Do We Choose Our Beliefs?

[Nimos]

Several times recently in conversations with theists, they have said things about choosing what we believe. It's almost as though in their minds beliefs are like clothes in the closet. I go to the closet, and I could pick the red t shirt or the green t shirt, so I'll pick the red. Or perhaps, I know my significant other likes the red more than the green, so I'll pick the red one to please him.

In my experience, this is not how belief works at all. If to believe means to be convinced something is true or real, then we don't choose our beliefs at all. We are presented with evidence and whatever interpretation of that evidence is most convincing to us is what we believe. We can't stop believing that until something intervenes - we see new evidence, or we realize our thought process was illogical before, etc. I can't simply wake up and choose a different belief this morning. I am genuinely convinced of what I believe (and don't).

What do you think? Do we choose our beliefs?

It depends how you look at it I think. If you don't really question your own beliefs and try to find arguments against them to see if they are actually reasonable or not, then I agree with you, that such person is not in control, because the idea of even testing their own belief wont occur to them. But if you are aware that your beliefs might actually be incorrect, because you might lack certain information, might have misunderstood something etc. and at the same time is willing to test them. You can use methods to help you get rid of wrong beliefs. But it does require that one have a valid approach for testing them, because if it is done wrong and one believe they are doing it correctly, they will obviously reach wrong conclusions.

 

[Left Coast]

..perhaps you just lack information, to come to an informed conclusion..

Oh, that's very possible. I keep asking theists to give me the information, though, and they just haven't.

Then again, if it's God's job to give us understanding, the whole thing is his fault.

 

[Left Coast]

Disbelief implies saying, 'no, i reject that as a possibility.'

Skepticism may doubt, or reserve judgement for better information, but a rejection of a possibility is a positive claim. The person is concluding something, not just reserving judgment.

Just a difference of definition then. I take disbelief to be synonymous with lack of belief. Guess it depends how you use it.

 

[Audie]

I have chosen to believe.

A lot of people choose self-deception. It is common
as dirt, and nothing to be proud of.

 

[atanu]

Several times recently in conversations with theists, they have said things about choosing what we believe. It's almost as though in their minds beliefs are like clothes in the closet. I go to the closet, and I could pick the red t shirt or the green t shirt, so I'll pick the red. Or perhaps, I know my significant other likes the red more than the green, so I'll pick the red one to please him.

In my experience, this is not how belief works at all. If to believe means to be convinced something is true or real, then we don't choose our beliefs at all. We are presented with evidence and whatever interpretation of that evidence is most convincing to us is what we believe. We can't stop believing that until something intervenes - we see new evidence, or we realize our thought process was illogical before, etc. I can't simply wake up and choose a different belief this morning. I am genuinely convinced of what I believe (and don't).

What do you think? Do we choose our beliefs?

It is said that there are 4 kinds of believers: distressed, seekers of truth, beggars of worldly goods, and the wise.

These four types may have different reasons for choosing to be believers but ‘choosing’, IMO, is involved in all cases.

 

[Left Coast]

This comment is based on the idea that rationality and objective evidence is the best. Not everyone agrees.

Best for accurately understanding reality, yes. If someone doesn't agree, I'd love for them to explain why, or why I should agree, without using rationality.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Augustus, post: 6170143, member: 56037"

I think that, to some extent, we can also deliberately self-deceive but it also has significant limitations.[/QUOTE]

For that, we'd also need to get into negligence.
Where is it deliberate, where is it give a ****,
or laziness, where is it culpable negligence?

Admiral Rickover famously said to an officer
who was trying to explain how he was not
responsible for what happened.
"if you are not responsible, then you are irresponsible"

 

[Audie]

It is said that there are 4 kinds of believers: distressed, seekers of truth, beggars of worldly goods, and the wise.

These four types may have different reasons for choosing to be believers but ‘choosing’, IMO, is involved in all cases.

Choosing to fool one's self dont sound so wise to me.

 

[Left Coast]

We choose to accept a belief , so in that context we do.

One thing for sure is we can't keep our beliefs .

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[Audie]

I mostly agree with that. The closest the rational mind can come to deciding if God exists or not is Pascal's wager which is also subject to dispute.

See, I have a big prob with that one Because I really
like to just wear my hair long and in a pony tail.

BUT, according to Islam, that is really bad of me,
I am causing men to sin, and I am apt to be hung
by my hair in eternal fire.

Is it then rational for me to quick convert and
hope for the best? Pascal- wise, and all.

 

[MonkeyFire]

It is said that there are 4 kinds of believers: distressed, seekers of truth, beggars of worldly goods, and the wise.

These four types may have different reasons for choosing to be believers but ‘choosing’, IMO, is involved in all cases.

