Choosing One's Beliefs

[Willamena]

The choice creates your reality. If someone buying a car has to decide between a red car and a blue car, the choice results in the color of the car he is driving around. He has to live with that choice. If he picks red, then you can't say he is driving around in a blue car: that would be dishonest. If he wants to trade the red car in for a blue car (change his mind), then he can do that, but he's going to have to make a conscious choice to do so. Then we can say he is driving around in a blue car and we can be honest about it.

You can argue that he wasn't truly convinced that he should be driving a red car, but he certainly was driving a red car.

If someone chooses to believe in a god, you can't say that he's being dishonest if he actually believes in a god.

If something happens to him that shakes his faith and causes him to give up his devotion to a god, you can argue that he wasn't truly convinced in his heart of hearts, but that doesn't mean he didn't believe in a god.

Evidence is not required for belief; imagination is required.

You appear to believe that evidence is required for belief, but evidence is really only required for justified belief. It also seems like you don't believe that people make choices (about anything).

'judge' means "decide (a case) in court"
'convict' means "declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law"

We can also ask: was the decision just? And you seem to be saying that it must always be justified.
I would hope that it is.

Law has its own terms for its own purposes that don't reflect well in this discussion, which is more about epistemics and ethics.

 

[leibowde84]

Definition of justify: to show or prove to be right or reasonable.

I mean precisely that you hold that you must show something to be right or reasonable to yourself as a prerequisite for you to believe it.

If we agree that I've stated your position correctly, then I don't see anything further to discuss. The point upon which we disagree is clear. You don't accept my arguments and I don't accept your arguments. I don't think there are any points being misunderstood.

If I haven't stated the issue to your satisfaction (or if you have an additional argument to add), please do so.



The point about the car is precisely that he isn't convinced about red until after he has chosen red. It was explained that he didn't have a preference for red cars over blue cars or vice versa. If you now wish to insist that he must have had a preference, that's fine, but I don't accept your argument. I see it as attached preference after the fact. I understand that you insist there must have been a preference even if we weren't aware of it and I reject this argument. He had no compelling reason to accept red over blue or vice versa.

This is just restating things already said.

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

I thought the link did expand on it. I would say a belief forms the moment one concludes a proposition is more likely than not. The amount of confidence that we credit such a belief is likely to be small (however our valuation is but a belief in itself so it could vary person to person). But a belief is an attitude toward a particular proposition. It does not matter how much you continue question it, or how little confidence you have in it as long as there is some confidence. My understanding of what you are saying is that while you might believe one proposition more likely than not you do not want to commit to that proposition because you still do not have enough confidence in that proposituon to intellectually claim it. My point is this shifts the conversation from belief towards knowledge. You are now discussing beliefs in regards to certainty and what evidences are valuable enough. Just because you have very little confidence in a belief does not mean it is not still a belief. I would suggest that the degree of belief relates to how closely held a belief is, not whether or not the belief is a belief or not.

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.

 

[Curious George]

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.

No, I am not equating belief with acceptance. That you believe x is more likely than does not mean that you cannot accept for consideration the opposite.

I am saying that belief is an attitude and we cannot willfully change that attitude.

 

[Ponder This]

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

Someone attached a link to a philosophical understanding where they were using the terms acceptance and belief differently (since the definition of believe is to accept as true).

But to answer the point about acceptance vs belief, I'll rephrase it in terms of entertaining notions as true vs believing they are true. In other words, there is a way of thinking about things as if they were true without accepting them as being true.

You are saying that evidence is required for a person to cross the edge from entertaining ideas as if they were true to accepting them as true, and I'm saying a person can cross that edge without the evidence. While I agree that many beliefs are indeed justified by the individual, I disagree that they are necessarily so. I hold that a person often self-justifies after choosing rather than before (just like you can say that a person prefers red... after they choose the color red).

but one can't choose to think something is true

Belief is not bound by the absolute nature of truth. You can't choose what is true, but you can choose what to accept as being true. Moreover, your beliefs are not required to be rational, consistent with each other, or even justified.
You can justify your beliefs and you can justify your beliefs and you can justify your beliefs, but, ultimately, you can answer the question of why you believe something to be true by simply saying that you believe it to be true without justification.

For example, a person can say they believe in God because of this or that they believe in God because of that or they believe because of yet another thing, or they can find themselves in a situation where they have no evidence and choose to believe anyways. That person might not be you, but I don't see how you can deny that someone else could do this.

