Can You Choose To Believe/Disbelieve?

[lunamoth]

FWIW, I agree with Purex's analysis of belief and doubt. In religion, for me, 'belief' is most similar to 'trust.' We certainly can choose to trust something, and even if the criteria upon which we base our choice is different than scientific evidence; none-the-less rational thought and choice/conclusion are involved.

 

[Wandered Off]

If anyone here really believes that belief is always a choice, then go for a week believing -- honestly believing -- that Santa Clause is real. Then pass a lie detector test.

It won't be an honest belief, but that is a result of other choices.

It comes down to whether it is more important to you to hold a belief that doesn't meet your normal standard for beliefs or whether that standard is more important. In that sense, you still made a choice between the two, IMO.

Usually the standard for beliefs will win, because we use that to analyze our observations and make sense of our perceptions, and consistency is important to that process.

 

[eudaimonia]

It comes down to whether it is more important to you to hold a belief that doesn't meet your normal standard for beliefs or whether that standard is more important. In that sense, you still made a choice between the two, IMO.

I don't see how I can choose between standards of belief. I have one standard. Just one. No others are convincing to me as legitimate standards. How can I simply choose to adopt a different epistemological standard? I don't believe that I personally am capable of that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Willamena]

FWIW, I agree with Purex's analysis of belief and doubt. In religion, for me, 'belief' is most similar to 'trust.' We certainly can choose to trust something, and even if the criteria upon which we base our choice is different than scientific evidence; none-the-less rational thought and choice/conclusion are involved.

For me, 'trust' is something that, on the "flowchart of Life," can follow 'belief'. I think I have a few more boxes on my flowchart, ones that don't seem to be present in others'.

 

[Wandered Off]

I have one standard.

I see your point, and I'll have to ponder it some. Did you choose that one standard, consciously or otherwise?

 

[Nanda]

But few beliefs involve such simple and objective subjects. You are picking a very biased example.

The real subject of this conversation is belief in deity. And that is not even remotely so simple. Almost no one believes in deity absolutely. Some people claim that they do, but in truth it's very likely that they have their doubts, too, but are just choosing to ignore those doubts, and deny them to us. And they may be aware of their doing this or they may not be.

The point, though, is that when some degree of doubt is present, which is almost always the case, then we have a choice whether or not we will acknowledge that doubt, and to what degree we will acknowledge it. And the result of that choice will effect the way we perceive the world around us. It will effect what we recognize as "evidence" for or against our believing.

You will notice that those who claim that they believe in deity absolutely, also tend not to recognize any evidence contrary to their chosen belief. And the same goes for those who claim that they absolutely do NOT believe in deity. They, too, will tend to ignore and deny any evidence that might suggest that their chosen belief is wrong. And even among those who accept their own doubts and confusion regarding the existence of deity, will tend to be biased in favor of their preconceptions.

What we see in the world around us is very often determined by the way we choose to look at that world. And in this way, we tend to see the "evidence" that we set ourselves up to see, and we tend to experience the world in the way that we set ourselves up to experience it, and therefor to believe about the world what we have chosen to believe by the evidence and experiences we've created for ourselves. And again, we may be aware that we're doing this, or we may not be. Very often we are not aware of it.

How is that not lying to yourself?

 

[PureX]

How is that not lying to yourself?

It's not really a "lie", it's just the paradigm through which we experience and understand the world around us. When we're children, we're given that paradigm by our parents and teachers. But as we get older we begin to make our own choices about how we're going to understand the experience of our own existence. What we call our "beliefs" are really just a collection of concepts that make up our paradigm, and through which we decipher our lives.

 

[Willamena]

Is a paradigm by choice?

Are there any beliefs that are not by choice?

Is choice voluntary?

I think there are a number of concepts being batted around with the same labels tacked on them.

 

[PureX]

I don't see how this is such a biased example, but please feel free to give a better example.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually, as I think about it, you are right. Your example is not that simple or objective. I retract my objection.

 

[eudaimonia]

I see your point, and I'll have to ponder it some. Did you choose that one standard, consciously or otherwise?

What would unconscious choice even mean?

No, I think that my power of choice only extends to what I think about, and for how long, and with what attitude, etc, but not to what I am persuaded to believe.

My view is that I was persuaded into my personal epistemology. Yes, it arose from something more basic. I imagine that it appealed to my rational intuition on some level, perhaps in accordance with earlier-adopted epistemological ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wandered Off]

No, I think that my power of choice only extends to what I think about, and for how long, and with what attitude, etc, but not to what I am persuaded to believe.

Just so I'm clear on your view: Are you saying that being persuaded is not a choice?

 

[Willamena]

Just so I'm clear on your view: Are you saying that being persuaded is not a choice?

If I may throw my 2 cents in, I would say "yes." Though it may involve a decision, I don't think that being persuaded is the same as making a choice. One of the contexts for "choice" in the dictionary specifies "care in choosing." Persuasion can be done through manipulation, like bullying, influencing, cheating and lying, or trickery, in which case it represents the antithesis of choice, i.e. not by choice; or it can be done through presentation of convincing information or evidence, in which case the decision is made by surrending to concepts like logic or truth.

Choice is something voluntary and wilful.

 

[Wandered Off]

If I may throw my 2 cents in, I would say "yes." Though it may involve a decision, I don't think that being persuaded is the same as making a choice. One of the contexts for "choice" in the dictionary specifies "care in choosing." Persuasion can be done through manipulation, like bullying, influencing, cheating and lying, or trickery, in which case it represents the antithesis of choice, i.e. not by choice; or it can be done through presentation of convincing information or evidence, in which case the decision is made by surrending to concepts like logic or truth.

