well. There are exceptions, of course.

I wonder how true it is of Muslims? How many are so into their religion, so faithful to their beliefs, that they are willing to give their lives for their faith? We know that many are.

Maybe the shallowness of most believers is really a good thing.

[Ethos]

In America the average anything has chosen their religion and it is the religion of materialism serving the God of money. Most people don't seriously consider anything deeper than the bottom of a glass of Pepsi.

OK that is just hyperbole. But 200 years ago American religion was described as being 100 miles wide and 2 inches thick and that is just as true today. (I may have paraphrased a bit) How does anyone judge Christianity when most of its self-proclaimed followers are anything but Christian - they are just American hedonist more than anything else.

Again you have veered horribly off topic. Hyperbole is better served in a setting that isn't relying on complex scientific determinations as a basis for debate.

Suppose I should ask a straight-forward question. Given the last few posts, do you believe the average 21 year old individual has effectively "chosen" their religion in the same fashion as one chooses a political party or a dinner selection?

Ethos

[Ethos]

Accents are meaningless, and religious beliefs are definitely not. You may be born into them in the same way, but if religion is a part of your life, then it's something you think about. You may choose to immediately suppress any doubts you have about your religion, and I realize that's what many people do, but even that is a choice.

Also, every person that thinks rationally employs religious "prejudice". I will never vote for a Scientologist, nor will I ever vote for a Pagan that identified Aries as his central god of worship.

Now do you really think that's because I have some sort of prejudice that's equivalent to racism, or do you think it's because there are good REASONS not to vote for people that hold those beliefs? If needed, I can explain the logical reasons why I would never vote for them.

Accents meaningless, you say? Apparently you have never been verbally assaulted due to your accent. I suspect quite a few linguists would also be disappointed.

In regard to your hypothetical scientologist and pagan candidates, I expect you would be refusing to vote for them due to assumptions being made concerning their own beliefs. If however you were to learn the Pagan's god is good and just, and he isn't a fundamentalist of his faith in in sense, and he would do his job without a reliance on prayers to Ares in the process. His public record is good, he seems to have a normal, well-adjusted family. He pays taxes and volunteers to feed the homeless at Thanksgiving.

So if you no longer had your basic assumptions about him to draw on, and were forced to understand him as a person with the above dossier instead, How would your vote change for this person?

Ethos

[DrWho]

[QUOTE]Again you have veered horribly off topic. Hyperbole is better served in a setting that isn't relying on complex scientific determinations as a basis for debate.


How is an individual supposed to decide what religion they would like to follow when the examples around him don't represent that religion adequately? See the relevance?


Suppose I should ask a straight-forward question. Given the last few posts, do you believe the average 21 year old individual has effectively "chosen" their religion in the same fashion as one chooses a political party or a dinner selection?


Which reminds me of something I had forgotten earlier. When I was in college I went through a phase where I examined all the world religions I could find books on in the library. (Reading about Hinduism really did it a disservice.) later I read somewhere that examining the "Big Ideas" of the world is a natural part of being this age. I don't remember where I read this or how true it is, but it is interesting.

Am I contradicting myself. No. I believe that most people gradually become responsible for their actions and thoughts and have "ownership" over them pretty much by around 13 but will examine the big questions as a part of their development between 18 and 25.

[Lumpen Prole]

It's quite curious that the overwhelming majority of people come up with the same answers to the big questions as their parents. Am I just naive to find it odd that more people aren't defecting from the religion of their childhood? I would think that there would be less Hindus in India, Muslims in Mesopotamia, and Christians in the American heartland if everyone had such autonomous "ownership."

Oh, and, when presenting a point of view that is derived from interesting literature, it usually helps to include a citation. ;)

[DrWho]

[QUOTE]It's quite curious that the overwhelming majority of people come up with the same answers to the big questions as their parents. Am I just naive to find it odd that more people aren't defecting from the religion of their childhood? I would think that there would be less Hindus in India, Muslims in Mesopotamia, and Christians in the American heartland if everyone had such autonomous "ownership."

This is a true observation even if you did not include a citation. Yet people are still without excuse for failing to note truths that are self-evident. Here is my citation: "Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Accept it or not.

Oh, and, when presenting a point of view that is derived from interesting literature, it usually helps to include a citation. ;)

I already gave my apologetic for not having a citation. Citations are useful in science where it is important for others to be able to replicate a person's results and detailed descriptions of the methodology will be needed. When just stating a fact it would constitute an ad hominem argument. The truth of a fact is not dependent on who said it but only on whether or not it is true.

