Belief not a choice?

[Joshua260]

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.

I don't think I ever said that I was choosing between one man's belief or the other. Rather, I'm pretty sure that I said I was choosing which man to believe. All things being equal between the two men, I would arbitrarily choose to believe (in the sense of trust) one or the other.

 

[Joshua260]

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

belief as used in the definition of trust that I quoted earlier.

 

[Joshua260]

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.

Again, all things (evidence) being equal, I would have to arbitrarily choose which man to believe (in the sense of the definition of trust that I quoted earlier).

 

[Joshua260]

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.

But in fact, as I said earlier, people do it all the time. One example is when voters fill in election circles and choose to trust (believe in) someone they've never met and know nothing about.

 

[zippy2006]

Again, all things (evidence) being equal, I would have to arbitrarily choose which man to believe (in the sense of the definition of trust that I quoted earlier).

The question is whether you chose to get on the plane because you believed one of the men, or because you had to fly and thus needed to get on some plane. If someone asked you why you got on the plane, what would you say? Would you say, "Because I believed the second fellow was telling the truth," or would it be, "Because I needed to fly and I just randomly picked one flight." Notice that you could choose to get on a plane without choosing to believe that one of the men was telling the truth.

The problem with the first explanation is that it has no justification. The natural response would be, "Why did you believe the second fellow was telling the truth?" Yet by the very definition of the problem you would have no answer. Indeed you have no reason to believe that the second fellow is telling the truth rather than the first, and vice versa. I'm not sure it makes sense to form a belief without any reason.

(Sorry if I'm repeating old points!)

 

[Joshua260]

The question is whether you chose to get on the plane because you believed one of the men, or because you had to fly and thus needed to get on some plane. If someone asked you why you got on the plane, what would you say? Would you say, "Because I believed the second fellow was telling the truth," or would it be, "Because I needed to fly and I just randomly picked one flight." Notice that you could choose to get on a plane without choosing to believe that one of the men was telling the truth.

The problem with the first explanation is that it has no justification. The natural response would be, "Why did you believe the second fellow was telling the truth?" Yet by the very definition of the problem you would have no answer. Indeed you have no reason to believe that the second fellow is telling the truth rather than the first, and vice versa. I'm not sure it makes sense to form a belief without any reason.

(Sorry if I'm repeating old points!)

this is the one I'm talking about: "or because you had to fly and thus needed to get on some plane."
and then "Because I needed to fly and I just randomly picked one flight."
I am choosing to believe (trust) in one of the men.

One of the definitions of trust is: to believe.
That is the sense of "believe" that I am using. I certainly could have stayed at the airport, but since I wanted to travel, I chose to believe (just substitute "trust" here) in one of the men. I might even say to him "I've decided to believe you instead of the other guy".

So I frankly believe that we are having issues with different definitions. I certainly think that in many cases people come to believe something based on evidence. However, I believe it is also possible to choose to believe (substitute "trust") when evidence is neutral (evidence is even on both sides). This is exactly the argument of Pascal, and I totally agree with it. Remember, as I pointed out earlier, I found no definition of trust which was actually contingent on the existence of evidence.

 

[zippy2006]

this is the one I'm talking about: "or because you had to fly and thus needed to get on some plane."
and then "Because I needed to fly and I just randomly picked one flight."
I am choosing to believe (trust) in one of the men.

Perhaps I am twisting this somehow, but again consider the two options I gave for the question, "Why did you get on the plane?"

1. Because I believed the second fellow was telling the truth
   
2. Because I needed to fly and I just randomly picked one flight

Now the way I gave these two options was mutually exclusive. (1) excludes (2) and (2) excludes (1). If you chose randomly, then you didn't choose because you believed he was telling the truth. And if you chose because you believed he was telling the truth, then you didn't choose randomly.

The only way you could try to retain both would be to randomly choose to believe the second fellow, but again it isn't clear that you can just randomly choose beliefs.

One of the definitions of trust is: to believe.
That is the sense of "believe" that I am using. I certainly could have stayed at the airport, but since I wanted to travel, I chose to believe (just substitute "trust" here) in one of the men. I might even say to him "I've decided to believe you instead of the other guy". So I frankly believe that we are having issues with different definitions.

