Choose to Believe?

Polymath257 said:

Is it possible to 'choose to believe' something?

In other words, is belief a choice? or are you simply convinced/unconvinced by what you have learned so far?

Also, it is certainly possible to act 'as if' something is true. But is that the same as belief? Or merely a provisional assumption until more evidence is found?

Click to expand...

Yes, believing is a Choice. Regardless of the sales pitch, at some point one says OK.

You are right there are a lot of factors involved. People tend to believe what they want to believe. On the other hand Real Truth will never always be an agreeable thing.

Another factor is : what is one looking for? If one searched for Real Truth, one could never be satisfied with mere beliefs. Further, it is so much easier to accept and believe rather than Discover the Real Truth for yourself. It's like I said : what is one seeking? Beliefs or Real Truth.

I'm sure people believe to fit in. It's a social thing. Many care so much of what others think, they would say, believe and do anything to fit in. How many have to have those special expensive name brand shoes and such?

When religion teaches people they are flawed from birth, it can cause great harm to people. Many feel they are bad and would do anything to appear to be nothing but goodness. I knew a wonderful lady who was so kind and generous she would do anything for you. Religion convinced her she was bad and she constantly worried about going to Hell. She really fought to believe. It took many hours of talk before she could see the Real Truth and see she was a Wonderful Person.

Life is about Learning and Growing as people. There are many variables that people work through. Still, our choices define who we are, show God and the world what we know and what we need to learn and determine our future lessons.

Are there any bad choices? Each must decide that for themselves. On the other hand, even bad choices lead to Discovering what the Best choices really are. Given enough time and lives,along with valuing Real Truth above mere beliefs and everyone will arrive regardless of how many turns in the road they must take.

I copy God. God places knowledge all around. It waits to be Discovered. I place Truth in the world pointing in the right direction. It's all there waiting for that light bulb to go off over someone's head and they understand.

Free choice is an important factor. It can not be forced or controlled. Controlling or attempting to control others is one of the petty things mankind holds so dear. The results of all those petty things mankind holds so dear will never bring the Best results.

I say Be and Believe what you must. On the other hand widen that view. New knowledge that changes the view exists all around. It leads to the Future regardless of how many turns one chooses to get there.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

TrueBeliever37 said:

No you said you proved something. I just asked how because you didn't. Try again.

I don't think you are trying to honestly debate. You just jumped in and are trying to cause confusion.

Ask a question or make a valid point and I might respond. Otherwise I am done.

Click to expand...

Do it, and it will be proven. You can't prove something by being too scared to do it. Try again.

Polymath257 said:

Is it possible to 'choose to believe' something?

In other words, is belief a choice? or are you simply convinced/unconvinced by what you have learned so far?

Also, it is certainly possible to act 'as if' something is true. But is that the same as belief? Or merely a provisional assumption until more evidence is found?

Click to expand...

What you're describing here is "Doxastic voluntarism", that is, the "philosophical view that people elect their own beliefs. That is, that subjects have a certain amount of control over what they believe, such that a subject may choose whether or not to believe a certain thing."

Dr. Liz Jackson briefly discussed this topic in the context of Pascal's Wager. See To wager, or not to wager, that is the question | Dr. Liz Jackson

Polymath257 said:

Is it possible to 'choose to believe' something?

In other words, is belief a choice? or are you simply convinced/unconvinced by what you have learned so far?

Also, it is certainly possible to act 'as if' something is true. But is that the same as belief? Or merely a provisional assumption until more evidence is found?

Click to expand...

No. This is called doxastic voluntarism and I think it’s false. It is not possible for us to will ourselves into believing something: this goes for values, too.

Our beliefs and values can change by exposure to new information, epiphanies in how to think about things, exposure to other ways of thinking, etc.; but even then that is beyond our willful control.

If I give an argument, you cannot help but to be swayed by it or not. If I make a claim, you may examine evidence and so forth, but you will either find yourself convinced or not: you never will yourself into the position of believing; you find yourself believing or not.

Φᅠᅠ said:

What you're describing here is "Doxastic voluntarism", that is, the "philosophical view that people elect their own beliefs. That is, that subjects have a certain amount of control over what they believe, such that a subject may choose whether or not to believe a certain thing."

