Is Believing a choice?

[Villain]

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

 

If atheists are basing their decision on a deity/creator on the likely hood of a creator using the assumption that the universe is knowable and that such a creator would have to conform to that assumption, then I hope they at least recognise the invalidity of such an argument. It bares a striking resemblance to: the universe could only work under the conditions it's in, those conditions are unlikely, therefore the likeliness of a designer are almost inevitable.

[jp255]

If atheists are basing their decision on a deity/creator on the likely hood of a creator using the assumption that the universe is knowable and that such a creator would have to conform to that assumption, then I hope they at least recognise the invalidity of such an argument

 

that assumption fine to make when reviewing evidence for a religion though, unless the people that invented the religions had a way of measuring things outside of the universe that is fine to make. Considering a creator as a possibility, sure the assumption isn't appropriate.

 

Regarding the whole neuroscience and illusion of choice thing. I don't think there is enough evidence to even suggest illusion of free will yet, there was counter evidence from the experiment that showed the same neuronal activity (prior to button press) regardless of whether the button was pushed or not. Showing that the decision remains unaltered from the point of conscious awareness to the point of the outcome is necessary to suggest illusion of free will. To me, the evidence suggests that there can be an illusion of free will for fast movement. Even if you disagree with this, more evidence is needed to come to the same conclusion about complex planned decisions (quite a few of the experiments told the participants not to plan their movements and just press when you feel an urge).

 

Shouldn't the standard position be free will until proven otherwise? I havn't any experiences of a scenario in which my unconscious has done something that I didn't want it to do (like turn around and shoot someone whilst at a shooting range). It feels like this is something that one could always claim and not disprove, that there is illusion of free will (but how do you know if you really could have chosen the other option at that time?), almost like disproving the existence of an invisible dragon? Anyway, I think some people on that other forum you posted are too supportive of the notion of illusion of free will considering the current evidence.

 

I am not sure this agrees with my own personal experience. In fact, I find the opposite to be true.

Would you mind elaborating? why do you think the opposite true? I'm curious of your opinion.

[John Cuthber]

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

I don't see how that's any more true than saying "If I have complete free will I can change my skin colour at will".

 

Anyway, unless someone can tell me how they can win the prize then I think the question has been answered.

Belief isn't a choice.

[Villain]

Anyway, unless someone can tell me how they can win the prize then I think the question has been answered.

Belief isn't a choice.

 

At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but since you mention 'win the prize' instead of determine the truth, I can't help thinking that you are insinuating that people are only religious because they want a prize. Would you mind clarifying?

[iNow]

If atheists are basing their decision on a deity/creator on the likely hood of a creator using the assumption that the universe is knowable and that such a creator would have to conform to that assumption, then I hope they at least recognise the invalidity of such an argument.

It's not any more invalid than your lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology.

 

You quite likely agree with me that it's hard to believe they exist, but if you're being intellectually honest you cannot rule out that they might and must acknowledge that. The chances are close to zero, but not entirely zero. There is nothing about conforming assumptions, that's just what a reasonable rational person would do. Nothing invalid in that approach, at all.

 

It should also be noted that it's hardly the "only" reason people wind up not believing. Your point would be more relevant and have greater impact if there were no other reasons for nonbelief, but since there are, it's not.

[John Cuthber]

At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but since you mention 'win the prize' instead of determine the truth, I can't help thinking that you are insinuating that people are only religious because they want a prize. Would you mind clarifying?

No

what I'm saying is that, even when given a clear incentive (like a prize) to believe something (like the idea that I have an elephant in my garden), you can't.

You can't choose to believe it, so belief isn't a choice.

It's nothing to do with religion or even truth.

 

If you look really carefully, you will see that I didn't mention religion at all.

Edited November 8, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Villain]

It's not any more invalid than your lack of belief in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology.

 

You quite likely agree with me that it's hard to believe they exist, but if you're being intellectually honest you cannot rule out that they might and must acknowledge that. The chances are close to zero, but not entirely zero. There is nothing about conforming assumptions, that's just what a reasonable rational person would do. Nothing invalid in that approach, at all.

 

It should also be noted that it's hardly the "only" reason people wind up not believing. Your point would be more relevant and have greater impact if there were no other reasons for nonbelief, but since there are, it's not.

 

For the purpose of this discussion I'd like to offer the following definitions (I realise that you might not hold the same definitions):

 

Belief is an active position, no belief is no action, non-belief is an active position of not believing.

 

If by atheist, you mean no belief, then fine I don't see the need for any argument. You would just not hold a position of belief.

 

Belief would need some reason, whatever it is.

 

If however you want to represent a position of non-belief then an argument against belief would be needed and that one is invalid. I'm not expressing an opinion against non-belief, I'm merely pointing out it's not a valid argument.