I'm sorry but your wrong. I never acquired faith at all. Since I was a young boy my mind says periodically "I, believe." So to speak I have faith inside me.

 

[atanu]

I'm sorry but your wrong. I never acquired faith at all. Since I was a young boy my mind says periodically "I, believe." So to speak I have faith.

I think this will belong in the category of ‘wise’.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you explain what you mean?

Ask anyone afflicted with Dementia, Alzheimer's or similar who in life who was religiously devout. Or the corpse in the coffin at the funeral.

Beliefs gone as they come about.

Emptiness.

 

[sun rise]

See, I have a big prob with that one Because I really
like to just wear my hair long and in a pony tail.

BUT, according to Islam, that is really bad of me,
I am causing men to sin, and I am apt to be hung
by my hair in eternal fire.

Is it then rational for me to quick convert and
hope for the best? Pascal- wise, and all.

I'm not a fan of religion's strictures and rules. Humanity is growing up the the role of religion as a super parent is ending. Children, or at least most young ones, dress according to what mom and dad decide. Adults decide for themselves what is appropriate.

And another dying aspect to religion is gender bias. Women are stepping up to equality. Some groups try to stuff women back into a historical box and some welcome the joy that comes from the reality of equality.

Religions today are caught between those who want the parental model to stay in effect and those who want to look beyond superficial rules. Someone who is thinking about affiliating with a religion could keep this in mind.

 

[Left Coast]

I mostly agree with that. The closest the rational mind can come to deciding if God exists or not is Pascal's wager which is also subject to dispute.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I don't find Pascal's Wager compelling anymore. The problem is that the options are not binary. There are a multitude of different gods/religions to consider. Depending on which is true, just believing in any old God won't do at all. In others, atheism may be perfectly acceptable to the god/religion so long as you do good to your fellow man. So Pascal really doesn't help us.

 

[sun rise]

Best for accurately understanding reality, yes. If someone doesn't agree, I'd love for them to explain why, or why I should agree, without using rationality.

The only way I can answer this valid question is through my own experience. Years ago I became interested in whether or not there was something beyond the ordinary. So among other things I started reading and thinking about various religious traditions. I started feeling that the answer was inside me, what is given words as "the sun beyond the sun beyond the sun", "kingdom of heaven is within" "search in the heart" etc depending on the religion.

I also felt very strongly that a belief had to have a rational element. And for me reincarnation and karma (what you sow, you reap) provided a structure my mind could accept.

But there is no 'why' here. If the question attracts you, then that attraction itself provides the why without anyone else having to try to convince you.

 

[sun rise]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I don't find Pascal's Wager compelling anymore. The problem is that the options are not binary. There are a multitude of different gods/religions to consider. Depending on which is true, just believing in any old God won't do at all. In others, atheism may be perfectly acceptable to the god/religion so long as you do good to your fellow man. So Pascal really doesn't help us.

I agree actually.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I think this will belong in the category of ‘wise’.

For the last 8 years I have believed that living gnosis is the fallen angel of light, but it was never evil. If anything morality is a fallen angel aswell, as a twin light if you will. Knowledge percieved hell one day after an eternity of perfection in Heaven. The angel of morality fell to host against evil, as God in all his might and pleasure must be passive, we can all refer to genesis where YHWH forbids knowledge of good and evil which includes all hatred, and war.

 

[stvdv]

"Choosing to believe" is nothing but self deception.

This is what you choose to believe I guess

 

[Quintessence]

Question for you, @Left Coast - what are your thoughts about choice in general?

I ask because it seems to me that one's response to a question like this would be consistent with one's general sentiments about the human capacity for choice and decisions. Do humans truly decide anything, or is it a fixed result of prior conditions? If one rejects the notion of "free will" as it is often called, humans do not choose anything. If one rejects the notion of "determinism" as it is often called, humans choose everything. Granted, one doesn't have to be quite so dichotomous about it. However, if one makes an exception to one's general position within that dichotomy, what's the justification for that? If, for example, one generally accepts free will but then says beliefs are not chosen, what is the reasoning?

As an aside, it'd be shameful of me to not mention the concept of paradigm shifting in the context of this conversation. Apparently this is a greater rarity than I once believed, but there are people out there in the world that can fairly readily switch between different maps of the territory. Those who can really do choose what to believe at any given moment based on the map they've pulled out (free will vs. determinism snags notwithstanding). It's certainly something I can do. It seems to be a skill set cultivated by creative types, because when you are writing stories set in worlds very unlike our own, you need to get outside of yourself and into some other mindset to write that authentically. I thought being able to do this was just normal, but apparently it isn't so normal? I don't know.