Dr. Liz Jackson briefly discussed this topic in the context of Pascal's Wager. See To wager, or not to wager, that is the question | Dr. Liz Jackson

Click to expand...

Damn it Phi. Jinx. You owe me a Coke

Meow Mix said:

No. This is called doxastic voluntarism and I think it’s false. It is not possible for us to will ourselves into believing something: this goes for values, too.

Our beliefs and values can change by exposure to new information, epiphanies in how to think about things, exposure to other ways of thinking, etc.; but even then that is beyond our willful control.

If I give an argument, you cannot help but to be swayed by it or not. If I make a claim, you may examine evidence and so forth, but you will either find yourself convinced or not: you never will yourself into the position of believing; you find yourself believing or not.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure. I have seen creationists that are scientists that go to extreme lengths to keep believing in a story that they have to know is a myth. Some of them going so far as to deliberately lie to support their beliefs. The term one is looking for is "cognitive dissonance"..

Meow Mix said:

Damn it Phi. Jinx. You owe me a Coke

Click to expand...

Indeed. Haha. Liz addressed your concerns in the video I referenced.

PureX said:

...let's say we are considering the question of the existence of 'ghosts'... There is plenty of evidence for this...

Click to expand...

My reaction to this statement:

Φᅠᅠ said:

What you're describing here is "Doxastic voluntarism", that is, the "philosophical view that people elect their own beliefs. That is, that subjects have a certain amount of control over what they believe, such that a subject may choose whether or not to believe a certain thing."

Dr. Liz Jackson briefly discussed this topic in the context of Pascal's Wager. See To wager, or not to wager, that is the question | Dr. Liz Jackson

Click to expand...

Meow Mix said:

No. This is called doxastic voluntarism and I think it’s false. It is not possible for us to will ourselves into believing something: this goes for values, too.

Our beliefs and values can change by exposure to new information, epiphanies in how to think about things, exposure to other ways of thinking, etc.; but even then that is beyond our willful control.

If I give an argument, you cannot help but to be swayed by it or not. If I make a claim, you may examine evidence and so forth, but you will either find yourself convinced or not: you never will yourself into the position of believing; you find yourself believing or not.

Click to expand...

Reasonable but not all-encompassing of course. One key missing thing is the path I took: the 'leap of faith'.

This is actually a very common thing.

When you get into a car that is new to you, and turn the key, you are doing a small leap of faith, acting on the belief that the car will likely start, even though it is not yet seen/proven.

If the car does start, your faith was validated, and grows further into a new area: that the car will go when you put it in drive and press on the accelerator. You believe that even though it's not yet seen, and so you act on faith.

See?

You choose that faith. Free choice. A voluntary act of faith. That's the same that one can use in regard to the contents of the New Testament for instance. For instance, Christ gives some specific instructions in the gospels that can be tested and don't require an extensive far reaching faith in a lot more, but only that the instruction could possibly work, and is worth a try. If a given instruction works great (as I found) then a small amount of new faith might arise, that additional things are worth testing out. You could call it incremental faith or whatnot if you prefer.

halbhh said:

When you get into a car that is new to you, and turn the key, you are doing a small leap of faith, acting on the belief that the car will likely start, even though it is not yet seen/proven.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing two unrelated things here. (1) Believing in something on the basis of faith and (2) choosing to believe in something on the basis of faith.

Regardless of whether we do 1 on the case of the car (I think most of us don't), your example does nothing to prove 2. The involuntarist might simply reply that he did this without his control; it was something spontaneous (i.e., not consciously actualized).

halbhh said:

Reasonable but not all-encompassing of course. One key missing thing is the path I took: the 'leap of faith'.

This is actually a very common thing.

When you get into a car that is new to you, and turn the key, you are doing a small leap of faith, acting on the belief that the car will likely start, even though it is not yet seen/proven.

If the car does start, your faith was validated, and grows further into a new area: that the car will go when you put it in drive and press on the accelerator. You believe that even though it's not yet seen, and so you act on faith.

See?

Click to expand...

No. I don't see the similarity of this with religious faith.

