Choosing One's Beliefs

[PureX]

I have seen the idea posted several times, now, that we humans are not able to choose what we believe to be true or untrue. That somehow truth is an overwhelming force that we are unable to turn our backs on, once it's been recognized. And I know from my own experience that this is a bogus presumption.

Furthermore, I see this presumption being iterated in the context of believing in "God", which I find even more absurd, since the nature and existence of "God" has never been sufficiently proven by anyone, ever, either way. Such that no "truth" has ever been established. So that whether one believes in God or not, they can't be turning their back on an established truth by deciding to change their belief, because no such truth has ever been established to turn their back, on.

So I would like to clarify a few things for those who presume they are unable to choose their own beliefs.

1. Belief is a presumed truth, not an actual truth. This is a key point to understand. And as we all know, we can and often do presume, wrongly. In which case we must be able to change our presumptions as circumstances demand.
2. If we can and do change our minds about what we presume to be true according to the evidence of circumstance, then why couldn't we do so in accord with our desire? After all, what is circumstance, anyway, but the context within which our presumed truth becomes true? Its a context that has desire written all over it.
3. So what it all comes down to, then, is how we decide to determine truthfulness. Not that we can't change our minds. And I say that how we determine truthfulness is by how the 'truth proposition' works for us within our own experience and understanding of reality (circumstance).

Example:

Proposed truth - my car can fly.
Experience - my car has never flown.
Understanding - my car does not possess the necessary mechanisms to afford it that capability.
Presumed truth - my car does not fly.

None of this means that my car couldn't, can't, or doesn't fly. It just means that by my current criteria for establishing a presumption of truth (i.e., my experience and understanding of existential reality), this is my presumed truth. If that criteria were changed, however, so might the presumed of truth. And this is where I gain the control, as I am the one setting this criteria.

But what about when the proposed truth is something that we cannot physically test, like a proposed metaphysical truth? Like the existence of a metaphysical god-being that stands as the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists? How do we test this proposal, to determine it's truth?

We adopt the proposal as being true, live by this truth, and then see if it "works for us" in our experience and understanding of reality (we act on faith). And since I am setting the criteria for what "works" and what doesn't, if I change that criteria, I can change the presumed truthfulness that results. If my characterization of "God" isn't working for me, for example, I could change my characterization of "God" and see if the new "God" works better. Or, I could change what it means to be "working" or not working for me. Which would then also change my presumption of it's truth. Once I understand that I control the definition of the proposed truth, and the criteria by which it is judged "working" or not, I am in control of the result. I am in control of whether or not I will presume the proposed truth to be true, or untrue.

 

[PureX]

Now let me explain how this works in actual practice.

I have long considered the proposal of the existence of "God", and have decided that I can not verify the nature or existence of such a 'being'. I can, however, accept that such a being could exists based on my desire that it be so, and on the amazing and inexplicable mystery that existence continues to show itself to be. And furthermore, I can reasonably ascribe some "divine", or "transcendent" attributes to this being as I have witnessed them being expressed within my experience of reality.

So although I can prove nothing, I can reasonably accept that some sort of divine entity can exist as the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And that I can embody the 'spirit' of this divinity, though not the actual character of it, in the expressions of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity that are occurring all around me, and in me, via my own experience of existential reality.

And I can test the "truthfulness" of this proposed 'divine being/spirit' by adopting it as the being true, and then living in accordance with that truth as best I can. Which I have done, and have found that it "works" by my definition of that criteria, and within my experience and understanding of existential reality.

Thus, I have chosen to become an agnostic theist, as I have deliberately have taken on that truth and have found that it "works" for me.

I could at any time choose to drop this presumption of reality and truth, and try something other, but so far this is working well enough that I see no reason to bother.

 

[Curious George]

I have seen the idea posted several times, now, that we humans are not able to choose what we believe to be true or untrue. That somehow truth is an overwhelming force that we are unable to turn our backs on, once it's been recognized. And I know from my own experience that this is a bogus presumption.

Furthermore, I see this presumption being iterated in the context of believing in "God", which I find even more absurd, since the nature and existence of "God" has never been sufficiently proven by anyone, ever, either way. Such that no "truth" has ever been established. So that whether one believes in God or not, they can't be turning their back on an established truth by deciding to change their belief, because no such truth has ever been established to turn their back, on.

