Belief not a choice?

[Joshua260]

Of course it is! You have a situation where you have two choices to make and you have no idea which choice is the right choice. Your only option is to guess. And that my friend is a coin toss.

It's not relevant to the type of belief I am talking about.

And what would you base this belief on?

In the type of belief act I'm talking about, one could either choose to believe using blind faith (no evidence) or choose to believe where the evidence is neutral (good evidence on both sides).

Evidence isn’t necessary, convincing you is necessary. So what convinced you that the first plane was the safe one?

Nothing. I decided to believe one guy and not the other. It was completely arbitrary. It may help to remember that the type of belief that I'm talking about is like "trust". Can you choose to trust someone? I think so...and in the same way, you can choose to believe someone.

Christians are accused of having “blind faith” when it comes to their religion only. When it comes to politics, safety, money, people, other religions or anything else; they are as skeptical as we are.
It isn’t a contradiction; just pointing out your choosing to believe is inconsistent with the rest of your life.

I think it is a contradiction for atheists to accuse Christians of having a blind faith and at the same time claiming that they cannot choose to believe something (and as most of them would say "without a shred of evidence"). But let's let that go for now. I may start a post on that one.

A quick question; if a politician told you he could lower taxes, increase spending, could you choose to believe him?

People do it everyday. Lots of people fill in the little voting circles with absolutely no idea who the person is.

If a car salesman showed you a gas powered car he claimed gets 1000 mpg, could you choose to believe him without proof?

You apparently have not met my mom.

 

[Ken-1122]

Nothing. I decided to believe one guy and not the other. It was completely arbitrary.

And how is that different from a coin toss?

It may help to remember that the type of belief that I'm talking about is like "trust". Can you choose to trust someone?

Only if I have a reason to.

I think so...and in the same way, you can choose to believe someone.

Again; only if I have reason to.

People do it everyday. Lots of people fill in the little voting circles with absolutely no idea who the person is.

Again; how is this different from a coin toss?

You apparently have not met my mom.

I'm not talking to your mom; I'm talking to you

K

 

[Joshua260]

And how is that different from a coin toss?

It's different because in the coin toss, the choice is being made for you. In the plane scenario I provided, we are choosing to believe (or trust) which man to believe. I don't see how one could choose to believe or trust a coin.

Only if I have a reason to.

So unless you have a reason, you trust no one. This does not demonstrate neutral evidence...rather, you are imposing a bias.

Again; only if I have reason to.

So unless you have a reason, you don't believe anyone. This does not demonstrate neutral evidence...rather, you are imposing a bias.

Again; how is this different from a coin toss?

See above.

I'm not talking to your mom; I'm talking to you

No. In this case I would not trust the mechanic, but that is because the evidence is not neutral. I have knowledge about such things and have never seen a car with 1000mpg. So this is not the type of scenario I have been talking about...one in which the evidence is neutral (evidence on both sides is good).

 

[LostMarbels]

Following God is a choice, but you can only make that choice if you are convinced of His existence. Some people can't believe unless they see signs. Jesus said that and that's how I got convinced. Not believing was not a choice.

46 So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 48 Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”

49 The nobleman said to Him, “Sir, come down before my child dies!”

50 Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your son lives.” So the man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. 51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him and told him, saying, “Your son lives!”

52 Then he inquired of them the hour when he got better. And they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” 53 So the father knew that it wasat the same hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives.” And he himself believed, and his whole household.

Thanks, But I'm not trying to make this into a religious debate. I honestly want to know peoples thoughts on this. Please keep it secular, and Discuss what a belief is in of it's self. What is it to believe?

Thanks again.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's different because in the coin toss, the choice is being made for you. In the plane scenario I provided, we are choosing to believe (or trust) which man to believe. I don't see how one could choose to believe or trust a coin.

You obviously aren't familiar with the "coin toss". That is when someone flips a coin in the air, and while it is in the air they ask YOU to choose; heads or tails. They do not choose for you; you are not putting trust or belief in a coin, you are guessing which side of the coin it will land on.

So unless you have a reason, you trust no one. This does not demonstrate neutral evidence...rather, you are imposing a bias.

No; to not trust someone because they haven't given you a reason to is not a bias, that is what is often expected from strangers. Now depending upon the situation I am asked to trust, I might trust the person simply because he has an honest face, or because he is a fellow human being; but whatever the case, if I am going to trust this person it is because i have a reason to trust him

K

 

[LostMarbels]

Christians are accused of having “blind faith” when it comes to their religion only. When it comes to politics, safety, money, people, other religions or anything else; they are as skeptical as we are.


Ken

As I stated before please lets not get in to deep into the religion. I will tell you I view blind faith as incorrect. I view faith as a learned behavioral trait or sometimes it can be a conditioned response. I have learned to live my life, patterned after experiences expectant of known results to my endeavors. I have learned to be more "faithful" as I have seen the results of my faith. You learn faith. Then you intact it by reason of knowing what is expected for any given result.

