Can You Choose Your Beliefs?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I believe that I own a WiiU.

I believe this due to previous factors in my life, all of which lead me inescapably to the conclusion that I own a WiiU.

Now, here's a question: could I choose not to believe that? Could I earnestly make a choice and decide, "I don't believe I own a WiiU"?



We often talk about "changing our minds". As if we decide what to believe and what not to believe. I don't think this is a useful way of talking about how we form beliefs, as it ignores the great amount of buildup to the formation of many beliefs. Given new information, I changed my mind on the safety of GMO crops. However, had I not been exposed to that information, or had I not decided to find that information trustworthy (an entirely different set of beliefs, built up on their own experiences), I most likely would not have changed my mind. And I don't think I could have just chosen to change my mind without that information either.

So with that in mind...

I don't believe that a god exists.

I don't believe that a god exists due to a countless number of factors in my life, predominately that I simply have not seen anything that counts as evidence for such a being's existence, and I'm unsure of what even could count as evidence for such a being's existence.

Could I choose to believe in God?

 

[Sehnsucht]

Could I choose to believe in God?

Nope.

You basically have the way of it, I'd say. Beliefs are more reactionary shifts in perspective than active self-programming. If you lack the impetus for that shift, be it subjective, sensory experience or reasonable argument or whatever, then genuine shifts in belief will not happen.

I'd expect theists would agree, saying something like not being able to know the Divine until you have experienced it (via revelation or whatnot). Though there is also the issue that in order to attain such experiences, you have to go actively looking for them, and then you have problems of how to distinguish genuine revelation from slapping on "The Divine" onto some self-generated feel-good state of mind (i.e. confirmation bias and etc.).

This is also why things like Pascal's Wager fails. It asks you to just choose to believe in God because the proposed alternative is less pleasant. Yet not only does belief not work that way, but it'll create non-genuine belief, which defeats the point of the Wager. The Wager would only work as an argument if the Wager's implications are such that they cause a reactionary shift in your perspective (e.g. maybe the notion of Hell upsets you, so you start thinking believing in God might be a good ideas).

Lastly, I think that given all this, the point of debate is not for you to change someone's mind, but to incite someone to change their own mind. I see debate more as an exchange of (and exposure to) ideas; ideally, if you demonstrate your case well enough, it will give your respondent something to think about, which may ultimately lead them to reconsider some of their ideas.

And even if they don't ultimately change their stance on the issue, getting people to at least consider other perspectives is productive in its own right, I'd say. 8)

 

[Sucumbio]

On a related note the pope just made a public declaration regarding the difference between Acceptance and Belief.

We may choose to Believe God is real.
We - accept - that climate change is real. (he spoke at length about God's Tennant to be proper stewards of the planet).

Belief requires faith. Acceptance is a matter of facing facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...4d46be-14fe-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html

 

[Holder of the Heel]

While typing this I ended up going on a bit of a tangent and inserting whatever came into mind, so it might not be entirely coherent. Sorry. I'm posting it since I took the time to type it. The answer is no in the sense you can't just think and rewire your brain, of course, and often memory can betray opposition, but yes in that intellectual positions aren't exactly meaningful in the context of how one lives and thus, so in another sense, you can genuinely exist as a believer just as the believer exists as you do.

As humans, with our signs, language, culture, we spend much of our days thinking in ideas that we cannot fully know yet are either something you belong to (humanity, earthling, race, gender, etc.) or is a vague word describing a physical process or dynamic that swells or is confined based on absorbing other vague definitions (goodness, love, governance, etc.), all to a point where we overextend ourselves constantly and don't entirely mean what we say even unknowingly. This probably explains a lot of the problems with discussions of politics with democracy and parties. Participants in arguments/debates almost never compromise or give in. Existential crises that people often face as they grow older. And all the time I see people argue diametrically opposed to one another when from the outside it looks like they mean the same thing but the disagreement is coming from how it is expressed. Believing in gods and how such views still remain today probably shares the same kind of cause.

Is there really that much of a distinction between one's willingness to earnestly say in conversation that they believe an entity was involved in any of this and not? Is it impossible for an atheist to simply insert themselves into the unity of a religious communion without your mind repelling you out the door, or on the flipside, walk out not converted despite genuinely partaking in the mythology, traditions, and feelings? Does an atheist betray himself if, in a war, he charges forward with a feeling of permanence in the face of death, or is this dissociation with death just from our inability to comprehend it and existence is all we've known? If an atheist suffers great anguish and pleads to no one in particular, do we accuse him of faking his stance? What about when he goes to a grave and starts talking to the deceased, has he revealed himself to be a phony even if when he walks away believes the dead did not hear him even though the conversation was still just as mindful as he would've been if he felt otherwise? Maybe if you were religious you would try to spin these angles, but aren't these just expressions of emotion?