I don't disagree with your definitions. I am saying that in such a case you would decide to fly without trusting/believing either one of the two men. Your reason is (2), not (1).

I certainly think that in many cases people come to believe something based on evidence. However, I believe it is also possible to choose to believe (substitute "trust") when evidence is neutral (evidence is even on both sides). This is exactly the argument of Pascal, and I totally agree with it. Remember, as I pointed out earlier, I found no definition of trust which was actually contingent on the existence of evidence.

I'm actually fairly familiar with Pascal, and I don't recall him saying that. Are you thinking of his wager?

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

To say, belief is not a choice is not actually the point of predestination [though I don't hold the view of predestination], it is how you arrived at that choice, did you make it on your own or did an almighty influence bring you to that choice? Since I see that you accept that choice may be made because of influence I don't think you will have a problem with that. It is hard to explain where they go from there but I suppose the question being asked of them and denied is, were you the final influence in your choice, and is it your choice that decides the outcome? In my view this question places predestination in a conundrum but it may prove that you can make a choice somewhat illogically.

For a billion dollars, Ken? Some people would do it for less on the chance that they may survive the fall and collect.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

That would be a belief formed on faith, as opposed to a belief formed on a presentation of information that fits with your reality, something you know. That is not a conscious choice, its a knowing. To form a belief on faith is to make a choice, the other is a belief formed on knowledge, you believe it because you know it.

A basic example would be. I believe I will wake tomorrow because waking up in the morning exists in my reality, the information presented fits with my reality. Its not a conscious choice I make, I know it happens because I’ve done it before. I also have faith that I will wake tomorrow, (because I don’t actually know because tomorrow hasn’t arrived yet) because that is belief without the proof of tomorrow, but I choose to hold that belief based on what’s occurred before. The faith belief is only a possibility because I may be wrong, hence the faith. I may be wrong and die today.

Wow! You just destroyed faith. "Faith belief is only a possibility because I may be wrong?" Not where I'm standing.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Wow! You just destroyed faith. "Faith belief is only a possibility because I may be wrong?" Not where I'm standing.

Maybe you could elaborate in the context in which I used the word faith, or let me know where you are standing. If you form a belief because you know something then its not a faith based belief. If you have faith that you are correct means you may be wrong, hence the faith. If you 'know' you are right then its not a faith based belief.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, all things (evidence) being equal, I would have to arbitrarily choose which man to believe (in the sense of the definition of trust that I quoted earlier).

Perhaps that's what you would do. It's not necessarily what others would do. As I already indicated, I wouldn't have a belief in either claim or trust either individual.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Eyes wide Open, I think you are confusing belief with expectation and that's because of the wide application we give to the word. When I say, I believe I will wake up tomorrow, I am really saying, I expect to wake up tomorrow, and that is based on the fact that I have woken every morning for the last fifty five years and see no reason to fear otherwise.

That is the problem with a word like believe: it has so many applications, and each of those applications may have a different answer. To more clearly define the request we need to see the intent of LostMarbels' question. He gave it to us. His point is the doctrine of predestination though he wishes to keep it free of Biblical quotations. I don't know if that's possible but I'm sure someone who holds that point of view will prove me wrong. How do you explain believing not being a determined act of person but by outside compulsion [not sure if that's the right word]? Can someone believe through me so that it appears I am believing and, if so, am I actually believing?

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't think I ever said that I was choosing between one man's belief or the other. Rather, I'm pretty sure that I said I was choosing which man to believe. All things being equal between the two men, I would arbitrarily choose to believe (in the sense of trust) one or the other.

Why would you feel compelled to believe in either of them?

 

[lumberjohn]

But in fact, as I said earlier, people do it all the time. One example is when voters fill in election circles and choose to trust (believe in) someone they've never met and know nothing about.

Several points here. First, just because many people might do something doesn't mean it is justified. People take irrational actions every day, many of which are unwise. That doesn't mean we should emulate them.

Second, votes do not necessarily indicate trust in the person for whom one votes. There are many reasons that one can enter a vote for a particular candidate. One of the most effective motivators is hatred for the opposition. Political scientists have long recognized that people vote against candidates more often than they vote for their opponents.

Third, even when a vote is based on trust as you have defined it, that doesn't mean the trust is devoid of reason and evidence. Many people accord trust on the basis of an attractive face, a kind smile, general likeability, or just "gut instinct." We may not consider these good reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. If your experience suggests your intuition about people is usually correct, no one can claim you're being irrational to rely on it in this instance.