Choice is something voluntary and wilful.

I always enjoy your good cents, Willamena!

I'm still struggling with the idea, though. It seems to me even if you were bullied or manipulated, you still made a choice. The choice was to give in to the manipulation. Just because the choice isn't made in an environment of perfect information (like all of them) doesn't make it less of a choice, IMO. It may well make the choice less informed or less likely to achieve a rational result, but to me that doesn't mean it wasn't a choice.

All that said, I am woefully undereducated in epistemology, so I probably should back away slowly and stop arguing about it.

 

[Willamena]

I'm still struggling with the idea, though. It seems to me even if you were bullied or manipulated, you still made a choice. The choice was to give in to the manipulation.

But even so, now you're talking about another thing. That's another "choice," apart from the one we are debating that would be in regard to the thing that you were being persuaded to do.

Just because the choice isn't made in an environment of perfect information (like all of them) doesn't make it less of a choice, IMO. It may well make the choice less informed or less likely to achieve a rational result, but to me that doesn't mean it wasn't a choice.

All that said, I am woefully undereducated in epistemology, so I probably should back away slowly and stop arguing about it.

Bah, I'm woeful, too, so don't sweat it. To me, the concept of "choice" is not independent of will, which is me affecting the world. For instance, in one context if something is "against someone's will" it was not "by their choice." In another context, if I "make a choice" it's going to be my responsibility to follow through or follow up because it was through my will that the choice I made affects circumstances. If someone persuades me into something, or if some bit of information brings me to a new realization of truth, that's not "me affecting the world," that's the world affecting me.

 

[Wandered Off]

But even so, now you're talking about another thing. That's another "choice," apart from the one we are debating that would be in regard to the thing that you were being persuaded to do.

Yeah, after pondering Mark's excellent responses, I was thinking of refining my initial position that every belief is a choice to more that all beliefs are the result of other choices - making beliefs "indirect choices". In an odd way, that is beginning to evoke determinism to blow choice away entirely. This is why I ought to run along, because I'm beginning to realize I don't know enough background to make a coherent case.

If someone persuades me into something, or if some bit of information brings me to a new realization of truth, that's not "me affecting the world," that's the world affecting me.

Point taken, but you control how you respond, and that's throwing me off.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, after pondering Mark's excellent responses, I was thinking of refining my initial position that every belief is a choice to more that all beliefs are the result of other choices - making beliefs "indirect choices". In an odd way, that is beginning to evoke determinism to blow choice away entirely. This is why I ought to run along, because I'm beginning to realize I don't know enough background to make a coherent case.
Point taken, but you control how you respond, and that's throwing me off.

Then allow me ... *smile*

Here is why determinism is wrong.

The human mind works essentially by comparing and contrasting sets of information, to formulate reasonable probabilities, values, and beliefs. 'Information' can be immediate experience, as perceived by our senses. 'Information' can be remembered experiences perceived some time previously. 'Information' can include conclusions arrived at through previous comparisons, values assessments, etc., ... pretty much anything that constitutes a collection of information that we can store in our brains. To think, is to compare and contrast these various sets of information so as to formulate new information sets relative to reasoned probabilities, value relative to us, and as an update to the paradigm (a collection of beliefs we hold to about what is real and true) we all use as a guide to cognating new information.

To think is to choose.

That's what thinking is for we humans; comparing, contrasting, and assessing the significance of the resulting mixture of information. And in that act of assessing we are constantly making choices: choices about what we will accept as real, and true, and valuable, and what we will reject as insignificant, meaningless, and inaccurate. Moment to moment, as the human brain cognates it's self relative to the world around it, it's making many, many split-second choices. And most of those choices go completely unnoticed by our conscious self. They must, or we'd be overwhelmed by them all.

It's WE who are predetermining our own lives, to some degree, simply by the way we are choosing to evaluate it, and by the paradigms we choose to use to cognate our experience of existence. And most of the time we're completely unaware that we're doing it.

 

[worshiper]

Yeah, after pondering Mark's excellent responses, I was thinking of refining my initial position that every belief is a choice to more that all beliefs are the result of other choices - making beliefs "indirect choices". In an odd way, that is beginning to evoke determinism to blow choice away entirely. This is why I ought to run along, because I'm beginning to realize I don't know enough background to make a coherent case.

i always imagine,life as a game of chess. one move leads to another. along the way you have to make decisions. but life is not as simple as playing chess.

 

[Willamena]

The Blue Men have a brilliant show that delves into essential philosophical concepts. "Discovery" was the theme I saw: taking a child onstage and teaching her how to recognize discovery within herself, and she caught on right away - innovation, creation, letting go of all thought and letting what's left shine through.

I see "decision" as a similar beast. We can ponder a dilemma, and weigh the consequences, but that moment of decision is "will" shining through, beyond (transcending) all thought and ponderance. It is "essential me."

"Choice" is different, to me. It is the concretized version, in that I can point at it and say, "these factors led to it," and "these circumstances resulted from it," and "this is what I'm going to do about it" or "this is where I stand now (past the moment)". The eternal moment (which is of the spirit) has been brought into the span of time, where it is seen as an instant.

Determinism is not incorrect, but it is looking at things from a particular fixed perspective (namely "objective") that doesn't encompass all there is, to us. One cannot experience the moment from that perspective, nor see the decision made. One only sees choices and outcomes.