Decision making

[PsychoSarah]

You can't choose immediately to believe in anything, but there is some degree of freedom involved in opening yourself up to things. You know, angry conservatives who label liberals as the devil rather than consider what they're saying. Same with theists and atheists. In this sense there is definitely a "will to believe."

I have been trying to believe for the past 6 years. Clearly, "will to believe" isn't the only deciding factor

 

[bhsmte]

I have been trying to believe for the past 6 years. Clearly, "will to believe" isn't the only deciding factor

Good article on psychology of belief:

The Two Kinds Of Belief | Psychology Today

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'd like to start a discussion on how we make decisions. Some people decide based on facts alone. Others decide based on how they feel. Still others decide by weighing the feelings of others higher than their own. I'm sure there are other ways that people decide on something, and for most of us it's probably a mixture of methods.
What is puzzling to me lately is the fact that there are folks who maintain that the way *they* decide is the only "right" way. Is there one right way to decide something? If so, who/what determines what this way is? Or is there one right way per individual?
Lots of questions, but I don't have answers. Any takers?

religion is hasatan's domain - he has quite a free reign among people on earth and in religions.

think about this. if you signed up for the military, and go to boot camp,
when you get there,
whose orders do you follow ? other recruits??? outsiders ??? women you like???
no
you belong to the military (in the usa anyway). you are their property. you belong completely to them.
you do what your chain of command says, or risk very severe penalties, even death, in some cases.

Yhvh doesn't give you choices to decide whether or not you want to do this or that.
like Yahshua, you can do what Yhvh says,
or
like men, you can do anything else (and disobey Yhvh).

remember, Yahshua said plainly - spend time with Yhvh every day , often, and gradually your attention will change from yourself (the way of flesh) to YHVH.

do what you see YHVH do. speak what YHVH speaks. simple. no hard decisions after the one
to give up your fleshly carnal life for His Perfect Eternal Life in Yahshua, HIS WAY(He doesn't let you choose how to get to Him, nor how to be His, nor what to do; He is very very clear and specific and tells what to do.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Good article on psychology of belief:

The Two Kinds Of Belief | Psychology Today

Knowing how belief works is not helpful to establishing it yourself

 

[bhsmte]

Knowing how belief works is not helpful to establishing it yourself

It can help one to recognize when their beliefs are driven mostly by individual bias though.

 

[Davian]

No, quatona is not correct. I am not interested in justifying my beliefs, religious or otherwise.

That does seem the way that Received's threads have gone.

This topic was started so that we could discuss how decisions are made. As the discussion moved along it became clear (to me) that decisions form beliefs, and that we believe something because we've decided to (whether it's a conscious decision or not). If someone is hung up on the view that decisions form beliefs, then they should just stick to the "decisions" part of the topic and voice an opinion on how decisions are formed, e.g., does evidence always trump everything else, do emotions play a role, what if the emotions conflict with the evidence, etc.

This is a philosophical discussion - not a justification of my positions on things.

On that subject, I was looking into hypnosis, as an alternative treatment for chronic pain (not my own).

"Hypnosis is a state of the mind in which the critical faculty (CF) of the human mind is bypassed, and selective thinking established" - Dave Elman (The audio recordings of [his hypnosis] classes and his book HYPNOTHERAPY are regarded as classics in the field of Medical Hypnosis. link)

While hypnosis is the act of deliberately putting yourself (or with assistance) into a more receptive state, it would appear that our brains can reach that state in everyday life (like with me and Santa).

Check out this paper:

The Neural Basis of the Dynamic Unconscious

"A great deal of complex cognitive processing occurs at the unconscious level and affects how humans behave, think, and feel. Sci- entists are only now beginning to understand how this occurs on the neural level. Understanding the neural basis of consciousness requires an account of the neural mechanisms that underlie both conscious and unconscious thought, and their dynamic interac- tion. For example, how do conscious impulses, thoughts, or desires become unconscious (e.g., repression) or, conversely, how do unconscious impulses, desires, or motives become conscious (e.g., Freudian slips)? Research taking advantage of advances in technologies, like functional magnetic resonance imaging, has led to a revival and re-conceptualization of some of the key concepts of psychoanalytic theory, but steps toward understanding their neural basis have only just commenced. According to psychoanalytic theory, unconscious dynamic processes defensively remove anxiety-provoking thoughts and impulses from consciousness in re- sponse to one’s conflicting attitudes. The processes that keep unwanted thoughts from entering consciousness include repression, suppression, and dissociation. In this literature review, studies from psychology and cognitive neuroscience in both healthy and patient populations that are beginning to elucidate the neural basis of these phenomena are discussed and organized within a con- ceptual framework. Further studies in this emerging field at the intersection of psychoanalytic theory and neuroscience are needed."

"Heather Berlin’s magisterial overview of the cognitive neuroscience of conscious and unconscious processing summarizes in overwhelming detail the recent litera- ture on the dynamic brain processes that influence the immediate or long-term behavior of the subject yet that bypass conscious awareness."




“Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein [1889–1951]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I have been trying to believe for the past 6 years. Clearly, "will to believe" isn't the only deciding factor

you're right. and men will constantly confuse you, take advantage of you, hurt you, deceive you, and all the while say they are right. !!!! men / mankind is horrible !!

"man" even does exactly what Yahshua said about men: they " go across oceans and deserts to make ONE convert, and that convert becomes seven times as bad a son of the devil as themselves."

and they brag about this ! and still think that they are doing GOOD!

 

[PsychoSarah]

you're right. and men will constantly confuse you, take advantage of you, hurt you, deceive you, and all the while say they are right. !!!! men / mankind is horrible !!

"man" even does exactly what Yahshua said about men: they " go across oceans and deserts to make ONE convert, and that convert becomes seven times as bad a son of the devil as themselves."

and they brag about this ! and still think that they are doing GOOD!

So, should I infer then that you don't view people that convert to even your own religion as true believers?

 

[Davian]

You can't choose immediately to believe in anything, but there is some degree of freedom involved in opening yourself up to things. You know, angry conservatives who label liberals as the devil rather than consider what they're saying. Same with theists and atheists. In this sense there is definitely a "will to believe."

There is also definitely the ability in humans for self-deception. This is where the evidence come into play. For instance, there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods, yet still many believe in them. How does that work?

 

[Received]

There is also definitely the ability in humans for self-deception. This is where the evidence come into play. For instance, there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods, yet still many believe in them. How does that work?

Do you work for Nancy Grace?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you work for Nancy Grace?

From some of her shows that I have watched, Nancy seems to believe a lot of things without evidence.

 

[Davian]

Do you work for Nancy Grace?

Who?

<googles>

No. I've never heard of this person. Is this relevant?

 

[Received]

Who?

<googles>

No. I've never heard of this person. Is this relevant?

Totally relevant.

Try this Google: not taking things arbitrarily seriously.

Or another: throwing down provocative statements and expecting serious answers.

 

[Davian]

Totally relevant.

Try this Google: not taking things arbitrarily seriously.

With the exception of the few suspected trolls active on this site, I take this all seriously.

Or another: throwing down provocative statements and expecting serious answers.

Well, this is the Philosophy forum, and not Exploring Christianity forum. If you were looking for an echo chamber, or more insulated environment, perhaps, in all seriousness, this is the wrong forum for you.

 

[dysert]

There is also definitely the ability in humans for self-deception. This is where the evidence come into play. For instance, there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods, yet still many believe in them. How does that work?

I disagree with your example of self-deception. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, but there is no objective evidence against His existence either. I think self deception would be where there was evidence against the existence of God, yet you still believed in Him. Without evidence either way we must turn to other means to make our decision about Him.

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree with your example of self-deception. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, but there is no objective evidence against His existence either. I think self deception would be where there was evidence against the existence of God, yet you still believed in Him. Without evidence either way we must turn to other means to make our decision about Him.

Nothing wrong with believing in a God without objective evidence to confirm based on faith. Many people do and still are able to acknowledge well evidenced science in other regards.

Self deception tends to come into play, when one's beliefs require a denial of well evidenced reality, to hold onto a certain belief.

 

[Davian]

I disagree with your example of self-deception. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God,

Indeed.

but there is no objective evidence against His existence either.

While this is a laughable response in a philosophy forum, even here, we can easily deal with this. Define "God".

Keep in mind that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence should be expected.

I think self deception would be where there was evidence against the existence of God, yet you still believed in Him.

This is where the rubber meets the road, philosophically, and psychologically, speaking.

If you were presented evidence that conflicted with your belief in God, would you stop believing, as I did, with Santa and crop circles?

Or would you, as described in the articles that bhsmte and I linked to, internally rationalize the problems away?

Without evidence either way we must turn to other means to make our decision about Him.

What are these "other means"?

 

[dysert]

What are these "other means"?

They would include the examples I provided in the OP (and I'm sure others).

 

[Davian]

Indeed.

While this is a laughable response in a philosophy forum, even here, we can easily deal with this. Define "God".

Keep in mind that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence should be expected.

This is where the rubber meets the road, philosophically, and psychologically, speaking.

If you were presented evidence that conflicted with your belief in God, would you stop believing, as I did, with Santa and crop circles?

Or would you, as described in the articles that bhsmte and I linked to, internally rationalize the problems away?

What are these "other means"?

You have no definition for "God"?

They would include the examples I provided in the OP (and I'm sure others).

With that, in the context of this thread, you have lumped "God" in with "Santa".

 

[Received]

With the exception of the few suspected trolls active on this site, I take this all seriously.

Well, this is the Philosophy forum, and not Exploring Christianity forum. If you were looking for an echo chamber, or more insulated environment, perhaps, in all seriousness, this is the wrong forum for you.

Here's another Google: humor.

Try it. It's great.