Can a person choose to believe?

[jonathan180iq]

I hope we can agree that disbelief and denial are two different things. Yes?

The former is a response to a lack of evidence ... while the latter is a response despite a preponderance of evidence.

They are two different things, but at some point one cannot exist without the other.

Hell maybe I'm using the word belief to be synonomous with faith, but I really don't consider them to be two separate things. Creationists use ample amounts of both in order to maintain their faith, right?

Or was it the case that the evidence was eventually revealed to be bogus or nonexistent?

Either way, I'm trying to speak in generalities so as not to only harp on religious belief. There are all kinds of hokum that people indulge in; God(s) is just one facet of it.

Hold on. The scenario you're describing admittedly contains no actual belief in Santa ... only the pretense of belief!

I agree 100% that people can opt to behave in certain ways. That says nothing whatsoever about the nature of belief. What you're describing is a scenario where people no longer believe in Santa Claus, but opt to pretend that they do.

And that goes hand in hand with then denying the evidence against Santa, and choosing to revert back to what was "known" before, that Santa exists.

I happen to think that your Hypothetical Santa Scenario might be an all-too-painfully-close-to-the-truth summary of religious belief in our era. No real belief at the core ... only the pretense of belief. Habitual devotion. Call it what you will.

One might even go so far as to label it institutionalized deceit.

And it isn't necessarily unique to our era. Skepticism® is only a few seconds younger than Unvarnished BS®.

Glad you caught that.

And I shall maintain that belief is predicated on evidence. In lieu of evidence of the existence of X, the rational response is to not believe in the existence of X.

If we tie evidence into belief then....Yeah, I'm using the word faith where it seems you're using the word belief... Nevermind.

I think what you're describing is faith. Faith is typically the last arrow in the quiver after all the other excuses to believe on little or no evidence have been debunked. It has little to do with objective accuracy.

Yep

 

[SkepticX]

For an atheist saying what they like and dislike is stating facts about what electrochemical informationprocesses are occuring in their brain.

Atheists have no opinions, at all.

Oh how very not smart atheism is.

What exactly do you think "atheist" means?

 

[rstrats]

jonathan180iq,
re: "...if you take whatever that THING (or things) is to you, and compare it to objective reality, and truly understand or grasp that it's a false concept, yet you choose to maintain belief or faith in that concept, then you've chosen belief."

Which of course is impossible. You can't understand that something is a false concept and at the same time believe that it is not a false concept.

Also, in this post and another one you seem to say or imply that beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them. As I asked FreeTHinker4eva in post #53 (who has yet to reply BTW), I wonder if you could demonstrate such an ability by doing as requested in that post?

 

[jonathan180iq]

jonathan180iq,
re: "...if you take whatever that THING (or things) is to you, and compare it to objective reality, and truly understand or grasp that it's a false concept, yet you choose to maintain belief or faith in that concept, then you've chosen belief."

Which of course is impossible. You can't understand that something is a false concept and at the same time believe that it is not a false concept.

Also, in this post and another one you seem to say or imply that beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them. As I asked FreeTHinker4eva in post #53 (who has yet to reply BTW), I wonder if you could demonstrate such an ability by doing as requested in that post?

Can you, or can you not, prefer one type of thing over another?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Mohammad Nur Syamsu,
re: "Atheists have no opinions, at all."

How so?

Because for an atheist saying what they like and dislike, is stating facts about what electrochemical informationprocesses are occuring in their brain.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because for an atheist saying what they like and dislike, is stating facts about what electrochemical informationprocesses are occuring in their brain.

For theists, saying what they like and dislike is stating hocus pocus about what the magic sky fairy tells them...

You seem so ignorant of the human experience outside of your own worldview.

 

[rstrats]

jonathan180iq,
re: "Can you...prefer one type of thing over another?"

Of course. What is your point?

 

[rstrats]

Mohammad Nur Syamsu,
re: "Because for an atheist saying what they like and dislike, is stating facts about what electrochemical informationprocesses are occuring in their brain."