So I would like to clarify a few things for those who presume they are unable to choose their own beliefs.

1. Belief is a presumed truth, not an actual truth. This is a key point to understand. And as we all know, we can and often do presume, wrongly. In which case we must be able to change our presumptions as circumstances demand.
2. If we can and do change our minds about what we presume to be true according to the evidence of circumstance, then why couldn't we do so in accord with our desire? After all, what is circumstance, anyway, but the context within which our presumed truth becomes true? Its a context that has desire written all over it.
3. So what it all comes down to, then, is how we decide to determine truthfulness. Not that we can't change our minds. And I say that how we determine truthfulness is by how the 'truth proposition' works for us within our own experience and understanding of reality (circumstance).

Example:

Proposed truth - my car can fly.
Experience - my car has never flown.
Understanding - my car does not possess the necessary mechanisms to afford it that capability.
Presumed truth - my car does not fly.

None of this means that my car couldn't, can't, or doesn't fly. It just means that by my current criteria for establishing a presumption of truth (i.e., my experience and understanding of existential reality), this is my presumed truth. If that criteria were changed, however, so might the presumed of truth. And this is where I gain the control, as I am the one setting this criteria.

But what about when the proposed truth is something that we cannot physically test, like a proposed metaphysical truth? Like the existence of a metaphysical god-being that stands as the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists? How do we test this proposal, to determine it's truth?

We adopt the proposal as being true, live by this truth, and then see if it "works for us" in our experience and understanding of reality (we act on faith). And since I am setting the criteria for what "works" and what doesn't, if I change that criteria, I can change the presumed truthfulness that results. If my characterization of "God" isn't working for me, for example, I could change my characterization of "God" and see if the new "God" works better. Or, I could change what it means to be "working" or not working for me. Which would then also change my presumption of it's truth. Once I understand that I control the definition of the proposed truth, and the criteria by which it is judged "working" or not, I am in control of the result. I am in control of whether or not I will presume the proposed truth to be true, or untrue.

Your argument begs the question.

You are suggesting you can change beliefs (a presumption) by changing beliefs (understanding).

Without question, our beliefs can change. This is just not something we do. We can seek to challenge our views. We can learn new information, we can ponder questions, we can speculate, we can use deduction and induction: we can reason. But at the end of all of this, we don't choose what we believe. We either believe proposituon A or we do not.

I would agree that we have an indirect choice in shaping our beliefs. But no more.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have seen the idea posted several times, now, that we humans are not able to choose what we believe to be true or untrue. That somehow truth is an overwhelming force that we are unable to turn our backs on, once it's been recognized. And I know from my own experience that this is a bogus presumption.

Furthermore, I see this presumption being iterated in the context of believing in "God", which I find even more absurd, since the nature and existence of "God" has never been sufficiently proven by anyone, ever, either way. Such that no "truth" has ever been established. So that whether one believes in God or not, they can't be turning their back on an established truth by deciding to change their belief, because no such truth has ever been established to turn their back, on.

So I would like to clarify a few things for those who presume they are unable to choose their own beliefs.

1. Belief is a presumed truth, not an actual truth. This is a key point to understand. And as we all know, we can and often do presume, wrongly. In which case we must be able to change our presumptions as circumstances demand.
2. If we can and do change our minds about what we presume to be true according to the evidence of circumstance, then why couldn't we do so in accord with our desire? After all, what is circumstance, anyway, but the context within which our presumed truth becomes true? Its a context that has desire written all over it.
3. So what it all comes down to, then, is how we decide to determine truthfulness. Not that we can't change our minds. And I say that how we determine truthfulness is by how the 'truth proposition' works for us within our own experience and understanding of reality (circumstance).

Example:

Proposed truth - my car can fly.
Experience - my car has never flown.
Understanding - my car does not possess the necessary mechanisms to afford it that capability.
Presumed truth - my car does not fly.

None of this means that my car couldn't, can't, or doesn't fly. It just means that by my current criteria for establishing a presumption of truth (i.e., my experience and understanding of existential reality), this is my presumed truth. If that criteria were changed, however, so might the presumed of truth. And this is where I gain the control, as I am the one setting this criteria.

