"Required to believe". An odd concept?

[a_priori]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.

If one is going to play baseball, one first checks out which direction to run after hitting the ball. If one prefers to run straight up the middle, one moves on to football.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[a_priori]

If one is going to play baseball, one first checks out which direction to run after hitting the ball. If one prefers to run straight up the middle, one moves on to football.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

I agree. Many “stadiums” (stadia?) I’ve worshipped in should, by definition, be a lot emptier.

 

[AntiTheist]

I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

This is a good point. I have often said that a belief isn’t chosen, in the simple sense of waking up and deciding that you want to believe in X.

Belief is the state of being convinced that X is true. Now, desire can influence what evidence you consider sufficient to think that X is true – and in some cases, there are people who want to believe X so badly that they talk themselves into thinking nonsense like “Person Z whom I trust believes X; therefore, X must be true” – but belief involves being convinced of the truth of a claim.

If you believe something simply because you want to be “part of the club” – i.e. if you can’t give good, solid evidence and reasoned argument for why you think that X is true – then you’re claiming to believe something that you might, upon further examination, decide that you don’t really believe in at all.

 

[4Horsemen]

It seems that for a lot of people’s beliefs (religious type) is ingrained as they have been born into it and raised in a particular church or set of doctrines. Many never give it a second thought. Those who actually decide to think about it may or may not choose to believe the faith handed down to them for various reasons, but become accustomed to the routine and people around them who have varying beliefs of the same order.

I don’t think anyone would fall into the category “required to believe.” First of all, people don’t like to think of themselves as required to do anything, that every choice is freely their own. To truly have a mind-set of actual belief, one must think X is true (as mentioned above), but one can be deceived (deceiving oneself) to believe X because it fits their lifestyle or pattern of thinking. Consider, for example, those who disagree with the Church on birth control although they accept her doctrines. They often move out to a church that conforms to their new belief.

Or, as another example, a friend of mine recently left the Catholic faith because her boyfriend is a Muslim, so she was “required” to accept the new dogma. I really don’t think she believes it all underneath, but doesn’t admit it. Like it said above, she wanted to believe X so badly, she talked herself into it.

As a final example, when I returned to the Catholic faith after a bout of atheism, I first had to find God before I could understand who Jesus was. But when I accepted Jesus (after reading, thinking, praying), everything fell into place–all the doctrines, the Bible, the Mass, the devotions. So, it’s apparent that one doesn’t have to consider each dogma separately to believe, but that the faith one receives after a commitment brings it all together like a Rubix cube.

 

[jmcrae]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

You can consciously make a decision that this or that entity has the authority and the wisdom to know what they are talking about, and to believe what they tell you. We do this not only with the Church, but also with pretty much every other aspect of our lives.

We make a decision of which news sources we choose to trust, and whether or not to trust what our teachers and parents tell us.

We choose which experts in our field of employment to believe, when we are receiving job training - if one group seems to be reliable and experienced, we go with whatever they tell us to do, without nit-picking the details, most of the time.

If you’re the cook in your household, you know which recipe books you trust.

I know of very few people who spend their lives becoming personally expert in every single category that affects their lives. At some point, we all put our trust in experts.

It’s no different with religion - if you have put your trust in the Catholic Church, you will believe the things that it teaches. If you don’t, then yeah - you need to become something else - and then be consistent in believing whatever they tell you to believe.

 

[AntiTheist]

I know of very few people who spend their lives becoming personally expert in every single category that affects their lives. At some point, we all put our trust in experts.

It’s no different with religion

It’s certainly true that mankind has seen fit to establish bodies of experts that compile knowledge for the benefit of everyone else. The main benefit is that, as you say, each person does not have to become an expert in every subject under the sun.

The chief difference with religion is that, unlike other fields, there’s no actual evidence that these “experts” are dealing with.

In every other field or endeavor, there’s a pretty well-established sense of who’s right because…well, the evidence is there to see. If someone puts out cookbooks with really awful dishes, then it won’t take long for that book to be at the bottom of the recommended list that all professional chefs compile.

If someone proposes a whacked out scientific theory, it’s not going to get published in the journal that actual scientists, with actual evidence, get published in.

Only in religion can people make claims that can’t be independently investigated and evaluated – simply because, in most cases, you have to accept their claims (or “open your heart” to these claims) in order to even begin investigating it.

Religion is the only field in which there really are no agreed-upon correct answers because it’s not a field – it’s a bunch of people investigating the contents of their imaginations and their oh-so-precious feelings.

 

[awatkins69]

If someone proposes a whacked out scientific theory, it’s not going to get published in the journal that actual scientists, with actual evidence, get published in.

Only in religion can people make claims that can’t be independently investigated and evaluated – simply because, in most cases, you have to accept their claims (or “open your heart” to these claims) in order to even begin investigating it.

It’d be nice to see some empirical evidence for String Theory some time.