 

[enigmadi]

If what you are told is illogic according to what you already hold to be true, and you can find no logic behind what is presented to you, can you choose to believe it anyway? Example; if Bill Gates offered to pay you a billion dollars to believe you could fly like a bird, even though this goes against everything you already hold to be true, and is a completely illogical belief; could you choose to believe it anyway?


I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the ability to choose what we believe.

Ken

Yes, we absolutely choose...However, two points: our experiences (physical/spiritual) do affect our choices; the use of "brainwashing" techniques can change perspective (i.e., cults)

 

[enigmadi]

I fail to understand the topic.
Belief is to accept something to be true without having proof, or are we are talking a different kind of belief? If not, I don't understand why there is no choice then to believe or not to believe. In short: belief has choice by default.

I think what you've defined is "faith" and not "belief."

 

[Joshua260]

Perhaps I am twisting this somehow, but again consider the two options I gave for the question, "Why did you get on the plane?"

1. Because I believed the second fellow was telling the truth
   
2. Because I needed to fly and I just randomly picked one flight

Now the way I gave these two options was mutually exclusive. (1) excludes (2) and (2) excludes (1). If you chose randomly, then you didn't choose because you believed he was telling the truth. And if you chose because you believed he was telling the truth, then you didn't choose randomly.

The only way you could try to retain both would be to randomly choose to believe the second fellow, but again it isn't clear that you can just randomly choose beliefs.

I don't disagree with your definitions. I am saying that in such a case you would decide to fly without trusting/believing either one of the two men. Your reason is (2), not (1).

As I said, one definition of believe is to trust. As in to believe in (trust) something...not necessarily believe the something (as in your reason #1). There is a difference and that is the definition that I am using.
So my reason is:
3: Because I need to fly and decided to arbitrarily believe in (trust) one man over the other.

I'm actually fairly familiar with Pascal, and I don't recall him saying that. Are you thinking of his wager?

There is more than just the wager. In order to understand Pascal's philosophy better, you would need to read the entire Pensees, in which he argues in assorted writings that:
1. There is plenty of evidence to support a rational belief in the Christian God.
2. Other religions false short of being rational enough to believe in.
3. It is at least equally as reasonable to believe in the Christian god than not.
4. It is more rational to believe in the Christian god and be wrong than not to believe and be wrong.
5. Therefore, choose to believe in (put your trust in) the Christian god. (this is where atheists typically get it wrong and claim that Pascal encouraged a blind faith in Christianity...he did not). I often find that those that criticize Pascal's wager have not read the Pensees and they often mindlessly parrot Matt Dillahunty.

 

[Joshua260]

Why would you feel compelled to believe in either of them?

You misunderstand. I chose to believe in (trust in) them...not simply believe them.

 

[Joshua260]

Several points here. First, just because many people might do something doesn't mean it is justified. People take irrational actions every day, many of which are unwise. That doesn't mean we should emulate them.

Second, votes do not necessarily indicate trust in the person for whom one votes. There are many reasons that one can enter a vote for a particular candidate. One of the most effective motivators is hatred for the opposition. Political scientists have long recognized that people vote against candidates more often than they vote for their opponents.

Third, even when a vote is based on trust as you have defined it, that doesn't mean the trust is devoid of reason and evidence. Many people accord trust on the basis of an attractive face, a kind smile, general likeability, or just "gut instinct." We may not consider these good reasons, but they are reasons nonetheless. If your experience suggests your intuition about people is usually correct, no one can claim you're being irrational to rely on it in this instance.

Never-the-less, we can choose to trust in something. The definition of believe I am using is "trust". As I have said many times, trust is not contingent on evidence. I'm not saying this is always the case. I'm just saying that one of the definitions of believe is "trust", as in "Seeing all evidence of reliability is even for both men, I decide to arbitrarily believe in (trust) in one man over the other." Since I want to fly, I must choose. If I decided not to believe in (trust) either man, then I would not fly at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

You misunderstand. I chose to believe in (trust in) them...not simply believe them.

That's doesn't significantly change my question. Two people make random claims. Why are you compelled to chose to believe [or believe in] either of them?