When a Smash Bros. player sits down at Grand Finals in a tournament and tells himself genuinely that he will win, do we accuse him of being a believer of some sort of mysticism and also call him a liar if he acknowledges after he loses that he did not literally mean it? Believing in others and ourselves is much like choosing to believe in something we "don't" believe in. Does a Christian betray himself if he doesn't refer to his Bible for all of his decision making in life every day? As atheists we could say he does because he reveals that he is really getting his conduct from "himself" and not the word of God, but we can't say he is a liar about his position. Is it irrational that our ancestors would hear a rustling in the bush and probably made the assumption that there was a predator rather than the more likely option of it being wind even if it was inevitably going to be more often than not the latter, thus through a sense of paranoiac anticipation we were saved as a species whereas other animals that could've been more right than wrong may have died off from their complacency? People can be hypocrites, cognitive dissonant, ignorant, presumptuous and I'm sure this applies to us all to some degree because of the nature of perceptions.

All of this might not make any sense, and it could all be me projecting because "coincidentally" I do not think my opinions are very definitive of who I am and I see instances in others where despite the power of the claims of positions others hold, it isn't entirely telling of them either. For example, most people here in America believe in a God, almost entirely the Abrahamic kind, but even within their own "sects" you couldn't as a result paint a picture of someone simply based on that description even if they say it's the most important thing in their life and regardless of how large the consequences of those beliefs being true would be. Imagine all the different people you've met in life, and remind yourself that nearly all of them "unite" themselves under very large labels that are supposed to define and thus confine them. Language is useful and we should be thankful it exists because it opens up our potential, but it'd be wise for us to exercise awareness of its abstractness because really my point is that it oft deceptively creates division just as it can create the opposite illusion, giving shape to things a bit beyond our scope. Our actions and the planet, universe, existence that we all share is for all intents and purposes truth, nothing more and nothing less. Even if we have every reason to believe things about reality, as far as our consciousness is concerned, it all ends with itself, and really consciousness, as an effect, and our subconsciousness that won't truly know mortality until it goes away, in consequence has nothing to say about even that.

 

[Capita]

Could I choose to believe in God?

Interesting question.
First off, I really do not like the idea of simply "believing" without actually having in faith. While I do believe in God, I did go through a period of skepticism and one question I was constantly asked was "shouldn't you believe in God, because if you and he doesn't exist, no harm done right?" As what Sehnsucht said, it's a non-genuine belief and I don't agree with the notion of altering your beliefs for the sake of self-interest. That's the reason why Democracy is so corrupted. People today, rather than think, just subscribe to their self-interest.

You can choose a route of conversion. That is entirely possible. Choosing to believe in God genuinely may lead to gaining faith in God and at the point, you actually believe in God.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Interesting question.
First off, I really do not like the idea of simply "believing" without actually having in faith.

Do you have "faith" that you own a games console the same way you have "faith" that a god exists? I require no faith for my beliefs, and I long ago came to the conclusion that faith is insufficient insofar as forming my beliefs is concerned.

While I do believe in God, I did go through a period of skepticism and one question I was constantly asked was "shouldn't you believe in God, because if you and he doesn't exist, no harm done right?" As what Sehnsucht said, it's a non-genuine belief and I don't agree with the notion of altering your beliefs for the sake of self-interest.

But was it truly altered? If someone offered me ten thousand dollars to believe that I didn't own a WiiU, I could not honestly accept that money (I would probably lie about it, though). Similarly, "I should believe because of the consequences" gets me no closer to actually believing once I've understood that the appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy.

You can choose a route of conversion. That is entirely possible. Choosing to believe in God genuinely may lead to gaining faith in God and at the point, you actually believe in God.

But my contention is that this step of "choosing to believe" is impossible, just like standing at the top of a building naked and choosing to believe that if I step off the roof, I won't die. I can't choose to believe that. How could I? Regardless of how often I repeat it to myself, it doesn't make the belief true.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Beliefs are cumulative: they build on each other like bricks. Therefore, propositions believed based on an inadequate foundation are unstable: upon scrutiny they tend to crumble or topple, their remnants eventually landing in securer spots.

We might face a post-modern objection: that although rational/empirical justification are important to you, they need not be important to everyone all the time. Instead one might use squishier alternatives like faith, intuition, or belief-as-storytelling for certain kinds of belief (e.g. religious). Why couldn't such a thinker choose to believe whatever s/he wants?

To the post-modernists, I'd reply that these squishy substitutes rob beliefs of useful features and enable mental laziness. Epistemic relativism seems like an elaborate excuse to hold false beliefs.

This is also why things like Pascal's Wager fails.

