Is Believing a choice?

[losfomot]

How can one 'choose' to believe?

 

In all honesty, I would probably jump on the chance to really believe in a god... saviour... heaven and hell... afterlife... heck, everlasting life! What a deal! Sign me up! But it just doesn't work that way... does it? You can't just decide one day that you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour... your God. You can't just 'choose to believe'.

 

What it comes down to for me (i think) is the word believe (or belief). Someone who says that they believe, means that they hold this thing to be the truth... there is no halfway... there is no 'level' or extent of belief... there is no scale from 1 to ten how much you believe... there is simply 'I believe' or 'I don't believe'. 'Believe', to me, is a strong word... the strongest, especially when used in this context... and I just don't see how this is something someone can 'choose' to do.

 

There are some people who 'believe' in the possibility or even probability that there is a God (even a specific God)... does that make them believers?... I don't think so.

 

Am I wrong about this?

[Greg H.]

How can one 'choose' to believe?

 

 

But that's just it - we choose what to believe everyday. When a politician makes a campaign promise, I make an active choice to believe or not believe in what he's saying (granted the choice may be easier depending on whether he's spouting bullshit or not). I made an active choice to stop believing in God (or any other deity in general) as a teenager because the more time I spent thinking about tit critically, the more I realized there was no need for it in my life. My belief gradually waned until it ceased to exist.

[iNow]

Disbelief is not a choice: http://thescienceforum.org/topic181.html

[Villain]

How can one 'choose' to believe?

 

In all honesty, I would probably jump on the chance to really believe in a god... saviour... heaven and hell... afterlife... heck, everlasting life! What a deal! Sign me up! But it just doesn't work that way... does it? You can't just decide one day that you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour... your God. You can't just 'choose to believe'.

 

What it comes down to for me (i think) is the word believe (or belief). Someone who says that they believe, means that they hold this thing to be the truth... there is no halfway... there is no 'level' or extent of belief... there is no scale from 1 to ten how much you believe... there is simply 'I believe' or 'I don't believe'. 'Believe', to me, is a strong word... the strongest, especially when used in this context... and I just don't see how this is something someone can 'choose' to do.

 

There are some people who 'believe' in the possibility or even probability that there is a God (even a specific God)... does that make them believers?... I don't think so.

 

Am I wrong about this?

 

I think it depends on the definition of belief/believe and I'm not looking for a dictionary quote, but what a person actually means when they say 'I believe....'. Belief is also given context by what follows it. My concept of a house might be four walls and a roof, while someone else's might be a circular building (one continuous wall) and a roof. We could both say that we believe in houses but ultimately mean different things.

[chilehed]

How can one 'choose' to believe?

Have you ever heard of people being willfully ignorant of something? Of not knowing something because they don't want to know?

[losfomot]

I think it depends on the definition of belief/believe and I'm not looking for a dictionary quote, but what a person actually means when they say 'I believe....'. Belief is also given context by what follows it. My concept of a house might be four walls and a roof, while someone else's might be a circular building (one continuous wall) and a roof. We could both say that we believe in houses but ultimately mean different things.

 

Sure... but if you were to test that theory, in this specific case (believing in god), by asking the believers what they actually mean when they say, for example, 'I believe.... that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour'... I think you will get a similar definition from all (or at least most) of them.

 

Have you ever heard of people being willfully ignorant of something? Of not knowing something because they don't want to know?

 

Sure... but that is different from willfully believing in something.

 

I might be willfully ignorant about where meat comes from, or rather how it gets from there to my plate... but I do not willfully believe that meat grows from a tree.

Edited November 4, 2012 by losfomot

[Villain]

Sure... but if you were to test that theory, in this specific case (believing in god), by asking the believers what they actually mean when they say, for example, 'I believe.... that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour'... I think you will get a similar definition from all (or at least most) of them.

 

I can get my head around Saviour as one would only have to think of themselves as flawed (not very hard to find reason for such) in order to need a saviour from oneself, Lord could mean a ruler or leader of some sort. I don't think man has a capacity to conceptualise God though.

 

 

So if you can get past your ego and admit that you are an imperfect being and need an external source to redeem you from your imperfections, then believing Jesus Christ is such is completely a choice. There is always the chance that Jesus could be the wrong choice but as a flawed/imperfect being there is no guarantee in any choice (faith).

[iNow]

There is also always the chance that Jesus is little more than yet another human myth.

[ydoaPs]

So if you can get past your ego and admit that you are an imperfect being and need an external source to redeem you from your imperfections, then believing Jesus Christ is such is completely a choice. There is always the chance that Jesus could be the wrong choice but as a flawed/imperfect being there is no guarantee in any choice (faith).

