We can't choose to believe?

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

My religious beliefs have done full circle , loop the loops , backflips & the odd handstand if you can justify it to yourself makes you more comfortable with yourself then we free to believe whatever we want as an individual .
Hinduism is total freedom of religious thought no religious divide .

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Beliefs and creeds are a significant part of many world religions. Some groups engage in attempts to convince various sides that they have the right beliefs, while others do not. Regardless, the act of preaching or proselytizing is predicated on the notion that we can, on some level, choose what to believe. However, to what extent is this a choice? Here's a perspective for consideration:

"Whether you believe in libertarian free will or not, it is immediately obvious that what you believe in is not a choice. If you disagree – are you sure that you could simply choose out of the blue to genuinely believe in something ? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that the moon is made out of green cheese? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that 2+2=42? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that Elvis Presley was resurrected from the dead? You can´t. Try it if you don´t believe me.

Our belief-forming mechanisms operate subconsciously. You can of course change your mind on things, by reading, hearing new arguments, seeing new evidence, discussing it with others and so on – but you can´t just choose one of your beliefs, and start to genuinely believe in its negation out of the blue."
*source*​

Do you agree with this perspective? If so, why? If not, why not?

I agree with the perspective. It would take an act of God to convince someone to believe.

 

[Riverwolf]

We can't choose to believe?

Why?

The OP's quoted article explains why, as do many of the responses.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I actually disagree with what the writer suggests here, but I think I'll hold off on going into that for a while yet.

The emphasis is on parents for core beliefs

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I feel that the closest we can get to outright choosing what we believe is our ability to "convince ourselves" of a given proposition - although, in my opinion, that still doesn't quite qualify as "choosing" to believe, as convincing yourself of a proposition is usually (perhaps always) borne out of a subconscious need or desire to believe, and what we feel we need to believe isn't really a choice.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We can't choose to believe?

Why? Please
We do so many things on our own on daily basis so why one should not be free to believe if convinced. We are social that entails that whatever is truth for us should be told to our brethren in humanity and the vice a versa. Nobody has monopoly on truth. Truth must be shared with others.
Regards

Why don't you read the f**king source for once?

 

[Erebus]

Do you agree with this perspective? If so, why? If not, why not?

Yes and no.

I suspect that they're very much on the money when it comes to core beliefs. The things that are so deeply ingrained, they are most likely only going to be altered subtly and subconsciously. Even if presented with firm evidence to the contrary, core beliefs can take some time to adapt. Even when they do adapt (assuming they adapt at all) it's not through conscious choice.

However, I've made use of a few different principles of magic over the years, some of which touch on chaos magic. It certainly is possible to choose to believe in something, given the right environment and willpower. I imagine a lot of people who've practiced magic will at some point have tried working with a deity lifted from works of fiction. For the duration of the ritual, that god is very much real*
Of course, that's a very temporary change of beliefs with a specific purpose in mind. I suspect that maintaining such a belief would be difficult. It's also true that such a change of belief isn't done entirely consciously either, rather it's the result of conscious effort coupled with techniques to manipulate the subconscious.

*you know what I mean

 

[Quintessence]

How so? Is it a matter of choice to believe in something?

It may go without saying that as a hard determinist I agree that all "choice" is illusory.

What I take issue with is that the writer apparently isn't too familiar with people who can easily paradigm shift or hold multiple (and perhaps contradictory) perspectives. I suspect he's a sort of "one true truth" type of person, but I don't know. Reading that challenge quoted above in the first paragraph, I went "wait... was that supposed to be hard? And you're telling me I can't do what I just did with barely any effort? Really?"

Believing in something is often easy; it's the doing that tends to be harder. Perhaps because, as @LuisDantas said, belief is overrated. I suppose it depends much on how attached one is to some particular vision of the world as well. Seems that the less attached one is to some particular idea, the more trivial it becomes to paradigm shift for a while. We can ask ourselves - what are the things we would have great difficultly shifting out of, even for a moment? Then, it can be quite the trial (if not mentally damaging) to challenge ourselves to get out of that box we locked ourselves in.

And I'm now thinking about enacting this delightfully insane idea over the weekend...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I feel that the closest we can get to outright choosing what we believe is our ability to "convince ourselves" of a given proposition - although, in my opinion, that still doesn't quite qualify as "choosing" to believe, as convincing yourself of a proposition is usually (perhaps always) borne out of a subconscious need or desire to believe, and what we feel we need to believe isn't really a choice.