[Lumpen Prole]

This is a true observation even if you did not include a citation. Yet people are still without excuse for failing to note truths that are self-evident. Here is my citation: "Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Accept it or not.


So your response to my skepticism of your previous remarks is to tell me that your position is self-evident and that I should accept it as dogma? Besides the fact that my skepticism directly contradicts the assertion that your "truths" are self-evident, your stubborn refusal to cite the source that your arguments were based on cripples our ability to have a productive conversation. Have a wonderful day!!

[Ethos]

Am I contradicting myself. No. I believe that most people gradually become responsible for their actions and thoughts and have "ownership" over them pretty much by around 13 but will examine the big questions as a part of their development between 18 and 25.

It feels like you are still scraping around the question. Can I take the above as evidence that you believe a person chooses their religion somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25?

[DrWho]

So your response to my skepticism of your previous remarks is to tell me that your position is self-evident and that I should accept it as dogma? Besides the fact that my skepticism directly contradicts the assertion that your "truths" are self-evident, your stubborn refusal to cite the source that your arguments were based on cripples our ability to have a productive conversation. Have a wonderful day!!


No. My response is that the nature of god is self evident to everyone - the universe has a creator. Just because something is self-evident does not mean that everyone will accept it.

I was not talking about the previous comment about people seeking answers to life's big questions. When you said that everyone tends to believe what their parents have believed I commented that if they choose wrongly they will still suffer the consequences.

If a person living in India and immersed in Hinduism fails to see that God has created the Universe then he alone has failed to know this. Still no one is judged on a standard that is beyond their abilities.

[DrWho]

It feels like you are still scraping around the question. Can I take the above as evidence that you believe a person chooses their religion somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25?


Given that I have known people who have chosen their religion very young and also others when very old this could not be true.

But the foundational world views are formed by that time. They are not set in stone and people change their minds all the time.

[Sgt Schultz]

No. My response is that the nature of god is self evident to everyone - the universe has a creator. Just because something is self-evident does not mean that everyone will accept it.

Speaking for yourself I hope.

[Ethos]

But the foundational world views are formed by that time. They are not set in stone and people change their minds all the time.

But the actual flexibility in regard to changing your mind is not universal. Some world views are more easily changed than others. Religion, as a foundation which takes root over many years, may not be "set in stone", but perhaps as close to being so as anything.

So once more we come down to whether the average person (note I am not interested in parsing your personal experiences with specific individuals) can be considered to have consciously "chosen" their religious affiliation at the age of 25. Given that faith is not typically an optional component of an individual's early history, and humans tend to have a psychologically difficult time challenging long-held personal beliefs, I continue to maintain we do not choose our religious faith as actively as we decide on what type of car to what political party to join.

Ethos

[DrWho]

But the actual flexibility in regard to changing your mind is not universal. Some world views are more easily changed than others. Religion, as a foundation which takes root over many years, may not be "set in stone", but perhaps as close to being so as anything.

So once more we come down to whether the average person (note I am not interested in parsing your personal experiences with specific individuals) can be considered to have consciously "chosen" their religious affiliation at the age of 25. Given that faith is not typically an optional component of an individual's early history, and humans tend to have a psychologically difficult time challenging long-held personal beliefs, I continue to maintain we do not choose our religious faith as actively as we decide on what type of car to what political party to join.

Ethos

I haven't meant to disagree. I would just add that people are responsible for their choices even if those choices were hard to avoid.

[MikeD4o7]

Accents meaningless, you say? Apparently you have never been verbally assaulted due to your accent. I suspect quite a few linguists would also be disappointed.

In regard to your hypothetical scientologist and pagan candidates, I expect you would be refusing to vote for them due to assumptions being made concerning their own beliefs. If however you were to learn the Pagan's god is good and just, and he isn't a fundamentalist of his faith in in sense, and he would do his job without a reliance on prayers to Ares in the process. His public record is good, he seems to have a normal, well-adjusted family. He pays taxes and volunteers to feed the homeless at Thanksgiving.

So if you no longer had your basic assumptions about him to draw on, and were forced to understand him as a person with the above dossier instead, How would your vote change for this person?

Ethos

I don't understand your point about accents... you can make no reasonable inferences about how a person thinks or their values based on an accent.

