Is Belief a Choice?

[idav]

Not exactly what I was saying. I see no difference between believing in God or believing in the moon. The fact that you can see the moon changes nothing. You still possess a conceptual version in your mind designed and implemented intentionally by you. And it changes every single time you think about the moon. What it is, was and will be is 100% within your control. And thus it is 100% choice to believe whatever it is you believe.

That's our faulty memories at their best.

The choosing is throughout the path. A lot of little choices that affect the big things. Though them determinists would agree with the principle of no choice in belief.

 

[Draka]

Theists are generally unaware of alternatives to their beliefs? Is that really what you think? I'm pretty sure its the opposite. A vast majority of theists are constantly bombarded by the alternatives to their beliefs. And whether they have been a theists since they were a young child, or whether they adopted the idea much later in life... the choice is always happening NOW. Not 5 minutes ago, not yesterday, not 10 years ago. Right now.

I never said that theists are unaware of alternatives, I said that all options had to be equally plausible. Big difference. We can know of many different alternatives, be well informed of them, and still be convinced that one particular path is what we believe because it is the one we have been given enough reason to accept. We can know of many other things, but not be given enough reason to accept them. If something were to happen where one were given ample reason, more than what it took to convince them of their prior stance, that something else were true, then that is where conversion comes in. You may then, at some point in the process, have a point where you have two things of equal measure to "choose" from to believe, but only then. Otherwise, as I said, the only time you can choose is when you have EQUAL PLAUSIBILITY. Not all theists look at all religions with equal plausibility now do they? Not all theists have the same experiences, same lives, same education, same reasoning abilities, and so on. Therefore not all religions are possibly going to have even a chance of having equal plausibility in order to be chosen from. So belief can't really be a choice. It is a matter of convincing, not choice.

 

[idav]

I never said that theists are unaware of alternatives, I said that all options had to be equally plausible. Big difference. We can know of many different alternatives, be well informed of them, and still be convinced that one particular path is what we believe because it is the one we have been given enough reason to accept. We can know of many other things, but not be given enough reason to accept them. If something were to happen where one were given ample reason, more than what it took to convince them of their prior stance, that something else were true, then that is where conversion comes in. You may then, at some point in the process, have a point where you have two things of equal measure to "choose" from to believe, but only then. Otherwise, as I said, the only time you can choose is when you have EQUAL PLAUSIBILITY. Not all theists look at all religions with equal plausibility now do they? Not all theists have the same experiences, same lives, same education, same reasoning abilities, and so on. Therefore not all religions are possibly going to have even a chance of having equal plausibility in order to be chosen from. So belief can't really be a choice. It is a matter of convincing, not choice.

The choice is in the premise particularly with religion. The rest would logically follow but a choice has to be made. We don't just one day wake up to be our evil twin nemisis.

 

[Draka]

The choice is in the premise particularly with religion. The rest would logically follow but a choice has to be made. We don't just one day wake up to be our evil twin nemisis.

Why? What do you mean "particularly with religion"? And why does a choice HAVE to be made?

 

[idav]

Why? What do you mean "particularly with religion"? And why does a choice HAVE to be made?

A belief isn't always the premise but a belief has to be rooted in a premise. Not an issue with knowledge and with religion they can be equally plausible just different fallible human in a different culture and age. You don't have to follow any of the lists of prophets but you can ....if you want....

 

[Sir Doom]

That's our faulty memories at their best.

The choosing is throughout the path. A lot of little choices that affect the big things. Though them determinists would agree with the principle of no choice in belief.

Naturally, since they don't think choice exists at all.

 

[Draka]

A belief isn't always the premise but a belief has to be rooted in a premise. Not an issue with knowledge and with religion they can be equally plausible just different fallible human in a different culture and age. You don't have to follow any of the lists of prophets but you can ....if you want....

Choosing which church to attend or which pastor you like or which guru to follow is entirely different than the core thought of whether you believe in deity/supernatural existence or not. The belief comes first and that is not choice. You are first convinced one way or the other about the existence, and along the way, if convinced of the existence, you are usually convinced of some nature of that existence which influences the path of any religion you have to choose from. There are different realms of thought about the subject within different groups of religions. Therefore, you have several religions to usually choose from once you have your belief. You see which of those religions most well lines up with what it is you believe and you choose the one that best suites you.

So, no, you don't choose whether you believe, you don't even choose your general belief path, those are matters of convincing. Once you have your general belief path you can, however, choose your specific religion or teacher or pastor or guru or what-have-you to progress you further in your understanding as you see fit.

 

[Draka]

Naturally, since they don't think choice exists at all.

 

[Sir Doom]

So... determinists DO believe in choice?

 

[Draka]

So... determinists DO believe in choice?

I thought you were referring to all of us in here that have been saying that belief is not a choice were "determinists" and did not believe in choice, like you have been over and over.