I have no idea what that has to do with your comment that "Atheists have no opinions, at all." I wonder if you might explain?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For theists, saying what they like and dislike is stating hocus pocus about what the magic sky fairy tells them...

You're seem so ignorant of the human experience outside of your own worldview.

And how is it then not to be able to express an opinion, and to only be able to state facts about what is happening in your brain instead?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Mohammad Nur Syamsu,
re: "Because for an atheist saying what they like and dislike, is stating facts about what electrochemical informationprocesses are occuring in their brain."

I have no idea what that has to do with your comment that "Atheists have no opinions, at all." I wonder if you might explain?

An atheist says "I like icecream". For an atheist that would not be expressing an opinion, but a statement of fact about the electrochemical informationprocess in his brain.

 

[jonathan180iq]

jonathan180iq,
re: "Can you...prefer one type of thing over another?"

Of course. What is your point?

That preference molds subjective reality.
We generally believe and act as we prefer, not solely based on objectivity.

I use "you" in the general sense.

You're a Christian who believes in the God of the Bible and the creation story as a literal event. It touches you to your very core. It's an integral part of who you are.

You know that Islam exists. You know that Judaism exists. You've learned about evolutionary theory. You've studied the Eastern philosophies. You know of many things.
Why don't you believe in the authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of Allah? Why don't you believe that you're still waiting for the Messiah? Why don't you abandon superstitions in lieu of significant scientific research? Why don't you practice any of the Eastern philosophies?

You don't do any of those things because you have chosen to believe in that which you "know" to be true. Despite evidence for countless other things in this world, you maintain your worldview based on a preference, and that preference shapes your entire understanding of reality. You have literally chosen your beliefs.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why don't you believe in the authority of Mohammed as the final prophet of Allah? Why don't you believe that you're still waiting for the Messiah? Why don't you abandon superstitions in lieu of significant scientific research?

This should say: why don't you like strawberry? why don't you like the Democrats? Why are you still waiting for your girlfriend to return to you? It is all arbitrary what you do, why don't you follow the scientific method and be forced by facts in everything you do.

 

[rstrats]

jonathan180iq,
re: "You don't do any of those things because you have chosen to believe in that which you 'know' to be true."


Once you "know" something to be true, it's too late to consciously choose to believe it's true because you already do.

 

[jonathan180iq]

jonathan180iq,
re: "You don't do any of those things because you have chosen to believe in that which you 'know' to be true."

Once you "know" something to be true, it's too late to consciously choose to believe it's true because you already do.

But in order to maintain that belief you must continuously choose that belief over the other options. or does knowledge eliminate choice?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But in order to maintain that belief you must continuously choose that belief over the other options. or does knowledge eliminate choice?

You keep on choosing. Faith in God waxes and wanes. A crisis of faith, and stopping to believe, is a well known occurence in religion. This is why to go to the mosque together is important. It is not to remember any "fact" that God is real, nobody is that forgetful, it is to push up morale for faith together.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You keep on choosing.

Precisely.

 

[Doug Shaver]

My point is, if you take whatever that THING (or things) is to you, and compare it to objective reality, and truly understand or grasp that it's a false concept, yet you choose to maintain belief or faith in that concept, then you've <i>chosen</i> belief.

You are asserting, "If A then B," but A is a contradiction. If I "truly understand or grasp that it's a false concept," then I no longer believe, and no act of will can make me believe. If I do believe, then I have not understood or grasped that what I believe is false.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You are asserting, "If A then B," but A is a contradiction. If I "truly understand or grasp that it's a false concept," then I no longer believe, and no act of will can make me believe. If I do believe, then I have not understood or grasped that what I believe is false.

I think the inability to compare one's personal beliefs to objective reality is a flaw in the individual, not the concept. If we can't at least entertain the thought that everything we hold dear might be a sham, then we haven't thought about it enough.

