Options: There's more than just Accept or Reject

[greenberg]

Options: There's more than just Accept or Reject


This is inspired by something that was brought up in another thread.

Namely, when facing a choice, it sometimes seems that one has only two options: to either accept or reject.

In that thread, redarmy11 was noticing that it is impossible to either accept or reject theist and atheist claims without thereby compromising your integrity.

If you accept a claim, however reasonable it might seem to accept it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

If you reject a claim, however reasonable it might seem to reject it, there's always at least some room for doubt, always a gnawing thought that you have violated your own principles in doing so.

So there's wondering if there's a way to avoid this and to transcend it.


I've reflected on it, and came up with 6 possible options (the "you" is used generally):


1. Accept.
Accept the proposed claim as it is and forcibly crush your doubts.


2. Reject.
Reject the proposed claim as it is and forcibly crush your doubts.


3. Ignore.
Do as if the dilemma regarding what to choose doesn't exist, find yourself a diversion. However important the dilemma might seem to you, seek to convince yourself it doesn't matter.


4. Suspend.
Declare that you are currently unable to make a decision about the proposed claim. However important the decision might seem to you, however pressing it might seem to you to make that decision, seek to convince yourself you're currently unable to make it.


5. Synthesize.
Neither fully reject nor fully accept the proposed claim, but pick and combine parts of it as it suits you, also add some new elements or interpretations if that's how you expect things will make sense to you.


6. Redefine.
Ask yourself questions on the meta level, such as How does the proposed claim relate to me, what does it mean for me, what implications does it have for me? Why would I have to make a decision about the proposed claim? Is it even my decision to make? What would I have to accept first before I could make a decision about the proposed claim? Work out answers to such questions, and then look at the proposed claim with those answers in mind. If they change the way you view the decision-making situation, redefine what it actually is that you need to make a decision about.



These seem to be (some of) the ways people tend to go about when making decisions about various claims.
Some of these ways seem easier to take than others.
Some seem to have more potential for disaster than others.
Some seem to have more potential for benefit than others.



Comments?


Thanks.

 

[Donnal]

yeah true

 

[cosmictraveler]

I would think that if a person cannot decide whether to agree or disagree

with something that they would only be "sitting on the fence" about that

subject in most instances. There are a very few things I can see when I

would sit on a fence and one would be something that is pending, like a trial

about someone or something. Since we don't have all of the facts about the

person who is arrested then how can anyone decide if that person is guilty

or not. That's when sitting on the fence about your decision is a very good

idea, to wait until we have all of the facts before we decide anything.

 

[greenberg]

That's when sitting on the fence about your decision is a very good idea, to wait until we have all of the facts before we decide anything.

The problem with many claims, both theist and atheist, is that

(1) it might be impossible to gather the facts because one lacks the means to do so;

(2) one would have to take for granted that the gathered facts are indeed relevant for the decision at hand - because relevancy cannot be established in advance.

 

[cosmictraveler]

The problem with many claims, both theist and atheist, is that

(1) it might be impossible to gather the facts because one lacks the means to do so;

(2) one would have to take for granted that the gathered facts are indeed relevant for the decision at hand - because relevancy cannot be established in advance.

1. Facts about proving God exists are indeed very hard if not impossible to come by, wouldn't you agree?

2. If you must take something for granted that too would lead me to believe there are very few if any facts about God.

 

[Varda]

i thought there already was a choice... if you dont want to compromise with theism or atheism, you can call yourself agnostic...

 

[greenberg]

i thought there already was a choice... if you dont want to compromise with theism or atheism, you can call yourself agnostic...

That is covered in options 3 and 4.

 

[Varda]

options 5 and 6 are basicaly another name for talking out of our ass

 

[redarmy11]

Not at all. People use those options all the time. #5 is probably responsible for every cult ever invented.

But I'm not really sure what to make of it all. The distinct lack of conclusive evidence means petrification is the only option (ie 4. Suspend). For me, that is.

