We can't choose to believe?

[ImmortalFlame]

Usually I'm sardonic rather than sarcastic yet in this case since I've changed my beliefs before I'm perfectly capable of doing it again and doing it at will. You imply that you can just not in good conscience.

There's a difference between CHANGING beliefs and CHOOSING beliefs. Beliefs can change for all sorts of reasons, but the actual change itself is not a choice - it is the outcome of subconscious mental processes. You cannot change a belief purely as a voluntary act of will.

 

[Quintessence]

Belief, in this context, is taking something as truth without any verifiable evidence. Can you give an example?

Dang, if that's how you're defining belief than it gets even easier to choose on a whim! Talk about setting a low bar... it doesn't need to be backed with anything!

Blerg is true. There's your example. Simple, super duper easy. It gets harder if blerg has to be defined and categorized. Or if you have a particularly rigid idea of what truth is, then you can't do even the simple things. I only see stories, all of which are true in some sense or another. Which is why this is generally pretty darned easy for me... or other people who see maps of territories. People that the blog writer apparently hasn't met or denies the existence of. Oh well.

 

[leibowde84]

Dang, if that's how you're defining belief than it gets even easier to choose on a whim! Talk about setting a low bar... it doesn't need to be backed with anything!

Blerg is true. There's your example. Simple, super duper easy. It gets harder if blerg has to be defined and categorized. Or if you have a particularly rigid idea of what truth is, then you can't do even the simple things. I only see stories, all of which are true in some sense or another. Which is why this is generally pretty darned easy for me... or other people who see maps of territories. People that the blog writer apparently hasn't met or denies the existence of. Oh well.

Umm, I said verifiable evidence, not evidence in general. Many people base their beliefs on personal experience, which is not verifiable.

 

[leibowde84]

Dang, if that's how you're defining belief than it gets even easier to choose on a whim! Talk about setting a low bar... it doesn't need to be backed with anything!

Blerg is true. There's your example. Simple, super duper easy. It gets harder if blerg has to be defined and categorized. Or if you have a particularly rigid idea of what truth is, then you can't do even the simple things. I only see stories, all of which are true in some sense or another. Which is why this is generally pretty darned easy for me... or other people who see maps of territories. People that the blog writer apparently hasn't met or denies the existence of. Oh well.

My point is that it seems impossible for a person to actually have faith in something unless they actually think it is true. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Draka]

I think some here are taking the personal revelation that they do believe something different now than they had before as that they somehow made a choice when all that really happened was that they realized their mind had come to another conclusion. That is not choice.

One cannot, simply cannot, just choose to believe something that is contradictory to what they have established in their mind as known truth. That's like having an aversion to strawberries all your life, not only never having liked them, but hate them to the point they make you gag. The smell, the taste, just vomit worthy, perhaps even give you hives. Everything you know about strawberries is disgusting. Now, right after someone held out a strawberry and you smelled it and gagged, you just up and decide to choose to love strawberries. Start popping them in your mouth with no problem. No gag, no hives, no bad taste or smell. You just love them. And why? You just decided to choose to.

Go on and substitute any food you absolutely detest and sickens you in there in place of strawberries and see how it works.

Or music, try music, you hate hate hate rap music. It's headache inducing to you. Just choose to love it. Can't get enough of it. Meditate to it.

How about the WBC. You can't stand them. You just know they are so very wrong and hateful and bigoted. You've stood on corners and protested them. Now...choose to belong to their church and fervently believe everything they espouse to the very core of you. Hate gays. Hate military members and veterans. Hate people in the entertainment business even though you don't know them. Tell people they are going to Hell and will burn forever and they deserve it. And...BELIEVE it. Go on, right now. convert to the WBC. Honestly. Just choose it. It's easy right? Truly BELIEVE the hate they spew. I want to see some of you who say belief is a choice actually start espousing WBC positions in other threads. I want you to make me believe that you truly believe.

Belief is not a choice.

 

[Desert Snake]

Umm, I said verifiable evidence, not evidence in general. Many people base their beliefs on personal experience, which is not verifiable.

That /can be, verified by the person themselves. Your statement, concept here, is illogical. We have our own basis's for evidence, what we consider thusly, etc. You are like a broken record, with this 'verifiable' stuff, but it simply is not relevant.

