Choose to Believe?

[Revoltingest]

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?

It's never seemed possible to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

I would say in some cases yes. That belief is almost always an irrational belief. The reason I say yes is that people with clear irrational beliefs use that phrase quite often. And they will do anything in their power to avoid testing their ideas so that they can have a rational belief. We see that with them most extreme believers here. When I ask them how they would test their beliefs their "tests" amount to poor tests that are extremely subject to confirmation bias.

These people appear to force themselves to believe since not believing is simply to scary for them.

By the way, there is a term for Christians that properly apply well thought out rational tests to their beliefs:

Atheists

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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?

Yes and the choice should be made with an independent search for the Truth.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
By the way, there is a term for Christians that properly apply well thought out rational tests to their beliefs:

Atheists

No, that is not an atheist. An atheist is a person ,who has an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Stop trying to make atheism into something it is not.

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

Belief makes one happy.

I could believe that a nice and honest man sold me the Brooklyn Bridge. I'd have to argue with a lot of his other clients, who also bought it. (But I got a good price--I bargained him down).

Naysayers (like the City of New York) might argue that I don't own it. But, they clearly lack faith. We can pray for them.

I could set up camp on my new bridge home...light campfires, shoot birds for food, chase off all those pesky cars that keep trying to pass.

I could order that schools teach that I own the Brooklyn Bridge (to discourage future arguments).

I could gag others who try to deny that I own the Brooklyn Bridge, and issue a Fatwa to kill them if they persist. Like Reverend Savonarolla or Adolph Hitler, I could burn books that disagree with me.

Smart people are against me....out of the corner of my eye, I can see that they're plotting against me....trying to take me down. But I can take them down first. They're trying to take away my religion (religion that I own the Brooklyn Bridge).

I can do good things with the Brooklyn Bridge. The fact that God allowed me to buy it means that God sanctioned the sale.

I could band together with all of those who own the Brooklyn Bridge. The fact that so many do, means that we are right (50 million little monkeys can't be wrong....as the song says). We are in the majority, and the majority is always right.

Climbing a rock pile, I found a rock (sure sign that God wants me to own the Brooklyn Bridge). Everything that I see around me is of God, and God speaks to me in many ways....through nature, through the trees, through the rocks.

Everyone has their own truths. So, it is true, for me, that I own the Brooklyn Bridge.

There might be liberal extremists who want to throw newly aborted (but live) babies off of my Brooklyn Bridge. We need to rally to support my cause, my president, my judges, and my governors. We could be like the anti-abortion rallies that vote in politicians.

We could talk in tongues....in the language of God....and get confirmation that I own the Brooklyn Bridge, and I could take that God testimony to court to prove my case. Surely the judge will believe people who talk to God?

If people believed falsehoods, as deeply as they believe religion, we'd all believe in falsehoods.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes you can choose to believe. But of course being convinced or unconvinced plays a part in whether you choose to believe or not.

If you are only acting or pretending then that wouldn't be true belief. That would be based on deceit or lying or hypocrisy or something like that.

Of course you could also truly believe something, and then when more or different evidence is presented, you might modify your beliefs based on that information.

I disagree. I can no more choose to believe something than I can choose not to. So, for example, it is impossible for me to start disbelieving gravity or other matters of physics (like the production of heat on my stove top, for instance), and to then act accordingly. Sorry, all the "choosing" in the world will not get me to step off the precipice, nor place my hand on the red burner on my kitchen range.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

I do not believe you can choose to believe something, that you do not believe, except as a conscious pretense or sales pitch to influence others. For example, shortly after being elected, I was happy when I heard President Biden said he wanted national unity and healing. But once he got his feet wet, his true divisive beliefs showed up, with impeachment and other threats to the Right. He never believed what he said he believed, but used that as a pretense, which can fool you.

Other people believe things, because they have studied and pondered these things and have reached conclusions that appear to support their belief. This type of belief has a solid foundation.

There are also others who follow the herd and will believe anything, if this helps them belong to the herd. Many political people; minions, depend on talking heads to tell them what to believe. This is time saving, but it runs the risk of generating internal doubt. a nagging feeling of doubt, may result in the need to overcompensate, to help overcome or repress the doubt to make the belief seem more sound. The Left is far more into radical activism, for this unconscious doubt reason. The Left does better work as a team, but the team comes at the sacrifice of individuality; complete acceptance is needed. However, this team spirit can also create inner doubt, that then has to be repressed or compensated for,

I am an innovative thinker and come up with new ideas all the time in all areas of knowledge The urge to investigate and develop a new idea, begins with an intuitive belief there is something to this hunch. I attribute this gut feeling to unconscious processing of data, that done in a semi-conscious way. I try to reach the conclusions of the unconscious mind; inner voice, so I can see if this makes sense in science reality.