Moreover, I don't see how it can be that you've never come across something that you accept as true without evidence. If all of your beliefs are justified, then it follows that all of your justifications are justified and therefore, you will suffer infinite regression of justification. But are you God? Or just a person like everyone else? Who can actually sit down and spend the time to infinitely self-justify? No one can. So it must be that there is something that you hold to be true without justification. You decided that it was true. You could've chosen something else to be true, but you didn't.

From the point of view of psychology, we often justify our beliefs afterwards and not before hand. Once we hold that something is true, we can generate reasons why it must be true that will self-affirm the belief and not because those are the reasons we chose to believe to begin with.

 

[leibowde84]

You are saying that evidence is required for a person to cross the edge from entertaining ideas as if they were true to accepting them as true, and I'm saying a person can cross that edge without the evidence. While I agree that many beliefs are indeed justified by the individual, I disagree that they are necessarily so. I hold that a person often self-justifies after choosing rather than before (just like you can say that a person prefers red... after they choose the color red).

When they self-justify, they believe. But, before that, they don't believe. Thus, they choose the color red, but they don't believe that red is better at that point. After they self-justify they begin to believe because they are convinced.

Can you provide an example of someone choosing to think that something is true rather than being convinced that something is true?

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

First, all truths are presumed. Some have much more evidence and are more believable. Second, in your example about the car, you cannot believe your can can fly unless you have a reasonable amount of evidence that it can. That is what people are saying when they say belief is not a choice.....it is based upon the feeling that you have confidence that the belief is true.

 

[Ponder This]

When they self-justify, they believe. But, before that, they don't believe. Thus, they choose the color red, but they don't believe that red is better at that point. After they self-justify they begin to believe because they are convinced.

Is he driving a red car because he prefers red, or is he driving a red car because he chose red? Which is it?
The answer is clear, he is driving a red car because he chose red (even if he later comes up with a 'reason' his car is red).

Can you provide an example of someone choosing to think that something is true rather than being convinced that something is true?

Some people claim to believe God exists, but they are unable to provide justification. Moreover, they agree that there is no evidence and continue to insist that God exists. They believe because they believe because they believe. Do they believe or not?

We can change our beliefs by choice. If a person gets up every morning, looks in the mirror, and makes a statement as if it were true (with as much conviction as he can muster even if he doesn't 'believe' that it is true because there is no 'evidence' for it), then he can eventually convince himself that it must be true even though he doesn't have a reason to believe it. This is the miracle of our irrational minds: that we don't need any further reason to believe other than "I said so".

So let's unpack 'justification for belief' one step further. Self-justification is not required to be rational. Beliefs are not required to be true, merely honest. If I tell myself everyday in the morning in the mirror with as much conviction as I can muster, "God exists", then eventually one day, I can, with honesty, declare that I believe God exists because I said so. I've convinced myself, I've justified it, and I chose it. While you may find my saying so to be insufficient justification for you to believe that God exists, it still qualifies as under the parameters for self-justification. My belief is based upon an indisputable fact: the fact that I've said so. Do you agree?

 

[Curious George]

Is he driving a red car because he prefers red, or is he driving a red car because he chose red? Which is it?
The answer is clear, he is driving a red car because he chose red (even if he later comes up with a 'reason' his car is red).

Yes, he is driving a red car because he chose red. But it does not follow to say that he will believe that red is better because of this choice.

Consequently, he did not choose his belief.

 

[PureX]

First, all truths are presumed. Some have much more evidence and are more believable. Second, in your example about the car, you cannot believe your can can fly unless you have a reasonable amount of evidence that it can. That is what people are saying when they say belief is not a choice.....it is based upon the feeling that you have confidence that the belief is true.

But we decide what is acceptable evidence and what isn't. And we decide how much of it is 'enough' to warrant our belief. So in fact, we ARE deciding what we believe to be true. We're just blaming our belief on the evidence, instead of on the choices we made in generating it. And keep in mind that this is where our bias will manifest.

 

[Ponder This]

Yes, he is driving a red car because he chose red. But it does not follow to say that he will believe that red is better because of this choice.

Consequently, he did not choose his belief.

The point of the red car example was to illustrate that we have an ability to choose things (not necessarily beliefs) and that those choices have an affect. The question being settled was the question of an ability to make any choices whatsoever and the red car vs blue car example established this (as everyone so far has agreed that a person can choose between the two). Introduction of belief into this example is not relevant unless it affects the question of choice (which it does not). The subtlety here is the distinction between those who believe we have no choice because actions are predetermined and people who simply believe we can't choose beliefs. The question put forth was the choice of red car or blue car (not the choice to believe in red cars or believe in blue cars). The belief that red was better was not relevant here because it was formed after the choice was already made. The question of his belief that red is better is a different question altogether. There is no reason to think that he can't decide that red is a better color and I probably could use this to discuss the question of choosing beliefs, but I think better examples exist. So why not use those?

