Is belief a choice?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Given any proposition p, is it a matter of choice to believe that p is true (or false)?

It seems to me that if I strongly believe that p is true, then I will not be able to simply choose to believe that p is false. And, likewise, if I strongly believe that p is false, then I will not be able to simply choose to believe it is true.

If it helps, you can engage a simple thought experiment to see why I hold this position. Consider something that you strongly believe is true. Can you, in a moment's notice, choose to believe it is false? I doubt you will be able to, if you strongly believe it is true. You may be able to imagine it to be false, but that is not the same thing as believing it is false.

I use the term "strongly" for a purpose. If we assume that the strength of our beliefs comes in degrees, then we believe some things with a greater strength than others. In epistemology this strength, or lack thereof, is given a "credence value" between 0 and 1 (0 stands for a strong belief that p is false and 1 for a strong belief that p is true), so that .5 is a strength of belief that can go either way. If I am not sure of a belief, i.e. I can just as easily believe p is true or that it is false, then my belief has a credence value of .5. In those cases where the credence value is .5, then it seems I can choose to either believe it is true or not. But, I won't be able to believe it with any strength unless something changes to convince me of its falsehood or truth. This is one reason I have limited the OP to strongly held beliefs.

Also, although it doesn't seem that we can simply choose to believe whatever we want to, it does appear that we can put ourselves in a position to come to believe something. Let's say I have no strong belief about a particular religious claim. I can put myself in a position to come to believe it. I can participate in the religious observances, read the religious materials, pray, etc. This may lead me to a strong belief that I did not have before; however, it is no guarantee that it will. I may do all of that and come away as unsure as when I began. Nonetheless, it does seem more likely that I will come to a strong belief if I do engage in those activities, than if I don't.

So, what do you think? Can we just pull ourselves up by the boostraps and believe any old thing that we want to? Or, no?

PS: This discussion has religious implications. I know this is not a theological forum, but the philosophical discussion I hope will obtain can hardly avoid the theological. Whatever the case, I am hoping that both theists and atheists (and everyone in-between) will engage.

PPS: I really wish CF would open up the "Philosophy" board. I realize there are reasons for closing it, but there are philosophical issues of import that don't fit nicely in other forums, such as this one.

Belief is a product of knowledge, understanding and experience. Faith is a product of trust when there is a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience. You cannot choose your beliefs. Only when a new revelation or experience is presented to you can your beliefs be changed.

 

[46AND2]

Yes belief is a choice. We see this with brain surgery. If a surgeon wants to go in and remove a tumor they have to know exactly how this is going to effect the brain. "Damage to the brain's frontal lobe is known to impair one's ability to think and make choices. And now scientists say they've pinpointed the different parts of this brain region that preside over reasoning, self-control and decision-making." (Live Science) Animals have a brain that is not as evolved as the human brain. The are not able to make choices the way we do. Last summer we were working on getting the stay cats fixed to keep them from getting over populated. It was interesting to see the effect that had on the male and the female cats.

As the OP pointed out, he is not asking about choices in general, he is asking about whether it is possible to choose BELIEF. None of the examples you have given have anything to do with choice of belief.

 

[public hermit]

Belief is a product of knowledge, understanding and experience. Faith is a product of trust when there is a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience. You cannot choose your beliefs. Only when a new revelation or experience is presented to you can your beliefs be changed.

I agree. And, thank you for drawing the distinction between faith and belief. It is an important distinction that was not made clear in the OP.

 

[ananda]

I agree with what you are saying. The factors you mention do weigh in on how one believes.

But, do you think a person can simply choose to believe something is false that they strongly believe is true? In a moments notice, can they simply change what they believe is true without the influence of the external factors you mentioned?

Yes - the application of choice would essentially function to revalue the weight of the various factors in the mind, which revises the overall belief.

 

[public hermit]

Yes - the application of choice would essentially function to revalue the weight of the various factors in the mind, which revises the overall belief.

