We do not choose what we believe.

[jmvizanko]

It seems that people are fairly black and white about the title's claim. Do we really choose what we believe, especially the things that must be taken on faith? Do we choose whether or not we are people that demand more observable evidence for our beliefs than others?

I am by no means a concrete determinist, but I think that when it comes to matters of faith, we make no conscious choice whatsoever as far as what we believe to be true. Nobody chooses to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 until they understand why it does, and nobody can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if they understand why it does not.

Granted, these mathematical statements are things that are understandable by pure logic that can be demonstrated even by physical means. But when it comes to the choice of, say, believing there is a god or not, or if it is this or that god, how do we really decide? Either we accept what we are presented by other people or some form of communication, based on its congruence with what we think is true, or what we are ingrained to think is true, or we don't.

Blah blah blah, is belief a choice?

 

[Quagmire]

The human mind isn't as linear as all that. We take a lot of detours, many on purpose.

Don't discount mental gymnastics: it's possible for someone to choose to believe something they know isn't true and visa versa.

 

[Sunstone]

There's a lot of truth to the OP, but as Quagmire notes, the brain can perform gymnastics. I think a satisfactory answer to the question of whether or not we choose what we believe would require many qualifications and great detail.

 

[ninerbuff]

I believe in science. For me if something can be proven to work/not work,etc., I am more apt to believe.

 

[Revasser]

I think we can, in some instances, choose what we believe. It is certainly possible to "brainwash" one's self into believing all sorts of things and that process is sometimes successful and even sometimes lasting.

It takes some discipline, but I think that if you can suspend your disbelief on one subject or another often enough and completely enough, eventually the conscious suspension may not be necessary anymore. "Repeating the lie..." and all that.

The things that propagandists do to make people believe need not always come from external sources, in my opinion.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it's more that we are more disposed towards certain attitudes, and among those are theistic or atheistic. That's not quite the same as "not choosing what we believe," however; an atheist who is naturally disposed towards more theistic tendencies will probably simply find something else to which those tendencies, such as devotion, can be directed.

Just my limited observation, though. I wouldn't call that a conclusion by any means; it's not even really worthy of being a thesis.

 

[ChristineES]

Some people choose to believe things. I don't think I chose to believe in God, but that doesn't mean that others did not choose.
I don't color everything black and white, I believe that there are few absolutes but mostly things are subjective.

 

[Dunemeister]

We don't choose our beliefs. They choose us.

 

[Willamena]

Granted, these mathematical statements are things that are understandable by pure logic that can be demonstrated even by physical means. But when it comes to the choice of, say, believing there is a god or not, or if it is this or that god, how do we really decide?

It's been my understanding that belief in "god" has a firm philosophical background.

Either we accept what we are presented by other people or some form of communication, based on its congruence with what we think is true, or what we are ingrained to think is true, or we don't.

Depends. "Two plus two equals four" was at one time presented by other people, at a time before we had something with which to congrue its truth.

 

[TheKnight]

It seems that people are fairly black and white about the title's claim. Do we really choose what we believe, especially the things that must be taken on faith? Do we choose whether or not we are people that demand more observable evidence for our beliefs than others?

I am by no means a concrete determinist, but I think that when it comes to matters of faith, we make no conscious choice whatsoever as far as what we believe to be true. Nobody chooses to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 until they understand why it does, and nobody can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if they understand why it does not.

Granted, these mathematical statements are things that are understandable by pure logic that can be demonstrated even by physical means. But when it comes to the choice of, say, believing there is a god or not, or if it is this or that god, how do we really decide? Either we accept what we are presented by other people or some form of communication, based on its congruence with what we think is true, or what we are ingrained to think is true, or we don't.

Blah blah blah, is belief a choice?

Your question is ultimately a question of free will and whether or not anything is a choice. But I'd rather not go there.


In response to the rest, we can't know what other people believe (or perhaps even what we ourselves believe) unless we look at the actions that are performed in response to a belief. You can say that you believe beating children is wrong all you like, but if you beat children all the time then it is clear (or at least reasonable to assume) that you don't really believe it. If behavior is the sole (true) indicator of what a person believes (I believe that it is) then to ask if belief is a choice is unanswerable.

We are able to choose how we behave, regardless of what we think (or think we think) and believe. We may know facts or believe ideas that would/should affect our behavior and yet behave in a way totally unaffected by our "beliefs". I can believe that beating children is wrong and still beat children. So then do I still believe it is wrong to beat children? When I do something wrong, or that I consider wrong, am I contradicting what I believe? Or am I simply demonstrating how little I actually believe it's wrong?

Ultimately the question is a deep question. It certainly isn't going to be solved with a simple answer.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think people really choose their beliefs.

People can certainly make choices that affect what they end up believing, like whether they investigate various religions and philosophies or not, though.

As for mental gymnastics, some people have that ability in stronger amounts than others. Some people seem to have the ability to work with mental gymnastics, while other people simply cannot. They believe what they believe and cannot pretend otherwise. My hypothesis would be that it has to do with how people compartmentalize information.

 

[nassnass]

You can choose to believe what someone tells you. In reality you are choosing to trust someone when you do this. (Shucks, there I go choosing again.)

 

[dogsgod]

Some beliefs are formulated because they appeal to our prejudices. Consider that some believe that Iraqi lives are not worth as much as American lives, or that one Israeli life is worth more than one thousand Palestinian lives. Some beliefs are attractive and so are formulated because the alternatives aren't so attractive. Take the belief of life after death. The alternative is no life after death. The problem is that reality is what it is regardless of what we want to believe about death. Sometimes reality is a cold, hard truth.