I mean come on, that's what you have been driving at all along is it not? :areyoucra

 

[Sir Doom]

I never said that theists are unaware of alternatives, I said that all options had to be equally plausible. Big difference.

None at all. You're attempting to split hairs. Plausibility is a subjective and arbitrary distinction made by any individual about anything by their own equally subjective and arbitrary set of criteria. All such distinctions are equally inconsequential and are in fact the product of choice themselves, and therefore cannot negate choice.

We can know of many different alternatives, be well informed of them, and still be convinced that one particular path is what we believe because it is the one we have been given enough reason to accept. We can know of many other things, but not be given enough reason to accept them.

'Enough reason' as dictated by the Great and Powerful Oz, right? Or do you think someone else might be in control of when 'enough' is 'enough' ?

If something were to happen where one were given ample reason, more than what it took to convince them of their prior stance, that something else were true, then that is where conversion comes in.

And just what is this 'something' you speak of? Can you provide an example? Do your best to provide an example that doesn't involve a conscious decision by the person in question.

You may then, at some point in the process, have a point where you have two things of equal measure to "choose" from to believe, but only then.

This is a constant state. Not a rare one.

Otherwise, as I said, the only time you can choose is when you have EQUAL PLAUSIBILITY.

A ridiculous notion as I previously described.

Not all theists look at all religions with equal plausibility now do they?

Of course not. Not that it matters. I find many theists never bother to establish any sort of plausibility to what they believe at all, let alone alternatives.

Not all theists have the same experiences, same lives, same education, same reasoning abilities, and so on.

And no two theists share the same beliefs either. Imagine that.

Therefore not all religions are possibly going to have even a chance of having equal plausibility in order to be chosen from.

Except plausibility only matters when a person decides it does. Which means it doesn't really change anything.

So belief can't really be a choice. It is a matter of convincing, not choice.

retend there is a facepalm here since I hit the limit for icons:

The most ridiculous thing in this post. How you can imagine someone being convinced of something without making a choice is beyond my reckoning.

 

[Sir Doom]

I thought you were referring to all of us in here that have been saying that belief is not a choice were "determinists" and did not believe in choice, like you have been over and over.

I mean come on, that's what you have been driving at all along is it not? :areyoucra

No. What I'm driving at is that belief is a result of choice. You know... the topic of the thread.

 

[Draka]

You seem convinced you are right. Or are you just choosing to be that stubbornly obnoxious?

 

[Sir Doom]

You seem convinced you are right.

I am convinced I am right. Good on you for witnessing reality twice in the same thread.

Or are you just choosing to be that stubbornly obnoxious?

I do choose to be both stubborn and obnoxious. I find both suit me well and serve my purposes to an amazing degree of success.

I like to be obnoxious because I crave attention. It's psychological damage held over from being the middle child of 9 and quite off the radar for everyone who is supposed to love me. Its a good thing that I know that though, it makes it a lot more fun!

I like to be stubborn because I find that resisting ideas that I find distasteful results in either the exposure of a critical weakness in those ideas that may never have come to light or it will facilitate elaborate and detailed descriptions of those ideas which will allow me to adopt them from a more educated position.

Of course, I am being stubborn and obnoxious in this particular case because I don't like your flippant attitude and I am additionally what you might call petty and vindictive.

Its interesting that you tried to seperate conviction and choice again in this particular instance and I went ahead and ruined it for you with reality. Funny how that works.

 

[Draka]

My "flippant attitude"? Where in any of my trying to explain how belief is not a choice but other things are, was I being "flippant"? Especially to a point where you thought you had to dissect and facepalm every single sentence I wrote? I was not trying to take this lightly, as a matter of fact, I thought you were being rude and not really listening and not really understanding and just so mired in your need to be right that you could not, would not, understand any points put to you.

 

[Draka]

Can you choose not to believe in gravity right now? How about that you are human? Can you just up and choose not to believe that you are a human being? Can you choose to believe that your skin is not skin and is actually, say...ceramic? Can you choose to believe you are currently breathing Listerine mouthwash instead of air? Can you do any of these things at this exact moment? And I mean HONESTLY BELIEVE them.

 

[Sir Doom]

My "flippant attitude"? Where in any of my trying to explain how belief is not a choice but other things are, was I being "flippant"?

Right here, your very first post to me:

How in the world is how I see the moon entirely under my control? I look up in the sky, there it is. I go to school, I am taught about it. I go outside at night I am surrounded by moonlight. I have been given reason, influenced, into accepting the existence of the moon. Of course I would believe in its existence, but I certainly didn't choose to believe. Same goes for when someone feels they have been given reason to accept the existence of deity. It's a matter of convincing to a point of not having a "choice" not to believe. If something is a "choice" then that means that you are presented things which are equally plausible and you choose between them. That simply is not so for the vast majority of theists.