For example, I know full well that it is *possible* that when I turn the car key, the engine won't start. Maybe the battery died, or there is another malfunction.

I know that when I push on the accelerator, it is possible that the car will NOT go forward. maybe there is a transmission problem, for example.


Also, it is quite possible that when I go out in the morning my car will simply not be there. it may have been stolen, for example.

The ordinary faith that we use from day to day is tempered by the knowledge that we may well be mistaken, but that *experience* and *social norms* make it so that we can rely on many things working as they are supposed to most of the time.

BUT, if we lived in a society that regularly sold objects in the shape of cars that did not turn on or run, we might develop a bit of skepticism about any particular car.

That is *very* different than the 'faith' that a deity even exists. or the 'faith' that a particular religious text is reliable when it comes to the dictates of that deity.

In this, there is no *objective* criterion by which you can know you are right or wrong. There is no acknowledgment that being wrong is possible or even likely. There is no way to tell the difference between a 'car that doesn't start' and one that simply looks like a car and does absolutely nothing.

You choose that faith. Free choice. A voluntary act of faith. That's the same that one can use in regard to the contents of the New Testament for instance. For instance, Christ gives some specific instructions in the gospels that can be tested and don't require an extensive far reaching faith in a lot more, but only that the instruction could possibly work, and is worth a try. If a given instruction works great (as I found) then a small amount of new faith might arise, that additional things are worth testing out. You could call it incremental faith or whatnot if you prefer.

Click to expand...

And I have tried those instructions and found them to fail. Now what? Isn't that proof enough that they are wrong? Why do you assume they would automatically succeed? Oh, wait, are you going to claim I just didn't give them a *fair* hearing? How would you know that?

Polymath257 said:

For example, I know full well that it is *possible* that when I turn the car key, the engine won't start.

Click to expand...

For clarity let me first point out here your observation is actually what I'm trying to get at above, what I'm pointing at, in a way, which here you illustrate by showing it's not a sure thing.

I don't know as a fact the car will start.

Yet, without proof, I act on a belief that will probably will.

That's the 'leap of faith' part. When I say 'leap of faith' I mean any action taken on the belief that it might work well, even though I don't know it will intellectually.

Polymath257 said:

That is *very* different than the 'faith' that a deity even exists.

Click to expand...

Here, I'd like to point out to you that I don't have faith in "a deity exists". That's not it.

I believe in the singular something which we often call 'God'. That's not a particular one chosen of various possible things. The latter would be very different, more like a Hindu kind of pantheon perhaps.

Instead what I have faith in is more like.......the ground of being. The essence of reality. "God" as we call Him/Her. (I use a gender of course to avoid the erroneous connotation of talking about God as if God is less than us with intentionally disparaging designations like 'it' or such).

Polymath257 said:

or the 'faith' that a particular religious text is reliable

Click to expand...

I don't have any ahead-of-time faith that any religious text (of any kind, from anywhere) is reliable.

That's not a faith I have.

I have faith that is more incremental: I test something to see if it works, and if it does, then I think it's worth retesting.

So, very slowly, over decades, I found a lot (because I spend enough time and effort testing) in the common bible that gives me a lot of confidence that anything in it is worth testing (instead of disregarding).

Does that make sense?

I now believe in God intellectually, instead of only something more intuitive sensing of possibility. But, I didn't for a very long time intellectually while I tested things. That was only after a lot of testing.

Not everyone is like me. Most aren't perhaps. Some believe much faster than I did.

Φᅠᅠ said:

I think you're confusing two unrelated things here. (1) Believing in something on the basis of faith and (2) choosing to believe in something on the basis of faith.

Regardless of whether we do 1 on the case of the car (I think most of us don't), your example does nothing to prove 2. The involuntarist might simply reply that he did this without his control; it was something spontaneous (i.e., not consciously actualized).

Click to expand...

Heh, if you mean full faith vs a leap of faith, I feel pretty clear about that difference. If I choose to believe something -- temporarily, provisionally -- that's what I mean by a "leap of faith". aka, "go on faith". (Admittedly it's not always clear if there is a difference, as the 2 blend sometimes...)

