We do not choose what we believe.

[Falvlun]

I think Riverwolf made a good point. Our genetics and environment predispose us towards a particular belief system-- or method of acquiring beliefs. But they don't cement us in to one belief or another, ie, every person born with a predisposition to violence and raised in a bad neighborhood won't become a felon.

And she went a step further, which I think was rather astute: If someone with tendencies towards a particular belief system actually chooses a different one, then those tendencies would probably find a release in some other aspect, ie our violence-prone kid could channel his aggression into martial arts instead of joining a gang.

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

That's just what a belief IS. It's an attitude/affectation toward a proposition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's just what a belief IS. It's an attitude/affectation toward a proposition.

af·fec·ta·tion (

f

k-t

sh

n)
n. 1. A show, pretense, or display.
2. a. Behavior that is assumed rather than natural; artificiality.
b. A particular habit, as of speech or dress, adopted to give a false impression.



Yeah, I agree that this describes most people's beliefs.

 

[Zardoz]

I have come to believe that this thread is a waste of time.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

You'd be interested in my thread with Dunemeister (called, oddly enough, "For Dunemeister") as we were just discussing deontological facets of belief and Locke's epistemology; which covers much of what you're bringing up here.

To respond to your question, some beliefs are a choice and others are not. Some beliefs are self-evident and incorrigible in such a way that once understood they can't possibly be denied (such as the law of identity). Other beliefs which have more subtle and complex labyrinths of justification are chosen due to our limited status as finite beings that can make mistakes.

Since there is one reality, then in a perfect world with infinite justifications there would be no choice in beliefs because given a possible belief and the same epistemology and the same justifications we would all arrive at the same answer and necessarily so. However in the real world we don't have the same epistemologies or the same justifications, so indeed many of our beliefs are choices.

 

[Willamena]

Since there is one reality, then in a perfect world with infinite justifications there would be no choice in beliefs because given a possible belief and the same epistemology and the same justifications we would all arrive at the same answer and necessarily so. However in the real world we don't have the same epistemologies or the same justifications, so indeed many of our beliefs are choices.

I'm not following. How does "a perfect world with infinite justifications" lead to everyone having "the same epistomology"?

 

[ErikErik]

In a family you can have an atheist, a catholic, an agnostic and a protestant. So, yes, you do choose what you believe.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not following. How does "a perfect world with infinite justifications" lead to everyone having "the same epistomology"?

In a perfect world where people had infinite justifications for everything (i.e. omniscience) then beliefs would be the same; at least about ontologies, since there is one reality and therefore only one correct thing for them to omnisciently believe.

 

[Willamena]

In a perfect world where people had infinite justifications for everything (i.e. omniscience) then beliefs would be the same; at least about ontologies, since there is one reality and therefore only one correct thing for them to omnisciently believe.

And you see no problem with the idea of "belief in ontology"? Do those beliefs exist?