How do you choose to believe?

[In situ]

Basically ~do you hold to free will or predestination~

Predestination, because I believe that God is omnipotent. Others should to

The OP is not about free will or predestination but a question about a certain particular instance of what is regarded a choice by many Christians. Whatever conclusion is reached from this single instance I do not see how it can be turned into a generalize concepts on its own, such a we have free will or are predestinated. Maybe this is not what you intended to say, but I make this remark to highlight that my OP is not a question about these issues.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The OP is not about free will or predestination but a question about a certain particular instance of what is regarded a choice by many Christians. Whatever conclusion is reached from this single instance I do not see how it can be turned into a generalize concepts on its own, such a we have free will or are predestinated. Maybe this is not what you intended to say, but I make this remark to highlight that my OP is not a question about these issues.

Yes it is. A Christian knows what another Christian is insinuating- this thread is begging the question of free will vs predestination, plain and simple. One doesn't bring up the word 'choice' in theology without doing such.

 

[In situ]

I'm a bit confused. Is this thread about God's choosing to believe or our choosing to believe?

It is about use - if we choice or not to believe a deity exists. (Someone else cannot believe for you - not even a god can). If we choice I want to know what makes people believe.

My basic assumption is that people are rational. Being rational implies you have reason for you choices. The basic outline of my thought is as follow; if we are rational being then a belief that a deity exists is a conclusion based on our rational reasoning. My argument is that this type of decision is not a choice but a conclusion based on the individuals life experience. In other words, a belief is not a choice but forced upon you as matter of the evidence that support the conclusion. A rational person will not deny or reject the evidence, therefore a rational person will be forced to accept the conclusions. In other words a rational person cannot choice what they want to believe. It would be irrational to do otherwise, which would contradict my assumption that we human beings are rational beings.

My question is; does it follows that people cannot choice to believe a deity exists? If not, why?

 

[dysert]

It is about use - if we choice or not to believe a deity exists. (Someone else cannot believe for you - not even a god can). If we choice I want to know what makes people believe.

My basic assumption is that people are rational. Being rational implies you have reason for you choices. The basic outline of my thought is as follow; if we are rational being then a belief that a deity exists is a conclusion based on our rational reasoning. My argument is that this type of decision is not a choice but a conclusion based on the individuals life experience. In other words, a belief is not a choice but forced upon you as matter of the evidence that support the conclusion. A ration person will not deny or reject the evidence, therefore a rational person will be forced to accept the conclusions. In other words a rational person cannot choice what they want to believe. It would be irrational to do otherwise, which would contradict my assumption that we human beings are rational beings.

My question is; does it follows that people cannot choice to believe a deity exists?

I understand what you're saying. Thanks. I don't know that people are rational, though. Either that or there is much more going into the reasoning process than we realize. Earlier in this thread I posited that decisions/choices/beliefs are a complex combination of what we know to be true combined with what we want to be true combined with upbringing, feelings, our current circumstances, the importance of the decision, the weights assigned to each piece of the puzzle, etc. We may be aware of some of these factors, but there are others we may not be aware of. In the end, though, they're all combined together to form a current decision/choice/belief which may not actually be the rational one based solely on what we know to be true. (I hope what I'm saying comes across as clearly as what you said.)

 

[In situ]

All we can do is try to explain whenever we run into any post that shows a misunderstanding of the concept.

Please do. I am not the one that believes a deity exists so I cannot speak for believers why they believe it does. If it is choice then I want to know how once can choice to believe.

 

[In situ]

I understand what you're saying. Thanks. I don't know that people are rational, though.

My assumption is that all human are rational. I may be wrong, but that still needs to be shown. My assumption does not imply we share the same perception of reality. Difference in perception can lead on to believe other person is irrational, but that in itself is not evidence for other people being irrational, it is only evidence of lack of knowledge on my own behalf.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure about neurotheology but I thin that faith may be different in brain area activity than in everyday beliefs like "the sun is out today". Such that its not so easy to challenge or opt in or out of.