Is see a belief as more of an acceptance of something as valid, and faith is enacting belief.

 

[Davian]

I get that. We need continued info to maintain a belief. Or new info to change it.

Belief is not a simple choice?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Suppose that a man told me that plane A was dangerous and that I should get on plane B. Suppose also that a second man told me that plane B was dangerous and that I should get on plane A. Do I not have to choose which man to believe?

No. All other things being equal, you're choosing between the planes, not beliefs. In such a situation, I would not be convinced (i.e., believe) either claim. I would then have the option of taking a risk by flying in either plane A or B, or not flying at all.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hello? That's exactly what I'm saying. There is more than one type of belief.

No there is not. An action performed for no reason at all simply does not betray the existence of any kind of belief.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No there is not. An action performed for no reason at all simply does not betray the existence of any kind of belief.

That's right. In the scenario, if I chose to fly on plane A rather than B, it wouldn't be because I believed the second man's claim over the first, but because I took a gamble. Similarly, if I chose to fly on B, it wouldn't be because I found the first man's claim more believable, but because I gambled on it. In either case, my actions don't necessarily indicate greater conviction in one claim over the other. Whether A or B, I'm going to feel tremendously uneasy on the plane, and I would most likely wait for more credible information before selecting either.

 

[lumberjohn]

This all gets back to basic assumptions. If you accept religious faith as a valid epistemology, then it does make sense to talk about beliefs as a matter of choice within that framework. Most people would recognize that choosing to believe in Santa Clause or leprechauns is not really a matter of choice (if not, imagine whether you could, given a strong enough incentive, force yourself to sincerely believe in either) because neither fits within a paradigm of religious faith. The key here is that your epistemology is not itself a matter of choice. It is an assumption that guides your beliefs. An atheist whose epistemology is based on reason and evidence alone simply will not believe in God unless it can be demonstrated through these agencies. No fault can be assigned unless one can demonstrate to the atheist that his epistemology is invalid, but of course this will need to be accomplished through reason and evidence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

For me, to formulate an opinion, to take a stance, or construct a belief is a conscious act.

To formulate the stance, yes. To accept it as true, no.

Imagine trying to take the stance that the Moon is made out of green cheese. You can formulate your stance all you like, but could you pass an infallible lie detector test? I know that I couldn't.

I could verbally defend the position, but I would not actually believe what I was saying.

I don't know if there are edge cases in which genuine belief might exist with very little reason. Perhaps the epistemologies of some people have such low hurdles for belief that they will believe virtually everything. I'm reminded of some New Agers. But that wouldn't be my personal epistemology, which sets a high bar for belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think belief is a matter of choice. For example, one can choose to believe in String Theory, or they can choose to believe in Loop Quantum Gravity. I think the decision would be based on which theory the decision-maker feels best explains reality.

I think that we need to distinguish between an alternative and a choice. It's true that String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are alternatives, but that doesn't mean that one is consciously choosing which one to believe as if one could conjure belief through a pure act of will. Rather, one of them will be more convincing than the other.

Suppose that their life depended on which theory was correct. They decide that String Theory is more credible, and decide to trust their belief (with their life) that the theory was actually the correct explanation. I think that's where "faith" comes in...the decision-maker comes to trust their belief that String Theory is actually correct.

I don't see that as faith. It's more like making a gamble, knowing that one could be mistaken. It doesn't require genuine belief. I would think that faith requires genuine, gut-level belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lumberjohn]

As referenced above, there is equivocation here relating to the terms "choice" and "belief." Choice can be used to mean the voluntary action of choosing or it can refer to a simple alternative, and in discussions like these, those must be kept distinct and not conflated. The two planes represent two alternatives. One can be voluntarily "chosen" without believing either person making claims on their behalves. "Belief" can be used to refer to trust as in trust the sun will come up tomorrow or to conscious assent to a proposition, which may or may not involve trust. The coin flip example is one in which you may believe the coin will come up heads, in this latter sense, without having any trust in that conclusion. Trust can be measured by how much of something you greatly value you would bet on the proposition being true. When used in the "trust" sense, belief is tied securely to epistemology. Unless one's epistemology supports trust in a particular proposition, one can have no belief in this sense. The question is whether one should ever consciously assent to a proposition in which there are no epistemological grounds to trust that the proposition is true.

 

[linssue55]

This topic has grabbed my interest because I do not fully understand this point of view. I fully intend to keep this conversation secular, and do not want to get into what we may or may not believe. Just would like to discuss this point of view about belief.