So, if the application of choice-as you are using it-is the process of re-evaluating the various factors, then it is the factors that are used in the valuation that determine the belief and not the choice to revalue.

You seem to want to say that it is the choice that determines the change in belief, not the factors. And yet, even by your own statement, it is the factors. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you choose to re-evaluate a particular belief. It could be that at the end of the evaluation you remain with the same belief, because the factors evaluated didn't bring about a change in belief. So, again, it is the factors and not the choice to revalue that determines belief, in this case. Would you agree?

 

[46AND2]

Belief is a product of knowledge, understanding and experience. Faith is a product of trust when there is a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience. You cannot choose your beliefs. Only when a new revelation or experience is presented to you can your beliefs be changed.

I disagree. One can believe something for which you have little knowledge, understanding, or experience. And the little knowledge--or what you think is knowledge, to be more accurate--that you do have could be factually wrong.

For example, I could believe that Trump is a narcissist. I have little to no understanding or experience in psychology, and all I know about Trump is what he chooses to present to the public. And so, my belief could actually be factually incorrect.

But probably not.

 

[ananda]

So, if the application of choice-as you are using it-is the process of re-evaluating the various factors, then it is the factors that are used in the valuation that determine the belief and not the choice to revalue.

You seem to want to say that it is the choice that determines the change in belief, not the factors. And yet, even by your own statement, it is the factors. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you choose to re-evaluate a particular belief. It could be that at the end of the evaluation you remain with the same belief, because the factors evaluated didn't bring about a change in belief. So, again, it is the factors and not the choice to revalue that determines belief, in this case. Would you agree?

It's both. Choice -> determine valuation of the factors, and the valuation of factors -> determine the overall belief.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I disagree. One can believe something for which you have little knowledge, understanding, or experience. And the little knowledge--or what you think is knowledge, to be more accurate--that you do have could be factually wrong.

For example, I could believe that Trump is a narcissist. I have little to no understanding or experience in psychology, and all I know about Trump is what he chooses to present to the public. And so, my belief could actually be factually incorrect.

But probably not.

That would be blind faith.

 

[jayem]

Speaking personally, I can’t honestly choose to believe in something that to me is illogical or implausible. My lack of belief in the Biblical god, or any god, is really just a facet of my disbelief in anything claimed to be supernatural. As my avatar notes, I’m a naturalist. By that, I mean everything in the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. I reject the existence of anything claimed to exist outside or beyond the natural realm. As I think about, I never could internalize the idea of God. My family wasn’t religious, but I attended services occasionally and went to Bible school for a time. And even as a 9 or 10 year old, deep down, I always thought those Bible stories were fairy tales. I suspect it’s just how my brain is wired.

If you believe that god beliefs are sort of a default state of human cognition, then I suppose I’m brain damaged. I just can’t buy into it.

 

[Emmylouwho]

Speaking personally, I can’t honestly choose to believe in something that to me is illogical or implausible. My lack of belief in the Biblical god, or any god, is really just a facet of my disbelief in anything claimed to be supernatural. As my avatar notes, I’m a naturalist. By that, I mean everything in the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. I reject the existence of anything claimed to exist outside or beyond the natural realm. As I think about, I never could internalize the idea of God. My family wasn’t religious, but I attended services occasionally and went to Bible school for a time. And even as a 9 or 10 year old, deep down, I always thought those Bible stories were fairy tales. I suspect it’s just how my brain is wired.

If you believe that god beliefs are sort of a default state of human cognition, then I suppose I’m brain damaged. I just can’t buy into it.

As another poster here said, we’re all born atheist.

 

[public hermit]

Speaking personally, I can’t honestly choose to believe in something that to me is illogical or implausible.

I think that's right. We believe what strikes us as true. We can't simply pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and believe just anything we want to.

If you believe that god beliefs are sort of a default state of human cognition, then I suppose I’m brain damaged.

