Choosing One's Beliefs

[Willamena]

It seems like you are equating belief with acceptance, as another poster pointed out. One can accept that something is true without believing it ..

All I am saying is that to believe in something is to think it is true. One does not think something is true unless they are convinced in some way. Obviously, it isn't certainty, but one can't choose to think something is true.

When it comes to something supernatural like God, imho, the evidence must be pretty darn convincing. The existence of a supernatural, personal creator is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Right. It is that something 'appears to be true' (in other words, a person holds the attitude of truth) that has 'convinced them.'

 

[Willamena]

In other words, the poster believes that a person telling themselves they are a pretty, pretty princess in the mirror every morning might lead to the belief that they are indeed a pretty, pretty princess. And, (this is the important part), because they might come to believe this they can influence their beliefs.

Still in different terms, if we can consciously choose actions which increase the likelihood of beliefs obtaining, then we are in effect choosing our beliefs.

I deleted that post, because you two seem to know what you're talking about even if I don't.

Behaviors can influence beliefs, yes. I suppose it would depend upon a person's willingness to believe that indulging an imagined state is a suitable method.

 

[Curious George]

I deleted that post, because you two seem to know what you're talking about even if I don't.

Behaviors can influence beliefs, yes. I suppose it would depend upon a person's willingness to believe that indulging an imagined state is a suitable method.

Yes I would agree if influence was the only word used. But it calls this probabilistic influence choice. Which by its nature it cannot be.

 

[Curious George]

I don't know whether or not we can never consciously choose our beliefs, but I do know that in some circumstances we cannot. For instance, if I break my nose walking into a tree in the dark I'm going to come away from the experience believing that tree was awfully darn hard -- and no matter how much I might consciously will to not believe that tree was hard, some part of me will always believe it. So, at least in some circumstances, I do not believe we can consciously change our beliefs.

This is the key point Sunny...

Once you realize this you are inches away from a larger truth. The logic involved is the same for all beliefs. Ergo, we do not choose any belief. Follow the rabbit hole even more and you really get to thinking because what then do we choose. It is a phenomenological and epistemological wonderland. If I had a plate of mashed potatoes you could be damn sure that it would be in the shape of a mountain.

 

[Willamena]

Choosing requires options. We can choose between beliefs (as propositions or states) and imagined possible beliefs, but then the denominator can no longer be belief: the denominator has to be common.

Choosing between apples and oranges is moot.

PS: The "denominator" is what you are choosing

 

[Curious George]

Choosing requires options. We can choose between beliefs (as propositions or states) and imagined possible beliefs, but then the denominator can no longer be belief: the denominator has to be common.

Choosing between apples and oranges is moot.

We cannot choose to believe. Belief is a state of mind. You can have a hypothetical state of mind, but only one actual state of mind.

Our state of mind is a consequence of not only our actions but also others actions, our preceptions, and our previous states of mind. We can not choose all of these factors therefore we cannot choose our beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

We cannot choose to believe. Belief is a state of mind. You can have a hypothetical state of mind, but only one actual state of mind.

Ostensibly agreed. That is precise why they are a comparison of apples to oranges: one is an attitude of truth towards the proposition--a statement with potential truth value--and the other is an imagined proposition, incapable of being the bearer of truth value.* Their common denominator may be the loosely termed "mental entities" (states of mind treated as objects for discussion), but not belief, which would be one of the mental entities.

Our state of mind is a consequence of not only our actions but also others actions, our preceptions, and our previous states of mind. We can not choose all of these factors therefore we cannot choose our beliefs.

The terminology and the epistemic modelling has to be clear for this discussion to work.

Once the world (the propositions, perceptions, actions, etc.) has been concretized (with the appearance of truth) and become apparent reality, there is no option that will satisfy to make any part of reality a choice: yes. But part of this discussion touched upon when the apparent reality has actually changed, such as when we realize that what we believe is mistaken. One person's vernacular might capture that as that our belief has changed, while another might capture it as that the information changed and belief remains unchanged.

I will continue later, I have to get to work.


*The discussion of whether imagined propositions are capable of being the bearer of truth value is dealt with as philosophical realism.

 

[PureX]

That is true...which is why many people cannot believe in a specific god claim. Evidence is lacking and/or contrary evidence is present. They cannot choose arbitrarily.

They are fools, then, because the whole God ideal is not about acquiring sufficient evidence. It's about trusting in an ideal that we hope to be true, and then living by it to see if it can will become true, for us. The whole God concept is an expression of hope, and faith, not knowledge and evidence. To dismiss the idea of God because you have no "evidence" is to completely miss the point and the purpose of the ideal.

 

[PureX]

How can you not see that your reasoning is circular? You are saying we choose belief because we choose belief.

No, I'm saying that we are choosing our beliefs because we are choosing the mechanisms by which we arrive at believing (or not believing).

 

[leibowde84]

So according to your belief such a person is lying to you. He does have a reason that he refuses to share with you. Well, that is convenient for you. You can always say that any example of someone claiming to choose a belief without justification really just means they are choosing not to tell you what their justifications are.

No, I'm just saying that if they claim to have chosen to believe without being convinced in any way (thus, not actually thinking it true), they don't really believe.

Well, I'm not here to change your beliefs. If you don't think it's possible, then I'll leave it for you to think about. Thank You for your thoughts.

My mind is open to considering any evidence you can provide.

