Do We Choose Our Beliefs?

[Trailblazer]

We do? I don't choose what makes most sense to me at all, it spontaneously becomes apparent as I evaluate and learn about an idea whether it makes sense to me.

I think it spontaneously becomes apparent to you as you I evaluate and learn about an idea, and it becomes apparent because it makes sense to you. This is a process done with the rational mind.
The other option is that you just grabbed onto it because it was emotionally appealing, but you do not strike me as that kind of person.

 

[JJ50]

If I had been given the choice as a child I would have chosen never to have heard of god or Jesus. Unfortunately I had fundamentalist Christianity forced down my throat until I got 'saved', not a pleasant experience at all. As soon as I was old enough to question that faith, and read the Bible without wearing rose coloured spectacles I realised it was a less than credible human production. The god character has been accredited with all the worst human characteristics. I therefore lost my faith.

 

[Left Coast]

I do not think we are completely FREE to choose our beliefs.
Rather, we are presented with evidence for a given belief and if our interpretation of the evidence is convincing to us then we choose to believe. Conversely, if that evidence is not convincing to us, we choose not to believe.

My issue here is, if we are presented with evidence that convinces us something is true, how can we not believe it? By definition if we're convinced something is true, we believe it already.

 

[Windwalker]

That sounds more like falling in love than making a choice.

Human beings are not primarily rational creatures. They are primarily emotional creatures, as well as basic instinctual responses. Rationality is a tool, not the core of who we are. When we try to ignore, repress, suppress, deny, hide from, etc., our emotional bodies, we end up with psychological as well as spiritual maladies, such as depression, rage, apathy, arrogance, etc.

Rationality can, and should be used to help guide decision making, but not at the expense of the voice of the heart. The heart leads, and the rational mind helps to navigate the choices available. But at the core, it's not the rational mind that decides. It's the heart. We "feel" our way through life. Not think our way through it.

We are not brains in a vacuum. We are bodies with an emotional mind, even more basic than our higher rational minds. It cannot be ignored or minimized without peril to the whole.

 

[Curious George]

Human beings are not primarily rational creatures. They are primarily emotional creatures, as well as basic instinctual responses. Rationality is a tool, not the core of who we are. When we try to ignore, repress, suppress, deny, hide from, etc., our emotional bodies, we end up with psychological as well as spiritual maladies, such as depression, rage, apathy, arrogance, etc.

Rationality can, and should be used to help guide decision making, but not at the expense of the voice of the heart. The heart leads, and the rational mind helps to navigate the choices available. But at the core, it's not the rational mind that decides. It's the heart. We "feel" our way through life. Not think our way through it.

And when people believe "in their heart" that homosexuality is wrong or that one race is inferior to another?

 

[Left Coast]

Human beings are not primarily rational creatures. They are primarily emotional creatures, as well as basic instinctual responses. Rationality is a tool, not the core of who we are. When we try to ignore, repress, suppress, deny, hide from, etc., our emotional bodies, we end up with psychological as well as spiritual maladies, such as depression, rage, apathy, arrogance, etc.

Rationality can, and should be used to help guide decision making, but not at the expense of the voice of the heart. The heart leads, and the rational mind helps to navigate the choices available. But at the core, it's not the rational mind that decides. It's the heart. We "feel" our way through life. Not think our way through it.

We are not brains in a vacuum. We are bodies with an emotional mind, even more basic than our higher rational minds. It cannot be ignored or minimized without peril to the whole.

I think I understand. And I think therefore you agree with me that ultimately we do not choose what we believe. "Our heart chooses," (an odd and slightly confusing phrase for this conversation) which is tantamount to saying it's not a conscious decision and it just...happens. Like falling in love.

 

[JJ50]

And when people believe "in their heart" that homosexuality is wrong or that one race is inferior to another?

They need to be put right pdq!

 

[Windwalker]

And when people believe "in their heart" that homosexuality is wrong or that one race is inferior to another?

That is actually not believing with their heart. That is something programmed into their rational minds by culture, telling them to believe what it says over what their hearts say. No child is born with such prejudices in them.

 

[Curious George]

That is actually not believing with their heart. That is something programmed into their rational minds by culture, telling them to believe what it says over what their hearts say. No child is born with such prejudices in them.

So they aren't true Scotsmen?