I don't know that belief in God, or a god, is a default state of the human condition. It would be interesting to see if there ever has been a culture that was atheistic prior to modernity. I can't think of one. But, I would be interested to hear if there were.

I would say that human history seems to support the idea that there is a religious impulse. Or as Calvin put it, a sensus divinitatis, that seems inherent to the human. That beind said, there also seems to be scriptural support for the idea that we are all a little brain damaged when it comes to that, so...

 

[jayem]

I don't know that belief in God, or a god, is a default state of the human condition. It would be interesting to see if there ever has been a culture that was atheistic prior to modernity. I can't think of one. But, I would be interested to hear if there were.

I don't think any non-theistic early society existed. Our brains evolved to seek reasons and explanations. When an explanation isn't obvious, we invent one. Events like diseases, storms, floods, droughts, the motions of the sun, moon, and stars, changes in the tides, and many others were all at one time attributed to gods or spirits. But as our knowledge has progressed, we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In all of human history, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should I accept a supernatural explanation for all those things we still don't understand?

 

[public hermit]

I don't think any non-theistic early society existed. Our brains evolved to seek reasons and explanations. When these aren't obvious, we invent them. Events like diseases, storms, floods, droughts, the motions of the sun, moon, and stars, changes in the tides, and many others were all at one time attributed to gods or spirits. But as our knowledge has progressed, we know that all of these are perfectly natural phenomena. In all of human history, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why should I accept a supernatural explanation for all those things we still don't understand?

I think you're right about the natural phenomena. But, I would argue, there is more behind the religious impulse than just a desire to explain natural phenomena. What about a desire to not die? If it's natural, why do we act like it isn't? Or the desire for meaning and purpose, that humans seem to invariably have? Even if natural phenomena are explicable those others seem to crop up, but why? Are they epiphenomenal?

How do you explain you own desire to know what is true? It can't be reduced to some evolutionary drive. According to the prevailing paradigm, the drive is survival, not truth?

 

[holo]

I think that's right. We believe what strikes us as true. We can't simply pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and believe just anything we want to.

I lost faith gradually over several years. In a way it seemed to happen by itself, I became less and less convinced of the various Christian doctrines, and more and more convinced of competing explanations. Still, there was definitely an element of choice there. I remember clearly the day I made the choice to really examine my beliefs.

But even though choices were involved, that doesn't mean I "chose what to choose," if you know what I mean. With my background, personality, the things I was exposed to and so forth, I couldn't have made different choices. Or to put it another way, if I were to choose differently, my reasons for choosing what I did would have had to be different. So I think the real question here isn't so much whether or not we choose to believe, but if the choice is "free," as in free will. I have a favourite colour. I couldn't change that to something else even if I wanted to. I can't even decide to want to change it. If you analyzed it, you could surely find a thousand reasons why I like a particular colour or piece of art or why I'm convinced of a particular worldview, and no doubt my own choices will have played a part in it. But even what I choose is ultimately determined by something outside of myself - the culture I was born into, for example.

I know by experience, particularly from my time as a believer, that we're often not really sure what to believe. Like if you pray for a job and then get one. It could be random, it could be God. A lot of believers will more or less choose to believe it was God. But again, they choose that for a reason, the most obvious one being that they already believed.

 

[holo]

How do you explain you own desire to know what is true? It can't be reduced to some evolutionary drive. According to the prevailing paradigm, the drive is survival, not truth?

In a sense we want to know the truth because believing false things puts us in danger. Silly example: if you don't believe lions are dangerous you're more likely to die.

On the other hand, we have survived in part because we don't see reality as it is. In many cases it's safer to assume that, say, all snakes are dangerous, than to know that only some are.

 

[renniks]

Given any proposition p, is it a matter of choice to believe that p is true (or false)?

It seems to me that if I strongly believe that p is true, then I will not be able to simply choose to believe that p is false. And, likewise, if I strongly believe that p is false, then I will not be able to simply choose to believe it is true.