As far as religious belief, this often begins at childhood, when one's ability to analyze and reason is weaker, than one's natural child instinct and active imagination. This unique place in childhood can allow for a type of inner proof; intuitive imagination, that can support early belief. Children have no problem with Santa Claus since the symbolism feels nice and is very positive. This feeling may be assisted by the group believing the same thing; other children and fun adults.

I am somewhat unique in that I believe in both the truth in science and religion. My early gut feeling and early belief was that there should be a way to unite these two apparently opposite disciplines, which in culture, most believe cannot be done. My approach was to work under the assumption that religion has a connection to the operating system of the brain, which can be investigated by science.

Psychology pioneered this possibility, although most orientations maintain the belief that science and religion are opposites. This belief is mostly based on group traditions and paying dues to belong.

Reading the psychology of the Carl Jung, was the break through I needed. His theory was about the collective unconscious. This was another way of saying, before there were personal computers, the personality firmware and operating system of the brain, that defines human nature and defines us as a species.The lion has it own firmware for its species.

The concept of moral law implies the same set of laws for all. This religious conclusion is consistent with the same human nature being inherent within our entire species. Science tends to push relative morality. However, their theory, when applied to the brain's operating system tends to cause problems for people. The reason is the the DNA behind the operating system, is very old and conservation, and would not contain too many modern twists, implied by modern relative philosophy. Relative morality could induced epigenetic changes, but that can alter natural DNA expression in the operating system. Leftist, who push relative morality are not usually happy but have a chip on their shoulder, implicit of bugs placed in the operating system. Religion is about the DNA version of the operating system and not the epigenetic overlay, induced by will and the choice to believe.

I have an advantage in that I ran unconscious mind experiments on myself to map out the operating system and firmware. As a scientists I was the scientists and the experiment and had to develop in the field. I have plenty of first hand data, which is not available in the literature. I got too far ahead of my contemporaries. My belief in the unity of science and religion is based on decades developing the science of consciousness. One spin off was enhanced creativity, due to more consciousness of unconscious synthesis.

Religion is about the operating system of the human brain and how it has evolved since the start of civilization. The science dating of the invention of writing, is the same time as the time dating in Genesis; 6000 year ago.

We have two centers of consciousness; ego and the inner self. The inner self is old as human DNA and contains the firmware for the brain's operating system The ego is much newer and appeared 6-10K years ago. The ego, via choice and willpower, has been messing up the nature operating system with things such as relative morality. This is not supported by religion or advanced consciousness science, The ideal is to hook up with the inner self to take advantage of its higher processing power and to help it evolve; increase the inner self set point.

If you look at Revelation of the Bible, this is describing an update in the brain's operating system, worldwide, at the same time. There is first an un-install process and then a re-install. The bible says a back up is maintained. However, the update will not work in all people, if their ego messes up the installation process. The bible predicts a large attrition rate. What is left is a more natural inner self that has been advanced, with an ego that is more complementary.

 

[Andrew Reil]

I believe that God knows all truth, and that the Holy Ghost is sent from God to teach us (John 14:26). I will define the true teachings from the Holy Ghost as "faith" (see also Heb 11:1).

I will define "belief" as what I chose to believe. It may be untrue.

I think the goal is to align my belief with the faith I have received from the Holy Ghost. The more I do, the more the Holy Ghost will enlighten me (see Matt 6:22).

 

[Katzpur]

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?

Personally, I don't believe you can. I also don't think you can choose not to believe something.

 

[Brian2]

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?

I wonder if being able to reject a certain belief means that we also can accept a certain belief.
But maybe accepting is not the same as choosing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

I would say that you can choose to believe something. People certainly choose not to believe something. And that not believing can be without evidence or fly in the face of evidence.

Though I am convinced that there are many people that arrive at whatever they believe without much effort or choice. I do not think all that believe arrive at that position in such a manner. There are those with a mindset that appears based more on belief than on conclusions from reasoned evaluation of evidence. I would say that you can just about break the world into those that process information from a belief-basis and those that process it from a logic-evidence basis. Not that such groupings have such clear distinctions in reality or practice.

