"I shall believe it when..."

Supposing somebody was thinking about what he should believe - rather than conforming to what he perceived to be his aspirant peer group - except when it was expedient (i.e. when it breaking the rules benefit him, and he thought could get away with it).  

Suppose such a person was thinking about what he should believe, and there was a genuine possibility that he would afterward believe what he had concluded as a result of thinking.

I think he has two basic options. 

The first and usual option is that he will believe a thing he has concluded when, and only when, he has been able to convince "other people" of it. 

He will try to convince someone else, and then he will believe it. 

By "other people" I mean, whoever he regards it as vital to convince. For a scientist, it might be the other scientists in his field, for a bureaucrat or priest it might be some sufficient number of other priests, or perhaps one or more who have authority over him. 

In other words, a thinking person's conclusions are, and can only ever be, tentative; and contingent upon the acceptance of his conclusions. 

His own belief is therefore fundamentally dependent upon the beliefs of others - in a way that is ultimately and essentially the same as the beliefs of someone who accepts his beliefs passively (often unconsciously) from his particular social milieu. 

And this is the great bulk of public discourse about fundamental matters - even of the better sort. It is conducted among people who are all trying to convince each other, and who are each waiting upon the outcome before making their own commitment. 

The alternative is to be someone who will believe a thing when he has convinced himself; even when nobody else in the world believes it.

Of course, it is usual that such a person can find someone else (somewhere, at some time and place) who also believes what he has convinced himself is true - or maybe he will be able to convince one of his peers or contemporaries. 

And this is reassuring, and encouraging for him - but the point is that the agreement of "other people" is not essential. "Other people" do not matter ultimately to what he believes. . 

This autonomy of belief covers a multitude of possibilities, because different people are differentially convinced by different kinds of thinking.

Some people are psychotically-delusional in their thinking - and their convictions arise from reasoning that is unique because pathological - some kind of delirium or dementia, perhaps; when the stream of thinking is dislocated. 

Others are very easily self-convinced, and very difficult to dislodge from conviction by subsequent experience - or, more exactly, such persons adhere unthinkingly and unswervingly to the conclusions reached in any brief moments during which they actually were thinking for themselves. 

But autonomy of belief is also the characteristic of genius; and indeed autonomy of belief is a necessary component of genius. 

And when the times and circumstances are so corrupted and so evil that all Men are called upon be a genius of their own most fundamental convictions - on pain of otherwise becoming assimilated to the general state of corruption and evil...

Well then it behoves all Men to ensure that the procedure by which they become personally convinced of some belief, is such as to satisfy his own best possible understanding of truth, beauty and virtue. 

(He must do this for himself, and from himself; because otherwise he is merely accepting somebody else's standards.  Even if he does accept somebody else's standards as fundamental for himself, then this needs to be done on exactly the same basis.) 

Bad life advice (and if not, then what?)

Social and mass media seem to consist largely of bad advice on how to think, behave, live... And the appetite for such advice seems insatiable.

Yet we must live! And negative advice (about what Not to do) is useless unless embedded in a positive stance.

It strikes me as facile, because true, to strike down any positive agenda. On the other hand; unconscious, unthinking, spontaneity is also impossible - and would-be mystics of that kind are essentially fraudulent.

Also... Any words (or images - or perceptions) that purport to be helpful, must be understood and interpreted - meaning they don't tell us anything specific.

Yet we Must live; and if Not, then What?

It seems, therefore, that we are compelled to seek Good life advice on what we can know directly (without perceptions or concepts) and for ourselves.

There is nowhere else to turn - if we are explicitly honest with ourselves.

For Christians this is not, or should not be, a problem.

The deceptiveness of common sense, intelligent amelioration

Perhaps the commonest form of argument about morality and values generally, is to address some problem (real or made up) on the basis of practical, common sense "realism" - with the aim of ameliorating the problem: improving, albeit not eliminating the problem.

From this perspective, there is always work to be done, because the world is full of problems, and these are always urgent.

Yet when we think of fundamental realities, these problems are insoluble, being ultimately due to entropy or evil.

No matter how much amelioration of bad health is accomplished, this is an antropic world so there will be disease, disability, degeneration and death. These may be delayed or improved, but that's all. The problem will remain.

The same applies to evil (so long as the nature of evil is genuinely understood). Sin (unalignment with divine creation) is everywhere, in all Beings, most of the time and ineradicable.

And pseudo-solutions abound and confuse, because any real answer must include ourselves, our selves. 

Replacing Men with Supermen, or robots, or computer programmes - not only fails to address entropy and evil, but doesn't even ameliorate; because to replace one Being with another doesn't solve the first Being's problem.

Such considerations fill me with awe and gratitude for the gifts of Jesus Christ. His offer of resurrected eternal Heavenly life is, apparently, the one and only answer to the fundamental problems.

How is the metaphysical incoherence of atheism maintained?

Atheism is so upfront and in-your-face incoherent, and it incoherence is so fundamental (at the metaphysical level, with basic assumptions concerning  reality, in contradiction) that it is surprising that atheism can be maintained for a lifetime, and even across generations.

But I understand how it works, because I was myself an atheist for over 30 years, and I remember how the contradictions were dealt with.

The basic problem comes out with values; with truth, beauty and virtue (by whatever definition) - and in explaining why values are significant. 

Life is all about one thing being better than another, or at least preferable to another; and atheism can give no reason - indeed asserts there is no reason. Except that Every atheist, Especially the most outspoken atheists (i.e. the kind who argue it is Better to be an atheist - and who assume that reasoned argument is better than blank assertion or blind faith!) asserts values, and that his own preferences are significant.

How can this be tolerable? Why don't peoples, heads explode?

Probably because metaphysical incoherence is so normal as to be universal- in all religions and ideologies. Humans are structured to live among self contradictions, even when these are noticed - which is not often.

So people - including atheists - firstly don't notice their incoherence; because they get distracted easily - especially by focusing on the immediate and changing situation of interpersonal interactions. These seem overwhelming, and urgent - so urgent and vital that anything else ought to be postponed, indefinitely... 

And then there is negative stuff. People focus on what is negative in others' beliefs; and easily ignore the insanity of getting morally outraged from the basis of an explicit insistence that the universe, human life and their own lives have no purpose or meaning.

Life proceeds at a level where unconscious and spontaneous biological vitality is shaped and directed by social circumstances. From that situation, social assurance and expectations that there Are meanings and life Does have purpose, are sufficient here-and-now. 

The details are set aside as something that "must be" okay, because otherwise "people" would not act as if they were OK.

The whole thing is taken On Trust, because people do not trust themselves; and they don't trust themselves for good reasons - whereas (as social beings in a society) they automatically and by default trust vague notions of other people's judgement and motivations.

This is just how people are.

And for much of human history it did not seem to matter much, but now it does matter.

Now we live in a society and world where ultimate assumptions of no-purpose and no-meaning are built into social explanations and functioning; and where the consequent endemic state of demotivation and perplexed confusion have rendered almost-everybody helpless in the face of evil manipulation.

Whole nations/ races/ religions (and other groupings such as age, sex and sexuality) of many millions of people have been set up to fear, resent and annihilate each other. 

And because of actual-atheism rooted in ultimate deference to societal assumptions (and which renders modern religious identifications irrelevant because ineffectual), they have zero basis for noticing or understanding - let alone resisting - what is being done to them.

We now need to change the terms of evaluation from trust to responsibility.

The proper question is whether we take personal responsibility for our fundamental assumptions and convictions; or else refuse to do this in favour of entrusting our lives, our souls, our own mortal situation in this world - to some external "authority".