 

I have no belief in Zeus, Thor or Apollo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

what I'm saying is that, even when given a clear incentive (like a prize) to believe something (like the idea that I have an elephant in my garden), you can't.

You can't choose to believe it, so belief isn't a choice.

It's nothing to do with religion or even truth.

 

If you look really carefully, you will see that I didn't mention religion at all.

 

I don't get the point of the question then, are you saying that no adult could believe that you have an elephant in your yard?

 

It's possible to have an elephant in your yard. If I chose be believe that you were telling the truth then I would believe that you had an elephant in your yard. I need only to judge your character in order to choose belief or not. How is choice not an option, unless it's an impossibility?

[iNow]

For the purpose of this discussion I'd like to offer the following definitions (I realise that you might not hold the same definitions):

 

Belief is an active position, no belief is no action, non-belief is an active position of not believing.

 

If by atheist, you mean no belief, then fine I don't see the need for any argument. You would just not hold a position of belief.

 

Belief would need some reason, whatever it is.

 

If however you want to represent a position of non-belief then an argument against belief would be needed and that one is invalid. I'm not expressing an opinion against non-belief, I'm merely pointing out it's not a valid argument.

 

I have no belief in Zeus, Thor or Apollo.

It seems to me that to make your point you are forced to use a definition of atheism that only applies in the extreme margins. Your point is only valid when you apply it to a tiny minority of the atheist community.

 

Most atheists simply do not believe because the evidence in favor of deities is not compelling, in much the same way that you don't believe there is an elephant in your garden right now or that their are leprechauns in my chimney. There is no belief because there is no compelling reason to hold such beliefs. Sure, there are a small subset of atheists who actively believe in the nonexistence of gods, but that group is tiny relative to the population overall, so it seems strange to me that you focus your argument on them in order to make some point.

 

When people discuss atheism, you'll find the "no belief" definition you put forth above to be (by far) the most common, but even if that's false I see it as a distinction without a difference anyway.

 

Just like you don't believe in Thor and Zeus, atheists don't believe in Yahweh or Allah. That's all. It's essentially the exact same mindset. You're an atheist for 99% of the worlds gods. Atheists just go one god farther.

 

Why do you think your nonbelief in Apollo is any different than my nonbelief in Yahweh?

[chilehed]

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.

If disbelieving in a truth is a choice, then believing in that same truth must necessarily also be a choice. One can choose to believe, or to not believe. q.e.d.

 

It happens all the time. Everyone does it, it's part of the human condition.

Edited November 11, 2012 by chilehed

[Ringer]

If disbelieving in a truth is a choice, then believing in that same truth must necessarily also be a choice. One can choose to believe, or to not believe. q.e.d.

 

It happens all the time. Everyone does it, it's part of the human condition.

 

I'd say it's poor form to have q.e.d. on a proof that begs the question. In my experience the time when people who are now atheists were religious was because they never gave much thought to any of it. When I was a child I was often kicked out of Sunday school because I questioned too much, I once got in trouble for asking what a cubit was, though in my mind I still was a Christian because that's what people were. After a while, i.e. when I took the time to realize everyone isn't Christian, I realized that religious distinctions were pointless. Though I don't consider myself atheistic necessarily, I like the term apatheistic, I never really sustained a true belief any more than I held the true belief that if I went into my dad's basement a creature would eat me. Both of these things were just what a parent told me and I assumed it was true until I actually regarded it critically. There was no real choice, it was more of a realization, and it seems like this is what happens with a lot of atheists I know.

 

As for the elephant in the garden, I could get the prize if all you have to do is pass a lie detector test. Though I wouldn't truly believe it, those things just suck.

[John Cuthber]

 

I don't get the point of the question then, are you saying that no adult could believe that you have an elephant in your yard?

 

It's possible to have an elephant in your yard. If I chose be believe that you were telling the truth then I would believe that you had an elephant in your yard. I need only to judge your character in order to choose belief or not. How is choice not an option, unless it's an impossibility?

 

What I'm saying is that if you said you had an elephant in your yard I'd simply not believe it.

If you could offer some evidence, maybe a clipping from your local paper, you could convince me but without that I just wouldn't think it was true: I'd assume you were joking.

[losfomot]

If disbelieving in a truth is a choice, then believing in that same truth must necessarily also be a choice. One can choose to believe, or to not believe. q.e.d.

 

It happens all the time. Everyone does it, it's part of the human condition.

 

What do you mean by 'disbelieving in a truth'?

Can you give me an example?

 

I still think the problem is in the definition... for example:

 

Your best friend says to you "John, I don't know how it happened, and I know it sounds crazy, but there is an elephant in my garden... I need your help... you gotta believe me!"

and you grab him by the shoulders and shake him... maybe give him a slap and say "ok, I believe you... calm down and lets go check it out... and my names not John!"

 

And maybe you do believe him... but really what you mean by believe is that you think it is possible, and you are going give him the benefit of the doubt and proceed on the assumption that he is telling the truth even though you know very well that there could be (and probably is) something else going on here.

