Can You Choose What You Believe?

[night912]

If you pick up the product, than you have made your choice. If you choose to not pick it up, then that too is a choice. It's choices all the way and all the way down. This isn't that difficult to follow.

Now, you've made it clear as to why your reasoning is flawed. You're example consists of two separate choices. Choice 1, you choose to pick it up. Choice 2, you choose not to pick it up. We make lots of choices, and every choice had an effect. Which you totally ignored that concept. I choose to pick up the box, that's the cause. The result of my choice has the effect of me not picking it up. I didn't choose to not pick up the box.

Explain how it is.

It's a contradiction because you cannot choose and not not choose at the same time. The only way for it not to be a contradiction is if it is like what I said, cause and effect. The cause, I choose not to choose. And the effect resulted in me not choosing was caused by my choice of not choosing.

All of our choices have effects, but not all effects are caused by our choices. All you did was give an example of a decision made then gave a conclusion without showing the steps in between as to how and why you came to that conclusion.

If I choose not to catch the ball and it broke the window, that does not mean that I chose to break the window.

Now when it comes to belief, I can choose to accept the information that is shown to me. The result of that can either convince me or it won't. If it convinces me, it results in me believing, if not then the result is me not believing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Can you choose what you believe?

To be clear, I'm not asking if you can choose your religion or if you can choose what to label yourself or your views.

Can you choose what to believe or disbelieve? Or are such core convictions or biases inherent in the individual based on experiences? Or are they based on something else? If so, what?

No, you don't choose what you believe. You are either convinced or not convinced.

 

[pearl]

No, you don't choose what you believe. You are either convinced or not convinced.

But do we accept without belief?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But do we accept without belief?

What distinction are you making between acceptance and belief?

 

[pearl]

What distinction are you making between acceptance and belief?

As it pertains to religion and various religious teaching, we may accepts them without believing them.

 

[night912]

As it pertains to religion and various religious teaching, we may accepts them without believing them.

What distinction are you making between acceptance and belief? Not on what it pertains to, but on those two words, acceptance and belief. Do you mean "acceptance" as in willing to listen to the religious teachings?

 

[pearl]

What distinction are you making between acceptance and belief? Not on what it pertains to, but on those two words, acceptance and belief. Do you mean "acceptance" as in willing to listen to the religious teachings?

As a Catholic I accept the teaching authority of the Church. Example, I accept that the Church teaches no ordination of women, based on Tradition and Scripture, I do not believe it to be the case.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As it pertains to religion and various religious teaching, we may accepts them without believing them.

But you still didn't answer my question. What are you thinking is the difference between accept and believe? Without an answer, I can't understand your statement.

 

[pearl]

But you still didn't answer my question. What are you thinking is the difference between accept and believe? Without an answer, I can't understand your statement.

As a Catholic I accept the teaching authority of the Church. Example, I accept that the Church teaches no ordination of women, based on Tradition and Scripture, I do not believe it to be the case.

 

[Muffled]

I believe once eyes have been opened to a truth it is impossible to return to falsehood.

 

[Muffled]

To an extent you can make a choice as to what you believe. The Bible sums it up, " Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the word of God."

So, seemingly exposure and study by choice can influence belief. This makes sense.

When was young I believe that I assumed everything was true. When I reached 13 I started to question what was true and what was not true.

 

[Muffled]

Are we really choosing to believe it or disbelieve what others tell us or what we tell ourselves, or do we believe or disbelieve what others tell us or what we tell ourselves based on our core biases and convictions that are a product of our experiences?

I believe a large majority of the information we have came from outside ourselves. If we disbelieved all of it we would not believe in anything. I wonder if each person has a spiritual preference for certain facts over others?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As a Catholic I accept the teaching authority of the Church. Example, I accept that the Church teaches no ordination of women, based on Tradition and Scripture, I do not believe it to be the case.

Usually we have great conversations, so I'm not sure why this one is so strained. But again, you have not answered my question. What is this distinction you are making between accepting and believing? You see, I have made no such distinction in my post, so it confounds me that you have. Without understanding what you think the difference is, I can't understand what you are saying. You keep replying but fail to answer. This is the last time I will request and answer before I will write you off, my friend.

 

[pearl]

You keep replying but fail to answer. This is the last time I will request and answer before I will write you off, my friend.

I may be 'convinced', accept, that the state has presented evidence that one has committed a crime, but I do not 'believe' the person is really guilty.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I may be 'convinced', accept, that the state has presented evidence that one has committed a crime, but I do not 'believe' the person is really guilty.

But you are comparing two different things. The first is that the state has presented enough evidence, and the second is that he is in fact truly guilty. You can use the word accept or believe in either case.

I believe/accept that the state presented evidence that one has committed a crime.
But I do not believe/accept that the person is really guilty.

You used the word "convinced" as interchangeable with "accept," which is more of a rational exercise. Are you suggesting that "believe" is more of an intuitive, gut level feeling? Just trying to understand...

 

[pearl]

You used the word "convinced" as interchangeable with "accept," which is more of a rational exercise. Are you suggesting that "believe" is more of an intuitive, gut level feeling? Just trying to understand...

Yes. When disagreeing with someone the statement 'I believe you're wrong' without being convinced until further proof. One is purely cognitive the other affective.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes. When disagreeing with someone the statement 'I believe you're wrong' without being convinced until further proof. One is purely cognitive the other affective.

Okay I get you.

So long as you realize that in my own post, I am using accept and believe interchangeably. The are both a combination of cognitive and affective, with some folks tilting more to the cognitive and others more to the affective.

 

[night912]

I may be 'convinced', accept, that the state has presented evidence that one has committed a crime, but I do not 'believe' the person is really guilty.

But those are two separate and different propositions that aren't related if they are being answered in that way. If you use the word, "accept" then it is just acknowledging that the state did present some kind of evidence. Let's reverse it to see it clearer.

"I believe that the state has presented evidence that one has committed a crime, but I do not 'accept' the person is really guilty."

Or

"I believe that the state has presented evidence that one has committed a crime, but I am not convinced that the person is really guilty."

 

[pearl]

"I believe that the state has presented evidence that one has committed a crime, but I am not convinced that the person is really guilty."

To me 'real guilt' implies motivation.

 

[night912]

To me 'real guilt' implies motivation.

So you wouldn't consider a person as committing murder if they were firing a gun out towards a crowd and ended up "accidentally" killing a bystander? Keep in mind that the individual had no motive to actually kill someone, only to cause fear.