Do we choose our beliefs? (yes and no)

[Heyo]

 

[Nakosis]

As I see it, one can choose a religion or spiritual path, one can choose to educate oneself or not, and one can choose to succumb to indoctrination or set out on their own journey. But one can't choose a belief; beliefs are inherent.

We can choose not to believe can't we?
Eliminating beliefs, in a way choosing which beliefs we are left with.

Also we are capable of suspending disbelief. Like when we are watching movies and such. So where there are not a lot of facts involved, I suspect we could convince ourselves of a few things to believe in.

If one chooses to immerse themselves into a particular religion or culture, you might find the acceptance of some beliefs more reasonable.

 

[sun rise]

My beliefs are thrust upon me by that ultimate trickster....
That unrelentingly mysterious & misleading reality thingy.

So you were visited by Coyote

 

[SalixIncendium]

We can choose not to believe can't we?

I'm not sure it's a matter of choice. Like I said above, there would have to be something to precipitate disbelief.

If one is an atheist that believes that death is the end and nothing lies after, I don't think they can just consciously choose one day to start believing in heaven or reincarnation. There would need to be a catalyst to initiate the change.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure it's a matter of choice. Like I said above, there would have to be something to precipitate disbelief.

If one is an atheist that believes that death is the end and nothing lies after, I don't think they can just consciously choose one day to start believing in heaven or reincarnation. There would need to be a catalyst to initiate the change.

I'm not directly disagreeing but, choosing to immerse one's self into a religion is a choice which would provide an opportunity for many catalysts. So maybe not directly by choice but indirectly by exposing one's self to available catalysts.

A lot of the thoughts and ideas we expose ourselves to on a daily basis gets programmed in on an unconscious level. On a conscious level these belief start to seem more reasonable.

Religion I believe works through this anyway. Go to church weekly, read religious tests. Your circle of acquaintances all supporting the belief. Being told to avoid heretical ideas. Once we understand how the unconscious mind works, we can use it to our advantage.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Many certainly choose to reinforce their existing beliefs - like going to church, praying/singing with others, studying the Bible, etc. How many study other religious beliefs or attempt to study the beliefs or lack of belief that many of the non-religious might have?

 

[PureX]

As I see it, one can choose a religion or spiritual path, one can choose to educate oneself or not, and one can choose to succumb to indoctrination or set out on their own journey. But one can't choose a belief; beliefs are inherent.

If one is choosing the method by which they determine what to believe is true (and we all are), then one is de facto choosing WHAT they believe to be true.

 

[Vichar]

There's more to it from my perspective. There is a dark sorcery that tries to make ambiguous of what is clear. To unlock clarity with respect to the signs of God, you need to fight and reflect. Choosing to fight and reflect is also a choice. Choosing to not fight and let the dark magic blind you your whole life is a choice, it's a choice not made on insight but a choice to be weak and let Iblis and his forces do what they want with us.

Fighting the lower self and the dark magic and the dark idol is a choice, and it's a choice if we strive for the sake of God.

This is very perceptive of you! I like how you called it "dark sorcery." You are absolutely correct, in my opinion. In fact, some believe it is in fact the Mind itself which unifies humanity in being clouded about spirituality. A single human being has a mind, but it is connected to the collective, kind of like a computer being networked into the collective. And the master of this collective in my metaphor is none other than the God of most religions. This is a living, conscious entity who was responsible for creating the material worlds, and makes sure everything runs like clockwork.

It (he, she, whatever) brainwashes everyone and keeps them nice and sleepy so they don't see the truth. That is why I can tell people the truth over and over again and they will fight me tooth and nail about it. It's the same mysterious force that makes people believe the Earth is flat, we never landed on the moon, and that Trump is actually a pretty swell guy. It is truly mysterious until you recognize the robotic, self-destructive nature of your own Mind, and it is this mind which is one's primary enemy all the way through Self Realization. I don't like to mention this fact anymore because people are so reactive about it. I find it interesting that you are already aware of this "dark sorcery."

 

[Vichar]

Its impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood. Both are created through whatever information we hear or gather. So the only way to tell them apart is to put them to the test.

And that is how we decide to pursue truth over falsehood. However this doesn't come easy and unless one is critical and consistent in how they approach informations and beliefs and stick to a method for doing this, one will believe more falsehood than truth.

If a person doesn't demand evidence for their beliefs, then they are not seeking truth, nor are they consistent and definitely not critical either. They are bias and seek confirmation of what they already believe or want to believe is true.