 

If we're going to choose to believe fiction, there's better fiction than that. And without the, you know, guilt trips:

 

"You, mathematician, are like a monkey who, with heroic mental effort, has figured out how to count to three. You find four pebbles and think that you have discovered infinity. You differ from a chimpanzee by a mere two hundred genes. How could that miniscule difference enable you to comprehend the universe, when the chimpanzee cannot even comprehend a grain of sand?"-Douglas Preston

 

"No one is saved because no one is lost. No one is forgiven because no one is accused."-Douglas Preston

 

"Once you know what people really want, you can't hate them anymore. You can fear them, but you can't hate them, because you can always find the same desires in your own heart."-Andrew Wiggin

 

"I’m not one to despise other people for their sins. I haven’t found one yet, that I didn’t say to myself, I’ve done worse than this."-Andrew Wiggin

 

"No human being, when you understand his desires, is worthless. No one's life is nothing. Even the most evil of men and women, if you understand their hearts, had some generous act that redeems them, at least a little, from their sins"-Andrew Wiggin

 

"Ignorance and deception can’t save anybody. Knowing saves them."-Andrew Wiggin

 

"You won't even remember me. Well, you'll remember me a little; I'll be a story in your head. And that's ok; we're all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."-The Doctor

 

"What's the point in them being happy now, if they're going to be sad later? The answer, of course, is that they're going to be sad later."-The Doctor

 

"You spend all your time thinking about dying, like you're gonna get killed by eggs, or beef, or global warming, or asteroids. But you never take time to imagine the impossible. Like maybe you survive."-The Doctor

 

"Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free...An inch. It is small and it is fragile and it is the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it or give it away. We must never let them take it from us."-Valerie

 

"I find it more comforting to believe that this isn't simply a test."-House

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm.....maybe my humanism influences the fiction that I enjoy.

[Villain]

There is also always the chance that Jesus is little more than yet another human myth.

 

Of course, but as humans we don't achieve anything without the risk of failure. The above concern is exactly why I mentioned ego, as that is probably the single biggest obstacle/protection device from being fooled (depending on which side of the fence one sits) with the choice of religion.

[John Cuthber]

If I offer you a prize, can you believe that I have an elephant in my garden?

As beliefs go it has the advantage of being technically perfectly possible.

I don't expect you to die for your belief, just pass a lie-detector test.

 

Of course, if you are 4 years old I can probably convince you that I got him from a friend who works at the zoo (they had more than they could find space for).

 

But can an adult choose to believe this ?

[Villain]

If I offer you a prize, can you believe that I have an elephant in my garden?

As beliefs go it has the advantage of being technically perfectly possible.

I don't expect you to die for your belief, just pass a lie-detector test.

 

Of course, if you are 4 years old I can probably convince you that I got him from a friend who works at the zoo (they had more than they could find space for).

 

But can an adult choose to believe this ?

 

At some point in time we had no choice (conception perhaps), from then on ultimately I don't know. In the simplest definition of choice, meaning more than one option (perhaps only the illusion of choice), an adult can choose. If we had a beginning, it wasn't a choice, life is a gift or perhaps curse, whether from a deity or merely weird and wonderful chance circumstances, we didn't choose to come into being.

 

I choose to believe that I was created and that my creator is called God, who came in human form by the name of Jesus. It is a choice based in humility and the ideologies that are relayed in the Gospels. Whether or not that is a choice is probably dependent on your definition of choice.

[jp255]

If one has complete free will then one should be able to freely change beliefs at will and be able to commit to each belief fully (actually believe in it)? right? Personally, I don't think this is possible for this scenario. I think that genetics and the environment influence the outccome as others have suggested. I couldn't win the prize in John Cuthber's scenario, I would be a liar and I could not imagine any (likely) scenario in which my opinion would change.

 

After considering this question on belief choice it seems that some decisions have less freedom of choice than others. Example of something I think of having little freedom of choice, attraction. Example of freedom, whether or not I decide to flip a coin.

[Villain]

If one has complete free will then one should be able to freely change beliefs at will and be able to commit to each belief fully (actually believe in it)? right? Personally, I don't think this is possible for this scenario. I think that genetics and the environment influence the outccome as others have suggested. I couldn't win the prize in John Cuthber's scenario, I would be a liar and I could not imagine any (likely) scenario in which my opinion would change.

 

After considering this question on belief choice it seems that some decisions have less freedom of choice than others. Example of something I think of having little freedom of choice, attraction. Example of freedom, whether or not I decide to flip a coin.

