• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can You Choose What You Believe?

Koldo

Outstanding Member
In this case the "cause" is so universal (literally) that the "physical evidence" is everything or nothing. Which makes the demand for it pointless.

Honestly it depends. If it is a deist god, I agree with you. But if it is a christian, muslim or jewish god, for instance, there are a lot of stories in the religious texts that if true would count as physical evidence.

Everyone chooses to accept as true whatever proposed ideas "work for them" within their experience and understanding of existence. Once we have accepted an idea as such, it becomes part of our experience and understanding of 'reality', that we then use to decide what new proposals we will accept as being true. Thus, our expectations (and demands for "evidence") are determined by our previous choices, and our bias becomes self-confirming.

Ok, but I would like you to explain in detail how you get to make that choice. Actually, let me rephrase myself: Exemplify it to me and explain it step by step. I take it you believe this post is not a figment of your imagination. Can you explain step by step how and when you have made this choice ?
 
But no life truths are ever that simple for the one black (ugly) swan can be seen as a lovely duck.

Truth is rarely as simple as a logical syllogism. There are always many moving parts. When one tries to wield a simple rule as a sword for deciding things, that sword or its wielder is always broken by the diversity of reality.

You still don't pick beliefs. The world gives them to you.

Isn't it strange that most Christian's come from christian households, most Muslims from Muslim families. If you could just 'pick' how you viewed reality we should expect a lot more divergence.
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
Please help me to understand your conceptualization of "soul."

The "soul" is between the "body" and the "spirit", as we are tripartite (three parts) beings.
it's just the "vehicle" we need and use to come here, into physical matter (form).
Our gross physical body dies, but we have several other "subtle bodies" we have to "work through".
So between incarnations we still reside in one or more of our subtle bodies in the "afterlife".

So all the "bodies" we have, gross and subtle, along with all the life experiences and knowledge and wisdom gained from them,
is what our "soul" is.
Once we have attained enough knowledge and wisdom, we don't need the "soul" anymore because we will
have come to know who we are, which is "Spirit".
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Sigh.

Word salad.
Don't mind him. He recently just learned about philosophy and all those stuff so he's just excited. You know like a little kid that just learned a new word in class and thinks he's the only who knows it, but when in reality, he's the last one in the classroom to have learn it.
 
Brilliant reasoning and logical comeback. Like how you don't use feelings as sigh and unpack and fold out your thinking with "word salad". Is that real and how is it real and how do you know that?
I know you re-read what you write and to you it sounds coherent.

In reality you never provide any substance, and always ramble on about the same nonsense regardless of the topic.

I don't often use ignore, never in fact if I think there is any possibility of learning something or gaining new perspective from a person.

This will be that rare occasion.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
You still don't pick beliefs. The world gives them to you.

Isn't it strange that most Christian's come from christian households, most Muslims from Muslim families. If you could just 'pick' how you viewed reality we should expect a lot more divergence.

Certainly...for the most part we "pick" what we have been given before we are old enough to make that a truly conscious choice. But even if we do choose later it is in no small part because we have grown up in the soil of that belief.

However, at the same time, each person in their "native belief soil" is very often experiencing realities which question or even threaten the fertility of that soil. Especially today in our connected world. We seem primed to break out of complex belief systems under the right circumstances and there is, indeed, a great deal of social effort involved in helping individuals maintain their sense of belief against the realities of their common experience. The most strenuous efforts of willful ignorance will be employed to maintain one's childhood and family nurtured beliefs because our subjective identities, which are crucial to our personal sense of integrity, are deeply rooted in this native belief soil.