...among other reasons. This feature of belief (which we might call 'rigidity') still might allow the Wager to motivate a journey towards "a reactionary shift in your perspective" as you note. But other objections block this route, such as a wager involving anti-God (Lacsap's Wager?) whose incentives are equal and opposite to God's.

 

[_Keno_]

On one hand, belief is something that just occurs to someone. They are either persuaded that something is true, or they are not. Their feelings on the issue hold no bearing on whether or not it persuades them.

On the other hand, people will unconsciously ignore evidence contradicting a belief and grasp at evidence supporting the belief as a means of actually BELIEVING it (AKA, acting against the persuasions). I suppose this is not necessarily a DIRECT choice, but it is one way of choosing belief.

 

[_Keno_]

double post...

 

[sovereigntea]

We do not choose our beliefs

We create them

All reality is relative and socially constructed ergo

Even if god does not exist, the act of believing in god pre-supposes the existence of god. Ipso Facto god, regardless of its non-existence or existence, is an entity with social consequences

http://duckofminerva.com/2014/12/is-there-a-santa-claus.html

Much of this debate seems to revolve around faith vs. empiricism. I would remind everyone that empiricism is a socially constructed and approved framework, just like faith.

 

[the.tok]

Self persuasion can be powerful, so I don't see why you could not choose to start believing in something.
A few time later, if you try hard enough, you may start genuinely believing

 

[AfungusAmongus]

All reality is relative and socially constructed

If you're alone without social interaction, can't you still "construct" (or perceive, define, recognize, imagine) reality? Social interaction is then a tool to amplify or extend or sharpen one's own fundamental sense of reality.

Sidenote: do you identify as post-modern? Curious if I'm using the right vocabulary.

Much of this debate seems to revolve around faith vs. empiricism. I would remind everyone that empiricism is a socially constructed and approved framework, just like faith.

Firstly, as I showed above, not everything is a social construct. Neither faith nor empiricism require other people: both are to some degree natural in humans. Secondly, not all social constructs are equally valid or useful. Faith seems particularly vulnerable to flaws such as confirmation bias.

 

[sovereigntea]

If you're alone without social interaction, can't you still "construct" (or perceive, define, recognize, imagine) reality? Social interaction is then a tool to amplify or extend or sharpen one's own fundamental sense of reality.

Sidenote: do you identify as post-modern? Curious if I'm using the right vocabulary.


Firstly, as I showed above, not everything is a social construct. Neither faith nor empiricism require other people: both are to some degree natural in humans. Secondly, not all social constructs are equally valid or useful. Faith seems particularly vulnerable to flaws such as confirmation bias.

I identify with the international relations school of constructivism. Its like post-post-modern/contemporary?

It is meaningless to theorize on what people do if absolutely separated from all others for a lifetime because it is an impossibility. We are social creatures living among each other. Social interaction defines reality inasmuch as it is the vehicle for defining. Right now I'm trying to sound smart in order to earn your respect and showcase my own identity. I hope its working.

Faith and empiricism don't require other people although, again, I think it is useless and unrealistic to contemplate man as island.

I do agree that not all are equally valid/useful. I would say that faith is a coin flip and empiricism is a stumbling man who will eventually find his car in the parking lot. That being said we still need to be aware that both are systems of belief that emanate from and reflect our social interactions

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I identify with the international relations school of constructivism. Its like post-post-modern/contemporary?

This is unfamiliar ground; my experience with international relations comes largely from playing Civ. What distinguishes your view from post-modernism? Relativism based on social construction characterizes post-modernism to me.

It is meaningless to theorize on what people do if absolutely separated from all others for a lifetime because it is an impossibility. We are social creatures living among each other. Social interaction defines reality inasmuch as it is the vehicle for defining.

Contemplating man as an island, as you nicely put it, is a thought experiment intended to show that some component of reality is independent of social influence. (Do you reject the use of thought experiments? Why?) Our eyes, ears, etc. aren't just to communicate with each other, but also to explore the world. You might object that all these experiences are interpreted via socially defined worldviews. True enough, but viewing reality through social lenses doesn't make reality a social construct; if this were so, then reality would paradoxically be an individual construct as well because it is largely based on one's unique individual experiences.

Theories, on the other hand, are socially constructed to the extent that theory-crafters build on others' ideas; but original innovations do exist and many of them are best understood as individual, not social. As a theory of epistemology, empiricism was constructed both socially and individually by folks like Hume and Locke.

But empiricism is also a practice, and it is epistemological practice which determines whether or not one can choose beliefs. Empiricism is based on induction, where you extrapolate events, distant in space-time, from past experience. Hume names this process "habit", that is, "a species of natural instincts, which no reasoning or process of the thought and understanding is able either to produce or prevent" (Enquiry §5). If Hume is right, then empiricism isn't a social construct, but rather an innate mechanism for forming rigid (not chosen) beliefs.