But even from a position of logic and evidence, there are some things that cannot be supported or eliminated, so the persistence of those things is based on belief and sometimes on choosing to believe in them. To the best of my knowledge, I choose to believe in some things based on faith, while operating in my views of the observable natural world based on evidence. It might seem a bit schizophrenic, but it works for me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think the usual procedure for humans is to respond intuitively when judging the truth or falsity of anything. If it goes much further than that, then it goes well beyond the popular notions truth is relative, everyone has their own truth, whatever feels best to me is what's true, etc.

But the best people at taking intuitions far enough that they have a decent chance at being demonstrably true, are nearly always people who've received something much more than what must be the average education in methods for figuring out truths, etc. So far, the scientific methods of inquiry are demonstrably the most powerful and exacting thingies we've invented to arrive at empirical truths.

Intuition followed by sound cross-examination via logical reasoning supported by empirical evidence is the recipe for the tastiest green chili smothered, mind-changing, reality burritos anywhere.

But they will never beat good sex for changing anyone's opinions of reality. At least, changing them for at least a dismally brief span of time.

Me, I'd recommend Balinese Fishnet Donkey Porn as the most likely starting place to dig if you want to strike gold in your further investigations into this matter,.

I often wonder about intuition and how much it is our subconscious thinking examining observations and coming to conclusions prior to conscious evaluation. I have had to go years before I realized that I may not be so bad at reading things and drawing conclusions, but I am terrible at believing my own skill and the soundness of those evaluations. Often I have ended up thinking I should have followed my initial intuition. It is as if I have consciously rebelled against my own intuitions out of loyalty to other personal interests without realizing it. I pay heed to those intuitions much more today than I have in the past. Sometimes, if I am lucky, my subjective view fits the facts and those intuitions.

That is heresy. Only Caribbean Fishnet Donkey Porn is the true way.

 

[1213]

Is it possible to 'choose to believe' something?

I have chosen to believe in God. That is why I think it is possible.

 

[Sunstone]

I often wonder about intuition and how much it is our subconscious thinking examining observations and coming to conclusions prior to conscious evaluation. I have had to go years before I realized that I may not be so bad at reading things and drawing conclusions, but I am terrible at believing my own skill and the soundness of those evaluations. Often I have ended up thinking I should have followed my initial intuition. It is as if I have consciously rebelled against my own intuitions out of loyalty to other personal interests without realizing it. I pay heed to those intuitions much more today than I have in the past. Sometimes, if I am lucky, my subjective view fits the facts and those intuitions.

I think extreme hesitance to trust one's own thinking is a necessary precondition to any kind of realism at all.

I trust the subconscious as the best source for intuitively insightful ideas, especially if those ideas are understood to be rough drafts of some sort. But I simply have never seen it deliver on mapping anything that has much complexity to it. It's always mandatory to subject its ideas to as much rigorous and informed conscious analysis as you have time for before you must act.

No one is ever in a position to make a fully informed decision that commits them to a belief, let alone a course of action. It's always been advantageous to me when I've been most able to keep my eyes open going forward with anything I believe, or I am doing (or not doing).

Evolution didn't make our intelligence good enough to be fair to us, just the barely minimum threshold which it guessed was a good staring point for its latest trial and error experiment in what might be necessary for us to have kids.

I think you'd be excited by the news coming out of the neurosciences these days supporting the new model that our brains get their notion of reality by constantly and rapidly projecting onto the environment guesses or delusions about how to best image it, then using the senses as instruments to as fast as the brains can update and correct those delusions in order to align them as quickly as possible to some kind of changing internal map that human brains use to tailor any decision they make at the moment about what to in any way do next into a decision with an odds on chance of success. Fascinating stuff to read up on.

That is heresy. Only Caribbean Fishnet Donkey Porn is the true way.

I am saddened by how your delusional tastes in the world's finest genre of porn will inevitably contribute to the tragically approaching worldwide collapse of global civilization. The Gotterdammerung that is all but upon us was already fated far too much only a few years ago by the commercial success of Justin Beiber's musical talents.

Dan, I am heartbroken you have severed your alliance with humanity's last decent chance at creating a Golden Age for All Human Cultures based on Balinese Fishnet Donkey Porn.

Tragically, Caribbean Fishnet Donkey Porn is merely a derivative cultural appropriation. Not a chance in Hades it can muscle us into a new and emotionally flourishing understanding of our common humanity, Dan. Not a chance in Hades.

 

[halbhh]

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?

Yes, a person can choose to believe some things.

I start with what is known to work, and then consider extrapolations, of course based on the explanation of the source.