For an example of choosing beliefs rather than demonstrating the ability to make choices generally see the example of self-hypnosis. A person who repeats something to himself often enough can cause himself to believe it. This is a real technique that people actually use to dispel negative debilitating beliefs and instill positive ones. A person can tell himself that he is valuable, that he productive, that other people think he is valuable and productive, and he can dispel the beliefs that he is not valuable, that he is unproductive, and that this is what other people think about him. He can make a conscious choice about what he believes. This isn't something that is out of his control or that he needs to somehow validate with external data.

The notion that we can't choose our beliefs is categorically false. The notion that we must have justifications for our beliefs is curious, since if we want to, we can always create these justifications.

 

[Curious George]

The point of the red car example was to illustrate that we have an ability to choose things (not necessarily beliefs) and that those choices have an affect. The question being settled was the question of an ability to make any choices whatsoever and the red car vs blue car example established this (as everyone so far has agreed that a person can choose between the two). Introduction of belief into this example is not relevant unless it affects the question of choice (which it does not). The subtlety here is the distinction between those who believe we have no choice because actions are predetermined and people who simply believe we can't choose beliefs. The question put forth was the choice of red car or blue car (not the choice to believe in red cars or believe in blue cars). The belief that red was better was not relevant here because it was formed after the choice was already made. The question of his belief that red is better is a different question altogether. There is no reason to think that he can't decide that red is a better color and I probably could use this to discuss the question of choosing beliefs, but I think better examples exist. So why not use those?

For an example of choosing beliefs rather than demonstrating the ability to make choices generally see the example of self-hypnosis. A person who repeats something to himself often enough can cause himself to believe it. This is a real technique that people actually use to dispel negative debilitating beliefs and instill positive ones. A person can tell himself that he is valuable, that he productive, that other people think he is valuable and productive, and he can dispel the beliefs that he is not valuable, that he is unproductive, and that this is what other people think about him. He can make a conscious choice about what he believes. This isn't something that is out of his control or that he needs to somehow validate with external data.

The notion that we can't choose our beliefs is categorically false. The notion that we must have justifications for our beliefs is curious, since if we want to, we can always create these justifications.

But here is the problem. That person is not choosing a belief. That person is choosing to act in a way that will increase the liklihood of them holding a belief.

 

[Milton Platt]

But we decide what is acceptable evidence and what isn't. And we decide how much of it is 'enough' to warrant our belief. So in fact, we ARE deciding what we believe to be true. We're just blaming our belief on the evidence, instead of on the choices we made in generating it. And keep in mind that this is where our bias will manifest.

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.

 

[Curious George]

But we decide what is acceptable evidence and what isn't. And we decide how much of it is 'enough' to warrant our belief. So in fact, we ARE deciding what we believe to be true. We're just blaming our belief on the evidence, instead of on the choices we made in generating it. And keep in mind that this is where our bias will manifest.

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

 

[leibowde84]

Is he driving a red car because he prefers red, or is he driving a red car because he chose red? Which is it?
The answer is clear, he is driving a red car because he chose red (even if he later comes up with a 'reason' his car is red).

He is driving a red car because he chose red. What on earth does that have to do with belief, though? He isn't choosing to believe anything about the red car or the color.

Some people claim to believe God exists, but they are unable to provide justification. Moreover, they agree that there is no evidence and continue to insist that God exists. They believe because they believe because they believe. Do they believe or not?

This I would have to see for myself. Remember, evidence to an individual can include personal experience, feelings, etc. I think that everyone who actually believes in God have been convinced in some way shape or form.

We can change our beliefs by choice. If a person gets up every morning, looks in the mirror, and makes a statement as if it were true (with as much conviction as he can muster even if he doesn't 'believe' that it is true because there is no 'evidence' for it), then he can eventually convince himself that it must be true even though he doesn't have a reason to believe it. This is the miracle of our irrational minds: that we don't need any further reason to believe other than "I said so".