We choose to reject 100s of differing thoughts and opinions everyday. In doing so, we are choosing to accept our own premises or our own beliefs in lieu of every other explanation imaginable, aren't we? We are actively choosing faith in one (or hundreds) of sets of assumptions that we've made about the world around us. We've chosen what we believe.

I'm trying to get this back to a point where a fundamental difference between belief systems must be addressed.
You've suggested that I'm asserting if "A" then "B" - and I make that connection because among all the faith systems in the world, there is still only going to be one objective reality. Sure, there are billions of subjective realities. But when asked if we choose what we believe, then we must assume that there is such a thing as objective reality. All of the people who believe in "A", are thus rejecting, in whole or in part, "B". Likewise, people who believe in "B" are rejecting "A" as well as "C", "D", and "E". If we are going to say that we don't choose what we believe, then someone who believes in "A" must also believe in the rest of the alphabet, and I don't think anyone who has chosen one letter over another will agree that they feel equally as passionate about the rest of the alphabet. The only way that an "A" is not actively rejecting "B" is if they are ignorant of "B".

PS: Do you have a son named Dan?

 

[Right lane]

I have a question.
I consider myself agnostic because I have never felt any certainty about a God. I haven't had any religious experiences but I also cannot say that I decisively do not believe in God (or anything else, for that matter).
The only thing I know is that I don't know.
However, I have visited temples and churches. Sometimes because of my studies, sometimes because I was simply interested. In a Christian Pentecostal movement, I met some really nice (and extremely enthusiastic) people who told me that faith was a matter of choice. At one point, you simply have to decide to believe and reach out to God and then he will reach out to you. They told me that many of them had had doubts of their own, and they only went away when they completely devoted themselves to their faith and their church.
I simply don't understand. Or maybe I'm just not capable of doing what they say. How can you reach out to God if you're not even sure to whom or what you are speaking?
The same is for people who say they "decided" to join a specific group or community. How is it possible to choose what to believe? Either you believe it or you don't, right?
I am curious what your experiences are in this area. Especially those of you who are believers - was it a deliberate choice you made? Or did you simple "feel" it was the truth some day, whether you wanted to believe it or not?

There are an infinite number of world views and ways to be wrong. There is only one way to be correct and true. Science is THE discipline that seeks to know the one truth. Once it discovers truth, through the scientific method, it's discovery works reliably over and over and can be demonstrated to be true and reliable. Examples: you flip a switch, the lights come on, you turn a tap, you get hot and cold running water, you drive over a bridge, and it doesn't collapse, you adjust the thermostat, your home becomes a comfortable temperature regardless of the weather. Science works, reliably, and repeatedly. By contrast, religious claims cannot be shown to be reliable or demonstrated to be real (beyond human imagination) by objective measures.

Of course, there still remain many phenomena where scientific discovery remains a work in progress and we will have to wait until more facts are discovered to complete our understanding. But, that is not a weakness. Rather, it is a strength, because the scientific method will not declair something to be a fact until a critical mass of evidence is discovered to allow an understanding of a phenomina with a reasonable degree of certainty and repeated independent demonstration it is real.

 

[Kenny]

There are an infinite number of world views and ways to be wrong. There is only one way to be correct. Science is THE discipline that seeks to know the one truth. Once it discovers truth through the scientific method, it's discovery works reliably over and over and can be demonstrated to be true and reliable. Examples: you flip a switch the lights come on, you turn a tap, you get hot and cold running water, you adjust the thermostat, your home becomes a comfortable temperature regardless of the weather. By contrast, religious claims cannot be shown to be reliable or demonstrated to be real (beyond human imagination) by objective measures.

I think that this position is stretching the truth.

1) Science thought they had "the truth" until the theory of relativity came about and who knows what the black hole will do to all the theories.
2) I have turned the light switch on and it shorted.

And, in reference to claims of faith,

1) Israel exists with their language and customs - a feat that has never happened in all of history because of their faith. (not beyond imaginative and a very objective measure.
2) Lives have been transformed through faith where scientific methods did not work. Countless testimonies of that fact with no imagination necessary.