Perhaps I'm partly like Thomas in the gospels, though my experience is so different I can't say even that for sure I guess. But alike his attitude to test and find out, that part.

halbhh said:

When you get into a car that is new to you, and turn the key, you are doing a small leap of faith, acting on the belief that the car will likely start, even though it is not yet seen/proven.

Click to expand...

I have a question for you. In the case of new cars, we know it is likely the new car will work (for several reasons) and that's why we believe it will start. But according to you, that's a leap of faith. But if it's just faith, why doesn't that extend to cases that we would obviously judge to be a dead-end? For example, suppose you just bought a weapon in a store. And everybody knows this store only sells junk. The weapons only work 0,5% of the time.

Now, would you have "faith" and use this weapon (which is likely not to work) in case you must use it (for example, to protect your family from a mass murderer)? If not, then why not? After all, the weapon may well work! Just have faith!

Φᅠᅠ said:

. In the case of new cars, we know it is likely the new car will work (for several reasons) and that's why we believe it will start.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly! Our faith in Christ isn't a 'blind faith' but based on His Words, which give us 'several reasons' (to use your wording) to believe.

Φᅠᅠ said:

Now, would you have "faith" and use this weapon (which is likely not to work) in case you must use it (for example, to protect your family from a mass murderer)? If not, then why not? After all, the weapon may well work! Just have faith!

Click to expand...

An interesting situation to consider. I'd use the only defense that is truly a 100% sure thing: to pray to the Lord. And then go as the spirit guides. If I do, I know I can rely on Him. By grace, through faith, He gives us eternal life.

(It would not be good for me to just kill some lost sinner that doesn't yet know of Christ.)

halbhh said:

An interesting situation to consider. I'd use the only defense that is truly a 100% sure thing: to pray to the Lord. And then go as the spirit guides. If I do, I know I can rely on Him. By grace, through faith, He gives us eternal life.

Click to expand...

Is that what you do in all situations? When you have a problem, you just sit down and pray to God? You do nothing more? Never? When you have a problem in your work, do you just sit down and say, "I won't try to solve it.. God will solve it to me"? Is that right?

Φᅠᅠ said:

Is that what you do in all situations?

Click to expand...

Do you mean when my life is in serious, immediate mortal danger?

Yes, that is what I did on that last occasion. It's not like that happens very often tho!

(and...the time before also I just realized. wow. I called upon the Lord that time, and didn't really realize that was basically prayer, but now I see. So, that's the last 2 times.)

Polymath257 said:

Is it possible to 'choose to believe' something?

In other words, is belief a choice? or are you simply convinced/unconvinced by what you have learned so far?

Click to expand...

Sure it is possible to choose to believe, I do it all the time, and often choose to no longer believe. And yes, it does depend on our state of learning.

Also, it is certainly possible to act 'as if' something is true. But is that the same as belief? Or merely a provisional assumption until more evidence is found?

Click to expand...

I think here you are referring to conditioned beliefs, in this case it can be considered provisional as we may change as evidence shows it to be wrong, or at least no longer appropriate or relevant.

halbhh said:

Do you mean when my life is in serious, immediate mortal danger?

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said "you when have a problem."

Φᅠᅠ said:

That's not what I said. I said "you when have a problem."

Click to expand...

Ah! I was answering from the previous context of my post you were responding to, but what you are asking is entirely different:

Φᅠᅠ said:

When you have a problem, you just sit down and pray to God? You do nothing more? Never? When you have a problem in your work, do you just sit down and say, "I won't try to solve it.. God will solve it to me"? Is that right?

Click to expand...

Let me paraphrase how these questions sound to me, ok.
Like this:
"Are you a immature Christian that just prays and never does anything?"

Maybe you didn't mean it to be so disparaging -- you might have meant to ask about whether I think we should just pray about all things, instead of trying to do some things on our own.

Let me assume you meant those questions in the most extremely good possible way.

My actual reality is that I pray only occasionally for things past the prayer Christ instructed us to pray, for each day, in Matthew chapter 6. I obey His instruction and pray that 1 prayer, each day.

I have gradually learned to pray for more things I cannot do on my own, but still usually don't in any given day.

I tend to pray for something else when the situation is desperate or extreme, and I cannot fix it on my own.