Do we choose our beliefs? (yes and no)

[PureX]

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.

That's simply not so. And I bet there are many times in the course of your day/life that you chose to believe something you were told without having "verifiable evidence" of it actually being so.

Either enough evidence is presented to cause me to believe or it isn't.

I think that's BS. I think you believe it, but that it's simply not true most of the time. We all accept all sorts of things as being true without any actual validating evidence of it. We'd be hopelessly bogged down in endless acts of verification, otherwise.

 

[PureX]

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.

We are just "making stuff up", and calling it "the truth" so long as it 'works for us' within our functional experience of being. What we are pursuing isn't truth, it's relative honesty. We wouldn't know the truth even if we stumbled on it. How could we? We don't have the requisite information. And we never will so long as we remain human.

The way we can seek truth is by testing things and we can compare this with other peoples experiences as well.

All that's going to tell you is what "works" and what doesn't within the very limited context of human experience. Functionality may be a part of the truth, but it's certainly not the whole of it. And partial truths are not truth, they're just relatively factual bits of information (true or not true depending of their relation to other relative facts).

The Truth is beyond the reach of the human condition. Once we humbly accept the fact of our reality, we can begin to pursue that which we CAN achieve, and that is relative honesty.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That's simply not so. And I bet there are many times in the course of your day/life that you chose to believe something you were told without having "verifiable evidence" of it actually being so.
I think that's BS. I think you believe it, but that it's simply not true most of the time. We all accept all sorts of things as being true without any actual validating evidence of it. We'd be hopelessly bogged down in endless acts of verification, otherwise.

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. .

Note that in my OP I stated I'm not capable of choosing to believe anything of SIGNIFICANCE. You can tell me that you have a dog at home and I'm more than willing to accept that you do without any additional evidence. I know plenty of other people who own dogs and have even owned a dog myself, so it's not a significant claim. And even if it tuns out you don't have a dog at home, it doesn't effect me in any way. However, if you claim the dog you have at home can talk and grants your every wish THEN I'm going to require verifiable evidence for a claim of such significance. And no matter how hard I try and can't just CHOOSE to believe it on your word alone.

 

[Vichar]

No!! How on a spherical Earth can you reach such conclusion?
Truth doesn't care how many believe it, or whether it works for some people or not. If its true then its true.

100% agree. This is actually an age old debate: can you know the truth? I remember 20 years ago I used to chat in spirituality rooms and this same question (in different forms) kept coming up again and again. The usual camps would show up, too.

For those who believe we simply cannot know truth at all, I would respond: well, then what is the point of living and seeking? If we can't make progress on our spiritual journey towards the truth, then what is the point? So yeah, I believe we can know the truth, and the rule-like consistency in our observed world (our conscious experience) strongly supports the idea that absolute truth exists. More to the point, what do you want to believe? Even if the universe didn't have my back, I would still want to believe in absolute truth. It's less madness and depression inducing.

 

[Vichar]

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.

You are absolutely right. No one can tell you the truth, you must experience it for yourself. Didn't Morpheus say something like that to Neo about the Matrix? While the movie itself was a little heavy-handed, I think it did a pretty decent job of at least presenting the primary spiritual dilemma of seekers.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret (which obviously would not be a secret at all if it weren't for the "dark sorcery" Link referred to): The human experience is set up in such a way to make people unaware of spirituality until they take an active, conscious step towards it. Call it a leap of faith, conditional faith, what have you, but true spirituality requires genuine interest and dedication to discovering the truth. Without this, what would be the point?

I'm going to use an example. In eastern mystic traditions (say, Taoism for example), there is a master and a disciple. The disciple would have to prove their sincerity to the master before the master would take on the disciple. Why? Was it just to satisfy the ego of the master? Was it to mess with prospective disciples? No. It's because the spiritual path requires a person to gradually detach from what they think they currently know. This is not easy for most people, and requires sincerity, discipline, and consistent effort.

For everyone in the world who is waiting for "proof" of spirituality to fall into their laps, you will be waiting for a long, long time. The world is literally structured in such a way as to prevent this from happening. That's why seekers are called "seekers" and not "couch potatoes."

