Do we choose whether or not we are convinced by evidence?

[TheGunShoj]

I was inspired to make this thread by another recent thread called "Do we control our beliefs?"

I wanted to take one step back and examine that process before beliefs begin taking form and ask a slightly different question.

I don't think that belief is a choice in the simple sense like you could choose to eat either waffles or pancakes. That's what "choice" means to me, making a conscious decision one way or another. When you are presented with argument or evidence, I don't think a decision is taking place there. You are receiving a new data input that is either convincing to you or it is not and will effect your beliefs accordingly and I think that this "choice" of being convinced or unconvinced by information is happening subconsciously so it isn't a choice at all in the colloquial sense.

So let's say you already hold a belief about a topic.
Let's say you have an article of questionable validity that disagrees with your position on said topic in front of you and you read it in it's entirety carefully from start to finish.
While you were reading the article, were you making a conscious decision to be convinced or not by the information contained? Or was it something that just happened subconsciously?

I believe that if we aren't making a decision about what evidence we have absorbed that has convinced us then we aren't capable of deciding what we believe or not because it is evidence that has convinced our mind to hold that belief, not a deliberate, internal choice that we have made.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Throwing in my two cents, pretty much the same as the other thread. People can choose to investigate, but they cannot choose what convinces them. I do believe you can choose what you do with your beliefs though.

 

[Axe Elf]

I know it's not an automatic, instinctive reaction in the way you're trying to paint it, or everyone would automatically come to the same conclusion when presented with the same evidence. People choose what evidence and what arguments to give credence to, but again, not everyone processes them the same, and on the average, most people are as likely to choose nonsense over reason.

See the entirety of these forums for proof.

And yes, when I read an article that contradicts a belief, I am absolutely reading it critically--I can choose to dismiss it or endorse it, depending on how convincing I find the evidence and arguments--but another perfectly rational person might choose the exact opposite. So the outcome is not predicted by reason alone, but determined by the agency of the observer.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not much for believing in free will, but I think that, if there is some free will, then it centers on an ability to "say no to things", to inhibit or prevent behaviors. Thus, it might be possible for someone to freely be in willful denial of evidence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It often depends upon how much intelligence one has, how much honesty (being critical), and how much one is able to entertain thoughts that might seem alien to oneself. That is how I mostly see it. And of course, choosing the appropriate material to view as evidence is half the battle. Hardly matters if any of such is deliberately biased or has an agenda rather than being independent and unbiased. That is the crux really if one wants to be able to make rational decisions about anything, be it religious beliefs or anything else.

I obviously will be in agreement with many who do not have religious beliefs, like the philosopher John Gray, but I am often also in disagreement with him over many other things, since I do try to view all with an open mind without bias, as others have stated too.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was inspired to make this thread by another recent thread called "Do we control our beliefs?"

I wanted to take one step back and examine that process before beliefs begin taking form and ask a slightly different question.

I don't think that belief is a choice in the simple sense like you could choose to eat either waffles or pancakes. That's what "choice" means to me, making a conscious decision one way or another. When you are presented with argument or evidence, I don't think a decision is taking place there. You are receiving a new data input that is either convincing to you or it is not and will effect your beliefs accordingly and I think that this "choice" of being convinced or unconvinced by information is happening subconsciously so it isn't a choice at all in the colloquial sense.

So let's say you already hold a belief about a topic.
Let's say you have an article of questionable validity that disagrees with your position on said topic in front of you and you read it in it's entirety carefully from start to finish.
While you were reading the article, were you making a conscious decision to be convinced or not by the information contained? Or was it something that just happened subconsciously?

I believe that if we aren't making a decision about what evidence we have absorbed that has convinced us then we aren't capable of deciding what we believe or not because it is evidence that has convinced our mind to hold that belief, not a deliberate, internal choice that we have made.

If I were reading a topic and already decided based on reasoning and experience that the said topic is true, that is natually, without much needed thought and convincing, where Id place my belief. Its subconscious. You would have to present evidence that influences our wellbeing and idea of truth; if the evidence contradicts our belief, we coule choose to be convinced. If the evidence does not make sense to our line of thought, it would not be evidence to us therefore, impossible for us to be convinced.

In other words, if I experienced the topic in the article and convinced that topic is true, if someone presented evidence of the contrary, for what reason should I believe it is evidence when it doesnt line up to my train of tbought to suggest to myself that my belief is wrong based on the evidence given to me?

If the topic is subjective (does he love me?), and I believe he does, if you presented evidence he does not, how could I change my belief to your truth when its not in my frame of reality to consider and choosr to believe contrary to what I belief is true at the moment (he loves me)?

If I believed two and two were five and someone gave me evidence it was not, I can choose to change my belief for fact or stay with what I believe is true dispite the facts.