Belief not a choice?

[zippy2006]

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.

Belief has at least two very different definitions. In the traditional Christian sense it has to do with the act of faith. In a more contemporary sense it signifies any knowledge or opinion.

Regarding the traditional sense, St. Thomas says:

"Secondly, 'to think' is more strictly taken for that consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight."​

He will go on to say that belief involves this sort of thinking, plus assent. This notion of belief is what is meant when it is said that belief is an act of the will. In this case you can only believe things that you do not have certain sight/knowledge of.

Presumably those who believe belief is not a choice are referring to the contemporary definition of belief.

God bless,
-zip

 

[Joshua260]

There is a big difference between a guess and what you believe. If you were in a football game and the ref toss a coin in the air and says "heads or tails" are you telling me whatever you choose is going to be more than a guess?

Ken

I don't think a coin toss is relevant to the "choosing to believe" scenario I am talking about.

I think there are some instances where you could call choosing to believe "trust", as is found in this definition:
trust: "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something".

So if my life would be at stake depending on which plane I got on, I think that it would be allowable to say that I chose to "firmly believe" the first man and trust that my choice to believe him was correct. As I said, when looking at the definitions for "belief" I did not find that the act of believing or not believing was contingent on evidence. Don't Christians always get accused of having a "blind faith", meaning that we have no evidence to support out beliefs?

Whoa! What do you know? I just found another atheistic contradiction. Those that charge Christians of having a "blind faith" should not also charge that one cannot choose to believe in something.

 

[lesliedellow]

So if my life would be at stake depending on which plane I got on, I think that it would be allowable to say that I chose to "firmly believe" the first man and trust that my choice to believe him was correct.

On what basis would you "firmly believe" him? You can make words say anything, but your line of argument seems to be completely devoid of psychological realism - and that is putting it mildly. You can't even tentatively believe something without having a reason to do so, let alone "firmly" believe it.

 

[quatona]

Thanks... but just let it die. I thought ther was more to this like some sort of predestination or something. So many were so adamant about it.

Looking at the context in which this statement typically pops up (theists justifying their god´s habit of blaming and punishing non-believers for their lack of belief or wrong beliefs, as though beliefs could be changed at will): no, there isn´t more to it, and there needn´t be more to it.
If you want to discuss determinism, that´s a whole nother issue.

 

[zippy2006]

If somebody offered you a $1,000,000 to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, could you do it? or would you find that you cannot simply choose to believe anything you like?

There's an enormous gap between saying that some acts of belief involve choice and saying, "You can simply choose to believe anything you like." Is your position that no act of belief involves choice of any kind?

 

[lesliedellow]

There's an enormous gap between saying that some acts of belief involve choice and saying, "You can simply choose to believe anything you like." Is your position that no act of belief involves choice of any kind?

I would have thought my position is clear enough by now. I cannot believe anything without having reason to do so, and if I do have reasons to do so, those reasons must necessarily preclude the opposite belief. If I have clear evidence that the world is a sphere, I cannot "choose" to believe that it is flat, just because it takes my fancy on this bright and sunny afternoon.

 

[zippy2006]

...and if I do have reasons to [believe], those reasons must necessarily preclude the opposite belief.

Why? Why must reasons to believe something preclude the opposite belief? This isn't at all clear. Do they preclude neutrality? Do they necessitate?

When the four-year-old is left alone in the aisle, he has a reason to believe that his mother has abandoned him. Does this preclude the opposite belief? Obviously other, competing beliefs exist as well. He believes his mother loves him. He believes she needs to get groceries. He has a choice.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why? Why must reasons to believe something preclude the opposite belief?

Because two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true at the same time, and if you have reason to believe that the one is true, that necessarily precludes the belief that the other is true.

It is called the law of the excluded middle, and embracing it is a necessary condition for remaining sane.

 

[zippy2006]

Because two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true at the same time, and if you have reason to believe that the one is true, that necessarily precludes the belief that the other is true.

It is called the law of the excluded middle, and embracing it is a necessary condition for remaining sane.

So you don't believe in little boys in grocery aisles then? I guess that's your choice.

 

[lesliedellow]

So you don't believe in little boys in grocery aisles then? I guess that's your choice.

Wouldn't it be nice if that even began to make some sort of sense?

 

[zippy2006]

Wouldn't it be nice if that even began to make some sort of sense?

I was just referring to the part of my post you completely ignored in order to build up a strawman. You can go back and address it if you're interested.

 

[lesliedellow]

I was just referring to the part of my post you completely ignored in order to build up a strawman. You can go back and address it if you're interested.

"When the four-year-old is left alone in the aisle, he has a reason to believe that his mother has abandoned him. Does this preclude the opposite belief?"

Yes. He cannot believe that she both has and hasn't abandoned him; he must believe the one or the other. And if he is there crying his eyes out because he believes he has been abandoned, he can't suddenly start believing the opposite, unless he is given reason to do so. What he believes is not his choice - his belief is forced upon him by the circumstances.

 

[zippy2006]

When the four-year-old is left alone in the aisle, he has a reason to believe that his mother has abandoned him. Does this preclude the opposite belief?

Yes.

Do you really believe that? I listed some of his other beliefs, such as the belief that his mother loves him and the belief that she is grocery shopping (and thus has to go find groceries).