 

[leibowde84]

Right. It is that something 'appears to be true' (in other words, a person holds the attitude of truth) that has 'convinced them.'

Yeah, that would mean that they are convinced in some way. So, that would be an actualized belief.

 

[Curious George]

No, I'm saying that we are choosing our beliefs because we are choosing the mechanisms by which we arrive at believing (or not believing).

But what you refer to as mechanisms are in part nothing more than other beliefs. Ergo you are saying that we can choose our beliefs by choosing our beliefs

 

[Ponder This]

I mean that if you are dealing with possibilities it was not a choice. Choices are definitive. If you choose something it is chosen, there is no probability.

I see. So you mean that a person cannot believe in God if he entertains even the slightest doubt whatsoever about it.
If a person even entertains the notion that God doesn't exist for even an instant, then he has lost faith because he thinks for a moment that maybe God doesn't exist.

For some people, it would be impossible to believe in God for this reason: they cannot accept anything as undoubtedly true. They always entertain the notion that it is possible they are wrong. Is that fair to say?

But if a person eventually arrives at a state of unquestioning faith, then I don't exactly see how it matters how he got there. Do you mean definitive or instant?

For example, a person does not definitively finish the race until he crosses the finish line, but it does not mean he is not racing towards the finish line. Why should he be required to go from start to finish in an instant for the race to be definitive?

 

[Curious George]

I see. So you mean that a person cannot believe in God if he entertains even the slightest doubt whatsoever about it.
If a person even entertains the notion that God doesn't exist for even an instant, then he has lost faith because he thinks for a moment that maybe God doesn't exist.

No, this is not what I am saying.

For some people, it would be impossible to believe in God for this reason: they cannot accept anything as undoubtedly true. They always entertain the notion that it is possible they are wrong. Is that fair to say?

But if a person eventually arrives at a state of unquestioning faith, then I don't exactly see how it matters how he got there. Do you mean definitive or instant?

For example, a person does not definitively finish the race until he crosses the finish line, but it does not mean he is not racing towards the finish line. Why should he be required to go from start to finish in an instant for the race to be definitive?

 

[Milton Platt]

They are fools, then, because the whole God ideal is not about acquiring sufficient evidence. It's about trusting in an ideal that we hope to be true, and then living by it to see if it can will become true, for us. The whole God concept is an expression of hope, and faith, not knowledge and evidence. To dismiss the idea of God because you have no "evidence" is to completely miss the point and the purpose of the ideal.

If the "god ideal" (whatever that means) is not true in the first place, then "living by it" won't make it true. But I at least understand what you were talking about as far as choosing the mechanisms which cause us to believe. I choose to be grounded in what can be demonstrated to be true, rather than believing without sufficient evidence.

 

[Willamena]

I choose to be grounded in what can be demonstrated to be true, rather than believing without sufficient evidence.

I don't even choose that, it's just who I am.

 

[PureX]

If the "god ideal" (whatever that means) is not true in the first place, then "living by it" won't make it true.

We can't know whether the god ideal is true or not. There is no way for any human to ascertain this. So this objection is irrelevant.

But I at least understand what you were talking about as far as choosing the mechanisms which cause us to believe. I choose to be grounded in what can be demonstrated to be true, rather than believing without sufficient evidence.

But your "truth" is an illusion. It is merely a theory of what is true based on the fact that when you apply it to your experience of reality, it "works". But your experience of reality is limited, and you ability to understand what you do experience is also limited (as with all humans) and so you can never really know if what you think is true, would remain true, if you could experience more, and think better.

We humans don't get to know the truth. All we can do is theorize about what is the truth relative to our limited experience and comprehension of 'what is' (the truth is 'what is'). So you are essentially lying to yourself when you presume that your current theory of 'what is' (and isn't), IS reality and truth. And recognizing this gives you the ability to change what you presume to be reality and truth if you want to. In fact, you've actually been choosing it all along, without realizing it. We all have.

 

[Milton Platt]

We can't know whether the god ideal is true or not. There is no way for any human to ascertain this. So this objection is irrelevant.

But your "truth" is an illusion. It is merely a theory of what is true based on the fact that when you apply it to your experience of reality, it "works". But your experience of reality is limited, and you ability to understand what you do experience is also limited (as with all humans) and so you can never really know if what you think is true, would remain true, if you could experience more, and think better.

We humans don't get to know the truth. All we can do is theorize about what is the truth relative to our limited experience and comprehension of 'what is' (the truth is 'what is'). So you are essentially lying to yourself when you presume that your current theory of 'what is' (and isn't), IS reality and truth. And recognizing this gives you the ability to change what you presume to be reality and truth if you want to. In fact, you've actually been choosing it all along, without realizing it. We all have.

If you are human as well, then by your own standards, you cannot know if what you just said is actually true.............so there is no reason to believe you, is there?

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't even choose that, it's just who I am.

Yes....that's really it, isn't it?

 

[PureX]

If you are human as well, then by your own standards, you cannot know if what you just said is actually true.............so there is no reason to believe you, is there?

We can all know THAT we don't know even if we don't know WHAT we don't know.

If you're looking for an excuse not to believe me, you don't need one. Your are free to believe whatever you wish. If you're looking for an excuse to pretend that you know the truth even though you know you could be wrong, you don't need one. You can pretend whatever you want. But the fact that you think you do need an excuse, and justification, lends credibility to my original observation. And the fact that you have found yourself to be wrong about what you thought was true in the past, does also.