 

[Windwalker]

I think I understand. And I think therefore you agree with me that ultimately we do not choose what we believe. "Our heart chooses," (an odd and slightly confusing phrase for this conversation) which is tantamount to saying it's not a conscious decision and it just...happens. Like falling in love.

Yes, in this sense I agree. I was thinking to say earlier, that our beliefs tend to choose us for emotional reasons, at the same time we a choosing ostensibly for rational reasons, to choose them. We choose to believe what suits our emotional needs.

 

[Windwalker]

So they aren't true Scotsmen?

I suppose that is a way to look at it. Prejudice is not the normal state. No child is born with those. Bigots are not true to their own natures. As Jesus said, "Unless you become as a little child, you shall in no way see the kingdom of God". Love is the "true" condition. Everything else is "not true". So yes. They are "not true".

 

[JJ50]

I suppose that is a way to look at it. Prejudice is not the normal state. No child is born with those. Bigots are not true to their own natures. As Jesus said, "Unless you become as a little child, you shall in no way see the kingdom of God". Love is the nature condition. Everything else is "not true".

If you see it through adult eyes you would probably question its veracity which is a good thing, imo.

 

[Windwalker]

If you see it through adult eyes you would probably question its veracity which is a good thing, imo.

It depends how one defines being "adult". I would agree, that becoming an adult would mean growing up and listening to what is in your own heart, versus listening to what others are parrotting from their culture and selling their own birthright to happiness by denying their own hearts in order to fit in and get along.

A "true adult", to me is one who sees the world through their own true heart, not through adopting the beliefs and values of others, trying to fit in like a teenager in its social groups in Jr. High School in order to be accepted by them so they can feel good about themselves. To me, anything on that level is insincerity, being less than an adult.

 

[JJ50]

It depends how one defines being "adult". I would agree, that becoming an adult would mean growing up and listening to what is in your own heart, versus listening to what others are parrotting from their culture and selling their own birthright to happiness by denying their own hearts in order to fit in and get along.

A "true adult", to me is one who sees the world through their own true heart, not through adopting the beliefs and values of others, trying to fit in like a teenager in its social groups in Jr. High School in order to be accepted by them so they can feel good about themselves. To me, anything on that level is insincerity, being less than an adult.

I have never tried to fit in, I have always just been me, for better or worse.

 

[Willamena]

My issue here is, if we are presented with evidence that convinces us something is true, how can we not believe it? By definition if we're convinced something is true, we believe it already.

Just so.

 

[Curious George]

I suppose that is a way to look at it. Prejudice is not the normal state. No child is born with those. Bigots are not true to their own natures. As Jesus said, "Unless you become as a little child, you shall in no way see the kingdom of God". Love is the "true" condition. Everything else is "not true". So yes. They are "not true".

You seem to want to appeal to our natural state. I would suggest that this natural state is also violent, selfish, and ego centric. While there are without doubt bouts of compassion and empathy in the mix, appealing towards our natural state fails to mean much here.

 

[Windwalker]

I have never tried to fit in, I have always just been me, for better or worse.

Baby Buddha? Not so sure I can believe that, as conformity is a normal stage of human development everyone goes through:

Conformist (E4)[edit]
'Most children around school age...progress to the next stage, conformity'.[18] Persons begin to view themselves and other as conforming to socially approved codes or norms.[19] Teaching education as adult development. Theory into Practice, 17(3), p. 231 Loevinger describes this stage of having 'the greatest cognitive simplicity. There is a right way and a wrong way and it is the same for everyone...or broad classes of people.[20] One example of groups conforming together at this age is by gender—boys and girls. Here persons are very much invested in belonging to and obtaining the approval of groups.[21] Behaviour is judged externally, not by intentions, and this concept of 'belonging to the group (family or peers) is most valued'.[22] 'the child starts to identify his welfare with that of the group', though for the stage 'to be consolidated, there must be a strong element of trust'.[16] An ability to take in rules of the group appears, and another's disapproval becomes a sanction, not only fear of punishment. However rules and norms are not yet distinguished.

'While the Conformist likes and trusts other people within his own group, he may define that group narrowly and reject any or all outgroups', and stereotypes roles on the principle of ' social desirability: people are what they ought to be'.[21]
​

Loevinger's stages of ego development - Wikipedia

 

[Windwalker]

You seem to want to appeal to our natural state. I would suggest that this natural state is also violent, selfish, and ego centric. While there are without doubt bouts of compassion and empathy in the mix, appealing towards our natural state fails to mean much here.