 

[Sunstone]

As for mental gymnastics, some people have that ability in stronger amounts than others. Some people seem to have the ability to work with mental gymnastics, while other people simply cannot. They believe what they believe and cannot pretend otherwise. My hypothesis would be that it has to do with how people compartmentalize information.

Sounds like a good hunch.

 

[Zardoz]

I chose what beliefs I believe, there certainly was no cultural push toward them. In fact, there's always been a problem finding a correct 'label' that summarizes what exactly I believe. Oh well.

 

[Dunemeister]

I chose what beliefs I believe, there certainly was no cultural push toward them. In fact, there's always been a problem finding a correct 'label' that summarizes what exactly I believe. Oh well.

What's your name? You have a belief about that, I presume. I also presume that you didn't choose to believe it.

Are you married? You have a belief about that, too. You don't choose to believe whatever your belief is about that.

Did you eat breakfast? You have a belief about that. You don't choose to believe that one either.

Is 5+4=9 true? You didn't choose your belief about that one, either.

This works with more complex beliefs, too. Did the US government, or elements within it, orchestrate the 9/11 attacks? Should you examine all the evidence closely, you may find that you will come away with a strong feeling that one possible answer is very likely true, and you will find yourself unable to avoid believing it. Once you believe it, you cannot force yourself to believe the contrary.

Does God exist? Is Jainism the correct religion? Is there a real difference between killing someone and letting him die, morally speaking? These questions, too, require deep thought, and after thinking about the question seriously, you may come away with a strong impression that one of a number of answers is right. Once again, you will believe that. Or you may come away highly ambivalent, and you will wind up agnostic.

In any case, choice -- whatever that is -- is irrelevant.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think many people's purported beliefs have not been consciously examined enough to be meaningfully labeled as beliefs. Many beliefs are nothing more than affectation.

 

[JustWondering]

I think most theists "chose" their religion the same way most bigots "chose" to hate certain people. That is to say their environment and community made these choices for them. Free will is an illusion.

 

[crocusj]

It seems that people are fairly black and white about the title's claim. Do we really choose what we believe, especially the things that must be taken on faith? Do we choose whether or not we are people that demand more observable evidence for our beliefs than others?

I am by no means a concrete determinist, but I think that when it comes to matters of faith, we make no conscious choice whatsoever as far as what we believe to be true. Nobody chooses to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 until they understand why it does, and nobody can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if they understand why it does not.

Granted, these mathematical statements are things that are understandable by pure logic that can be demonstrated even by physical means. But when it comes to the choice of, say, believing there is a god or not, or if it is this or that god, how do we really decide? Either we accept what we are presented by other people or some form of communication, based on its congruence with what we think is true, or what we are ingrained to think is true, or we don't.

Blah blah blah, is belief a choice?

Physical means by whom - not me. I take it on faith that Pythagorean theory works because people who I was told to listen to said it did...I have never tested it with a measuring tape. That being said, it can be measured to prove it. If it was culturally normal to marry a nine year old girl would there be a reason not to accept this, do you think this is wrong because of your culture being different or your free will to decide? Would you be able tell the difference? What makes the difference to belief (or what should make the difference) is the information available. While it is true that the vast majority of people follow the belief system of their parental/cultural influences it is also true that those in more open cultures who follow "faith" ideas are exposed to the same information as those who don't. One does not have less free will than the other yet they choose a different path, presumably because of different personalities or personal needs. If I can say that I chose what not to believe then I see no reason to doubt that another chose their belief by free will whether faith is involved or not, indeed to suggest otherwise smacks of arrogance.

 

[Zadok]

It seems that people are fairly black and white about the title's claim. Do we really choose what we believe, especially the things that must be taken on faith? Do we choose whether or not we are people that demand more observable evidence for our beliefs than others?

I am by no means a concrete determinist, but I think that when it comes to matters of faith, we make no conscious choice whatsoever as far as what we believe to be true. Nobody chooses to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 until they understand why it does, and nobody can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if they understand why it does not.

Granted, these mathematical statements are things that are understandable by pure logic that can be demonstrated even by physical means. But when it comes to the choice of, say, believing there is a god or not, or if it is this or that god, how do we really decide? Either we accept what we are presented by other people or some form of communication, based on its congruence with what we think is true, or what we are ingrained to think is true, or we don't.

Blah blah blah, is belief a choice?

Choice is an interesting paradox and illusion. Many think they are making a choice when they are in reality doing little more than a conditioned response. A great deal of what many call education is little more that the lowest or higher than lowest level of cognitive conditioning.

A great part of human society band together like sheep with a herd mentality to ostracize or punish any counter to herd thinking. I encounter such stupidity among fellow Christians when another asks me how I can be a Christian and believe in evolution? Then again among fellow scientist when they ask me how I can be a scientist and believe in G-d?

I have the impression that most threads are started on this forum; not to encourage understanding and a means of voicing concerns but a queen of hearts mentality of “How dare you question this obvious truth that I believe – why off with your head!”

How to determine when someone is responding with a conditioned response and not a knowledgeable choice? Easy – they attempt to engage in conversations on subjects they have no intent of ever considering another point of view and whenever possible to punish anyone for thinking differently.

Zadok