I agree with your statement about putting beliefs to the test. Not only do they appear too lazy to test, they will actually fight others tooth and nail to cling to their ineffectual beliefs! I think this is strong evidence that everyone's brain is networked into a collective brain of sorts and it tells them what to feel and think. It's how an entire town can take up torches and pitchforks to persecute witches and other imaginary threats. Group think is truly terrifying, and even scarier is realizing that one's own mind is one's most devious and persistent enemy.

But yeah, why not at least test the ideas a few times before shipping the product out the door?!

 

[Vichar]

If one is choosing the method by which they determine what to believe is true (and we all are), then one is de facto choosing WHAT they believe to be true.

Yes, that is the case. Having said that, how does one make progress? Are some methods better than others?

I would like to take the optimistic view that it is possible to see clearly. I realize that science is not a religion (although some treat it as one), but I like the way a scientist goes about understanding life: through repeatable experiments, empirical measurements that can be quantified, and objective observation that relies upon instrumentation as much as possible and not subjective opinion. And even with these methods, modern science often gets the answers to the big questions wrong. In my opinion, modern science does not have a well-conceived theory for the soul or consciousness (despite there being clear ways to test certain hypotheses) and so assumptions about their non-existence and their likely properties are all quite primitive right now.

I'm curious: do you believe it is possible to know or realize truth and if so, how does one go about it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I propose how we build our beliefs is up to us to some extent. That is we can build around standards that make us truth seekers.

(1) We can choose to build on clarity and clear proofs and not on shaky grounds.
(2) We can learn how to reason properly and become aware of our ways of thinking that lead us away from truth.
(3) We can funnel our seeking knowledge to reliable sources of information, if we attain skills to recognize who and what is a reliable source of information.
(4) We can asses who provides proofs and insights, and who is best in providing clear insights and proofs.
(5) We can use doubt to asses properly what we don't know at the same time not let us not build on what we should know and believe in with certainty.

That said, most people don't choose a lot of their beliefs, because they have not trained themselves to hold on to truth and leave falsehood and not mix the two. When you believe falsehood as much as truth, then you are a confused person, your faith on clarity is as strong as what is on ambiguity, and what you should be certain is true is built on what even might be what you should be certain of is false.

If we are truthful to ourselves, and this is hugest factor, we can asses what we really know and what we don't. But if we let our caprice choose what is true based on what it wants to be true, then we have no way of distinguishing falsehood from truth by those standards. We choose on whims.

And when you choose this way, yes, you don't chose to follow truth nor choose to follow falsehood, you simply chose to not be strong in pursuit of truth, which leads you to let go of holding on to truth, and in that case, your belief formations will seem chaotic as you don't build them on strong foundations.

So it's not that we choose to believe a particular belief, but we chose the factors on how to build knowledge. God is of course always there, and if we choose to not try to observe him, that's on us. If we throw out all spiritual vision, philosophy, knowledge of one self, out the window, and just want physical evidence, we might not find God.

So these are choices we make. And it's always a choice when presented with evidence and proofs to accept the evidence or proof or be stubborn. Stubbornness in face of proofs is also a choice.

Personally I'm not capable of choosing any belief of significance. Either there is sufficient verifiable evidence to warrant belief or there isn't. I can't somehow choose to make myself believe it just because I'd like to believe it. .

 

[PureX]

Yes, that is the case. Having said that, how does one make progress? Are some methods better than others?

Change comes; progress happens inevitably. The question is are we going to be the just endure the change? Or are we going to explore it?

I'm curious: do you believe it is possible to know or realize truth and if so, how does one go about it?

No. All we humans can do in relation to Truth is practice/pursue honesty. Even if what we believed to be the truth of existence, were the truth of existence, we would have no way of validating it as such. We simply do not possess the capacity for that (omniscience). So all we can do is relate subjective, limited, facts to each other to try and determine their relative truthfulness. Or we can wallow in fantasy and delusion; pretending that we have found (or are searching for) "The Truth".

As humans we don't get to know The Truth. What we get, instead, is the gift of faith (action based on hope).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see it is the heart that directs our choice. It is the heart that opens or closes the door to the light that can shine from our soul.

In the end nature and nurture influence the choices we make, but we do have the choice of what we believe.

Regards Tony

 

[Revoltingest]

So you were visited by Coyote
View attachment 37352

Well, there are many around here.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There's more to it from my perspective. There is a dark sorcery that tries to make ambiguous of what is clear. To unlock clarity with respect to the signs of God, you need to fight and reflect. Choosing to fight and reflect is also a choice. Choosing to not fight and let the dark magic blind you your whole life is a choice, it's a choice not made on insight but a choice to be weak and let Iblis and his forces do what they want with us.

Fighting the lower self and the dark magic and the dark idol is a choice, and it's a choice if we strive for the sake of God.