So it is a blend, I think, of determination by experience/fate but also challenged by that same experience/fate. But usually, if one understands more deeply the truths of a given faith and how they are to be practically applied, then one can continue to find a deep sense of personal meaning from one's beliefs even as literalistic and tribal understandings dissolve and leave one distanced from one's own community.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
We can make choices that can lead to that experience, but we can't choose to actually having the experience.
That's a point without a distinction. It's like saying we can choose to go to Cleveland, but once we're there, we're no longer choosing to go there. So what?
One cannot simply choose to experience losing. If someone hasn't loss a football game before, they cannot just choose to have the experience of losing a game. Let's say you want to have that experience. You can choose lose a game and make decisions that wil make you lose the game, but you cannot have the experience of losing a game until the moment you lose.
Again, I fail to see any meaningful distinction. You choose to win/lose/whatever, then you win/lose/whatever, then you "experience" the winning/losing/whatever. How is this not still choosing?
Again you've just shown that we can choose to do something about it, but not actually being ignorant or not. Now how about you choose right now to understand astro physics and teach it to me so I can understand it myself.
If I choose to learn astro-physics, I can. If you choose to learn it from me, you can. You don't seem to be succeeding in your argument against choice, here.
Example:
If I want to be able to understand French, i can choose to acknowledge that I don't understand the language and make the decision to learn it. I can then choose to take a French class or have someone teach me. I can choose to study it everyday in order for me to learn and understand French. And I can try to choose as much as I want, but I won't be able to understand French until the moment it happens.
You have to make the choice to fulfill the choice, to fulfill the choice. OK ... So what? You're still choosing how you're going to experience existence, based on how you already understand that experience, and in such a way as to further support that understanding.
So tell me then, how do we choose to experience the feeling of anger and how we experience It? And how do we choose to experience anger just a little and aggressively? And I'm not talking about the actions taken for us to get angry. I'm talking about the experience of anger. How can someone understand love if they've never experienced it before.
Our brains are genetically structures to make us "feel" certain ways in response to certain kinds of stimuli. But WE CAN CHOOSE, through self-awareness, how we cognate those experiences, and how we want to cognate (experience) them in the future.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
PureX,
You didn't even explain it. All you did was skipped the explanation and asserted that "everyone chooses to accept .."

And choosing to allow new ideas, does not explain how and why we determine to believe.
All "believing" is, is the choice to trust an existential proposition as being true or untrue. And for we (non-omniscient) humans, 'true' and 'untrue' end up having to be determined by relative functionality; ... by whether or not the proposition 'works for us' within the context of our current experience and understanding of what "existence", is, and what it means to us. We are not being forced to trust any one proposition over any other. We simply choose to trust those propositions that 'work' for us as we experience living life as limited human beings. And we can change our minds about any proposition at any point, for any reason, whether we are aware of ourselves doing it, or not.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Honestly it depends. If it is a deist god, I agree with you. But if it is a christian, muslim or jewish god, for instance, there are a lot of stories in the religious texts that if true would count as physical evidence.
Those stories are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be taken as material truth. They are intended to represent metaphysical truth by giving it an imagined physical context. Why atheists keep insisting on arguing with religious artifice as if it were a fact of matter is incomprehensible to me. It's like insisting on arguing with children about the in-actuality of Santa Claus. What kind of grown person does that?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Those stories are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be taken as material truth. They are intended to represent metaphysical truth by giving it an imagined physical context. Why atheists keep insisting on arguing with religious artifice as if it were a fact of matter is incomprehensible to me. It's like insisting on arguing with children about the in-actuality of Santa Claus. What kind of grown person does that?

Which stories ? All of them ? Is every single story regarding every single prophet to be interpreted as not having actually transpired as written ?
If so, you are saying that christians, muslims and jews have been majorly misinterpretating their religious texts for over a thousand of years.

I wouldn't dare to make this sort of statement, but you do you, I guess.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
All "believing" is, is the choice to trust an existential proposition as being true or untrue. And for we (non-omniscient) humans, 'true' and 'untrue' end up having to be determined by relative functionality; ... by whether or not the proposition 'works for us' within the context of our current experience and understanding of what "existence", is, and what it means to us. We are not being forced to trust any one proposition over any other. We simply choose to trust those propositions that 'work' for us as we experience living life as limited human beings. And we can change our minds about any proposition at any point, for any reason, whether we are aware of ourselves doing it, or not.