By the way, I have personally experienced such that would make a talking dog seem rather mundane. And I don't expect you to believe me just simply because I wrote it on the internet somewhere. But I think my telling you has value on the off chance it motivates you to consider there might be more to life than what can be "proved" via physical observations. Yes, your own experience should be king, but you might be surprised at what you can experience if you go looking for it; if you seek it out.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You are absolutely right. No one can tell you the truth, you must experience it for yourself. Didn't Morpheus say something like that to Neo about the Matrix? While the movie itself was a little heavy-handed, I think it did a pretty decent job of at least presenting the primary spiritual dilemma of seekers.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret (which obviously would not be a secret at all if it weren't for the "dark sorcery" Link referred to): The human experience is set up in such a way to make people unaware of spirituality until they take an active, conscious step towards it. Call it a leap of faith, conditional faith, what have you, but true spirituality requires genuine interest and dedication to discovering the truth. Without this, what would be the point?

I'm going to use an example. In eastern mystic traditions (say, Taoism for example), there is a master and a disciple. The disciple would have to prove their sincerity to the master before the master would take on the disciple. Why? Was it just to satisfy the ego of the master? Was it to mess with prospective disciples? No. It's because the spiritual path requires a person to gradually detach from what they think they currently know. This is not easy for most people, and requires sincerity, discipline, and consistent effort.

For everyone in the world who is waiting for "proof" of spirituality to fall into their laps, you will be waiting for a long, long time. The world is literally structured in such a way as to prevent this from happening. That's why seekers are called "seekers" and not "couch potatoes."

By the way, I have personally experienced such that would make a talking dog seem rather mundane. And I don't expect you to believe me just simply because I wrote it on the internet somewhere. But I think my telling you has value on the off chance it motivates you to consider there might be more to life than what can be "proved" via physical observations. Yes, your own experience should be king, but you might be surprised at what you can experience if you go looking for it; if you seek it out.

Yes and no. There is a confluence of wills going on. We choose but limited by our fallen human nature. We choose according to the highest inclination of our hearts but it is a fallen limited heart without God

"No man comes to me unless the Father draws him" says Jesus. and so there is a confluence of wills, man's and God's where God has the decisive will.

With the spiritual rebirth in Jesus there is freedom by the grace of God.

 

[Vichar]

Yes and no. There is a confluence of wills going on. We choose but limited by our fallen human nature. We choose according to the highest inclination of our hearts but it is a fallen limited heart without God

"No man comes to me unless the Father draws him" says Jesus. and so there is a confluence of wills, man's and God's where God has the decisive will.

With the spiritual rebirth in Jesus there is freedom by the grace of God.

I agree, but I would phrase it differently. We can only choose things which are in our range of consciousness, and that is limited by our sense of identity. Who and what we think we are determines what we can choose. Yes, God has will for us, but in my opinion living as a human being expresses God's will for us. He is exasperated by our childish refusal to take responsibility for our choices so he sticks us in a human body so we can experience the pain of making bad choices again and again. While we are a human, and think that's all we are, we are doomed to repeat human mistakes over and over again. God is just waiting around for us to cry "uncle," and that's when we finally turn our thoughts and attention to God.

 

[1213]

...That said, most people don't choose a lot of their beliefs, ...

I think all beliefs are chosen. If person believes in evolution, he has chosen that because of some reason. And if person believes in God, he has chosen that because of some reason.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For the most part are a product of our beliefs. I kind of suspect had I lived in a different part of the world, in a different culture, my beliefs would have been vastly different.

 

[Nimos]

All that's going to tell you is what "works" and what doesn't within the very limited context of human experience. Functionality may be a part of the truth, but it's certainly not the whole of it. And partial truths are not truth, they're just relatively factual bits of information (true or not true depending of their relation to other relative facts).

The Truth is beyond the reach of the human condition. Once we humbly accept the fact of our reality, we can begin to pursue that which we CAN achieve, and that is relative honesty.

I think the issue is how we look at truth.

If you removed all humans from the Universe, it would still follow the natural laws, these are independent of whether we are here or not. Again assuming that we don't live in a simulation or illusion etc. And even if we did, there is no logical reason to even care about it.