 

[In situ]

I don't know that people are rational, though. Either that or there is much more going into the reasoning process than we realize.

You can be quite sure about that lots is going on with our thinking processes which we do not know about. The amount of information any brain can store is quite enormous. The information density in the brain is far larger than anything we humans so far been able to produce. Most of our information processing is unconscious. The result of all that unconsciousness information processing creates emotions. Emotions is a reflection of everything you know, i.e. what is stored in your brain. If what you believe at a consciousness level is in conflict with your emotion you will we feel bad and you will adjust your belief so they do not upset your emotions. This conflict is know as cognitive dissonance or mental stress in plain English.

This is why it sometimes is so hard to understand why we believe as we do since most of this information processing in our brains are out of reach for inspection by our consciousness. A way to understand why we hold our beliefs as we do are to question our basic assumptions - in other words use doubt as a thinking tool to gain knowledge.

(Before any one ask; yes it may be a rational thing to deny evidence, because it act as to protect the mental well being of the individual - truth does not matter in such cases, but survival does).

 

[dysert]

A way to understand why we hold our beliefs as we do are to question our basic assumptions - in other words use doubt as a thinking tool to gain knowledge.

Yes, that is *a* way, but we must be careful to remember that, as you say, "Most of our information processing is unconscious." Using doubt will get us partway there, but there still a lot more to go that can't be analyzed. This is where I think we all get our different sets of beliefs. Even if we were to agree on all the facts of reality, there is a lot more going on than either one of us realizes, so basing a belief system on facts alone doesn't really cut it.

 

[In situ]

Earlier in this thread I posited that ...

I am still reading (and commenting) on page 2. I will need to locate this post of yours first. If possible I would appreciate if commenters are able to link back to previous arguments they made if they base an argument on previous reasoning. It would make it easier for both parties; me to follow the line of thoughts presented and the commenter wont need to repeat everything all over again.

 

[In situ]

Yes, that is *a* way,

My wording is intentional so as to acknowledge the fact that other people says there are other means to gain knowledge or insight - to be understood as being such things as spiritual insight or revealed knowledge, or whatever one prefer to call it.

 

[Chris B]

Every religion and every political system know that it is of the utmost importance to instill "thoughts and ideals" as early as possible. These are very hard to question and unlearn.

And the ones not actually taught but just there by usage in the surrounding family and local community, they are the ones hardest to spot, unless you move to a different society and culture. When the defence mechanism tends to be that of dismissing this new, other way of seeing things as "wrong".

Would you believe I grew up "knowing" that I was a member of the finest nationality on the planet?

"Are you Gods?"
"No, Englishmen. The very next best thing."
(from the superb film "The Man Who Would Be King")

 

[In situ]

Yes, that is *a* way, but we must be careful to remember that, as you say, "Most of our information processing is unconscious." Using doubt will get us partway there, but there still a lot more to go that can't be analyzed. This is where I think we all get our different sets of beliefs. Even if we were to agree on all the facts of reality, there is a lot more going on than either one of us realizes, so basing a belief system on facts alone doesn't really cut it.

My comment about the brain was not about how we gain knowledge. It is intended to motivate my assumption that we all are rational beings. How we gain the knowledge that is present in our brains is irrelevant for the assumption that we make rational decision based on the knowledge that is present in the brain. How the knowledge got there I find irrelevant atm. First I need to establish if a belief in a deity is a choice or not. Once that is done one can start to investigate what that choice is based on but, from my point of view, that investigation is premature right now.

 

[Chris B]

Even if we were to agree on all the facts of reality, there is a lot more going on than either one of us realizes, so basing a belief system on facts alone doesn't really cut it.

Well it wouldn't, if there was some other method or mode which demonstrated better reliability or effectiveness. In the absence of such, I suggest we are left with provisional understandings and unavoidable existential uncertainty (which largely gets set aside, for practical reasons, for day-to-day living.)
I hold that when this uncertainty gets forgotten or is denied, than clashes between beliefs can become decidedly hotter and less helpful.