Also, many philosophers of religion would completely dispute your claim that somehow religion is unverifiable. I don’t even know where to begin to start.

 

[Lutheranteach]

As my fine Lutheran pastor says: a faith with no flexibility is not a faith, it’s a prison.

 

[fhansen]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.

Catholic faith is absolutely volitional-or else it couldn’t be authentic at all. The Church proposes tenets that she claims constitute right thinking. I believe, due to my own experiences, that as we come to agree with her on these our minds can be gradually informed, enlightened, oriented towards what is right, good, and true. But this must all be proven to us-or else it would just be someone elses’ belief-not our own. As one does come to agree with the Church, they inevitably become “more Catholic”.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Religion is the only field in which there really are no agreed-upon correct answers because it’s not a field – it’s a bunch of people investigating the contents of their imaginations and their oh-so-precious feelings.

If that is so, then atheism is a belief which lacks imagination and feelings.

I personally believe we’re all born as “soft atheists”. The idea of God isn’t naturally implanted into our minds. Then again, neither is the idea that 1+1=2, or that some things we ingest can make us sick. These things come with life’s experiences. And some people have experienced God firsthand in as real a way as you may have experienced breaking a leg or the power of alcohol on the human mind.

You just have not experienced God (or have ignored or suppressed him), just as some people have not experienced (or suppress experiences of) love, happiness, freedom, or alcohol. You can read all you like about God and Jesus and all that, but until you experience Him, you’ll probably understand God about as much as you (probably) understand cuneiform.

And this comes with the TarkanAttila certificate of non-committance to any of the ideas stated above: I’m just posing ideas and possibilities, not stating canon law.

 

[tonyrey]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ".

There is a difference between being required to believe and compelled to believe. You can choose to believe what is required but that does not mean you are compelled to believe it. Converts do not usually examine every dogma before deciding to become a Catholic. They decide it is the Apostolic Church founded by Jesus and accept her doctrines because it is reasonable to believe the teaching of the true Church. Although faith becomes a way of life the element of choice never entirely disappears. Sometimes a person may wonder whether a particular doctrine is true but usually that is not a sufficient reason to leave the Church. As Cardinal Newman observed, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”!

 

[tonyrey]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a difference between being required to believe and compelled to believe. You can choose to believe what is required but that does not mean you are compelled to believe it. Converts do not usually examine every dogma before deciding to become a Catholic. They decide it is the Apostolic Church founded by Jesus and accept her doctrines because it is reasonable to believe the teaching of the true Church. Although faith becomes a way of life the element of choice never entirely disappears. Sometimes a person may wonder whether a particular doctrine is true but usually that is not a sufficient reason to leave the Church. As Cardinal Newman observed, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”!

 

[tonyrey]

Apologies for the repetition. The website is giving me false information - that there is a database error when there is nothing of the sort!

 

[tskrobacz]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.

What many fail to understand is that Faith itself precedes religion. Faith is a surrender to the divine nature of everything before your notion of God is broken down into a belief system. This is why God loves people of all “religions” for in fact many have surrendered to his will without the formal dogma and doctrines guarded by religions. When you approach religion from this vantage point you can be ok in its real and human limitations and still gain from the wisdom of the saints and rituals preserved within the church.

 

[tskrobacz]

It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.

What many fail to understand is that Faith itself precedes religion. Faith is a surrender to the divine nature of everything before your notion of God is broken down into a belief system. This is why God loves people of all “religions” for in fact many have surrendered to his will without the formal dogma and doctrines guarded by religions. When you approach religion from this vantage point you can be ok in its real and human limitations and still gain from the wisdom of the saints and rituals preserved within the church.

 

[tskrobacz]

What many fail to understand is that Faith itself precedes religion. Faith is a surrender to the divine nature of everything before your notion of God is broken down into a belief system. This is why God loves people of all “religions” for in fact many have surrendered to his will without the formal dogma and doctrines guarded by religions. When you approach religion from this vantage point you can be ok in its real and human limitations and still gain from the wisdom of the saints and rituals preserved within the church.

 

[tskrobacz]

What many people fail to understand is that Faith itself precedes religion. Faith is a surrender to the divine nature of everything before your notion of God is broken down into a belief system. This is why God loves people of all “religions” for in fact many have surrendered to his will without the formal dogma and doctrines guarded by religions. When you approach religion from this vantage point you can be ok in its real and human limitations and still gain from the wisdom of the saints and rituals preserved within the church.

 

[tskrobacz]

What many “religious” people fail to understand is that Faith itself precedes religion. Faith is a surrender to the divine nature of everything before your notion of God is broken down into a belief system. This is why God loves people of all “religions” for in fact many have surrendered to his will without the formal dogma and doctrines guarded by religions. When you approach religion from this vantage point you can be ok in its real and human limitations and still gain from the wisdom of the saints and rituals preserved within the church.