These are what you can refer to as the "real" truth. What we can do is perform experiments of these and through that get a better understanding of what they are.

Again its very important to take into account that we are never talking about absolute truth here. But merely what is reasonable to believe as being the truth and what is not, based on our current knowledge.

But the "real" truth does not care, whether or not we understand it or not. It will work the same way regardless. So our experience of it doesn't matter either.

To use an example like the spherical Earth vs a flat Earth. What we are trying to figure out is not the absolute truth, but what is reasonable to assume is the truth.
So we perform a lot of experiments and all the tests and data etc. fits that of a spherical Earth, but the majority doesn't work on a flat Earth.

So assume we perform 1000 experiments...Of these, 1000 works for a spherical Earth and 50 works for a flat Earth. however looking at the 50 that works for a flat Earth, we can explain why they would work for both the claims. Based on these experiments and the results, it is not reasonable to assume that the Earth is flat and it being the truth, compared to it being spherical.

But again, no person on Earth, can know whether or not, the Earth doesn't actually change shape the moment we do an experiment or take a picture of it. But it is simply not reasonable to assume that is the case. If people believed that, it would be pointless to do science, because how would you proof to me that, the Earth doesn't in fact change shape every time we try to measure it, and therefore my claim of it being flat, is just as good as yours, despite all the experiments pointing towards it being spherical.
And that is why I call it a philosophical mind game, which is completely irrelevant. Because even if it were the case that it changed shape, we can't ever know anyway, so there is no reason to assume or take that into account when we are talking about, what truth is and what it ain't.

So again we are not working with absolute truth, but what is true based on what our current knowledge tells us, and therefore what is reasonable to assume is the truth.

More to the point, what do you want to believe? Even if the universe didn't have my back, I would still want to believe in absolute truth. It's less madness and depression inducing.

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether we think there are absolute truth or not, if we allow for ideas, like we are being manipulated by some Godlike being, that interfere with things, whenever we try to seek truth, then we can never know for certain.
And obviously it is possible that such being exists, but we can't tell the difference anyway. So truth to us, is simply what we measure it to be, which then makes it reasonable to assume that one thing is more true, than something else.

Which is why, one have to be sceptical when it comes to claims. If there, is nothing to backup them up, it is simply not reasonable to refer to it as being the truth, even if that is how one experience it. What makes it closer to the truth is when evidence is thrown on the table. Especially if it allow us to predict things in the future, then its remarkable evidence, because the chance of it being exactly like that and so it fits our models are not that big. And if we can keep testing it and it is consistent, then there is no reason to assume that it is not closer to the truth than something else.

 

[PureX]

100% agree. This is actually an age old debate: can you know the truth? I remember 20 years ago I used to chat in spirituality rooms and this same question (in different forms) kept coming up again and again. The usual camps would show up, too.

For those who believe we simply cannot know truth at all, I would respond: well, then what is the point of living and seeking? If we can't make progress on our spiritual journey towards the truth, then what is the point? So yeah, I believe we can know the truth, and the rule-like consistency in our observed world (our conscious experience) strongly supports the idea that absolute truth exists. More to the point, what do you want to believe? Even if the universe didn't have my back, I would still want to believe in absolute truth. It's less madness and depression inducing.

The problem with the theory that we can know partial truth is that truth isn't partial. The truth is what is. It's a singular whole. But we humans have no idea how what we DON'T know would change (invalidate) what we think we do know if we could know it. So what we think we do know (partial truth) is really just an opinion about the truth being elevated to the status of truth, itself, unjustifiably.

 

[PureX]

I think the issue is how we look at truth.

If you removed all humans from the Universe, it would still follow the natural laws, these are independent of whether we are here or not. Again assuming that we don't live in a simulation or illusion etc. And even if we did, there is no logical reason to even care about it.

The fact that you have to assume this proves that you (we) don't know that it's so. How can we claim to know truth when we can't even claim to know that reality as we are experiencing it, is real?

These are what you can refer to as the "real" truth. What we can do is perform experiments of these and through that get a better understanding of what they are.

Well, unless the experiments and their results are part of the illusion we live in, and that we presume to be "truth" (like the flat Earth was). And not caring about this possibility is not a logical or reasonable argument to offer in the face of it. It's simply saying that you don't care about what you don't know. How can you claim to care about what you think you do know if you don't care about how what you don't know could completely invalidate it?

