Is belief a choice?

[public hermit]

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.

I assume you believe it is true that God exists, Can you, right now, believe that God does not exist? I don't mean imagine it, but really believe it?

 

[renniks]

I assume you believe it is true that God exists, Can you, right now, believe that God does not exist? I don't mean imagine it, but really believe it?

I think I could, but it would be a series of choices to deny him. I've believed for so long, that it would have to be a conscious effort, not merely a quick decision. The fact is, I won't, because of the Holy Spirit's influence, but you seem to be talking about the mental process involved. Mentally it's a choice to believe, but spiritually, it's a miracle.

 

[public hermit]

I think I could, but it would be a series of choices to deny him. I've believed for so long, that it would have to be a conscious effort, not merely a quick decision. The fact is, I won't, because of the Holy Spirit's influence, but you seem to be talking about the mental process involved. Mentally it's a choice to believe, but spiritually, it's a miracle.

That's interesting. I disagree, as I am sure you have gathered. But, you are right, I am mostly interested in belief acquisition in a general sense. The Holy Spirit's influence adds another factor to the mix. But, I am still inclined to say that removes us even further from choice. Then again, I have been wrong many times. I didn't want to be, but I was.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is pretty much the argument I am trying to make.

46and2 is a great song, by the way.

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.

I'm just going to go with Pascal and Kierkegaard on this and say that while the "Eureka" moment we might have if and when we come to realize that Jesus is the Messiah is given by God, we still have our part to play by proactively looking for information and placing ourselves in a position conducive to having faith, if that is what we'd like to have. Because, if there is one thing that will almost guarantee that a person won't come to have faith, it is an ongoing penchant for utter despondency.

 

[public hermit]

I'm just going to go with Pascal and Kierkegaard on this and say that while the "Eureka" moment we might have if and when we come to realize that Jesus is the Messiah is given by God, we still have our part to play by proactively looking for information and placing ourselves in a position conducive to having faith if that is what we'd like to have. Because, if there is one thing that will almost guarantee that a person won't come to have faith, it is an ongoing penchant for utter despondency.

I agree in that I draw a distinction between belief, simpliciter, and faith. There is an element to faith (trust) that is not necessarily included in belief as I have in mind in the OP. But, I also hear you saying searching or seeking is an integral aspect as well, i.e. "proactively looking" and "placing ourselves in a position." That's interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree in that I draw a distinction between belief, simpliciter, and faith. There is an element to faith (trust) that is not necessarily included in belief as I have in mind in the OP. But, I also hear you saying searching or seeking is an integral aspect as well, i.e. "proactively looking" and "placing ourselves in a position." That's interesting.

As we both seem to coalesce on the fact that we draw a distinction between basic belief 'that' and a fuller response of faith 'in,' I think we're on common ground here. But unlike some folks, I draw a further distinction in asserting the we, as beings with minds and volition, can decide to at least contribute to the development of our various personal cognition about religion on the whole.

We might even call some of the process, "education," which is never really a simple or passive endeavor, and more to the point, it's not uncommon for any of us to realize that sometimes at least, we do have to actually walk to the kitchen, open a closed sack of bread, likewise open up a separate jar of peanut butter and jelly, and then do the hard, dirty work of assembling the elements at hand, if indeed we truly wish to have an existential encounter with a yummy peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Unfortunately, for some folks, having to even just contemplate unscrewing a tightly sealed peanut butter lid can be quite the epistemic ordeal. Don't get me wrong, though. I can empathize with their plight, especially since I have a slight allergy to peanut butter anyway.

 

[public hermit]

As we both seem to coalesce on the fact that we draw a distinction between basic belief 'that' and a fuller response of faith 'in,' I think we're on common ground here. But unlike some folks, I draw a further distinction in asserting the we, as beings with minds and volition, can decided to at least contribute to the development of our various personal cognition about religion on the whole.

We might even call some of the process, "education," which is never really a simple or passive endeavor, and more to the point, it's not uncommon for any of us to realize that sometimes at least, we do have to actually walk to the kitchen, open a closed sack of bread, likewise open up a separate jar of peanut butter and jelly, and then do the hard, dirty work of assembling the elements at hand, if indeed we truly wish to have an existential encounter with a yummy peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Unfortunately, for some folks, having to even just contemplate unscrewing a tightly sealed peanut butter lid can be quite the epistemic ordeal. Don't get me wrong, though. I can empathize with their plight, especially since I have a slight allergy to peanut butter anyway.

You have a great way of putting things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have a great way of putting things.

Thank you! And I appreciate your philosophical sense and your ability to easily relate with others here. That's always something good for me to see, and I'm sure the Lord knows I probably need to learn from it.

 

[Davidz777]

Of course you are more specifically asking "Is (religious) belief a choice."

And the answer is of course, yes it is a choice that many have absolutely no issue making. Many people in this era began as Christians and in adulthood chose to stop believing and be agnostic or atheist for a long list of well known reasons. In fact it's epidemic now. Since you didn't specify who is making that choice there will always be many that could go either way by their choice depending their life experiences knowledge, and behaviors. Likewise there will be some that due to being too rigid in their thought processes or too set in their day to day year to year behaviors, or too timid to change their lives, that probably fit what you are trying to say. So it also depends...

 

[jayem]

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?