 

[In situ]

On the other hand clear free-will verses and passages can be found elsewhere.

The OP is not about free will but if we can choice to believe a deity exists or not. The only thing free will add to the OP is that it is possible to be a choice, but that does not imply it is a choice. The OP itself (that is me) does not agree with that assumption - but what I believe or assume is irrelavant. The claim we can choice to believe that a deity exists implies that free will exists so the OP (again me) have to assume free will exists in order to make any sense of the question. In other words, I cannot set up a straw man in where free will is rejected and then ask believers to explain/defend that straw man. That would just be plain dishonest.

 

[In situ]

Well it wouldn't, if there was some other method or mode which demonstrated better reliability or effectiveness. In the absence of such, I suggest we are left with provisional understandings and unavoidable existential uncertainty (which largely gets set aside, for practical reasons, for day-to-day living.)
I hold that when this uncertainty gets forgotten or is denied, than clashes between beliefs can become decidedly hotter and less helpful.

Please, I beg, everyone to restrain themselves and keep to the OP; is the belief in a deity a choice or not?

I do not see (yet) how we gain knowledge is relevant to this question. I have show in a previous argument, no matter how you gain the knowledge, all belief based on evidence are still forced conclusions since they are based on the evidences you used to conclude with. You can choice the evidences but you cannot choice the conclusions from the evidences. It is a basic logical principle that all derived conclusion are true. If a conclusion is true, and you are a rational person, then you cannot say the conclusion is not true. In other words, you do not have a choice. That means; a rational person cannot choice what they want to believe. I assume everyone is rational, including believers - and I think all believer would like to agree with me that their beliefs are rational. Why else would they believe?

 

[Chris B]

it would be unreasonable for me to believe that I will cease to exist, because this truth would never be demonstrated to me personally, so I shouldn't accept it as true because it would never be demonstrated to me personally.

I've had a good mull on that, and I don't get it.
To me is seems survival after death is the proposition requiring more assumed entities, and therefore the less probable to be true by Occam's razor.
My brain stops when I'm dead... pretty certain.
I know of no case demonstrated of a mind (or other related entity) operational separate from its associated brain, though I know of many cases where physical damage to a brain has caused a loss of function to to an individual's body.
And I know that continued functioning of the body requires a net energy input : we don't just "go": we need a fuel source.

Option 1: our sense of existence and awareness is intimately linked to our body, and it ceases when the body ceases to function.
Option 2: our sense of existence and awareness is not intimately linked to our body, but can exist independently of it.

I'm pushed to think of any examples pointing clearly to the second option, though some experiments have been tried.

Chris

 

[Chriliman]

I think my beliefs are formed based on what I want to be true.

My choices affect my reality, which may affect what I want and in turn affecting my beliefs.

I want to believe God is the truth, therefore God is true to me.

Atheists want to lack belief until they're convinced either way.

Little Johnny started by wanting to believe something. None of us are forced to believe anything in particular, but we all have no choice but to believe something.

In situ wants to figure out if belief is a choice or not, but I think what he wants to believe will affect his choices, which in turn will affect his beliefs.

The truth is just patiently waiting and helping him to discover it, but he has to want the truth first.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Everything comes from something- except everything collectively. That came from nothing.

~atheist ideology~

Ummm... isn't that what many theists claim? That everything was created from nothing?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think my beliefs are formed based on what I want to be true.

My choices affect my reality, which may affect what I want and in turn affecting my beliefs.

I want to believe God is the truth, therefore God is true to me.

Atheists want to lack belief until they're convinced either way.

Little Johnny started by wanting to believe something. None of us are forced to believe anything in particular, but we all have no choice but to believe something.

In situ wants to figure out if belief is a choice or not, but I think what he wants to believe will affect his choices, which in turn will affect his beliefs.

The truth is just patiently waiting and helping him to discover it, but he has to want the truth first.

Do you want the truth first? You said that you "want to believe God is the truth," not that you want the truth.