I do not mean to reduce everything down to the Lizard Brain, impulse and instinct level. But the adoption of social prejudices is something superimposed on the natural condition of a child, which does not see skin color, or even gender for that matter at certain ages as matters of differentiations to avoid contact with them. The natural state of a child looking at another child sees another child, like themselves. Not an "enemy".

Obviously, socialization is a natural phenomena as well. However, the emotional and spiritual bodies of our humanity transcends and precedes all later socializations. All of those are culturally relative. Yet, our construction as humans is universal. We all evolved with the same basic core.

While in childhood, universally speaking, it is "selfish", that is natural, normal, and healthy. (see Lovenginers stages I just linked to in the previous post before this one). But those have nothing to do with bias and bigotry. Those are taught to us, not a natural, normal, or heathy stage of development from egocentric all the way up to cosmo centric. Our natural state is to grow up through the stages, from selfish to selfless. Increasing the circles of that love, from self, to family, to friends, to peers, to community, to nation, to global community, to all of life everywhere, to the oneness of all that is, at its highest stages of development.

 

[JJ50]

Baby Buddha? Not so sure I can believe that, as conformity is a normal stage of human development everyone goes through:

Conformist (E4)[edit]
'Most children around school age...progress to the next stage, conformity'.[18] Persons begin to view themselves and other as conforming to socially approved codes or norms.[19] Teaching education as adult development. Theory into Practice, 17(3), p. 231 Loevinger describes this stage of having 'the greatest cognitive simplicity. There is a right way and a wrong way and it is the same for everyone...or broad classes of people.[20] One example of groups conforming together at this age is by gender—boys and girls. Here persons are very much invested in belonging to and obtaining the approval of groups.[21] Behaviour is judged externally, not by intentions, and this concept of 'belonging to the group (family or peers) is most valued'.[22] 'the child starts to identify his welfare with that of the group', though for the stage 'to be consolidated, there must be a strong element of trust'.[16] An ability to take in rules of the group appears, and another's disapproval becomes a sanction, not only fear of punishment. However rules and norms are not yet distinguished.

'While the Conformist likes and trusts other people within his own group, he may define that group narrowly and reject any or all outgroups', and stereotypes roles on the principle of ' social desirability: people are what they ought to be'.[21]
​

Loevinger's stages of ego development - Wikipedia

I have NEVER conformed, even when I was in the deep proverbial with my parents just because I didn't see it their way. I was always getting a thrashing for something. I have never had any 'heroes', never interested in music, or fashion, or boys, until I met my husband, as he was different to all the other boys I had met. He probably has high grade autism like our eldest grandson. I have always done my own thing and will continue to do so, I don't care if that makes me popular or not. Funnily enough our kids seem to like their senile old mother.

 

[Curious George]

I do not mean to reduce everything down to the Lizard Brain, impulse and instinct level. But the adoption of social prejudices is something superimposed on the natural condition of a child, which does not see skin color, or even gender for that matter at certain ages as matters of differentiations to avoid contact with them. The natural state of a child looking at another child sees another child, like themselves. Not an "enemy".

Obviously, socialization is a natural phenomena as well. However, the emotional and spiritual bodies of our humanity transcends and precedes all later socializations. All of those are culturally relative. Yet, our construction as humans is universal. We all evolved with the same basic core.

While in childhood, universally speaking, it is "selfish", that is natural, normal, and healthy. (see Lovenginers stages I just linked to in the previous post before this one). But those have nothing to do with bias and bigotry. Those are taught to us, not a natural, normal, or heathy stage of development from egocentric all the way up to cosmo centric.

I needn't any refreshes on child psychology or early childhood education. My point was to serve up emotionally held beliefs that were counterproductive and left a bad taste in ones mouth. These beliefs, honestly held by many, are no more or less "natural" than others. We very much group and categorize. We also have natural preferences for in-groups, even in childhood, hence girls rule boys drool or my dad can beat up your dad mentality found in many children. You keep pushing this naive idea that because we needn't have preference for one group over the other, that it is not natural. I disagree. Children discriminate magnificently. Though they need not have specific ideas of discrimination, it is there nonetheless.

But all of this still misses the point. You had suggested that right is not necessarily rational and involves choosing with the heart. Well, some people make very bad choices with the heart. When this is pointed out, you want to say that those making really bad choices are just not really choosing from the heart. This is fallacious.