We often have reasons for beliefs that we do not hold. If I look at the sky through rose-colored glasses I have a reason to believe it is pink, and yet I do not conclude that the sky is pink. When my son yells at me because he is being punished I have reason to believe I am a bad father, and yet I may well conclude that I am a good father. These reasons simply do not preclude the opposite beliefs. Your claim that they do is uncontroversially false.

He cannot believe that she both has and hasn't abandoned him;

That's true, but it doesn't explain why a reason for one necessitates belief.

he must believe the one or the other.

That's false, he could remain agnostic.

And if he is there crying his eyes out because he believes he has been abandoned, he can't suddenly start believing the opposite, unless he is given reason to do so.

That's true, but it in no way entails your position.

What he believes is not his choice - his belief is forced upon him by the circumstances.

I think most of us are familiar with Calvinistic fatalism.

 

[Joshua260]

On what basis would you "firmly believe" him? You can make words say anything, but your line of argument seems to be completely devoid of psychological realism - and that is putting it mildly. You can't even tentatively believe something without having a reason to do so, let alone "firmly" believe it.

It appears from the definition that it is using "Firmly believe" in the noun definition to distinguish it from just simply "belief". As some like to say, faith (or trust) is belief "with legs on it". In fact the verb definition of trust just said "believe in..." and did not include the "firmly" word.

So it's still allowable to say that we choose to believe (or trust) in one man over the other. We can do so with absolutely no foundation in evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

So it's still allowable to say that we choose to believe (or trust) in one man over the other. We can do so with absolutely no foundation in evidence.

No we cannot. We do not live in a vacuum. Our beliefs, actions, and everything else, are determined by the myriad of influences acting upon us. Can you choose to believe that Hitler was a damn nice fella? Without first having a temporal lobe removed, that is.

 

[Joshua260]

No we cannot. We do not live in a vacuum. Our beliefs, actions, and everything else, are determined by the myriad of influences acting upon us. Can you choose to believe that Hitler was a damn nice fella? Without first having a temporal lobe removed, that is.

That's not the type of scenario I am addressing. We have plenty of evidence to show that Hitler was not a nice guy. I'm speaking of scenarios where 1. evidence is neutral and 2. Where one cannot avoid making a choice. In those scenarios, one must choose to believe (or put their trust in) one option or the other.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's not the type of scenario I am addressing. We have plenty of evidence to show that Hitler was not a nice guy. I'm speaking of scenarios where 1. evidence is neutral and 2. Where one cannot avoid making a choice. In those scenarios, one must choose to believe (or put their trust in) one option or the other.

Being forced to choose between one plane and another is not the same thing as believing that the plane is safe to fly in, or believing that the person who told you it was safe was telling the truth.

And I most sincerely hope that you are not putting that forward as a model for religious faith.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think a coin toss is relevant to the "choosing to believe" scenario I am talking about.

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.

I think there are some instances where you could call choosing to believe "trust", as is found in this definition:
trust: "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something".
So if my life would be at stake depending on which plane I got on, I think that it would be allowable to say that I chose to "firmly believe" the first man and trust that my choice to believe him was correct.

And what would you base this belief on?

As I said, when looking at the definitions for "belief" I did not find that the act of believing or not believing was contingent on evidence.

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

Don't Christians always get accused of having a "blind faith", meaning that we have no evidence to support out beliefs?

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.

Whoa! What do you know? I just found another atheistic contradiction. Those that charge Christians of having a "blind faith" should not also charge that one cannot choose to believe in something.

It isn’t a contradiction; just pointing out your choosing to believe is inconsistent with the rest of your life.

A quick question; if a politician told you he could lower taxes, increase spending, could you choose to believe him?
If a car salesman showed you a gas powered car he claimed gets 1000 mpg, could you choose to believe him without proof?
My guess is you would be as skeptical as anyone else.

Ken

 

[Messy]

So what cognition do you feel is used in the formation of a belief?

I have a hard time understanding the reasoning of a belief not being choice. I understand you might not hold that view. I am hoping to come to some consensuses of what belief is. How do you come to your understanding of what is logical to form your belief?

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.

 

[Joshua260]

Being forced to choose between one plane and another is not the same thing as believing that the plane is safe to fly in, or believing that the person who told you it was safe was telling the truth.

Hello? That's exactly what I'm saying. There is more than one type of belief. One which is based on persuasive evidence, and the other which is not. The second type could be characterized as either
1. a blind faith (no evidence) or
2. one in which the level of evidential persuasion is neutral (good evidence on both sides).

And I most sincerely hope that you are not putting that forward as a model for religious faith.

No. The Christian faith (or belief) is not based on a blind faith nor where the evidence is neutral. I believe that Christianity is more probably true than not.

So why do I care about the evidentiary neutral case? Because Pascal's wager is so often mischaracterized in this way (meaning that atheists often accuse Pascal of encouraging a blind faith), but that would be a straw-man argument. Pascal's actual argument could be summarized as below:

"Given that it is at least equally probable that God exists than not, it is better to believe and be wrong than to dis-believe and be wrong."

Atheists typically ignore the fact that Pascal argued the antecedent of the summary above and they like to say "you can't choose to believe" (meaning believing in something in spite of evidence to the contrary). Actually, Pascal thought there was a plethora of evidence supporting the Christian faith and he argued that where the evidence is neutral, one could choose to believe one view or the other...exactly as I am saying in my responses.