Faith people sometimes argue that induction is a kind of faith. We might reply by distinguishing justified from unjustified kinds of faith, placing induction in the former category, and faiths that let you choose beliefs in the latter category.

Right now I'm trying to sound smart in order to earn your respect and showcase my own identity. I hope its working

So far so good: you seem able to disagree respectfully, which is a rare thing indeed! I think we agree on alot, including the relation between faith and empiricism. Our differences might be more about matters of focus than of fact.

 

[sovereigntea]

This is unfamiliar ground; my experience with international relations comes largely from playing Civ. What distinguishes your view from post-modernism? Relativism based on social construction characterizes post-modernism to me.


Contemplating man as an island, as you nicely put it, is a thought experiment intended to show that some component of reality is independent of social influence. (Do you reject the use of thought experiments? Why?) Our eyes, ears, etc. aren't just to communicate with each other, but also to explore the world. You might object that all these experiences are interpreted via socially defined worldviews. True enough, but viewing reality through social lenses doesn't make reality a social construct; if this were so, then reality would paradoxically be an individual construct as well because it is largely based on one's unique individual experiences.

Theories, on the other hand, are socially constructed to the extent that theory-crafters build on others' ideas; but original innovations do exist and many of them are best understood as individual, not social. As a theory of epistemology, empiricism was constructed both socially and individually by folks like Hume and Locke.

But empiricism is also a practice, and it is epistemological practice which determines whether or not one can choose beliefs. Empiricism is based on induction, where you extrapolate events, distant in space-time, from past experience. Hume names this process "habit", that is, "a species of natural instincts, which no reasoning or process of the thought and understanding is able either to produce or prevent" (Enquiry §5). If Hume is right, then empiricism isn't a social construct, but rather an innate mechanism for forming rigid (not chosen) beliefs.

Faith people sometimes argue that induction is a kind of faith. We might reply by distinguishing justified from unjustified kinds of faith, placing induction in the former category, and faiths that let you choose beliefs in the latter category.


So far so good: you seem able to disagree respectfully, which is a rare thing indeed! I think we agree on alot, including the relation between faith and empiricism. Our differences might be more about matters of focus than of fact.

I'm not tremendously comfortable with post-modernism although I can give you a primer on constructivism. Basically it states that people (and nation-states) interact on the basis of language, rules, norms, reciprocation, and identities rather than on the basis of power or liberalism (as realpolitik and liberal theory would suggest). Essentially it looks at the interplay of various individuals and how this forms structures that influence further interplay of individuals (so its kind of structural and poststructural/postmodern at the same time). Try to find "Anarchy is What States Make of It" if you can

Anyways I would say yes, certain truths exist. But I would also say that we can never truly grasp the truth because their is a social element to all of our undertakings and all of our understandings of the world. Constructivism has the power to link together many of these elements. We have a given structure (albeit a non-synthetic one, nature) that we understand both through individual empiricism and our social context. Our individual and social interactions with this structure alter the structure (I guess I could bring up the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle here). I apologize if I sound like a wet noodle here but constructivism is more applicable to social science than physical science, although I would say that the two need other (read Gould if you are interested in where the two intersect)

I would say that Hume is right; although I would also say that empiricism is socially informed (or perhaps social elements derive from empiricism). We form stable identities and we begin to form expectations and beliefs regarding one another. These colour our future interactions and enable us to enjoy stable iterated interactions without having to worry that the other is a knife wielding maniac.

I tend to be distrustful of the universe. I know Hume talks about knowing that the sun will come up but I think accepting this requires a certain sort of faith that we can trust yesterday. I often like to do thought experiments with the first people ever to witness winter. How would they react to everything dying around them? I can only assume that they made sacrifices to the planet and were relieved when the long nights began to wane. Talk about empiricism and extrapolation: this is probably where religion came from. Perhaps faith is an irrational and occasionally fallacious derivative of empiricism? I think that empiricism is one of the quintessential aspects of human nature. Perhaps it precedes our socialization? Of course, does this then mean that empiricism is the basis of beliefs? Does empiricism matter more than socialization in forming our opinions simply because it is more basic? At the very least we need enough faith in our empiricism to comfortably know that the sun won't explode anytime soon I suppose.

I think we are generally trying to make the same case by different means. I wouldn't even go so far as to say we disagree! You probably have the stronger case here and I am floundering around a bit but that is ok. A few more iterations and you will realize that I prefer playing the Devil's Advocate because its the best way to really learn something.

 

[Samal Lord]

In my experience, no. I used to be Catholic, but gradually stopped believing. I didn't want to stop, but eventually I realised that I didn't believe in God any more.