So let's unpack 'justification for belief' one step further. Self-justification is not required to be rational. Beliefs are not required to be true, merely honest. If I tell myself everyday in the morning in the mirror with as much conviction as I can muster, "God exists", then eventually one day, I can, with honesty, declare that I believe God exists because I said so. I've convinced myself, I've justified it, and I chose it. While you may find my saying so to be insufficient justification for you to believe that God exists, it still qualifies as under the parameters for self-justification. My belief is based upon an indisputable fact: the fact that I've said so. Do you agree?

This I don't believe. I would have to see evidence of it. But, if you can provide it, I'm all ears.

 

[Ponder This]

But here is the problem. That person is not choosing a belief. That person is choosing to act in a way that will increase the liklihood of them holding a belief.

If the conscious exertion of his will upon his own psyche results in him holding a certain belief, then it shows that a change of belief is possible by choice. So what do you mean by "increase the likelihood"? Do you mean there is a non-zero probability that he uses this method to successfully alter his belief?

He is driving a red car because he chose red. What on earth does that have to do with belief, though? He isn't choosing to believe anything about the red car or the color.

The point of the red car example was to illustrate that we have an ability to choose things (not necessarily beliefs) and that those choices have an affect. The question being settled was the question of an ability to make any choices whatsoever and the red car vs blue car example established this (as everyone so far has agreed that a person can choose between the two). Introduction of belief into this example is not relevant unless it affects the question of choice (which it does not). The subtlety here is the distinction between those who believe we have no choice because actions are predetermined and people who simply believe we can't choose beliefs. The question put forth was the choice of red car or blue car (not the choice to believe in red cars or believe in blue cars). The belief that red was better was not relevant here because it was formed after the choice was already made. The question of his belief that red is better is a different question altogether. There is no reason to think that he can't decide that red is a better color and I probably could use this to discuss the question of choosing beliefs, but I think better examples exist. So why not use those?

For an example of choosing beliefs rather than demonstrating the ability to make choices generally see the example of self-hypnosis. A person who repeats something to himself often enough can cause himself to believe it. This is a real technique that people actually use to dispel negative debilitating beliefs and instill positive ones. A person can tell himself that he is valuable, that he productive, that other people think he is valuable and productive, and he can dispel the beliefs that he is not valuable, that he is unproductive, and that this is what other people think about him. He can make a conscious choice about what he believes. This isn't something that is out of his control or that he needs to somehow validate with external data.

The notion that we can't choose our beliefs is categorically false. The notion that we must have justifications for our beliefs is curious, since if we want to, we can always create these justifications.

This I would have to see for myself. Remember, evidence to an individual can include personal experience, feelings, etc. I think that everyone who actually believes in God have been convinced in some way shape or form.

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.

This I don't believe. I would have to see evidence of it. But, if you can provide it, I'm all ears.

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.

 

[Curious George]

If the conscious exertion of his will upon his own psyche results in him holding a certain belief, then it shows that a change of belief is possible by choice. So what do you mean by "increase the likelihood"? Do you mean there is a non-zero probability that he uses this method to successfully alter his belief?
.

Yes

 

[Ponder This]

Yes

Anything that has non-zero probability is possible.
So what's the problem?

If I decide to go to the store and I get in a car and I can turn right or left at an intersection and I choose to turn right because it leads to the store and not left because it doesn't lead to the store, then the decision to turn right was important even if there are other businesses I could go to when I chose to turn right.

But, actually, me deciding to "turn right" was really me deciding to move my hands on the steering wheel and it just so happened that as a result the car turned right.

When I decide to go to the store, should I magically apparate there instead?

You seem to be saying that my decision to turn right is not relevant to my decision to go to the store, but I'm not sure I understand the problem. (I'm not saying there is or isn't a problem). Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[Curious George]

Anything that has non-zero probability is possible.
So what's the problem?

If I decide to go to the store and I get in a car and I can turn right or left at an intersection and I choose to turn right because it leads to the store and not left because it doesn't lead to the store, then the decision to turn right was important even if there are other businesses I could go to when I chose to turn right.

But, actually, me deciding to "turn right" was really me deciding to move my hands on the steering wheel and it just so happened that as a result the car turned right.

When I decide to go to the store, should I magically apparate there instead?

You seem to be saying that my decision to turn right is not relevant to my decision to go to the store, but I'm not sure I understand the problem. (I'm not saying there is or isn't a problem). Can you clarify what you mean?

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.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

 

[Curious George]

What?

This thread deteriorates further from the topic with phrases like "conscious exertion" that introduce a state (consciousness) as if it were an entity and/or an agency--And to assert that 'will' be the target of mental effort is absurd (mental effort is will).

Can you perhaps reword this in terms that make sense?

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.