It may go without saying that as a hard determinist I agree that all "choice" is illusory.

What I take issue with is that the writer apparently isn't too familiar with people who can easily paradigm shift or hold multiple (and perhaps contradictory) perspectives. I suspect he's a sort of "one true truth" type of person, but I don't know. Reading that challenge quoted above in the first paragraph, I went "wait... was that supposed to be hard? And you're telling me I can't do what I just did with barely any effort? Really?"

Believing in something is often easy; it's the doing that tends to be harder. Perhaps because, as @LuisDantas said, belief is overrated. I suppose it depends much on how attached one is to some particular vision of the world as well. Seems that the less attached one is to some particular idea, the more trivial it becomes to paradigm shift for a while. We can ask ourselves - what are the things we would have great difficultly shifting out of, even for a moment? Then, it can be quite the trial (if not mentally damaging) to challenge ourselves to get out of that box we locked ourselves in.

And I'm now thinking about enacting this delightfully insane idea over the weekend...

On that note, Id say the "beliefs" one chooses are ones that take more discipline and will power (and energy) to keep up. Not because it helps with spiritual development but in this case its like trying to catch up on a race and you dont even like track. You dont mind runing but getting yourself to love the sport may make you think you have to win the Olympics first.

While someone who has a belief (as related to the OP) one cant choose is usually the ones that dont "feel like" beliefs but just, for lack of better words, common sense. Instead of trying to keep up in the race, you are content with your pace and ready to sprint when need be. Your spiritual growh isnt based on keeping up. Its really not based onblearning the faith To believe in it but learning your faith Because you believe in it.

I, though, dont understand how one can have conflicting beliefs. If I believed god exists, thats not a belief, that is a fact to me. I cant hold that fact and that he doesnt at the same time. Its not a philosophical idea but more common sense. Religion shoudnt be excluded that some beliefs cannot be believed true/are fact while obholding a contradicting one.

Unless, as I see, the belief is flexible in definitions. Why does religion need to be flexible but laws of nature is not. If thats the case, we can change beliefs to whatever we want in a snap.

According to the OP, it doesnt work that way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I take issue with is that the writer apparently isn't too familiar with people who can easily paradigm shift or hold multiple (and perhaps contradictory) perspectives. I suspect he's a sort of "one true truth" type of person, but I don't know. Reading that challenge quoted above in the first paragraph, I went "wait... was that supposed to be hard? And you're telling me I can't do what I just did with barely any effort? Really?"

But are you really asserting that you can simply change your beliefs on a dime, or are you perhaps simply suggesting that a person can alternate their point of view or imagine what it is like to hold a particular view? A paradigm shift doesn't necessarily constitute a change of beliefs, merely a change of perspective. Depending, of course, on what you consider a paradigm shift to be.

For example, could you simply choose to believe that your bedroom window is just as appropriate a means to exit your home as your front door? Can you honestly change your belief to an extent that you can simply choose to step out of your bedroom window (assuming it is above the ground floor) and not have the expectation of falling? It's one thing to say your beliefs are changing, but to actually alter that which you hold to be true by mere act of will seems impossible to me.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

The absense of disbelief is a fine balance. 1%
51% is a democracy in my own subjective

 

[Kueid]

I disagree. I can change my beliefs at will and anyone can too, given the proper education.

 

[Riverwolf]

I disagree. I can change my beliefs at will and anyone can too, given the proper education.

Aye, but there's the rub: "given the proper education." If it were simply a matter of will, "proper education" wouldn't matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Whether you believe in libertarian free will or not, it is immediately obvious that what you believe in is not a choice. If you disagree – are you sure that you could simply choose out of the blue

Logical flaw. The author conflates the "immediately obvious" FALSE conclusion that one has a choice in what one believes with the notion of choosing "out of the blue". Just because my choices are informed by experience, genetics, yesterday, the language I speak, etc. (i.e., my choices aren't "out of the blue") doesn't necessitate that I can't actually have real options I chose from out of a set of options I COULD have.

Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that the moon is made out of green cheese? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that 2+2=42? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that Elvis Presley was resurrected from the dead? You can´t. Try it if you don´t believe me.