Concerning the religious beliefs... I'm not sure why you're referring to everything as an assumption. There are things that you know somebody believes based on the religion they are, because that's the very definition of the religion. It's not an assumption for me to say that the Pagan in question in my example holds the values of the god of war highly. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a Pagan with Ares as his central god of worship. Likewise, I know that a scientologist, like a Biblical literalist, doesn't buy into the scientific explanation for the origin of our species, because that's a central tenant of the religion. If I didn't want to vote for somebody based on that.. that is not at all like not voting for somebody because of their race.

[Ethos]

I don't understand your point about accents... you can make no reasonable inferences about how a person thinks or their values based on an accent.

Certainly you cannot, yet people do it all the time. The same holds true for religion, which is why the comparison is important.



Concerning the religious beliefs... I'm not sure why you're referring to everything as an assumption. There are things that you know somebody believes based on the religion they are, because that's the very definition of the religion. It's not an assumption for me to say that the Pagan in question in my example holds the values of the god of war highly. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a Pagan with Ares as his central god of worship. Likewise, I know that a scientologist, like a Biblical literalist, doesn't buy into the scientific explanation for the origin of our species, because that's a central tenant of the religion. If I didn't want to vote for somebody based on that.. that is not at all like not voting for somebody because of their race.

There may be a very few number of absolutes one is able to discern about a person based on their religion (the centrality of Jesus to a Christian, for example), however you are still not able to assume these religious beliefs will have any influence on their policy decisions.

Ethos

[MikeD4o7]

Certainly you cannot, yet people do it all the time. The same holds true for religion, which is why the comparison is important.




There may be a very few number of absolutes one is able to discern about a person based on their religion (the centrality of Jesus to a Christian, for example), however you are still not able to assume these religious beliefs will have any influence on their policy decisions.

Ethos

I feel like you're just playing a semantics game. I guess you can't "assume" anything. You can't assume that a candidate will actually do the things he says he will either, but we still vote on that. If I simply say that I wouldn't vote for anybody that's religious in any way, simply because I think leaders who hold reason as the highest possible virtue are the best, then even that's a logically consistent position that has nothing to do with anything remotely resembling racism. Likewise, if a Christian feels that only people who ARE in touch with God can possibly make the best decisions, then not wanting to vote for an atheist is perfectly consistent with that belief. The comparison to racism is ridiculous.

[Ethos]

I feel like you're just playing a semantics game. I guess you can't "assume" anything. You can't assume that a candidate will actually do the things he says he will either, but we still vote on that. If I simply say that I wouldn't vote for anybody that's religious in any way, simply because I think leaders who hold reason as the highest possible virtue are the best, then even that's a logically consistent position that has nothing to do with anything remotely resembling racism. Likewise, if a Christian feels that only people who ARE in touch with God can possibly make the best decisions, then not wanting to vote for an atheist is perfectly consistent with that belief. The comparison to racism is ridiculous.

Refusing to vote for someone because they are black is based on an inaccurate assumption of the individual... perhaps the voter believes blacks will only pursue policy decisions relating to African-American endeavors, or they hate whites by virtue of race alone, or they are simply inferior to whites. The foundation of prejudice is preconceived opinions or feelings, formed without knowledge. By making assumptions about blacks - and yes, even atheists - you are forming unreasonable, prejudiced positions.

Ethos

[MikeD4o7]

Refusing to vote for someone because they are black is based on an inaccurate assumption of the individual... perhaps the voter believes blacks will only pursue policy decisions relating to African-American endeavors, or they hate whites by virtue of race alone, or they are simply inferior to whites. The foundation of prejudice is preconceived opinions or feelings, formed without knowledge. By making assumptions about blacks - and yes, even atheists - you are forming unreasonable, prejudiced positions.

Ethos

And when it's flipped? If I say I don't want to risk having somebody in office who might possibly waste even a second of his time during a crisis by praying... is that still based on a false assumption? or is it a reasonable assumption to assume that theists very well may pray in crisis situations?

[Ethos]

And when it's flipped? If I say I don't want to risk having somebody in office who might possibly waste even a second of his time during a crisis by praying... is that still based on a false assumption? or is it a reasonable assumption to assume that theists very well may pray in crisis situations?

Yes. I would also say that such a bias is unreasonable. Prayer is often an efficient means of calming the body and mind, much like meditation, and it would seem helpful to have a leader who maintains composure during a crisis by whatever methods necessary.