Again its very important to take into account that we are never talking about absolute truth here.

There is no other kind of truth. The truth is what is. That is an holistic absolute. There are no possible outliers.

But merely what is reasonable to believe as being the truth and what is not, based on our current knowledge.

That is not truth, that is informed opinion being falsely elevated to the status of truth, in your mind. And it's why scientists do not claim to be in pursuit of truth, or to have found it. And why they, instead, only pursue theories of existential functionality.

Unfortunately, our modern culture is developing a new religion called "scientism" wherein science is being falsely elevated and resumed the only possible pathway to truth. When in fact science has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth. What science pursues is knowledge of relative functionality. Religion, philosophy, and art pursue truth as best they are able. Science does not.

But the "real" truth does not care, whether or not we understand it or not. It will work the same way regardless. So our experience of it doesn't matter either.

We don't know the "real truth", so we have no idea what it "cares about", if anything. Or what it is while we wallow on in our opinionated ignorance.

To use an example like the spherical Earth vs a flat Earth. What we are trying to figure out is not the absolute truth, but what is reasonable to assume is the truth.

And to us, what is "reasonable" is what is functional relative to our limited experience and understanding of being. If we were aware, functionally, of other higher and more complex dimensions of existence, we may very well abandon our spherical conceptions of Earth for some new dimensional conception of it. Meanwhile ALL of these conceptions were, and are, and will be the truth.

So we perform a lot of experiments and all the tests and data etc. fits that of a spherical Earth, but the majority doesn't work on a flat Earth.

But the experiments that we design and the interpretation of their results are as biased by ignorance as we are. And they always will be, because WE are designing and interpreting them. Scientists know this, which is why they NEVER claim to have discovered The Truth. They simply and only propose and test theories of relative functionality. That's all.

So again we are not working with absolute truth, but what is true based on what our current knowledge tells us, and therefore what is reasonable to assume is the truth.

You are not seeking nor finding truth, at all. You are seeking and experiencing the relative functionality within our physical experience of existence. How this relates to truth is not even being addressed.

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether we think there are absolute truth or not, if we allow for ideas, like we are being manipulated by some Godlike being, that interfere with things, whenever we try to seek truth, then we can never know for certain.

My point is that unless we are willing to be honest with ourselves about what we can and cannot know, and what we can and cannot investigate, or verify, we are lost in a sea of our own ignorance and opinion. Which is mostly the condition in which we currently exist. And if we are to advance at all, as a species, we need to stop pretending that we can pursue the truth, and start pursuing honesty and humility, instead. So that we can begin to raise ourselves out of this mud of ignorance and opinion, before we destroy ourselves in it. Right now ever time science comes up with some new and more powerfully functional technology, it's like throwing another loaded pistol into a cage full of hyperactive monkeys. And that's not going to end well for the monkeys.

Which is why, one have to be sceptical when it comes to claims.

Yes, especially OUR OWN.

If there, is nothing to backup them up, it is simply not reasonable to refer to it as being the truth, ...

It's our presumptions of "backing it up" that we need to be most skeptical of. Because that's where our ignorance and bias are really hiding.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

No. One is choosing a method. One is not choosing belief. As I said, belief is a product of experience.

“We all are?” Did you buy more mice in the last week?

 

[PureX]

No. One is choosing a method. One is not choosing belief. As I said, belief is a product of experience.

“We all are?” Did you buy more mice in the last week?

Cause and effect are still cause and effect even if we refuse to recognize the relationship.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

I have, in the past, immersed myself into religions, beginning with the one I was born into. Despite what I was told to believe, I could not come to terms with believing it. I recall debating nuns in CCD because what they were telling me went against what I knew or believed.

Later, I immersed myself into another tradition of Christianity and once again found the dogma that conflicted with my core convictions.

What I believed to be true was inherent, despite what religious traditions I’ve dabbled in.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Cause and effect are still cause and effect even if we refuse to recognize the relationship.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make in this statement. But the statement itself supports what I’ve been saying.

Beliefs are a product of causality. One does not choose what to believe.