What's to try? If I can try this, then it is possible to determine whether or not I can choose or not choose. If I CAN "try" or determine this, then it must be the case that I can choose (for otherwise, I could not help but determine either that I can choose or that I cannot). Likewise, if there is something that I "can't" do when it comes to choices, then I can't possibly "try" to do that which I can't choose if I don't believe.

Our belief-forming mechanisms operate subconsciously.

If this were true, then one must ask how these mechanisms allow for consciousness. If my subconscious states completely determine what my conscious decisions are, then my conscious state literally IS my subconscious state. Better yet, my "consciousness" is nothing other than subconscious mechanisms that are explained ad hoc by adding "I" to the subconscious and mysteriously removing any need for both the link between the subconscious mechanisms and the conscious experience.

You can of course change your mind on things

How? Is this not, per the argument, determined by subconscious mechanisms? If it is, then "I" can't change my "mind", and if it isn't then the argument is moot.

Do you agree with this perspective? If so, why? If not, why not?

No, for reasons I've given above as well as here, here, and in a very old thread I can't find (and elsewhere, actually).

 

[Kueid]

Aye, but there's the rub: "given the proper education." If it were simply a matter of will, "proper education" wouldn't matter.

I said "anyone" not "everyone". Some don't need "proper education".

 

[Riverwolf]

I said "anyone" not "everyone". Some don't need "proper education".

So, basically, you're saying that some have the total choice regardless, and some need "proper education" (quesitonable, since who gets to decide what constitutes as "proper"?)... what about those who may not be able to at all, for whatever reason, regardless of said "proper education"?

 

[Kueid]

So, basically, you're saying that some have the total choice regardless, and some need "proper education" (quesitonable, since who gets to decide what constitutes as "proper"?)... what about those who may not be able to at all, for whatever reason, regardless of said "proper education"?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Proper is when the objective of the education is achieved. Those who don't know to do a thing will not do, whats the problem with that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think there appears to be some difficulty amongst some posters from differentiating the general concept of belief as "propositions that we hold to be true" and the notion of conscious desire or decisions, and hence people seem to be equating the two.

I recently read an article on LessWrong.com that might help. The author provides two distinct terms in order to illustrate the difference between conscious decisions and subconscious truth values. He refers to them as Binary Beliefs and Bayesian Beliefs (they're big on Bayesian Probability theory on lesswrong.com). The article itself was about the notion of "belief in belief", the notion of claiming to accept something as true, or believing you accept something as true, without accepting it as necessarily true. Nevertheless, I still felt like its use of definitions to make the distinction is quite useful in this discussion.

In brief, the author defined Binary Beliefs along the lines of statements and actions. In other words, it is what we say we believe or what we may act as if it is true. We can choose our Binary Beliefs, because we can choose what we claim to believe, and we can still act as if something is true regardless of what we hold its true value to be. For example, we can say that we prefer to leave the house from our bedroom window, and may even decide to climb out of our bedroom window on occasion. So Binary Beliefs can be said to be chosen.

Bayesian Beliefs, on the other hand, are entirely involuntary. Bayesian Beliefs relate to the actual assessed probability we hold for given propositions in our minds, and this is not something that we can simply decide to change as a voluntary act of will. To use my previous metaphor, while you may choose to say your bedroom window is a good method to leave your house, and you may even choose to step out of your window if you really want to, no amount of will can alter the notion in your head that throwing yourself out of that window will not result in you falling several feet and likely hurting yourself. Without information altering your assessed probability, you cannot simply choose to believe that you are more likely to simply walk out of your bedroom window without falling than you are to walk out of your bedroom window and fall to the earth.

We can alter how we act to the world in accordance with personal desire, but we cannot voluntarily choose the propositions that we actually hold to be true as a matter of assessment, probability or personal acceptance. These beliefs are necessarily subconscious and involuntary, as we cannot simply choose to alter that which we feel we have already assessed, or the probability we hold for a given proposition. We may change how we assess or we may change the probabilities we assign to particular propositions, but the beliefs that result from these alterations are still a matter that decided subconsciously by the process utilised. Beliefs are the destination reached via given assessments of the information we have, and as such cannot be said to be beholden to our conscious will.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I disagree. I can change my beliefs at will and anyone can too, given the proper education.

So long as your childhood didn't bias you , is a different experience to all , later in life adults should know wrong from right but sometimes I wonder.

 

[Kueid]

So long as your childhood didn't bias you , is a different experience to all , later in life adults should know wrong from right but sometimes I wonder.

Me too.