Is Belief (or Lack Thereof) a Choice?

[RestlessSoul]

It takes little to nothing to trump an
argument from metaphysics.

Yes, I’m sure you’d have wiped the floor with Aristotle

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I’m sure you’d have wiped the floor with Aristotle

She'd have bloodied his knees.
Metaphysics...
Navel gazing & speculation about things not even wrong.
How to "trump" their arguments...
Recognize their uselessness.

 

[RestlessSoul]

She'd have bloodied his knees.
Metaphysics...
Navel gazing & speculation about things not even wrong.
How to "trump" their arguments...
Recognize their uselessness.

That’s not really a recognised definition by any criteria, but well done having a go. It’s always helpful to hear opinions from the uninformed, on subjects they have little to know understanding of.

 

[shunyadragon]

Depending on what is assumed about what we can know about the universe, we get:
Beliefs about what we ought to do.
Beliefs about what we assume knowledge to be.
Beliefs about what we assume logic is.
Beliefs about the metaphysics/ontology of objective reality not just for religion.

Now I don't want to debate you, but as an overview it covers the different versions of skepticism and cover the 4 main categories within philosophy.

Too broad as stated, and not related to the belief/non-belief issue. Some of the above related to belief/no-belief religious issues concerning choice. Actually a separate thread could be made for each of the above. To include them all hear would make this very foggy and messy.

Part of the key of the thread as stated in the opening post. Is non-belief a choice? This I believe best refers to 'religious beliefs.'

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s not really a recognised definition by any criteria, but well done having a go. It’s always helpful to hear opinions from the uninformed, on subjects they have little to know understanding of.

I'm OK with the discussion.
It's entertaining, & some might even find it embiggening.
But metaphysical claims shouldn't be mistaken for being
factual or certain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Too broad as stated, and not related to the belief/non-belief issue. Some of the above related to belief/no-belief religious issues concerning choice. Actually a separate thread could be made for each of the above. To include them all hear would make this very foggy and messy.

Part of the key of the thread as stated in the opening post. Is non-belief a choice? This I believe best refers to 'religious beliefs.'

Well, that is in effect psychology for methodological naturalism and not only about religion as such.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm OK with the discussion.
It's entertaining, & some might even find it embiggening.
But metaphysical claims shouldn't be mistaken for being
factual or certain.

Well given that entities are observable while terms and concepts are not, it would be reasonable to adopt a similar cautious scepticism about the theoretical, as opposed to strictly empirical, elements of all laws of science or nature. Put simply, for physics to offer a description of reality, it requires an ontology; and ontology is metaphysics of a sort.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but they are not objective, thus there are no objective physical evidence for them. They are inferred based on the assumption that the mind is a process in the brain in a physical universe.

If you found a person without training in interpreting brains scans and the chemical formulas for processes in the brain, that person couldn't tell what those scans and formulas were about.

Being objective in the sense you mean is not a requirement for physics to work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Being objective in the sense you mean is not a requirement for physics to work.

No, but the end problem is that if the universe is physical, then this sentence is also physical: "The universe is not physical". But you can't express that in physical terms as false/wrong or what ever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well given that entities are observable while terms and concepts are not, it would be reasonable to adopt a similar cautious scepticism about the theoretical, as opposed to strictly empirical, elements of all laws of science or nature. Put simply, for physics to offer a description of reality, it requires an ontology; and ontology is metaphysics of a sort.

Yeah, that is very it always ends.

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s not really a recognised definition by any criteria, but well done having a go. It’s always helpful to hear opinions from the uninformed, on subjects they have little to know understanding of.

I didn't offer a definition.
It's wise to understand a post before snarking it.

 

[Nakosis]

No, but the end problem is that if the universe is physical, then this sentence is also physical: "The universe is not physical". But you can't express that in physical terms as false/wrong or what ever.

The only requirement for something to be physical is that it can be detected by our senses or it affects something which can be detected by our senses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The only requirement for something to be physical is that it can be detected by our senses or it affects something which can be detected by our senses.

Yes, you conflate all senses with the physical versus the mental and mentally declare everything is physical. I do get how you do it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is belief a choice? Why or why not?

Is lack of belief a choice? Why or why not?

It is clear to me that not all people are capable of theistic belief. And that is a good thing. Atheism is necessary for the maintenance of intellectual and ethical honesty both inside and outside religions.

Is that lack of belief a choice? I don't think so. There may be people who have that choice, but I have a hunch that those are few and far between. Perhaps very rare indeed.

Why? Mainly because belief in the literal existence of some form or conception of deity is ultimately an aesthetical inclination. A very arbitrary, very personal inclination. It isn't very easy to change those, and there isn't a whole lot of good, morally defensable reason to make the attempt.


As for theistic belief, it is probably much more rare than most people realize. It, too, is an aesthetical inclination, for which there may or may not be some form of neurological or biological predisposition. But most of the time it is intentionally confused with simple surrender to social expectations. There are many millions of people who have been raised into accepting that claims of theistic belief are a necessary part of social links, despite that being very much untrue.

Most people don't feel strongly enough about that enforced hypocrisy to complain, and there are probably a few genuine theistic believers providing a bit of cohesion to the structures, but ultimately it is such a rare belief that the doctrines that propose it as natural have to keep reinforcing that claim though a huge percentage of their efforts.

So no, theistic belief isn't very often a choice either; most of the time it is either a genuine rarity or instead learned, mutually reinforced code for certain ceremonies and expectations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is clear to me that not all people are capable of theistic belief. And that is a good thing. Atheism is necessary for the maintenance of intellectual and ethical honesty both inside and outside religions.

...

And those are beliefs without evidence. Now did you choose that?

 

[Curious George]

Is it? What would it mean that belief in not a choice?

Ciao

- viole

It would mean simply that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It would mean simply that.

Yeah, we agree in some sense.

 

[Nakosis]

On the contrary, the light shed by discoveries in QM on the underlying weirdness of nature challenge our perceptions in various ways. Enough to cause physicist and writer Carlo Rovelli to observe that;

“The solidity of the classical vision of the world is nothing other than our own myopia. The certainties of classical physics are in fact just probabilities. The well defined and solid picture of the world given by the old physics is an illusion.”

- Rovelli, Helgoland

Nature being weird at the quantum level doesn't negate nature.
The fact that we can detect this "weirdness" at all supports its physicality.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes and no.

Belief (i assume you mean religious belief) is part if childhood learning. In general children take on the belief of their parents and stick with them for life.

However some people may question what they were taught and choose a different belief

This relates to a long standing question I have explored: Why do people believe?

yes, by far the majority of people believe in general what they are taught and 'conditioned' by the culture and peer group they are raised in, This ties into the human nature of tribalism where one's sense of community and identity take precedence over the possibility of alternate choices, but yes some people make alternate choices, and often become alienated from their traditional community in one way or another. Though this remains a distinct minority, which include those that make the decision of some sort of non-belief.


In Buddhism this concept is described as 'clinging' and is symbolic when the Buddha. 'awakens' and finds all the subjects of kingdom asleep, and leaves on his journey to 'enlightenment.' Unfortunately most Buddhists today still cling ro statues, rituals, monasticism, myths and superstitions of the past. The analogy that awakened Buddha on the river back when heard the music instructor tells the student to 'be careful not to make your strings to tight or too loose or you will have no music.' Clinging is making the strings too tight and asleep and not care is too loose.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, that is in effect psychology for methodological naturalism and not only about religion as such.

Huh!?!?!?!