Philosophical questions are not so simple. They are more fundamental and often far more complex.
If we were compelled by evidence we would all make the same choices!
“And are we, as individuals, ultimately responsible for the construction of our consciences?”
Yes.
In what respects? Do we have control over the ideas with which we are imbued as children?
Your rejection of Catholicism answers that question.
Over our experiences of the world in general?
Differences of opinion in science and other subjects answer that question.
The truth of Christianity does speak for itself but “none are so blind as those who will not see”. However it is impossible to know to what extent individuals are culpable because so many factors contribute to their decisions.
That would appear to support my position rather than yours.
How?
- Materialism fails to recognise the fundamental reality of purposeful activity.
- Materialism claims thoughts have emerged from purposeless processes.
- There is no evidence that purposeless processes can become purposeful.
- Purposeful activity is the monopoly of living organisms because they alone have the urge to survive.
- Materialism presupposes two transformations of inanimate objects.
- The first transformation is from inanimate objects to living organisms.
- The second transformation is from biological organisms to persons.
- Both transformations are based on an act of faith by the materialist in the power of time and chance to make inanimate chemical structures capable of an urge to survive, hindsight, insight, foresight, self-control and control of their environment.
- It is impossible to verify this hypothesis.
- This hypothesis is self-destructive because all physical events would be determined by physical causes.
- If all thoughts were determined by physical causes they would be similar to instincts which are notoriously fallible.
- Uncontrolled thoughts are a hopelessly inadequate source of information about themselves, their nature and their origin - and far more likely to be false than true.
No response!
And are you compelled to believe these things? If not, upon what basis do you decide? Do you make your decisions about what is true on the basis of internal preferences or external evidence?
I choose to believe on the basis of direct personal experience, inferences from my perceptions, information received about the personal experiences of others and their inferences.
You are compelled to believe you will die and you are incapable of ignoring that fact - if you are reasonable.
Of course - but that is how reality imposes itself upon us. If we were incapable of discerning the reality of circumstances which affect our lives and general well-being, we would hardly have survived as long as we have, much less learned how to manipulate the laws of physics for our own benefit.
It is only physical reality that imposes itself on us - and only to a certain extent. We vary widely in our responses. Nor does the need to survive require the pursuit of art, music, mathematics, science or philosophy.
Why should this level of knowledge, regarding God/gods be deliberately withheld from us?
I have already pointed out that we lose our independence of thought and action. Do you favour brainwashing?
There are many consequences of belief or disbelief in God based on evidence. Otherwise believers and nonbelievers would live in precisely the same way.
The question is whether these are positive or negative consequences in terms of the welfare of sentient beings. It’s readily apparent that both believers and nonbelievers are perfectly capable of leading a benign existence, helping others where we can and refusing to engage in practices which are demonstrably harmful to others.
The fact that not everyone does do is evidence that they are not compelled.
Those who believe in ends other than the welfare of sentient beings - whether these be religious or political ends - are demonstrably capable of all manner of abuses and injustices.
Opinions differ widely about what constitutes welfare.
Doesn’t this suggest that it’s better to avoid superstition and extremist ideology?
It proves that it’s better to avoid substition and the extremist ideology of materialism which reduces persons to robots.
One could say materialists just have substition! Those who reject substition consider the matter of belief in matter to be functionally irrelevant to the matter of how we live.
Given that physical entities and forces demonstrably exist and have effects upon our individual and collective existence, these seem to be a much sounder basis for belief than supposedly “immaterial” or “supernatural” entities which, on the basis of any evidence so far discerned, may exist or not for all the impact they have.
Intangible ideas, thoughts, principles, goals and decisions exist even without the need to be demonstrated and they have far deeper and significant effects on our individual and collective existence than material objects.