But what about when the proposed truth is something that we cannot physically test, like a proposed metaphysical truth? Like the existence of a metaphysical god-being that stands as the origin, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists? How do we test this proposal, to determine it's truth?

We adopt the proposal as being true, live by this truth, and then see if it "works for us" in our experience and understanding of reality (we act on faith). And since I am setting the criteria for what "works" and what doesn't, if I change that criteria, I can change the presumed truthfulness that results. If my characterization of "God" isn't working for me, for example, I could change my characterization of "God" and see if the new "God" works better. Or, I could change what it means to be "working" or not working for me. Which would then also change my presumption of it's truth. Once I understand that I control the definition of the proposed truth, and the criteria by which it is judged "working" or not, I am in control of the result. I am in control of whether or not I will presume the proposed truth to be true, or untrue.

Meaningless blather.

 

[Curious George]

Now let me explain how this works in actual practice.

I have long considered the proposal of the existence of "God", and have decided that I cannot know the nature or existence of such a 'being'. I can, however, accept that such a being exists based on my desire that such a being exist, and on the amazing and inexplicable mystery that existence continues to show itself to be. And furthermore, I can reasonably attribute some "divine", or "transcendent" attributes to this being as I have witness them being expressed within my experience of reality.

So although I can prove nothing, I can reasonably accept that some sort of divine entity exists as the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And that I can witness the 'spirit' of this divinity, though not the actual character of it, in the expressions of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity that are occurring all around me, and in me, via my own experience of existential reality.

And I can test the "truthfulness" of this proposed 'divine being/spirit' by adopting it as the truth, and then living in accord with that truth as best I can. Which I have done, and found that it "works" by my definition of that criteria, and within my experience and understanding of existential reality.

Thus, I have chosen to become an agnostic theist, as I have deliberately have taken on that truth and have found that it "works" for me as 'the truth'.

I could at any time choose to drop this presumption of reality and truth, and try something other, but so far this is working well enough that I see no reason to bother.

You can entertain other ideas. This is different than choosing your beliefs. Entertaining other ideas is certainly a way of challenging your beliefs and might lead to a change or not. This is the problem though. You cannot control whether or not a change occurs. Therefore you cannot control your belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your argument begs the question.

You are suggesting you can change beliefs (a presumption) by changing beliefs (understanding).

Without question, our beliefs can change. This is just not something we do. We can seek to challenge our views. We can learn new information, we can ponder questions, we can speculate, we can use deduction and induction: we can reason. But at the end of all of this, we don't choose what we believe. We either believe proposituon A or we do not.

I would agree that we have an indirect choice in shaping our beliefs. But no more.

A belief is an adherence. Ultimately, this is the conclusion that we reach, despite , whatever reasoning we may have considered.

The op is so wrong, its almost an achievement in having no idea what the concept/s/ are.

 

[Curious George]

A belief is an adherence. Ultimately, this is the conclusion that we reach, despite , whatever reasoning we may have considered.

The op is so wrong, its almost an achievement in having no idea what the concept/s/ are.

The way in which we are using belief is acceptance or rejection of the truth of a proposition.

I can see how this may be the case despite reason, however, it is also possible for it to be the case because of reason.

 

[Polymath257]

Now let me explain how this works in actual practice.

I have long considered the proposal of the existence of "God", and have decided that I cannot know the nature or existence of such a 'being'. I can, however, accept that such a being exists based on my desire that such a being exist, and on the amazing and inexplicable mystery that existence continues to show itself to be. And furthermore, I can reasonably attribute some "divine", or "transcendent" attributes to this being as I have witness them being expressed within my experience of reality.

So although I can prove nothing, I can reasonably accept that some sort of divine entity exists as the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. And that I can witness the 'spirit' of this divinity, though not the actual character of it, in the expressions of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity that are occurring all around me, and in me, via my own experience of existential reality.

And I can test the "truthfulness" of this proposed 'divine being/spirit' by adopting it as the truth, and then living in accord with that truth as best I can. Which I have done, and found that it "works" by my definition of that criteria, and within my experience and understanding of existential reality.

Thus, I have chosen to become an agnostic theist, as I have deliberately have taken on that truth and have found that it "works" for me as 'the truth'.