In other words, you don't truly believe. You don't truly disbelieve either.

 

However, followers of God do believe... at least they will tell you they do... and they are not supposed to be saved if they don't truly believe.

This kind of belief is what I am talking about.

 

Yes, you have a choice to believe that your friend is lying or telling the truth, but it is not true belief. You will not drop to your knees, hold your head and say 'I don't understand' when you walk into the garden and there is no elephant after all.

[Villain]

Why do you think your nonbelief in Apollo is any different than my nonbelief in Yahweh?

 

I'm not sure I do. I think there is a big difference between not being compelled by something (what I described as no belief) and wrestling with something (almost like a pros and cons list) and ultimately coming to a decision of belief or non-belief. I don't really have anything else to add to this, I had thought that I covered this in the post that you were quoting.

 

What I'm saying is that if you said you had an elephant in your yard I'd simply not believe it.

If you could offer some evidence, maybe a clipping from your local paper, you could convince me but without that I just wouldn't think it was true: I'd assume you were joking.

 

And how is that not a choice? If you choose not to believe, how would you describe the action of someone who did believe?

[jp255]

And how is that not a choice?

 

It is not a choice simply because there is no alternative option (which is to believe the elephant is there), since it is not possible (at least extremely unlikely) that I could genuinely believe there was an elephant in the yard.

[Villain]

And maybe you do believe him... but really what you mean by believe is that you think it is possible, and you are going give him the benefit of the doubt and proceed on the assumption that he is telling the truth even though you know very well that there could be (and probably is) something else going on here.

In other words, you don't truly believe. You don't truly disbelieve either.

 

However, followers of God do believe... at least they will tell you they do... and they are not supposed to be saved if they don't truly believe.

This kind of belief is what I am talking about.

 

Yes, you have a choice to believe that your friend is lying or telling the truth, but it is not true belief. You will not drop to your knees, hold your head and say 'I don't understand' when you walk into the garden and there is no elephant after all.

 

I would rather define belief as: action without the security of certainty. Believing something is true or has relevance doesn't mean that there is no chance that it is not true. Even what we describe as knowledge is considered a belief or not even held at such a position by a radical sceptic (which is probably the most honest and truthful position to hold but not very useful).

 

There is no faith in acting from certainty, faith is acting while being aware of the obvious lack of knowledge and accepting the consequences of your actions. Faith does not alleviate you from what you do, it does not mean that you get to live in an imaginary world, it is having conviction to live as to what you believe is the truth. It is knowing that God might not exist and knowing that God might be a product of evolution and an easy way of giving yourself a sense of external security. Acting without security is the recipe for both greatness and complete and utter failure as much in science as any other aspect of life. What we take for granted as products of science were from men and women acting from lack of knowledge.

 

Those that hold belief as infallible are as deluded as those that hold knowledge with the same regard.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Someone tells me "you have got to help me! there's an elephant in my garden".

I'm going to say "I don't believe you and, to prove it we are going to look in your garden and see."

If it turns out that the elephant is real I'm going to be surprised- there's every chance that my surprise will be obvious: gawping ans swearing may well be involved.

But, until I see it (or hear it or see a crowd of people running about yelling or whatever - some sort of evidence) I don't believe it.

 

I can't, while en route to his place suddenly decide to believe it's real.

 

.

Anyway, are you telling me that I can claim to have Elvis riding an elephant while it bonks Shergar in my back garden and you can choose to believe me .

I mean that if I were to hook you up to a lie detector (for the sake of this discussion it's a magic one that works) and ask you if you believe in Elvis etc and you could honestly say that you believe it?

 

 

That's interesting.

It means that you can fool the detector because a minute later you can decide not to believe it and pass the test for the other statement. Then you can change your mind again.

You will say that two statements ("Elvis is there" and "Elvis is not there") are- to the best of your belief- true even though they are contradictory without receiving any information in between or making some realisation.

I think that you may find that counts as insanity.

 

Still, it's a very useful skill.

If you fall over and break your ankle you can choose to believe that it's still n one piece and jog home. Had a heart attack? Not an issue- choose to believe that it's indigestion and keep going.

Dying? No problem, simply choose to believe that you are immortal.

 

One potential problem is that you might get bored. Never mind- do what you like. You can choose to believe that you can pay for it and that it's morally acceptable. If you get caught and jailed who cares choose to believe that you are lazing on the beach.

 

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

No matter. Choose to believe that there isn't one.

Edited November 12, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Villain]

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

 

 

Is it that you suffer from megalomania?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Villain

Personal comments are completely unacceptable here - stop it now!

Is it that you suffer from megalomania?

Do not respond to this modnote within the thread - you can report this post if you feel it was unwarranted or unjust

[Villain]

I apologise, I just thought that the post was so convincing that I had no choice.