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.