I could at any time choose to drop this presumption of reality and truth, and try something other, but so far this is working well enough that I see no reason to bother.

In this scenario, do you have a choice in determining whether something 'works' via your criteria? Do you have a choice in deciding what level of 'works' is enough for you? Or is it something that you find out about yourself?

 

[Desert Snake]

The way in which we are using belief is acceptance or rejection of the truth of a proposition.

I can see how this may be the case despite reason, however, it is also possible for it to be the case because of reason.

That is still despite of;

the conclusion is not predicated on that.

 

[Desert Snake]

The 'belief', is not predicated by how or why, one arrived at that belief.

 

[Curious George]

That is still despite of;

the conclusion is not predicated on that.

In some instances.

That some instances are clearly affected by reason is contrary to "despite" as i understand it

 

[Desert Snake]

1. Belief is a presumed truth, not an actual truth. This is a key point to understand. And as we all know, we can and often

Presumed truth, does not mean that it isnt a actual truth, that is gibberish. A presumed truth, may or may not be an actual truth.

 

[Desert Snake]

In some instances.

That some instances are clearly affected by reason is contrary to "despite" as i understand it

No, belief does not need a reason, etc. Belief may or may not be predicated on reason, or other things; that is not inferred either way, by the word belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

I describe our will as having the potential of 'free will,' but largely deterministic, because of many chains of antecedent causes. As far as our choice of faith, or belief system, goes there are so many chains of antecedent causes the determines our choice of faith, the culture and religion we are raised in is the major cause for most to choose their faith. With that there is the desire for a 'sense of community,' which if people believe or feel they are no longer a part of their community they choose another.

One thing that is most often not involved here is an 'Independent search for truth or knowledge,' because of the highly diverse and conflicting differences between the belief systems. This results in wide range of conflicting views on science, and an egocentric view of other belief systems that believe differently from other beliefs systems.

I believe the 'potential of free will,' remains, but it is most often not exercised in choosing one's belief system.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I

We adopt the proposal as being true, live by this truth, and then see if it "works for us" in our experience and understanding of reality (we act on faith).

I liked much of what you wrote there, but this is the critical part. To "adopt the proposal as being true" without good evidence is where (in my opinion) people go wrong. It is not what we do in everyday life. If you tell me "people can fly, go jump off that cliff, it's fine" I'm not going to believe you because my life experience and education tells me otherwise. There is no good evidence to suggest people can fly so I'm not going to do it. I'm not going"to adopt the proposal as being true" because the evidence is very poor for that "proposal".

That is, in fact, how we live our lives except when it comes to religion. When it comes to religion you can park your intellect outside the temple and "adopt the proposal as being true". Best avoided I'd say!

 

[PureX]

Your argument begs the question.

You are suggesting you can change beliefs (a presumption) by changing beliefs (understanding).

Without question, our beliefs can change. This is just not something we do. We can seek to challenge our views. We can learn new information, we can ponder questions, we can speculate, we can use deduction and induction: we can reason. But at the end of all of this, we don't choose what we believe. We either believe proposituon A or we do not.

I would agree that we have an indirect choice in shaping our beliefs. But no more.

What we believe to be true depends on how we go about determining truthfulness. If we want to change the things we "believe in", all we have to do is examine the way we arrived at the presumption of their truthfulness, and change the criteria. This can sometimes be difficult, but it's not that difficult, and it's certainly possible.

When I realized that the existence of God could not be verified, by anyone, I understood that this afforded my a great opportunity. That opportunity being that I could define this undefined entity any way I wanted to. Any way that I thought made sense to me. And any way that I find particularly positive and effecting in my life. And no one can show me that my "God" is invalid because no human has that capability. (Though many think they do.) Belief in god is not based on knowledge. Which means it's based on something else. And to me, logically, that something else would be effect, and desire.

I have explored a number of variations on the "God" idea, and I reserve the right to alter, change, drop, or co-opt the idea at any time and for whatever reason I choose. And I can do this because I recognize that my idea of "God" is just my idea of "God". It's not the "truth of God". At least not by any measure that I can muster. So I don't believe in God because I think God exists exactly or even mostly as I imagine; I believe in my "God" because I find that doing so works well for me. I don't really even care that much if God exists beyond my conception. Because it's my conception of God that works for me. And I can logically and reasonably maintain that conception for as long as I remain a limited and ignorant human.

