Is Belief (or Lack Thereof) a Choice?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that true?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, on the condition that you understand how your brain works and can understand that truth is cognitive state.
You can't point to truth and you can't point to God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually they do. I have posted several links to the physicality of emotions.

Yes, but they are not objective, thus there are no objective physical evidence for them. They are inferred based on the assumption that the mind is a process in the brain in a physical universe.

If you found a person without training in interpreting brains scans and the chemical formulas for processes in the brain, that person couldn't tell what those scans and formulas were about.

 

[viole]

Yes, on the condition that you understand how your brain works and can understand that truth is cognitive state.
You can't point to truth and you can't point to God.

So, what you are saying is that there is at least one truth that you consider as objective, and not depending on how our, well, your brain works.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, what you are saying is that there is at least one truth that you consider as objective, and not depending on how our, well, your brain works.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

Well, yes. We can talk about one version of truth based on the assumption that the universe is real, orderly and knowable. Remember I am a skeptic.
But there are more ways to talk about truth than that version.

 

[ChristineM]

Is belief a choice? Why or why not?

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

Yes and no.

Belief (i assume you mean religious belief) is part if childhood learning. In general children take on the belief of their parents and stick with them for life.

However some people may question what they were taught and choose a different belief

 

[viole]

Well, yes. We can talk about one version of truth based on the assumption that the universe is real, orderly and knowable. Remember I am a skeptic.
But there are more ways to talk about truth than that version.

So, are you skeptic that things like 2+2=4 are negotiable?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, are you skeptic that things like 2+2=4 are negotiable?

Ciao

- viole

Well, no, but in a sense that it is not universal in brains. There are humans, that can't do that, but they are still humans. To me 2+2=4 is dependent on a given brain or a computer build to do that. So it is local as far as I can tell, but true in that sense.

We are entering sociology and psychology in effect. As much as logic is useful, it is not objectively useful. It is useful for humans in a limited sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and no.

Belief (i assume you mean religious belief) is part if childhood learning. In general children take on the belief of their parents and stick with them for life.

However some people may question what they were taught and choose a different belief

That is not limited to religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is not limited to religion.

Maybe true, but as the initial post began addressing belief or non-belief the intent is concerning religious belief,

What other sort of 'belief' would this thread refer to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe true, but as the initial post began addressing belief or non-belief the intent is concerning religious belief,

What other sort of 'belief' would this thread refer to.

Depending on what is assumed about what we can know about the universe, we get:
Beliefs about what we ought to do.
Beliefs about what we assume knowledge to be.
Beliefs about what we assume logic is.
Beliefs about the metaphysics/ontology of objective reality not just for religion.

Now I don't want to debate you, but as an overview it covers the different versions of skepticism and cover the 4 main categories within philosophy.

 

[Audie]

I don’t draw any particular conclusion, partly because the more I read about QM, the less I understand. Bohr and the Copenhagenists took an anti-realist view of QM, whereas I would lean more towards Einstein’s assertion that “the programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of [reality] as it supposedly exists.”

I supplied that quote as a rejoinder to those who believe scientific realism trumps all arguments from metaphysics, without any consideration or awareness of the question,
“What is real?”

One lesson philosophy should learn from modern science, is that much of what we perceive as reality is predicated on illusion resulting from perspective. That the sun rises in the east and sets in the west accords absolutely with our every day observations; but we have learned that this is not the case at all. Rather than hubris, and an inflated sense of his own developing omniscience, it seems to me that the last several centuries of scientific endeavour should inspire humility in man. Yet there are those, many on this forum, who appear to think the purpose of science is to eliminate mystery and wonder, and slam firmly shut the doors of perception.

It takes little to nothing to trump an
argument from metaphysics.

 

[Audie]

So, are you skeptic that things like 2+2=4 are negotiable?

Ciao

- viole

Some of our " skeptics" are not
skeptical of themselves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some of our " skeptics" are not
skeptical of themselves.

Yeah, for you and I that works in both directions.

The difference I don't care about being wrong for the subjective of what the world really is, because as a general skeptic, I just point out that we both seem to be the world, not matter how wrong I am.

 

[viole]

Yeah, for you and I that works in both directions.

The difference I don't care about being wrong for the subjective of what the world really is, because as a general skeptic, I just point out that we both seem to be the world, not matter how wrong I am.

The problem with your position is that it is self defeating. Affirming it, is equivalent to denying it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

That's right. But even scientists occasionally fail at thinking. That's why we don't trust scientists but the scientific method, i.e. scientific thinking that has been checked and double checked..

The scientific method can also fail in sciences where opinion rules the roost, such as archaeology.

 

[Brian2]

Traditionally, no. "Belief" means that one sees truth in a thing, and one lacks belief when there's no such seeing of truth in a thing. No choice involved.

Sometimes arguments against a belief or evidence against a belief can lead to doubt, truth can be seen in both sides and then choice can come into the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem with your position is that it is self defeating. Affirming it, is equivalent to denying it.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, but that is a general feature of all systems in the end and not just mine.
Nobody as far has avoided Agrippa's Trilemma, the is-ought problem, the problem of the thing in itself, and the limit of the law of non-contradiction.
In psychological terms it seems that brains are not build to be logical coherent in effect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Traditionally, no. "Belief" means that one sees truth in a thing, and one lacks belief when there's no such seeing of truth in a thing. No choice involved.

That depends on the cognition involved as far as I can tell.

 

[Heyo]

The scientific method can also fail in sciences where opinion rules the roost, such as archaeology.

That is sadly true. But the chance of errors is massively reduced and even dogmatic "Truth™s" are eventually eradicated (like that there were no female warriors).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is sadly true. But the chance of errors is massively reduced and even dogmatic "Truth™s" are eventually eradicated (like that there were no female warriors).

Or what a disorder is.