You frame my idea as ridiculous and then you don't even respond to it. My post was about the designed concept you hold in your mind that you call the moon. Where in your post did you talk about that? Nowhere. And you still paint it as ridiculous. That's flippantitude if ever I did see it.

Especially to a point where you thought you had to dissect and facepalm every single sentence I wrote?

I always dissect people's posts. Don't think you are special because of that. It allows for a more thorough response. If you think it's rude, then... well... that's good!

I was not trying to take this lightly, as a matter of fact,

No, you took me lightly. A much graver offense.

I thought you were being rude and not really listening and not really understanding and just so mired in your need to be right that you could not, would not, understand any points put to you.

I was being rude to you, yeah. But you started it. Vindictive, remember? Petty and vindictive. I don't care who knows it either. I of course understand what you are saying. How else could I provide the responses that I did? How else could I have so soundly trounced you that you have to resort to pointing out my character flaws rather than debate?

 

[Sir Doom]

Can you choose not to believe in gravity right now? How about that you are human? Can you just up and choose not to believe that you are a human being? Can you choose to believe that your skin is not skin and is actually, say...ceramic? Can you choose to believe you are currently breathing Listerine mouthwash instead of air? Can you do any of these things at this exact moment? And I mean HONESTLY BELIEVE them.

No I'm not going to suddenly believe in any of this ridiculous nonsense. What possible reason could I have to choose any of these beliefs? To prove a point? That's not belief. That's pretending. Do you know the difference?

Try this one...

I believe my brother will pay the cable bill on time this month.

Do you see how using a non-ridiculous example shatters the illusion? 3-eyed bushy-tailed pink wombats from Venus? Nope. Not going to believe in those. My brother will pay the bill... yep. Choosing that one. Purposefully. Intentionally. Because it IS what I want. It IS what I believe. Do you see the difference?

 

[Draka]

Right here, your very first post to me:



You frame my idea as ridiculous and then you don't even respond to it. My post was about the designed concept you hold in your mind that you call the moon. Where in your post did you talk about that? Nowhere. And you still paint it as ridiculous. That's flippantitude if ever I did see it.

I didn't frame the idea as ridiculous nor did I take you lightly. That you read that into it says more about you than me. I did address the argument. You learn about the moon, you are convinced of its existence. You collect evidence of its existence which you store within your mind which convinces you of its truth. I'm not being flippant, I just don't think you like my answers is all.

I always dissect people's posts. Don't think you are special because of that. It allows for a more thorough response. If you think it's rude, then... well... that's good!

You dissected each point and facepalmed and ridiculed each, out of some need for revenge for some perceived slight against you that didn't even happen.

No, you took me lightly. A much graver offense.

"Graver"? What now? You're going to be the death of me because you think I took you too lightly? :areyoucra

I was being rude to you, yeah. But you started it. Vindictive, remember? Petty and vindictive. I don't care who knows it either.

I didn't start anything, you thought I did, and went guano crazy on me from there.

I of course understand what you are saying. How else could I provide the responses that I did? How else could I have so soundly trounced you that you have to resort to pointing out my character flaws rather than debate?

It's precisely because you made the responses you have that I still hold you simply don't understand what I am saying. You haven't trounced me at all. You still don't comprehend what I am talking about.

 

[Draka]

No I'm not going to suddenly believe in any of this ridiculous nonsense. What possible reason could I have to choose any of these beliefs? To prove a point? That's not belief. That's pretending. Do you know the difference?

Try this one...

I believe my brother will pay the cable bill on time this month.

Do you see how using a non-ridiculous example shatters the illusion? 3-eyed bushy-tailed pink wombats from Venus? Nope. Not going to believe in those. My brother will pay the bill... yep. Choosing that one. Purposefully. Intentionally. Because it IS what I want. It IS what I believe. Do you see the difference?

So, you are saying you CAN'T choose to not believe in gravity? Would that be because you are convinced that it exists and can't consciously go against that which you internally know to be true? Why can you not simply choose to believe that you are breathing something other than air? For much the same reason?

If belief were simply a matter of choice then why do so many people not just choose to believe that which would make things easiest for them? Why would the Pagan or the atheist not choose to be Christian in the Bible belt area of the US? Why wouldn't all non-Muslims choose to believe in Islam in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? If it were a matter of choice, why are people choosing to make things difficult on themselves by choosing that which goes not only against the grain, but can actually wind up getting them killed in some places?

As I have been saying, it's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of convincing, you can't logically go against your own mind. You can't just up and choose to go against your own stack of evidence. Only when you have evidence within your mind that stacks up which outweighs that which already convinced you of your previous stance can you be convinced otherwise. Even if you want to call that a "choice" in some weird way, the "choice" is not ever a conscious one, but a deeply unconscious one which we have no control over what-so-ever. (That internal "ah-ha" moment of clarity where we realize something which is not choice but internal understanding of something which we now "know").