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.