What does it mean for a proposition to 'work' for you?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
That's a point without a distinction. It's like saying we can choose to go to Cleveland, but once we're there, we're no longer choosing to go there. So what?
Just like before, you are again combining two separate things and putting them together as if they are one. What part of "deciding to go to Cleveland" and "actually going to Cleveland" don't you understand?You can make a decision to go to Cleveland, that's one thing. Next, since you are now going to Cleveland, you cannot choose to go to Chicago no matter how hard you try. If you end up in Chicago, then you were never going to Cleveland the whole time.

Again, I fail to see any meaningful distinction. You choose to win/lose/whatever, then you win/lose/whatever, then you "experience" the winning/losing/whatever. How is this not still choosing?
See, you just did exactly what I explained in my point. You didn't choose to not see and understand my point, you simply didn't see my point. I'll run it by you again using you as an example. I never said anything about choosing to win, nor did I say choosing to lose was my point. The experience of losing a game was the point. You can't experience losing if haven't lost the game. You didn't choose to fail to see any meaningful distinction, you just failed to see any meaningful distinction.

If I choose to learn astro-physics, I can. If you choose to learn it from me, you can.
So I choose to learn astronauts physics from you, and I didn't learn it. I didn't choose to not learn it, I simply didn't learn it.

You don't seem to be succeeding in your argument against choice, here.
Actually I did succeed.

You have to make the choice to fulfill the choice, to fulfill the choice. OK ... So what?
Wrong. You made the choice to fulfill something, but it wasn't the choice that decided whether or not you fulfilled it. You clearly proved my point above.

You're still choosing how you're going to experience existence, based on how you already understand that experience, and in such a way as to further support that understanding.
And here it is just like you explained. Your choice had no bearing how or what you actually experience.


Our brains are genetically structures to make us "feel" certain ways in response to certain kinds of stimuli. But WE CAN CHOOSE, through self-awareness, how we cognate those experiences, and how we want to cognate (experience) them in the future.
See, we cannot choose to our feelings.

Here's an example

Scenario 1:
I chose to bet $1000 on a horse race. The horse I betted on didn't win resulting in me losing my money. Now I'm feeling angry.


Now explain to me why I'm angry because of choosing to be angry.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Which stories ? All of them ? Is every single story regarding every single prophet to be interpreted as not having actually transpired as written ?
It's artifice. It is irrelevant what parts of what stories are historically or physically accurate. Just as it's irrelevant what parts of Shakespeare's stories are historically or physically accurate. They are STORIES. They are meant to function as stories. As REPRESENTATIONS of the truth of things, not as facts.
If so, you are saying that christians, muslims and jews have been majorly misinterpretating their religious texts for over a thousand of years.
People respond to artifice in all sorts of ways. Children think they are "real" because they don't know any better. Zealots think they are "real" because they apparently need to, to cope with their experience of reality. Most people "suspend disbelief" for the purposes of the representation, and then contemplate/discuss/debate the real message/meaning among themselves, afterwards. Artifice serves a lot of different purposes simultaneously. That's what it's for.
I wouldn't dare to make this sort of statement, but you do you, I guess.
Of course I do. I'm not a coward, nor am I an idiot. Art is a fantastic and wonderful and complex human endeavor. And a lot of people are confused and beguiled by it. But I am not one of them.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What does it mean for a proposition to 'work' for you?
It functions according to one's conception of functionality. That criteria is different for different people, and under differing circumstances. For most of us, to "function" means that it helps us achieve a desired goal.