It's ''off topic''.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Evolution ? Or mutations forced by radioactivity?

 

[leibowde84]

That /can be, verified by the person themselves. Your statement, concept here, is illogical. We have our own basis's for evidence, what we consider thusly, etc. You are like a broken record, with this 'verifiable' stuff, but it simply is not relevant.

It's ''off topic''.

Nope. Subjective experience has been shown to be unreliable, conclusively. That is why eye witness testimony is so often the most unreliable and ever changing. That is why verifiable evidence is necessary for extraordinary claims. Or at least it should be. What we experience personally is tainted by our brain trying to interpret even before we experience it at all. That is a fact. Thus, personal experience shouldn't be trusted with absolute faith.

 

[Willamena]

Evolution ? Or mutations forced by radioactivity?

It can't be both?

 

[leibowde84]

Evolution ? Or mutations forced by radioactivity?

Radioactivity?

Nope. Subjective experience has been shown to be unreliable, conclusively. That is why eye witness testimony is so often the most unreliable and ever changing. That is why verifiable evidence is necessary for extraordinary claims. Or at least it should be. What we experience personally is tainted by our brain trying to interpret even before we experience it at all. That is a fact. Thus, personal experience shouldn't be trusted with absolute faith.

 

[Willamena]

Nope. Subjective experience has been shown to be unreliable, conclusively. That is why eye witness testimony is so often the most unreliable and ever changing. That is why verifiable evidence is necessary for extraordinary claims. Or at least it should be. What we experience personally is tainted by our brain trying to interpret even before we experience it at all. That is a fact. Thus, personal experience shouldn't be trusted with absolute faith.

If I am standing in France, looking at the Eiffel Tower, I have a subjective experience. If a hundred other people are looking at the same tower, each of their subjective experiences can verify mine.

Your view is too blanket.

 

[leibowde84]

If I am standing in France, looking at the Eiffel Tower, I have a subjective experience. If a hundred other people are looking at the same tower, each of their subjective experiences can verify mine.

Your view is too blanket.

No, that is exactly right, and you are supporting my point. Su jectuve experience can certainly be verified by the experiences of others seeing the same thing at the same time. I was referring to experiences that aren't verified in this way.

 

[Willamena]

No, that is exactly right, and you are supporting my point. Su jectuve experience can certainly be verified by the experiences of others seeing the same thing at the same time. I was referring to experiences that aren't verified in this way.

If you are the only person in the world and you see a flying saucer zoom overhead--a real flying saucer--then you had a verifiable experience. It's verifiability is about objectivity, it has nothing to do with you or with the number of people involved.

 

[leibowde84]

If you are the only person in the world and you see a flying saucer zoom overhead--a real flying saucer--then you had a verifiable experience. It's verifiability is about objectivity, it has nothing to do with you or with the number of people involved.

How so? If you are the only one who saw it, how is it verified?

 

[Willamena]

How so? If you are the only one who saw it, how is it verified?

By objectivity.

By truth.

 

[leibowde84]

If you are the only person in the world and you see a flying saucer zoom overhead--a real flying saucer--then you had a verifiable experience. It's verifiability is about objectivity, it has nothing to do with you or with the number of people involved.

How could it be verified as being a "real flying saucer"? One can't verify their own experience internally. That would be absurd.

 

[leibowde84]

By objectivity.

By truth.

What does that mean? Wouldn't you have to determine the "truth" from some external source? What if it was an illusion. Our brains often incorrectly make assumptions about our experience, altering how we perceive the world around us.

 

[Willamena]

How could it be verified as being a "real flying saucer"? One can't verify their own experience internally. That would be absurd.

It's verified as being a real flying saucer the same way the monitor or device in front of you now is verified as real.

 

[leibowde84]

By objectivity.

By truth.

And, if you are the only one who saw it, by definition, it cannot be objectively verified in any way shape or form.

 

[Willamena]

What does that mean? Wouldn't you have to determine the "truth" from some external source? What if it was an illusion. Our brains often incorrectly make assumptions about our experience, altering how we perceive the world around us.

If someone else has to tell you what the truth is, you're doing wrong.