Is Belief (or Lack Thereof) a Choice?

[Yerda]

Where is this actual reality? I can't reach it with any of my 5 senses.

How can you be sure that what you percieve isn't reality?

I have found no scientific instruments, that can measure it.

How can you know this?

And when I google the scientific theory of actual reality, I can't find the theory of it.
So where is it?

How about, all the theories are theories of actual reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can you be sure that what you percieve isn't reality?

How can you know this?

How about, all the theories are theories of actual reality?

Well, what level of skepticism do you want?
Metaphysics?
Logic?
Epistemology?
Ethics?

They are all in play.

 

[Yerda]

Well, what level of skepticism do you want?
Metaphysics?
Logic?
Epistemology?
Ethics?

They are all in play.

Which do you find most instructive?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which do you find most instructive?

Logic. In short of the law of non-contradiction for 2 different cases of limited time and place, it is not a contradiction if we can do it differently.
Some people omit time and place and in effect do: I am X and you are not X, so you are wrong.

 

[1213]

Is belief a choice? Why or why not?

Is lack of belief a choice? Why or why not?

I think it is a choice, for example because it goes like this: "Do you believe ..., yes or no?". When you choose your answer, you have made a choice.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Correct, as a case of what is. Now we just have to figure what we ought to do.

Not my problem. All I suggest is that people accept what is apparent to most who acknowledge the progress we have made over the centuries (as to the various science disciplines explaining so much) and not to promote things that are ludicrously against this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not my problem. All I suggest is that people accept what is apparent to most who acknowledge the progress we have made over the centuries (as to the various science disciplines explaining so much) and not to promote things that are ludicrously against this.

Yeah, for the bold word, the problem is, it is not science.
That seems to be a general theme for your tribe of "atheists in some sense and doing science". You don't notice when you stop being atheists and don't do science.
As always you do is and ought in combination and take the ought for granted.
So your problem is that you confuse is and ought. My problem is that I don't care about what reality really is, but how we ought to live.

 

[PureX]

I guess we have a choice right up until we choose to believe that we don't have a choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, the problem is that the meaning of the bold one, is not logical as such, not physical and not measurable and thus not real.
You have made an axiomatic system, that works in you mind, that is all.

Then you must be in my mind as well. So you and your comments must not be real.
If that is your preference to believe yourself a figment of my imagination.

 

[Nakosis]

The thought itself is not physical, even though it registers in the physical body. I'm talking about the actual content of the thought itself. And love itself is more than just chemicals. It has a content that is not physical, nor is the content understood by looking at brain scans. You cannot understand love, by looking at chemicals. If it was all just a matter of biology, then why bother to consult poets? Why not just a team of lab researchers with test tubes and pocket protectors?

If you prefer to seek knowledge about the universe by consulting with poets, good luck with that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then you must be in my mind as well. So you and your comments must not be real.
If that is your preference to believe yourself a figment of my imagination.

No, the problem is that real is an idea just like God, but you don't understand that.
There is a reason how come it is methodological naturalism. But we will never ever get close to that as long as your subjective real is objectively real. That is no differently than subjective God is objectively God. It is the same psychology just for different words.

 

[wellwisher]

Is belief a choice? Why or why not?

Is lack of belief a choice? Why or why not?

I would say yes to both. Belief and faith occurs due to internal data verification; gut feelings. While lack of faith and belief often occur due to lack of such reaffirming data.

Faith is the belief in things not seen. This does not preclude internal data, since these data do not use the classic five senses entry point. Whereas, those who depend only on the external inout into the fives senses, will not get any data that way, so they have to come to the conclusion their faith cannot be sensory confirmed. That is not how faith works.

Faith accesses the same internal data base where all innovation and art originate. This is why religion and art go together so well; glorious architecture, sculpture and paintings.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, for the bold word, the problem is, it is not science.
That seems to be a general theme for your tribe of "atheists in some sense and doing science". You don't notice when you stop being atheists and don't do science.
As always you do is and ought in combination and take the ought for granted.
So your problem is that you confuse is and ought. My problem is that I don't care about what reality really is, but how we ought to live.

Well a 6,000-year-old Earth is ludicrous, as is the notion we descended from some mythical pair of humans around this time, and thus doing a disservice to all those of our ancestors that lived 200,000- 300,00 years ago. Plus the fact that we are somehow special and so distant from all other life. This is my base line. Not bothered as to much else, given we often make burdens for ourselves by our own beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well a 6,000-year-old Earth is ludicrous, as is the notion we descended from some mythical pair of humans around this time, and thus doing a disservice to all those of our ancestors that lived 200,000- 300,00 years ago. Plus the fact that we are somehow special and so distant from all other life. This is my base line. Not bothered as to much else, given we often make burdens for ourselves by our own beliefs.

Well, and that is all non-science is. You are building a straw man of what religion is, that doesn't match the actual everyday world. But of course that is not subjective, but rather you have evidence that this is all non-science is.
As long as you can't account for when you are subjective as above, this will continue.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, and that is all non-science is. You are building a straw man of what religion is, that doesn't match the actual everyday world. But of course that is not subjective, but rather you have evidence that this is all non-science is.
As long as you can't account for when you are subjective as above, this will continue.

Not really. But if some of these delusions appear in religious beliefs then that is their problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really. But if some of these delusions appear in religious beliefs then that is their problem.

Yes and all delusions are only found in religious worldviews and not other worldviews.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes and all delusions are only found in religious worldviews and not other worldviews.

Never said that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Never said that.

So stop targeting only religions.
Here is an example for 2 versions of science:
Science is verification and induction.
Science is not verification, but the ability to falsify and doesn't include induction.

And both are of course true and with proof.

 

[Nakosis]

No, the problem is that real is an idea just like God, but you don't understand that.
There is a reason how come it is methodological naturalism. But we will never ever get close to that as long as your subjective real is objectively real. That is no differently than subjective God is objectively God. It is the same psychology just for different words.

So does that mean you are real or you are not real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So does that mean you are real or you are not real?

Or that is unknown. I reject your hidden assumption for what knowledge is and use another. Go figure.