Belief not a choice?

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Again, perhaps that's what you would do. All other things being equal, I would not feel inclined to "believe in" either of them. There is nothing to distinguish their claims or to establish their general reliability. In such a situation, I would elect not to fly until better, more reliable information became available. If I were forced to fly, then my choice of plane (A or B) would not be based on trust in either individual or belief in their claims, but on a gamble.

 

[iam13]

Christ brought us Love, through his sacrifice to and for us. Buddha brought us light, from upon high. The 3rd and final element of the trinity of unity, that will enable the species to master the 3D space of time, space and material is, Power.

Together they are, Love, Light and Power.

Allow for me to elaborate upon "Power". When I refer to Power I am specifically talking about the Power of Free Will of Choice. You see, you choose everything in life. You choose to read this, you will choose to reply to this or not reply. Unless incarcerated or in the military you have made every choice in your lifetime. In fact, your choices are what creates your entire experience while here in the flesh, and ultimately is the architect of destiny. This empowerment of power of free will of choice can be your manifest to heaven, or your destine to hell.

Love, Light and Power,
13

 

[ron4shua]

Greetings brother iam13 , I see your " elaborate upon " as a very bold statement in light of ;
57And they stumbled at Him. But יהושע said to them, “A prophet is not unappreciated except in his own country and in his own house.”
58And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

AND ; " Together they are, Love, Light and Power. "

The fact , Scripture expounds The Hebrew Deity , Elohim YAH is " Spirit and LOVE " .

I believe our Propitiation , YAHshua choose to " do many miracles " and couldn't !

Not of His incapacity , but their choice . Because they looked at the " plane " & didn't think
it would get off the ground , a choice .

"a foreknowledge"

http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001101

 

[Hank]

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

I use(d) the Oxford Dictionary, since my English is anything but good.

Belief - An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I see the original phrase in question as a statement, where one simply believes very strongly. Other English phrases like, 'over my dead body', 'get a foot in the door' and so on come to mind; except no one has invented a catchy phrase for super strong belief.

 

[Ken-1122]

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)

Are you going to answer my question? If Bill Gates offered you a billion Dollars to believe you could fly like a bird, could you choose to believe it?
Ken

 

[Eyes wide Open]

"Llewelyn Stevenson, post: 68006427, member: 377084"]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.

Well I would say the expectation was built on the belief, which was built on the knowledge of the event (to wake) which is held together by faith, faith being present because it not a known thing but a future projection. But perhaps its subjective? Expectation is defined outcome 'x' from the said belief. No belief no expectation.

Also its only the prior thought of me waking tomorrow that creates the expectation and the belief that I will, but because there is no real knowledge of that waking in a true sense (because it hasn’t arrived) the belief is built on faith, in that instance I choose to believe I will. Obviously what we are prepared to believe on faith varies greatly.

Beliefs really apply to context, I tried to make a clear distinction between what I think are the two types of belief we can hold in a general sense and the basis for them. Of course the contexts that are applied can change dramatically and to differing degrees of expectation. As the blind faith thread shows what some deem to be faith is to others blind faith, because what we gauge as evidence differs greatly.

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?

The determined act follows from having information presented to you that you ac'knowledge' as the truth, (or not) meaning you understand the 'thing' to be true because you have knowledge of the said thing (That’s the outside compulsion to believe) If you don't have knowledge (from a poor presentation of information) you won't acknowledge it as truth, thus no belief will be formed unless you 'choose' to believe on faith, meaning you believe the 'thing' without all the knowledge. If you know something it has resonance with you, it is not a conscious choice as such, or a determined act as a conscious choice, that's my take. A slap in the face hurts. That is a presentation of information (the slap) and I know and believe that to be true, I don't make a conscious choice to believe, it resonates with me. I'm not sure if that answers your questions but its the best I've got. But to summarise I can believe through you if the information you are providing fits with my perception of reality, if not then I won't, irrespective of what you believe, or how valid you think it is. The mind is a powerful tool and you can convince yourself of many things.

 

[Davian]

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.


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.

Have you had any contact with Matt Dillahunty, such as on the Atheist Experience?

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Well I would say the expectation was built on the belief, which was built on the knowledge of the event (to wake) which is held together by faith, faith being present because it not a known thing but a future projection. But perhaps its subjective? Expectation is defined outcome 'x' from the said belief. No belief no expectation.

Lol. My six year old mind got lost [refer to Einstein]. Let's see... slowly now... because I know that I wake up every day, I believe I will wake up tomorrow, and therefore I expect to? I suppose that works, however I do not see that we actually go through a three step process as that since decision does not require it. The realist does not believe that he will wake tomorrow because of the subjective element you may be suggesting, "Who knows what could happen tonight?" Yet actually he still expects to. Either his faith is irrational or his expectation is, but that's another choice.

 

[zippy2006]

So my reason is:
3: Because I need to fly and decided to arbitrarily believe in (trust) one man over the other.

I guess I would just stand behind my claim that you can't randomly choose beliefs. Trust isn't given arbitrarily. Almost everyone in that situation would toss a coin, pick a flight, and not arbitrarily trust anyone.

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:

I've read the Pensees.

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).

Fair enough. I would just say that the Wager involves rational motive, if not evidence. Furthermore, the way that Pascal suggests to enact the wager is not just to "Choose to trust." He explicitly acknowledges the fact that beliefs cannot be conjured up ex nihilo. In response he gives a motive and a method. The motive is essentially the Wager. The method is to go to church, to dip your hand in the holy water, to start saying the creed, in general, to participate in Christianity. After showing that the belief is rational he provides a way towards it.

The qualms I have about the way you brought up Pascal is the context. The airplane situation is not analogous to the Wager. The Wager is based on rationality but not evidence. The airplane scenario is based on neither rationality nor evidence.

I often find that those that criticize Pascal's wager have not read the Pensees and they often mindlessly parrot Matt Dillahunty.

Yes, of course.

 

[Joshua260]

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?

The only thing compelling me to choose one of them is that I want to fly, but nothing is compelling me to choose one over the other.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

The only thing compelling me to choose one of them is that I want fly, but nothing is compelling me to choose one over the other.

The same choice that would make one jump for Bill Gates' billion dollars: desire. Desire can make us do things against rationality on the possibilities of chance.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Lol. My six year old mind got lost [refer to Einstein]. Let's see... slowly now... because I know that I wake up every day, I believe I will wake up tomorrow, and therefore I expect to? I suppose that works, however I do not see that we actually go through a three step process as that since decision does not require it. The realist does not believe that he will wake tomorrow because of the subjective element you may be suggesting, "Who knows what could happen tonight?" Yet actually he still expects to. Either his faith is irrational or his expectation is, but that's another choice.

I highlighted a simple process to understand and break down belief and faith in referring to a very easy thing we all do. Of course you don't go through that cognitive process to waking up, but waking up tomorrow IS a future projection, and that projection can only really come from a cognitive thought process, and that process is made up of structural components, incorporating belief and faith. This is why I don't believe animals have belief systems nor faith investments because they don't project into the future with their thoughts, in that they don't have them in the same way we do, at least they don't seem to if we observe the differences in brain wave function compared to humans. The realists faith isn't irrational but it is faith as described. I have faith and the belief I will wake tomorrow, but I don't know it, but that belief and faith is very rational because I've experienced it many times (the evidence) other beliefs and faith are not so rational.