 

[PureX]

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make in this statement. But the statement itself supports what I’ve been saying.

Beliefs are a product of causality. One does not choose what to believe.

Beliefs are opinions based on a chosen path of reasoning. They are not inevitable. Change the path; change the opinion. You don't think you're able to change the path, at will, but other people do so, often. And so could you.

 

[Nimos]

And to us, what is "reasonable" is what is functional relative to our limited experience and understanding of being. If we were aware, functionally, of other higher and more complex dimensions of existence, we may very well abandon our spherical conceptions of Earth for some new dimensional conception of it. Meanwhile ALL of these conceptions were, and are, and will be the truth.

Im not sure what you are arguing, you are saying the same as I am, just in another way. Or at least very much along the same lines. Which is why I say that we are not looking for absolute truth, but what is most likely to be true within our current knowledge.

But the fact is, that we ain't aware of a more complex dimension of existences. So with the current knowledge why even bother considering that it exists, unless someone can present some sort of testable hypothesis, so we can confirm it or not?
As long as no one is able to do that, why would a scientist do his job, with an assumption that the Earth is just as likely to be flat as it is spherical? They don't because everything points in it being so, our technology and observation support that.

Imagine we had to send up a satelite and all the calculations are done and seems to work, based on a spherical earth. And then someone comes along saying: "Look we have to abandon the project, because some random guy suggested that we might live in a much more complex dimension, where the Earth might not be spherical." and all the scientists go: "Yeah we didn't take that into account, so its not worth the risk", it would be madness to do anything based on that.

Unless you can proof or give a reasonable reason, why anyone should believe your claim about this complex dimension, its useless, its just a claim and therefore no valid reason to believe it.

You are not seeking nor finding truth, at all. You are seeking and experiencing the relative functionality within our physical experience of existence. How this relates to truth is not even being addressed.

That is what truth is, how can a person claim to seek the truth, if its outside our physical experience of existences?

That is my point, in regards to absolute truth, because we can never know whether or not it is or isn't, if we have to take random assumptions into account that is not backed up by evidence.

So it doesn't matter if all of what we know is wrong in regards to a complex dimension, if we can't verify it being there in the first place. The exact same reason a scientist doesn't allow God(s) in their labs, because anything can be explained, if you add a bit of the supernatural.

Therefore it makes no sense to seek truth, if it can't be demonstrated and to solve it people just throw in whatever they feel like, the moment they get some results that they didn't expect.

Yes, especially OUR OWN.

Which is why we rely on a method to figure things out, because we know people make mistakes. That is why we don't rely on the word of God(s) and random claims.

It's our presumptions of "backing it up" that we need to be most skeptical of. Because that's where our ignorance and bias are really hiding.

Nothing prevent you from developing a method for testing the supernatural, I have no clue, how one would do it. But if you can, people would be excited about it. Just as nothing prevent you from testing our currently knowledge of science, like gravity if you think we got that wrong. That is the idea behind science, that you and anyone else who disagree with it, can test it themself and find flaws in how people performed their experiments, all the data is available.

You can even have a go at the scientific method if you think that is bias as well, again how one uses it and how it works, is also available.

Do you think we can seek truth through claims and wishful thinking? And if not, how would you seek it, what would your approach be, if you should explain it?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Beliefs are opinions based on a chosen path of reasoning. They are not inevitable. Change the path; change the opinion. You don't think you're able to change the path, at will, but other people do so, often. And so could you.

Opinions are opinions. Beliefs are acceptances of truths. This is why we have two different words for this in the English language.

You're equating a religious path with a belief. They are not the same thing.

Read post 55. One can change paths all the live long day, but beliefs can remain static.

 

[PureX]

... how can a person claim to seek the truth, if its outside our physical experience of existences?

Not "outside", but beyond. And exactly. How can we? I say we can't. Not honestly. And so it's honesty that we should be aspiring to, not our limited and unverifiable pretenses of truth.

That is my point, in regards to absolute truth, because we can never know whether or not it is or isn't, if we have to take random assumptions into account that is not backed up by evidence.

Then let's stop calling our pretense, "truth". Let's stop pretending that have what we cannot have. And seek what we CAN have: honesty.