Ethos

[steveksux]

Young children are extremely accepting of magical explanations. Take the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, etc. And including whatever religion they are exposed to. Things which become ingrained that early tend to be accepted wholeheartedly before the age of reason, and once accepted that deeply, rarely questioned seriously.

Once that age is attained, certainly new information is scrutinized more closely before being accepted, unless it fits the preconcieved notions ingrained already, especially including those buried at a young age. There is a vast differrence between choices made after that age, and those before. Many beliefs acquired before become the basis for deep seated preconcieved notions that are never shed. They are not logical choices in the same sense that adult choices are made. More along the lines of indoctrination than a choice.

Without other older kids constantly spilling the beans about Santa and the Easter bunny, who knows how long and how strong belief in these would be going into adulthood? Belief in Santa would rival belief in the major religions of the world.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

What do you mean, Santa's not real?

[DrWho]

Young children are extremely accepting of magical explanations. Take the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, etc. And including whatever religion they are exposed to. Things which become ingrained that early tend to be accepted wholeheartedly before the age of reason, and once accepted that deeply, rarely questioned seriously.

Once that age is attained, certainly new information is scrutinized more closely before being accepted, unless it fits the preconcieved notions ingrained already, especially including those buried at a young age. There is a vast differrence between choices made after that age, and those before. Many beliefs acquired before become the basis for deep seated preconcieved notions that are never shed. They are not logical choices in the same sense that adult choices are made. More along the lines of indoctrination than a choice.

Without other older kids constantly spilling the beans about Santa and the Easter bunny, who knows how long and how strong belief in these would be going into adulthood? Belief in Santa would rival belief in the major religions of the world.

Randy

If you are trying to argue that they have a hard time letting go of preconceived notions then you might rethink using Santa, the easter bunny, et al. as examples. How many adults do you know who still believe any of these?

[Lumpen Prole]

The Easter Bunny is a self-evident truth. I do not need to provide sources or evidence for my position because if you disagree you are wrong.

[dittohead not!]

Without other older kids constantly spilling the beans about Santa and the Easter bunny, who knows how long and how strong belief in these would be going into adulthood? Belief in Santa would rival belief in the major religions of the world.

Randy

Lots of people seem to think that the federal government is Santa Claus.

[steveksux]

If you are trying to argue that they have a hard time letting go of preconceived notions then you might rethink using Santa, the easter bunny, et al. as examples. How many adults do you know who still believe any of these?They are perfectly fine as examples, as people spill the beans at a young age for those, while still affirming the religious stuff. Shows the contrast as to what sort of stuff stays with you, what doesn't, and why pretty clearly.

Randy

[Ethos]

If you are trying to argue that they have a hard time letting go of preconceived notions then you might rethink using Santa, the easter bunny, et al. as examples. How many adults do you know who still believe any of these?

The primary reason children begin believing in the mythology of Santa Claus is because they are instructed to do so. Likewise the reason we do not continue believing in Santa is further instruction.

If the myth of Santa or the Easter Bunny were reinforced through adulthood, do you seriously think people would not still believe in both?

Ethos

[DrWho]

The primary reason children begin believing in the mythology of Santa Claus is because they are instructed to do so. Likewise the reason we do not continue believing in Santa is further instruction.

If the myth of Santa or the Easter Bunny were reinforced through adulthood, do you seriously think people would not still believe in both?

Ethos


Only the gullible.

[Ethos]

Only the gullible.

Not a very well-reasoned response. Do you consider children to be gullible for believing in such things when we tell them to do so? And if they are never told these things are not real, what do we call them as adults when they still believe?

Can you prove Santa does not exist?

Ethos

[MikeD4o7]

Yes. I would also say that such a bias is unreasonable. Prayer is often an efficient means of calming the body and mind, much like meditation, and it would seem helpful to have a leader who maintains composure during a crisis by whatever methods necessary.

Ethos

Seems like a stretch to me. I think my point can easily be illustrated just by looking at three separate hypothetical statements:

"I would probably never vote for a Christian"
"I would probably never vote for a Democrat"
"I would probably never vote for a black person"

Is it ridiculous for somebody to say that they probably don't agree with a Democrat? If somebody doesn't agree with the majority of the general platform that Democrats represent, then this makes sense... sure there's variety within the Democratic party on a number of issues, but they're still Democrats because they generally agree with the platform as a whole. If you find almost all of the Democratic platform to be something you couldn't get behind, then it's logical to say you probably wouldn't vote for one.

