Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can only speak for myself. But, I cannot choose to believe anything that I have not been convinced of. So, I cannot "choose" to believe something. My beliefs are dependent on supporting evidence. And, even when something "makes sense" to me, I still am skeptical, as lots of things that seemed true have been found to be false when evidence has been discovered. It really is as simple as that.
But aren't you choosing the point at which you become "convinced"?
But aren't you determining what you will accept as supporting evidence, and what you won't?
I think it only appears simple if you ignore all that ways in which it's not. And I think you think you have no choice because you're ignoring all the choices you're making as you determine for yourself what is "true" and what isn't.
No. The point I become convinced is not a conscious choice. It is out of my control. At some point, a claim seems valid due to supporting evidence.
No. For example, I can't choose to accept the subjective experience of others as evidence for God's existence. It just isn't reliable enough. I can't choose to accept logically fallacious arguments like God of the gaps because they don't hold up to reason. I don't choose to ignore these kinds of evidence. They merely do not convince me.
When it comes to evidence and what convinces me, it isn't a choice. I can't just ignore my own skepticism and necessity for reasoned arguments. It is out of my control.
Just because you aren't consciously choosing when your burden of proof has been met doesn't mean that you aren't still choosing. You're just choosing not to be consciously aware of it. You make such subconscious choices all the time, all day long. Just because you are paying attention to yourself as you make them doesn't mean that you didn't make them.
Of course you could. You are simply choosing not to.
You are also choosing to hold that opinion, as opposed to some other.
They don't hold up to who's reasoning? And who is determining that they don't hold up? Again, you, and only you.
But you are choosing the evidence. You are choosing the standards that evidence has to meet. You are make the judgment, and you are applying the reasoning for it all. And you could change any of these parameters at any time, for any reason you choose. No one else is stopping you. No thing is stopping you.
Why isn't it? I see absolutely nothing standing in the way of you choosing to believe anything you want. And so far all you keep doing is repeating that you can't. WHY? Why can't you? You are already doing it.
Of course you can. No one is controlling you, but you. I find this deliberate forfeiture of self-responsibility very weird, and very puzzling. And particularly the dogged determination with which you hold to it. Do you like fantasizing that you're some sort of "slave to reason"?
Most of the Bible is comprised of mythical stories. They were never intended to be taken as historical fact. They were not even intended to convey "the big answers" about God. They were intended to be used as sources of contemplation, of discussion and debate, and even argument. They were intended to remind the readers of the inexplicable nature of their 'omni-God'. And of the fact that they were meant to 'grapple' with this mighty God throughout their lives. It's why they called this God "the living God".
I am unable to be consciously aware. I am convinced when the evidence dictates it. When the evidence is lacking, I am unable to believe. I could lie and say that I believe, but it would be nothing more than a falsity.
They don't hold up to objective logic. The current lack of explanation in now way provides evidence for the existence of God. Pretty much any logistician will tell you that an argument from ignorance like the God of the gaps is a flawed argument.
Again, I don't choose the standard of evidence that convinces me. The quality of the evidence dictates whether I am convinced by it. I could lie and say that something convinces me, but it would be, just that, a lie.
"Convince", in this context, means "to move by argument or evidence to belief". The evidence does the "moving" here. If the evidence is good enough it "moves me to belief" or "convinces" me. I don't choose to be convinced.
No. The ability to entertain beliefs is the ability to think about the consequences of something if it were true.
Your assumption here is that people believe things are true because they believe them. This is not the case. That I believe something to be true has no bearing on the truth of that something. All I am doung is explaining that there is a difference between believing A is true (I would say holding that A is the case) and entertaining A as true holding that if A, then x follows. This is proof by contradiction. This seems to be getting down to whether there is a difference between holding A is true and Assuming A is true.
"Believ[ing] things are true?"
What is it to believe? If it is to accept that things are true, then believing in that is a redundancy.
The statement i dont believe in believing things are true, though awkward, seems to imply, given the context of the discussion, that you do not believe that one can believe things are true. This seems to be be contradictory. Alternatively you could be declaring believing something is true is distinguished from believing in something.
I believe that just because we can put words together in a way that looks cohesive doesn't mean our sentence makes sense. Yes.
Being convinced that something is true does not mean that you are completely without doubt. It means that the evidence has caused you to think something is far more likely than not. I think the amount of evidence necessary for this is based on so many different aspects of your life, experiences, and values that it is impossible to consciously make any choice in this context. If you are to bypass this unconscious judgment, you are being dishonest. But, the judgment is not controlled by me directly.
The level of objectivity, verifiability, knowledge of the reputation and expertise of those making evidentiary claims, bias, etc.