 

[night912]

Now that I think of it, I think so. Belief is accepting something is true without support. So, you can believe you can fly and that belief is fine but it's not backed up by the fact gravity "says" otherwise. In religion, it works differently. You can believe or accept something supernatural is true without support, just as you can believe you can fly. Though, one is a bit more dangerous than the other. So, it's possible. As for beneficial, it depends on the religion and how you adhere to it.

I'm confused. Are you saying that people can't believe that something is true if it has evidence to support that it's true? To me, it sounds like you are saying that a "fact" cannot be a belief.

Can you not believe that something true you because you don't have evidence to support it? Can a belief be something you accept is true because you have evidence to support it?

If I waited for evidence for every thing I experienced, I'd be skeptical all my life and never try anything new. I'm not sure about other countries, but it seems America has a bit of skepticism. That or I'm just generalizing since a lot of Americans are christians.

What is your definition of skepticism? From what you've said, it seems like you've misunderstood what skepticism is. Why do you think that if you were to be a skeptic that it will make you not try anything new? I think being a skeptic is actually doing the opposite of that.

Evidence doesn't matter unless you're talking about, say, medical field and other important areas of study.

Believing that evidence doesn't matter for "unimportant" things have a big impact on how you think when it comes to the "important" things.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm confused. Are you saying that people can't believe that something is true if it has evidence to support that it's true? To me, it sounds like you are saying that a "fact" cannot be a belief.

I refered to the definition of belief that it's accepting something is true without support. I can believe I can fly but it doesn't mean it's true.

If my belief is a fact, it's knowledge. I just don't accept it is true, I know it. In spirituality they stay at the belief but say the experience can't be supported so it's not a fact.

Can you not believe that something true you because you don't have evidence to support it? Can a belief be something you accept is true because you have evidence to support it?

The first question yes. That's the definition of belief.

The second, I'd say that's knowledge.

What is your definition of skepticism? From what you've said, it seems like you've misunderstood what skepticism is. Why do you think that if you were to be a skeptic that it will make you not try anything new? I think being a skeptic is actually doing the opposite of that.

If I kept questioning everything that I believed, I'd never try anything new... It's why people take risks or have faith. I feel there a balance.

Believing that evidence doesn't matter for "unimportant" things have a big impact on how you think when it comes to the "important" things.

How do?

 

[capumetu]

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?

Obviously, especially when serving Jehovah, He doesn't force people to obey Him, each has to choose to do so.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is it possible to 'choose to believe' something?

Not directly, no. But that's not quite the same as saying we don't have control over what we belief in some ways.

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

It's the latter, of those two choices. But as we have some control over what we learn, we can indirectly influence our own beliefs. I can deliberately set out the educate myself, challenge existing notions, keep myself abreast of competing beliefs, etc...or not. And (no matter what people think of themselves) the level to which we do this changes by topic, etc. Some people are more likely to challenge themselves than others. But there are so many hours in the day, and we can only direct that in so many ways.

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?

That is a little more nuanced than the options you've presented here, I think. To me, 'provisional assumption' pretty much includes the entirety of all knowledge I hold. As I'm unaware of the future, and what evidence might present itself, or what I might experience, everything I currently believe may change. Or not. Some things I could judge as more likely to change than others, for a multitude of reasons, but still...

And, of course, I can act as if something is true, even whilst not having a true belief in it. That's not the same as belief, in any way, shape or form. But it might also not be a provisional assumption at all.

An example, since I'm explaining that last one poorly.
I'm an atheist, because I don't believe there are God/s. That is my honest belief, and it is entirely divorced from any thoughts around whether Gods are good, bad, or indifferent. I might believe God does not literally exist, and yet conclude that living as a Roman Catholic provides the best possible social structures, educational access for my kids, etc. I can act as if I am Roman Catholic regardless of how my personal beliefs in God develop or change, so long as that separate belief in the larger benefits of living as a Catholic remain.

Not sure how many people actually do the latter (I certainly don't...I have weirdly old fashioned ideas on some things...lol) but I think it applies as an illustration on my thoughts around belief.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I disagree. I can no more choose to believe something than I can choose not to. So, for example, it is impossible for me to start disbelieving gravity or other matters of physics (like the production of heat on my stove top, for instance), and to then act accordingly. Sorry, all the "choosing" in the world will not get me to step off the precipice, nor place my hand on the red burner on my kitchen range.

No you still choose. You would be choosing not to die and not to burn yourself. But there are many people who have chosen to commit suicide. There are monks who have chosen to walk on hot coals. So whether you will admit it or not - it is still a choice.