The same applies to the statement about not voting for a Christian. Sure, specific beliefs do vary from Christian to Christian, but if you feel that the Bible is a bad place to be drawing values from, then it's not unreasonable want to avoid voting for a Christian. If they weren't drawing any values or truth from the Bible, they wouldn't BE a Christian, just as a person who disagrees with every single issue the democratic platform is made of wouldn't BE a Democrat.

Both of those examples are very different from racist prejudice. In the other cases, you're listening to what Christians and Democrats believe by their own will, and then you're disagreeing with those beliefs, and that's the basis for preferring a different candidate to them. Both religion and political affiliation ARE choices. Sure, people might be brought up with both in such a way that greatly influences their choice, but it always remains a choice.

Comparing either a religion or a political ideology to race just doesn't hold water... it's absolutely not the same.

[Ethos]

Seems like a stretch to me. I think my point can easily be illustrated just by looking at three separate hypothetical statements:

"I would probably never vote for a Christian"
"I would probably never vote for a Democrat"
"I would probably never vote for a black person"

Is it ridiculous for somebody to say that they probably don't agree with a Democrat? If somebody doesn't agree with the majority of the general platform that Democrats represent, then this makes sense... sure there's variety within the Democratic party on a number of issues, but they're still Democrats because they generally agree with the platform as a whole. If you find almost all of the Democratic platform to be something you couldn't get behind, then it's logical to say you probably wouldn't vote for one.

The same applies to the statement about not voting for a Christian. Sure, specific beliefs do vary from Christian to Christian, but if you feel that the Bible is a bad place to be drawing values from, then it's not unreasonable want to avoid voting for a Christian. If they weren't drawing any values or truth from the Bible, they wouldn't BE a Christian, just as a person who disagrees with every single issue the democratic platform is made of wouldn't BE a Democrat.

Both of those examples are very different from racist prejudice. In the other cases, you're listening to what Christians and Democrats believe by their own will, and then you're disagreeing with those beliefs, and that's the basis for preferring a different candidate to them. Both religion and political affiliation ARE choices. Sure, people might be brought up with both in such a way that greatly influences their choice, but it always remains a choice.

Comparing either a religion or a political ideology to race just doesn't hold water... it's absolutely not the same.

But then most people aren't taken to Democratic Party functions from birth, as they are to church. There is a difference between influence and indoctrination. Political ideology may be an influence, but it seems obvious that religious indoctrination is a much stronger function. There is little choice involved for well over a decade.

In any case, far too many assumptions are being made. Promising to "probably never" vote for anyone based on a label alone is erroneous.

Ethos

[DrWho]

Not a very well-reasoned response. Do you consider children to be gullible for believing in such things when we tell them to do so? And if they are never told these things are not real, what do we call them as adults when they still believe?

Can you prove Santa does not exist?

Ethos

It is not the children that would be gullible. Adults that would still believe in santa would be gullible.

If they were never told they would still be able to observe all the other adults buying gifts in the stores and telling kids that the gifts came from Santa. there would be actual evidence demonstrating that Santa was a fraud.

No I cannot prove that Santa does not exist but there is much less evidence for Santa than there is for God and if Santa does exist he does not visit my household and I know for a fact that friends of mine have admitted to perpetuating the fraud.

Are there gullible people in relation to religion? Yes. Are there intelligent credible people who have really investigated the question of the validity of religion and found it compelling? Yes.

In the end until you have investigated it seriously and thoroughly yourself then you cannot really say you know much about God or not. My observation is that most people think they have investigated religion when all they have done is skimmed the surface.

[DrWho]

[QUOTE=Ethos;1051858]

duplicate post

[DrWho]

[QUOTE=Ethos;1051858]

duplicate post

[serenity]

In the end until you have investigated it seriously and thoroughly yourself then you cannot really say you know much about God or not. My observation is that most people think they have investigated religion when all they have done is skimmed the surface.


You're probably right, but this goes both ways. There are lots of Christians, including several on this board, who fit into the category you state. But there are an awful lot more christians who do not.

For example, I'm an atheist, but I know more about Christianity than the majority of Christians. I mean majority by a long, long shot. This is no boast, because I am very far from having any sort of expertise. But the overwhelming majority of Christians, as well as adherents to other religions, know practically nothing about the faith they profess to believe.

You are in a distinct minority.