 

The problem with one is that it might freely change it's beliefs to believe that it doesn't have the ability to freely believe, in which case it might believe that it is an entity called jp255 .

[jp255]

The problem with one is that it might freely change it's beliefs to believe that it doesn't have the ability to freely believe, in which case it might believe that it is an entity called jp255

 

I thought your reply to be odd until I saw that I wrote "possible". I meant likely.

 

What would you answer to Cuthber's question? or could you freely switch to another religion?

 

In the simplest definition of choice, meaning more than one option (perhaps only the illusion of choice), an adult can choose

 

hmm, illusion of choice? in what way could choice be considered an illusion? are you referring to fatalism?

[iNow]

hmm, illusion of choice? in what way could choice be considered an illusion?

Well, if current research in neuroscience proves accurate, and decisions are truly made before they even enter our conscious awareness, then ultimately all choices we make are illusions because there is no choice involved at all. Choice implies consciousness, yet evidence suggestions unconscious control of decisions.

[jp255]

decisions are truly made before they even enter our conscious awareness, then ultimately all choices we make are illusions because there is no choice involved at all

 

So if decisions are made before we are aware of them and choice is an illusion, then does that mean we have no control and are essentially automatons? If choice is really an illusion then how does the decision process work and how is the outcome determined/selected?

 

Do you have any links to the actual neuroscience papers? I looked at the first page of that other thread you linked, but that was just a quote from the book or the author's blog.

[Villain]

I thought your reply to be odd until I saw that I wrote "possible". I meant likely.

 

What would you answer to Cuthber's question? or could you freely switch to another religion?

 

hmm, illusion of choice? in what way could choice be considered an illusion? are you referring to fatalism?

 

My point from the last post was that the concept of free will could not be one of ultimate free will as that would become meaningless.

Saying that there are boundaries on free will doesn't imply that free will doesn't exist at all.

 

When we look at others they seem to move and choose from within themselves and not from some external source. From that point one would expect the person to have an inner clockwork of some sort. Describing it as such and such doesn't make it more or less them. We might perceive our existence through the concious mind but that doesn't automatically mean we are only our concious mind. When you look in the mirror do you think 'this body that I am stuck in is getting old' or is it 'I'm getting old'? All my choices are mine, my definition of what I am might have to change though.

 

If our concious mind controls everything then the more we learn about ourselves the more we will change from being what we once called ourselves. A simple example would be manipulating neurotransmitters, we can make a decision to add a substance that is likely to change how we decide in the future i.e. what we consider as the concious mind manipulating itself. I think that alone indicates the complexity of the mind.

 

Choice or illusion of choice is probably dependent on how either is defined. I would say that we have choice when we consider ourselves as ourselves, but perhaps only illusion of choice from a completely objective position (determinism perhaps).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if decisions are made before we are aware of them and choice is an illusion, then does that mean we have no control and are essentially automatons? If choice is really an illusion then how does the decision process work and how is the outcome determined/selected?

 

Do you have any links to the actual neuroscience papers? I looked at the first page of that other thread you linked, but that was just a quote from the book or the author's blog.

 

I assume this is what iNow is talking about:

 

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

 

[jp255]

My point from the last post was that the concept of free will could not be one of ultimate free will as that would become meaningless.

 

Ok, I was kind of ignoring the possibility of someone with free will choosing to believe he/she can't freely believe to point out that such an individual should be able to freely move between different religions. Isn't choice of religion pretty much dependent on the existence of religions (for most people at least)? so the environment has an influence? I wonder if there has been any study on religious beliefs and whether religious belief shows somekind of heritability.

 

 

I would say that we have choice when we consider ourselves as ourselves

This is also my current opinion, although I don't really know much about this topic at all.

 

but perhaps only illusion of choice from a completely objective position (determinism perhaps).

Doesn't determinism suggest predictability? I am a little doubtful at how accurately one can predict another's decisions.

 

Choice or illusion of choice is probably dependent on how either is defined

 

I think this should be done. I'm not that sure what people really mean when they say illusion of choice. In a scenario, at time p, a person has two choices a and b. the person selects choice a, choice b is considered the illusion? is it only considered an illusion at time p, or is it always an illusion and not ever an outcome? that is where I am getting confused.

[ydoaPs]

If one has complete free will then one should be able to freely change beliefs at will

 

That does not follow. Also, it assumes belief is a matter of choice rather than demonstrating it. I cannot choose to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but that doesn't mean I don't have free will. Free will only applies to things that are a matter of choice.