If it helps, you can engage a simple thought experiment to see why I hold this position. Consider something that you strongly believe is true. Can you, in a moment's notice, choose to believe it is false? I doubt you will be able to, if you strongly believe it is true. You may be able to imagine it to be false, but that is not the same thing as believing it is false.

I use the term "strongly" for a purpose. If we assume that the strength of our beliefs comes in degrees, then we believe some things with a greater strength than others. In epistemology this strength, or lack thereof, is given a "credence value" between 0 and 1 (0 stands for a strong belief that p is false and 1 for a strong belief that p is true), so that .5 is a strength of belief that can go either way. If I am not sure of a belief, i.e. I can just as easily believe p is true or that it is false, then my belief has a credence value of .5. In those cases where the credence value is .5, then it seems I can choose to either believe it is true or not. But, I won't be able to believe it with any strength unless something changes to convince me of its falsehood or truth. This is one reason I have limited the OP to strongly held beliefs.

Also, although it doesn't seem that we can simply choose to believe whatever we want to, it does appear that we can put ourselves in a position to come to believe something. Let's say I have no strong belief about a particular religious claim. I can put myself in a position to come to believe it. I can participate in the religious observances, read the religious materials, pray, etc. This may lead me to a strong belief that I did not have before; however, it is no guarantee that it will. I may do all of that and come away as unsure as when I began. Nonetheless, it does seem more likely that I will come to a strong belief if I do engage in those activities, than if I don't.

So, what do you think? Can we just pull ourselves up by the boostraps and believe any old thing that we want to? Or, no?

PS: This discussion has religious implications. I know this is not a theological forum, but the philosophical discussion I hope will obtain can hardly avoid the theological. Whatever the case, I am hoping that both theists and atheists (and everyone in-between) will engage.

PPS: I really wish CF would open up the "Philosophy" board. I realize there are reasons for closing it, but there are philosophical issues of import that don't fit nicely in other forums, such as this one.

Absolutely, it's a choice. It might not be a choice whether I believe I exist, as the physical evidence is too strong to deny, but when we are talking about the existence of something I can't see, smell or touch, the dynamic changes.

 

[public hermit]

Or to put it another way, if I were to choose differently, my reasons for choosing what I did would have had to be different.

That is how I see things as well. If I had believed differently, there would be reasons for the change, and not just by virtue of mere choice.

A lot of believers will more or less choose to believe it was God.

I think of this more in terms of faith and not mere belief. We believe what we believe. That is not a matter of choice. If I change what I believe it is due tot reasons that seemed compelling to me.

Faith, on the other hand, contains an essential feature of trust. I may not know that God is behind every happening, but based on what has been passed down concerning God's providence, guidance, love for me, etc. I can trust God is at work and in fact working behind the scenes, even if I am not sure that is the case. Trust can occur, even when belief is not there. In other words, I am not choosing to believe. I am choosing to trust.

 

[public hermit]

In a sense we want to know the truth because believing false things puts us in danger. Silly example: if you don't believe lions are dangerous you're more likely to die.

On the other hand, we have survived in part because we don't see reality as it is. In many cases it's safer to assume that, say, all snakes are dangerous, than to know that only some are.

That's a good point.

By the way, your avatar is a trip.

 

[public hermit]

Absolutely, it's a choice. It might not be a choice whether I believe I exist, as the physical evidence is too strong to deny, but when we are talking about the existence of something I can't see, smell or touch, the dynamic changes.

That's an interesting point. So, you saying that the less indubitable evidence we have for something the more leeway there is for making a choice concerning belief?

 

[renniks]

That's an interesting point. So, you saying that the less indubitable evidence we have for something the more leeway there is for making a choice concerning belief?

Well, sort of.. but not to the point of being absurd. There is evidence for God IMO, just not irrefutable evidence. Could I choose to believe in Thor for example? Maybe, but science can explain lightning without a thunder God. I'm not so sure it can explain all that exists without a first cause, so God as creator makes sense. Still it takes a choice to believe he exists.