 

[Varda]

cults... talking our of your ass...

 

[redarmy11]

5. Synthesize.
Neither fully reject nor fully accept the proposed claim, but pick and combine parts of it as it suits you, also add some new elements or interpretations if that's how you expect things will make sense to you.

Maniacal cult leaders do this.

You're so sexy when you're blind drunk.

 

[Varda]

same thing, geez!

what i meant by "talking our of your ass", was something in the lines of make your own personal interpretation and pass it on... iow, cult

 

[redarmy11]

Riiight. I was hurt there for a second. But hey? I forgive you.

 

[greenberg]

But I'm not really sure what to make of it all. The distinct lack of conclusive evidence means petrification is the only option (ie 4. Suspend). For me, that is.

Personally, no. 6 seems the most promising.

Also, acting on options 5 and 6 does not necessarily mean one will "pass on" what one has come up with.
There are people who do not start cults and new religions, mind you.

 

[Adstar]

1. Accept.
Accept the proposed claim as it is and forcibly crush your doubts.

Impossible to do when related to a specific point.

But it is possible to accept what you believe and trust in things that have not as yet been revealed to you because you trust in the One who gave you the first revelation, the first step in the stairway to understanding.

Doubts do not need to be crushed when one realises that some questions do not need to be answered in this lifetime.

2. Reject.
Reject the proposed claim as it is and forcibly crush your doubts.

Again impossible to do. If one has doubts those doubts will eat away at ones insides until they become too much of a burden. Even with all the distractions in this world you cannot push away nagging doubts.

Well maybe God could take away your nagging doubts and allow you to live the rest of your life as you want. God does give people over to darkness when they hate the light and resist conviction.

3. Ignore.
Do as if the dilemma regarding what to choose doesn't exist, find yourself a diversion. However important the dilemma might seem to you, seek to convince yourself it doesn't matter.

It can be suppressed for a time but the background noise will become louder and louder as one grows older.

4. Suspend.
Declare that you are currently unable to make a decision about the proposed claim. However important the decision might seem to you, however pressing it might seem to you to make that decision, seek to convince yourself you're currently unable to make it.

A good option.

If one is only suspending the decision and not the seeking.

One can honestly suspend the decision and still maintain their earnest seeking of the answer.

5. Synthesize.
Neither fully reject nor fully accept the proposed claim, but pick and combine parts of it as it suits you, also add some new elements or interpretations if that's how you expect things will make sense to you.

The path of false religion. A lot of religions and philosophies have been derived out of this process. But they all lead to a dead end, to nowhere

6. Redefine.
Ask yourself questions on the meta level, such as How does the proposed claim relate to me, what does it mean for me, what implications does it have for me? Why would I have to make a decision about the proposed claim? Is it even my decision to make? What would I have to accept first before I could make a decision about the proposed claim? Work out answers to such questions, and then look at the proposed claim with those answers in mind. If they change the way you view the decision-making situation, redefine what it actually is that you need to make a decision about.

I don't see this last point as an option, but as a process that happens at the start of the seeking process. Everyone should ask these questions before they seek in earnest.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[greenberg]

If one is only suspending the decision and not the seeking.

One can honestly suspend the decision and still maintain their earnest seeking of the answer.

Yes, and this is possible to do only when it comes to things that don't really matter to one.

But suspending the decision about what the purpose of one's life is to be and continue seeking - that is hell.

The comfort that many of us live in has made us believe that it is okay to spend our lives seeking for purpose, or God. We can afford to suspend decisions because the comfort of our lives eases the stress that comes from not deciding.

I don't see this last point as an option, but as a process that happens at the start of the seeking process. Everyone should ask these questions before they seek in earnest.

It's strange that you say that. Because in that case, I'm free from any debt to theism; I can formulate my basic existential doubt as I understand it and let no one mess with it. - But from what I've seen so far, theists vehemently oppose that.