And so can any atheist, here.

 

[PureX]

In this scenario, do you have a choice in determining whether something 'works' via your criteria?

Yes, because I determine the criteria. For example, does this proposed truth "work" to make me rich? No. But I can change the criteria and ask does it work to make me happy? And in so doing, perhaps I get a very different assessment.

A lot of people ask themselves "does God exist". I think that's a foolish question given the fact no human could answer it. So the more pertinent question, to me, is: how does my believing that God exists effect me? How does it effect others through me? How does it effect me if I reject the belief? How would that rejection effect others through me? And so on.

I'm not that interested in "The Truth", I'm interested in what works. I think "The Truth" is a bit of a sham, maintained in our minds by our egos, that can't stand to ever be "wrong". When, if we are being truly honest with ourselves, we'll see that we're wrong most of the time about most of the things that matter. And we don't even know how to tell. So chasing "The Truth" is a bit like chasing fool's gold. Whereas just keeping an open mind, trying out new ideas, and doing what works for us, seems to be far a more honest and effective pursuit.

Do you have a choice in deciding what level of 'works' is enough for you? Or is it something that you find out about yourself?

Asking myself if the result is worth the effort I have to expend to get it is probably my usual criteria. Over the years this way of 'being' becomes somewhat instinctual, so I don't have to ponder it consciously, so much.

I've been an artist all my life, so for me, creative intuition is second nature.

 

[PureX]

I liked much of what you wrote there, but this is the critical part. To "adopt the proposal as being true" without good evidence is where (in my opinion) people go wrong. It is not what we do in everyday life.

That depends. People have all sorts of differing criteria for what they consider to be "good evidence", "reasonable evidence", "enough evidence", and so on. And although they mostly do it subconsciously, they usually 'skew' their evidential criteria to favor the result they want to get, and verify the truths that they want verified. We humans are nothing if not biased, and our biases tend to favor our desires one way or another.

If you tell me "people can fly, go jump off that cliff, it's fine" I'm not going to believe you because my life experience and education tells me otherwise. There is no good evidence to suggest people can fly so I'm not going to do it. I'm not going "to adopt the proposal as being true" because the evidence is very poor for that "proposal".

But the truth is that a great many possible truths are not so easily evidenced one way or another. Most of them are not well evidenced at all, or are drowning in contradictory evidence. And this is especially true of 'metaphysical truths', like gods, and fate, and existential meaning and purpose. The very things that matter most to us.

That is, in fact, how we live our lives except when it comes to religion. When it comes to religion you can park your intellect outside the temple and "adopt the proposal as being true". Best avoided I'd say!

Not just religion, lot of things. And there is no avoiding these question for we humans. It's in our natures to ask them.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

But the truth is that a great many possible truths are not so easily evidenced one way or another. Most of them are not well evidenced at all, or are drowning in contradictory evidence. And this is especially true of 'metaphysical truths', like gods, and fate, and existential meaning and purpose. The very things that matter most to us.

Sure, but these are things we cannot 'test', so surely the obvious "default" position is not to believe in the light of non existent/poor evidence right? I'd also disagree that these are the "very things that matter most to us". My loved ones are the things that matter most to me, and I suspect the vast majority of the human race. Anyone who puts "metaphysical truths" top on their list of priorities is in a very small minority I'd say.

 

[PureX]

Sure, but these are things we cannot 'test', so surely the obvious "default" position is not to believe in the light of non existent/poor evidence right?

By what reasoning do you arrive at that conclusion? Our not knowing means that we don't know. It doesn't automatically default to "it's not so".

I'd also disagree that these are the "very things that matter most to us". My loved ones are the things that matter most to me, and I suspect the vast majority of the human race. Anyone who puts "metaphysical truths" top on their list of priorities is in a very small minority I'd say.

When one of those loved ones is suffering, or dies, you will find yourself facing those 'metaphysical' questions. And the fact that the vast majority of people choose to believe in God, and follow some form of religious doctrine, would indicate that they do ponder those metaphysical questions even if you aren't.