I think self-preservation is, to some degree or other, hard-wired into all sentient animals. It was favored by natural selection because individuals who are protective of their own lives are more likely to reproduce and care for their young. Which promotes the survival of the population. It's also part of the reason social species exist. Because a co-operative group can provide better safety and security than solitary living can. It's difficult to know if other animals have the same awareness of their eventual death as humans do. But the fact that we know we will die must be reconciled with our self-preservation instinct. So to ease the tension, we imagine scenarios where our consciousness, or some part of us, lives on after our physical death. It's a coping mechanism. I might say wishful thinking. And BTW, I'm sure you know that the details of these afterlife concepts vary significantly in different cultures. (Some cultures believe we may be reincarnated as other species.) Which suggests to me that no one really knows, and that all afterlife beliefs are culture-dependent fabrications.

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?

Evolution is primarily a process to achieve reproductive success within a given environmental niche. Obviously, an organism has to survive to reproduce. And to raise offspring to an age where they can reproduce. So there is a definite linkage between survival and reproduction. But strictly speaking, reproduction is the "goal" of evolution. Not simply survival. And knowing what is true absolutely has survival value. Example: a proto-human hominid is foraging in the forest. She hears a rustling in the leaves. It might be a trapped rabbit, which would be a fortunate discovery. It might just be the wind. Or it might be a lurking predator, or a member of a hostile tribe. Knowing what is true could be the difference between finding a meal to support yourself and your young, and being killed. So truth-seeking is favored by natural selection. When this same instinctive cognitive process is embellished and expanded many times by a big brain, the result is contemplation of the metaphysical in addition to the mundane.

 

[46AND2]

Of course you are more specifically asking "Is (religious) belief a choice."

And the answer is of course, yes it is a choice that many have absolutely no issue making. Many people in this era began as Christians and in adulthood chose to stop believing and be agnostic or atheist for a long list of well known reasons. In fact it's epidemic now. Since you didn't specify who is making that choice there will always be many that could go either way by their choice depending their life experiences knowledge, and behaviors. Likewise there will be some that due to being too rigid in their thought processes or too set in their day to day year to year behaviors, or too timid to change their lives, that probably fit what you are trying to say. So it also depends...

I have never been timid to challenge my worldview. Part of the reason I'm here. It's also the reason I'm an atheist. I can't believe what I desire to believe. In other words, I couldn't disagree with you more.

 

[holo]

By the way, your avatar is a trip.

Haha, I know right. I found it when I registered like 16 years ago and it still makes me chuckle.

 

[holo]

I think people would do well to examine their reasons for doing and believing the things they do. I think part of the reason we don't is because we know it may upset and change our view of things. And if the thought of challenging, say, your faith in God scares you, I would say that itself is a good reason you should. And of course, likewise with the atheist.

I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference between "belief that" and "faith in". Isn't that just a matter of degree, like having a friend and a best friend is basically the same thing?

I used to be 100% convinced of God's existence. I remember thinking that in theory, I could lose faith in Christianity, but never in God. It just wasn't an option. And now, I can't even imagine what could ever get me to start believing in God (at least not the Christian concept of him... or her, or it... you know). It's the most fascinating thing that ever happened to me.

I decided to try and be as honest with myself as possible, and that made me realize that if everybody around me had believed in God, I almost certainly would've too.

 

[the iconoclast]

I have never been timid to challenge my worldview.

Hey hey friend

Are you be willing to be challenged?

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey friend

Are you be willing to be challenged?

Of course. I challenge myself constantly. It was kind of the point of my post.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

I strongly believe the cup is half full. Sip. I strongly believe the cup is half empty.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think neuroscientists will find that if we take religious belief as a "reality structure" then threats to it (counterexamples, alternatives) are not always treated philosophically, but similar to physical dangers.

IIRC the brains hippocampus* (memory) is right next door to the amydgala (fear), and also the limbic system (mood). Suddenly uprooting whole cognitive behavioural maps of reality (reality structures) will either cause fear, or conversion/deconversion experiences.

In the latter case quite a lot of energy transfer from belief system A (eg Buddhism) to B (Christianity) is required. Many behavious will change, and outlooks will have to be reassessed and all this be rewired in the brain. Not the kind of thing one can do upon a daily basis.

If we were merely etheric rational souls it might be ok and easy to change religious belief, but given the gross physical correlates of belief and consciousness, like I say, that's a very energy consuming thing to do.


So, if you're looking to change faith, maybe try a hi-carb meal beforehand?

*Named because of it looks like a sea horse.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Hey bro, you thinking of changing colour? Convert to green, its by far the most rational option...."

 

[public hermit]

I think neuroscientists will find that if we take religious belief as a "reality structure" then threats to it (counterexamples, alternatives) are not always treated philosophically, but similar to physical dangers.

IIRC the brains hippocampus* (memory) is right next door to the amydgala (fear), and also the limbic system (mood). Suddenly uprooting whole cognitive behavioural maps of reality (reality structures) will either cause fear, or conversion/deconversion experiences.

In the latter case quite a lot of energy transfer from belief system A (eg Buddhism) to B (Christianity) is required. Many behavious will change, and outlooks will have to be reassessed and all this be rewired in the brain. Not the kind of thing one can do upon a daily basis.

If we were merely etheric rational souls it might be ok and easy to change religious belief, but given the gross physical correlates of belief and consciousness, like I say, that's a very energy consuming thing to do.


So, if you're looking to change faith, maybe try a hi-carb meal beforehand?

*Named because of it looks like a sea horse.

Very helpful information. Thank you.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok, if you're interested in more then this thesis supposes that the brain is a chaotic system and lapse into schizophrenia is caused by a bifurcation, and vulnerability to that illness is due to genes being located in the vicinity of such a change:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ocated_in_the_Vicinity_of_a_Bifurcation_Point



Firstly conversion is not a mental illness, but...

I think maybe also that change of faith in some cases is a bifurcation event. I don't understand the maths, but bifurcation points are studied in chaos theory.