 

Or, one could argue that I can in fact choose to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but I just cannot actually perform the act I chose to perform. This is acceptable, but it still doesn't help you at all, since the same reasoning allows for the possibility that one can choose to change their beliefs, but not be able to.

 

If you think belief is a matter of choice, try John's experiment:

 

If I offer you a prize, can you believe that I have an elephant in my garden?

As beliefs go it has the advantage of being technically perfectly possible.

I don't expect you to die for your belief, just pass a lie-detector test.

[Dekan]

That does not follow. Also, it assumes belief is a matter of choice rather than demonstrating it. I cannot choose to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but that doesn't mean I don't have free will. Free will only applies to things that are a matter of choice.

 

Or, one could argue that I can in fact choose to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but I just cannot actually perform the act I chose to perform. This is acceptable, but it still doesn't help you at all, since the same reasoning allows for the possibility that one can choose to change their beliefs, but not be able to.

 

If you think belief is a matter of choice, try John's experiment:

 

 

 

John's experiment does raise an interesting issue - the degree of credibility. Other posters have touched on this.

 

For example, it's hard to believe there's really an elephant in the garden. But we couldn't entirely rule it out. There might be circumstances where it was conceivable. The chances would be close to 0 - but not entirely 0. So it wouldn't be entirely irrational for someone to give it credence.

 

However, suppose the proposition was this: President Obama is in the garden every night, having exuberant gay sex with a sullen Mitt Romney.

 

Surely no-one could entertain such a belief? (Or rather, they might entertain the thought, but give it zero credibility)

 

The point is - aren't some things at least faintly believable, whereas others absolutely aren't?

[Villain]

Ok, I was kind of ignoring the possibility of someone with free will choosing to believe he/she can't freely believe to point out that such an individual should be able to freely move between different religions. Isn't choice of religion pretty much dependent on the existence of religions (for most people at least)? so the environment has an influence? I wonder if there has been any study on religious beliefs and whether religious belief shows somekind of heritability.

 

.....

 

I think the environment has an ability to influence us although influence in itself seems the very choice that we are talking about. The environment can influence in two ways, the first being the immediate but within that immediate influence there are also consequences of our previous environmental influences in our decision process (experience). I can control the kind of experience and value that I impose on my previous experience and along with those use reason/logic to decide on a position of belief. The total of all of this when looked at retrospectively makes me think of determinism, as it looks like a domino effect of experience playing on experience in each case I'm only ever going to pick one option and if that option influences my next choice in such a way that I would always pick the same option in an alternate yet identical universe then it seems like an illusion of choice.

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

Do you have any links to the actual neuroscience papers? I looked at the first page of that other thread you linked, but that was just a quote from the book or the author's blog.

Then you should have kept reading beyond the first page... The link about his book is how I started the discussion. Support for the idea was shared throughout the rest of the thread.

 

 

Here's more, though... since you're interested. It's well referenced if you wish to keep digging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

---

 

For example, it's hard to believe there's really an elephant in the garden. But we couldn't entirely rule it out. There might be circumstances where it was conceivable. The chances would be close to 0 - but not entirely 0.

Interestingly enough, you've just described the stance of more than 95% of the worlds atheists.

Edited November 7, 2012 by iNow

[ydoaPs]

Well, if...decisions are truly made before they even enter our conscious awareness, then ultimately all choices we make are illusions because there is no choice involved at all.

 

The consequent here is not logically entailed by the antecedent. Epiphenomenalists, for example, believe that brain states are causally efficacious on both other brain states and on mental states, but that mental states aren't causally efficacious at all. That is, conscious experience is only a representation; all causal relations in choice relations are solely due to brain states. The original idea had the causation of the mental states occur simultaneously with the brain state causal chain, adding a delay doesn't really change anything. All it means is that you're not aware of your choice until after it is made.

 

This delay in awareness of your choice in no way rules out that you took in epistemically possible outcomes as inputs, deliberated on them, and due to such deliberation determined the actualized ontological outcome.

 

Let's take the example of a car with an indicator showing the position of the gas pedal. The position of the gas pedal determines the amount of gas going to the engine regardless of whether the indication is instantaneous, there is a lag, or there is no indication at all.

 

And in case you're wondering, there's nothing stopping anyone from being an epiphenomenal functionalist.

[akh]

I plan to attend a lecture by Dr Robert N. McCauley on Sunday with the Atlanta Free Thought Society. He studies the cognitive science of religion. It should be interesting. His premise, that religion is natural and our minds are better suited for religious beliefs than scientific inquiry, seems plausible, but I am not sure this agrees with my own personal experience. In fact, I find the opposite to be true.

 

http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~philrnm/

Edited November 8, 2012 by akh