To me a belief is a propositional attitude or mental state , stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is found true for that individual. For me, to formulate an opinion, to take a stance, or construct a belief is a conscious act. It take a considerable amount of rationalization, and thought process to come to accept a belief. But then I am also of the nurture over nature camp concerning Pavlov's views.

I do see ones environment may contribute to ones views, and core beliefs, but that being said I still do not see how someone can be forced to believe what they themselves refute. So can you discuss with me what you mean belief is not a choice and why? Thank you for your time and consideration in this endeavor. And thank you in advance for keeping this conversation strictly to the point and secular.

This topic has grabbed my interest because I do not fully understand this point of view. I fully intend to keep this conversation secular, and do not want to get into what we may or may not believe. Just would like to discuss this point of view about belief.

EVERYTHING is a Choice, Free Will! Good or bad, We CHOOSE!

To me a belief is a propositional attitude or mental state , stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is found true for that individual. For me, to formulate an opinion, to take a stance, or construct a belief is a conscious act. It take a considerable amount of rationalization, and thought process to come to accept a belief. But then I am also of the nurture over nature camp concerning Pavlov's views.

I do see ones environment may contribute to ones views, and core beliefs, but that being said I still do not see how someone can be forced to believe what they themselves refute. So can you discuss with me what you mean belief is not a choice and why? Thank you for your time and consideration in this endeavor. And thank you in advance for keeping this conversation strictly to the point and secular.

 

[lumberjohn]

When atheists critique "blind faith," the critique is based upon the use of a double epistemological standard. They are pointing out that the same people that appeal to faith when evidence is lacking in religious matters cling to evidence-based rationales to support their decisions in other areas of their lives. Such an approach represents special pleading and thus a subversion of logic. They are pointing out that a "choice," in the sense of a warranted set of alternatives, is only possible if one begins from an unwarranted set of epistemological assumptions. If one employs a consistent set of standards, there is no warranted choice.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This topic has grabbed my interest because I do not fully understand this point of view. I fully intend to keep this conversation secular, and do not want to get into what we may or may not believe. Just would like to discuss this point of view about belief.

To me a belief is a propositional attitude or mental state , stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is found true for that individual. For me, to formulate an opinion, to take a stance, or construct a belief is a conscious act. It take a considerable amount of rationalization, and thought process to come to accept a belief. But then I am also of the nurture over nature camp concerning Pavlov's views.

I do see ones environment may contribute to ones views, and core beliefs, but that being said I still do not see how someone can be forced to believe what they themselves refute. So can you discuss with me what you mean belief is not a choice and why? Thank you for your time and consideration in this endeavor. And thank you in advance for keeping this conversation strictly to the point and secular.

Quite simple in my opinion....

Belief to me is not a choice, but instead it is a compulsion.
I believe whatever convinces me.

I can't "choose" to start believing in a god any more then you can "choose" to start believing in Zeus, Thor or the easter bunny.

I need to be convinced first. That which convinces me is that which justifies my belief.

How can I believe something of which I am not convinced that it is true or worth believing?

Indeed, I don't choose my beliefs.

My beliefs are the result of evidence, trust and reasoning.

 

[True Scotsman]

This topic has grabbed my interest because I do not fully understand this point of view. I fully intend to keep this conversation secular, and do not want to get into what we may or may not believe. Just would like to discuss this point of view about belief.

To me a belief is a propositional attitude or mental state , stance, take, or opinion about a proposition or about the potential state of affairs in which that proposition is found true for that individual. For me, to formulate an opinion, to take a stance, or construct a belief is a conscious act. It take a considerable amount of rationalization, and thought process to come to accept a belief. But then I am also of the nurture over nature camp concerning Pavlov's views.

I do see ones environment may contribute to ones views, and core beliefs, but that being said I still do not see how someone can be forced to believe what they themselves refute. So can you discuss with me what you mean belief is not a choice and why? Thank you for your time and consideration in this endeavor. And thank you in advance for keeping this conversation strictly to the point and secular.

This notion that belief is not volitional, denies the conceptual nature of knowledge and the fact that the conceptual faculty does not work automatically.

 

[ron4shua]

The same believer that penned this ;
"Of all that is written I love only what a man has written with his blood . . . Whoever writes in blood
and aphorisms does not want to be read but to be learned by heart."
And this ;
"Ultimately, no one can extract from things, books included, more than he already knows."We are like shop windows in which we are continually arranging, concealing. or illuminating the supposed
qualities others ascribe to us – in order to deceive ourselves."
Also this ;
"Out of chaos comes order."
Or was that authored by Howard Johnson ?

Hallelu-YAH .

 

[keith99]

I'm pretty sure it was Mark Twain who said something like "I'd sooner believe 2 Yankee Professors lied than that pieces of stars fall from the sky.".

We can do little in choosing how what we know impacts what we believe. But was can control what we choose to investigate in depth and that can change what we know and through that what we believe.