Someone shows me a photo of a very large, long wall running through some countryside. They tell me it's the Great Wall of China. I will choose to "believe in" this proposition based on how that choice functions best, for me, in my life. A friend said it, I want/need to trust that friend, so I believe it. The goal is achieved. Do actually know that the photo is not doctored, or that the friend is not lying? No. But assuming that doesn't achieve my immediate goal. So I don't assume that.

Ultimately, we actually KNOW very little. And we know nothing at all, for certain. So we "believe in" whatever truth propositions work best for us under the immediate circumstances, and according to our own needs/desires. And we could choose to stop "believing in" those proposition at any time. Nothing is stopping us from changing our beliefs but our own need/desire to maintain our own biased "reality paradigms".
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
Just like before, you are again combining two separate things and putting them together as if they are one. What part of "deciding to go to Cleveland" and "actually going to Cleveland" don't you understand?You can make a decision to go to Cleveland, that's one thing. Next, since you are now going to Cleveland, you cannot choose to go to Chicago no matter how hard you try.
Of course you can, at any point, and for any reason.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It's artifice. It is irrelevant what parts of what stories are historically or physically accurate. Just as it's irrelevant what parts of Shakespeare's stories are historically or physically accurate. They are STORIES. They are meant to function as stories. As REPRESENTATIONS of the truth of things, not as facts.

People respond to artifice in all sorts of ways. Children think they are "real" because they don't know any better. Zealots think they are "real" because they apparently need to, to cope with their experience of reality. Most people "suspend disbelief" for the purposes of the representation, and then contemplate/discuss/debate the real message/meaning among themselves, afterwards. Artifice serves a lot of different purposes simultaneously. That's what it's for.

For most people it is not irrelevant to know what parts of the stories have some degree of accuracy. Ask a Christian whether it is relevant to know if Christ lived and died, ask a Jew whether it is relevant to know what laws came from God, ask a Muslim whether it is relevant to know if Muhammad was a prophet of God. There are factual claims that stand at the foundation of each of those religions. Without them they would succumb.

Of course I do. I'm not a coward, nor am I an idiot. Art is a fantastic and wonderful and complex human endeavor. And a lot of people are confused and beguiled by it. But I am not one of them.

If you think religious texts can be reduced to art, you are at the polar opposite of those who consider them strictly as historical documents. And just as misguided.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It functions according to one's conception of functionality. That criteria is different for different people, and under differing circumstances. For most of us, to "function" means that it helps us achieve a desired goal.

Someone shows me a photo of a very large, long wall running through some countryside. They tell me it's the Great Wall of China. I will choose to "believe in" this proposition based on how that choice functions best, for me, in my life. A friend said it, I want/need to trust that friend, so I believe it. The goal is achieved. Do actually know that the photo is not doctored, or that the friend is not lying? No. But assuming that doesn't achieve my immediate goal. So I don't assume that.

Ultimately, we actually KNOW very little. And we know nothing at all, for certain. So we "believe in" whatever truth propositions work best for us under the immediate circumstances, and according to our own needs/desires. And we could choose to stop "believing in" those proposition at any time. Nothing is stopping us from changing our beliefs but our own need/desire to maintain our own biased "reality paradigms".

Just to make it clear:

What if someone was shown evidence that their spouse is cheating them, and despite not wanting that to be true, despite having their life wrecked if that was true, still believes in the evidence. In what sense would you say that they are believing in what works for them ?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
For most people it is not irrelevant to know what parts of the stories have some degree of accuracy.
A lot of people are idiots, especially when it comes to artifice, because we don't teach anyone anything about it in our schools. But the artists that create it usually take that into account. That doesn't mean you and I have to join in the idiocy, or correct the idiots, though. If they need/want to "believe in" Santa Claus to participate in Christmas, so be it.
If you think religious texts can be reduced to art, you are at the polar opposite of those who consider them strictly as historical documents. And just as misguided.
REDUCED to art?? Hardly. Artifice is how religions express transcendence. How they convey the inconceivable. Without artifice religion couldn't function.
 
Top