I'm really not sure what that's supposed to mean. Either there is sufficient verifiable evidence to support belief in a claim or there is not. If the evidence is not sufficient, what is there to fight or reflect about?

 

[PureX]

Personally I'm not capable of choosing any belief of significance. Either there is sufficient verifiable evidence to warrant belief or there isn't. I can't somehow choose to make myself believe it just because I'd like to believe it. .

But it's you who decides what "sufficient verifiable evidence" is. And it's you who decided to want this evidence. So you could change what you want, if you wanted.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But it's you who decides what "sufficient verifiable evidence" is. And it's you who decided to want this evidence. So you could change what you want, if you wanted.

No, not really. Someone simply telling me that they have a talking dog at home isn't sufficient verifiable evidence for me to believe and no matter how much I might want to 'choose' for a mere claim to be sufficient, it never will be. Either enough evidence is presented to cause me to believe or it isn't.

 

[halbhh]

And most never question what they absorbed from the culture or taught by their parents etc.

I wonder why I've only seemed to find in conversations with many dozens of people that they rejected various meaningful viewpoints of their parents and emphasized their own in contrast to that of their parents.

I think this idea that people just learn their beliefs by an absorption is at best only a temporary childhood effect that quickly is superseded in the teen years. And then remains unalike during the 20s, and on.

Now, when the child thinks differently, that doesn't necessarily mean they will always inform the parents. Some or many will, others won't. Or not yet.

 

[sun rise]

I wonder why I've only seemed to find in conversations with many dozens of people that they rejected various meaningful viewpoints of their parents and emphasized their own in contrast to that of their parents.

I think this idea that people just learn their beliefs by an absorption is at best only a temporary childhood effect that quickly is superseded in the teen years. And then remains unalike during the 20s, and on.

Now, when the child thinks differently, that doesn't necessarily mean they will always inform the parents. Some or many will, others won't. Or not yet.

To me it has varied by generation. The conformism to the parents beliefs and earlier careers has been breaking down for quite some time now.

 

[Nimos]

Whether or not the Earth is flat, or spherical, depends on whether or not the proposal of it's "true nature" works according to one's experience of existence. Humans believed the Earth was flat for a long time because that presumption of truth worked experientially for them, for a very long time. Very recently, though, most humans have changed that belief and now presume the "true nature" of the Earth to be spherical, because that's the proposed "truth" that now works best for us, given our new technologies and experience of it. But in the future, we humans may well adopt a new concept of the Earth's "true nature' based on a conception that will work better for us via some new technological or intellectual interface with existence on the Earth. So which "Earth-truth" is the true truth? All of them, and none of them. Because we don't know the Earth's truth. We can only know our conceptualized experience of the Earth, as our "Earth-truth".

No!! How on a spherical Earth can you reach such conclusion?

If a person is after the truth and is seeking it, ones experience of what one believe is true is irrelevant. I know that some people (Don't know if you hold that position as well?) live with the idea that we can only really know what is true through our own mind and therefore reality is this weird idea. As a philosophic mind game, it is correct. But with this way of believing, a person shouldn't even bother with the truth, because it only exists in their head anyway. So its completely pointless talking about it in any meaningful way. Such person have no reason to believe anything is real in the first place. So the whole idea of even seeking truth is a waste of time as it would be much easier to just make stuff up as they go along.

The way we can seek truth is by testing things and we can compare this with other peoples experiences as well. Meaning setting up experiments, which are clearly defined, we can make theories and put them to the test and see if what they predict is true or false. As we have done this enough times and everytime someone tries to do it as well, give the same result. Then we get closer to the truth, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily exactly like that, but it is clearly more reasonable to assume that it is the case, than an experiment that fails all the time.

If one believe that truth can be seeked in such way, then it will natural follow that, whether or not, people used to think the Earth was flat or not, because they perceived it like that, is completely irrelevant in regards to the truth. Its is a majority fallacy, which is basically to say that because the majority of people believe it, then it must also be true. Truth doesn't care how many believe it, or whether it works for some people or not. If its true then its true.

We have pictures of the Earth from space, we can measure and do experiments here on Earth to demonstrate it. Your GPS telling you where you are, is proof as well.

As humans we can test and share these things with each other, if we use methods which aim is to figure out how things work. But if anyone in the scientific community worked with the assumption that there is the truth and then there is the "real" truth. It would be nothing but nonsense coming out of it, as none of them would be able to trust each others results.

To me its a mind blowing way to think about reality, life and other people, while at the same time using a computer, phone or ipad to write on a forum. Like these things just popped into reality by magic.