Is Belief (or Lack Thereof) a Choice?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems a waste of time then for some of us to way up the evidence and evaluating such in our thinking, and find it lacking, given so many don't seem to have any feelings (for or against) as to whether religions or the existence of God/gods are correct or not. I don't seem to have had such throughout my life - it just doesn't matter to me - and I do recognise that so many do find religions to have value in their lives. To me it purely is down to the weight of evidence being against religions having the truthfulness that they espouse. And that we can live without such beliefs.

Hence, my choice not to believe the evidence used to promote religions leads to a non-belief in such things - apart from their existence of course.

What is the bold one?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, yes, in a sense.
Here is an example. E.g. when someone says - God is real - then that matters to the person. Likewise when someone says - Objective reality is real and physical - then that matters to the person.
It is not so much that there is something as whatever God/objective reality is, it is that it matters to a given human, that it is.

And in the general sense look at Maslow's model of psychological needs.

I think many would argue about the top level of Maslow's needs, given that so many seem to manage without these but would probably experience things in much the say way - awe and such - and as to which I have done much the same without any religious or spiritual beliefs at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is belief a choice? Why or why not?

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

Not for me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What is the bold one?

As to the gathering of evidence and information - if our feelings are likely to override such - no matter how scrupulous we are in being objective and impartial.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think many would argue about the top level of Maslow's needs, given that so many seem to manage without these but would probably experience things in much the say way - awe and such - and as to which I have done much the same without any religious or spiritual beliefs at all.

Yes, it is emotions. That is the point. That is what matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As to the gathering of evidence and information - if our feelings are likely to override such - no matter how scrupulous we are in being objective and impartial.

Well, let me show you a fun one.
Objective in this version: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
When I choose to go objective and explain how something works, then it is because it matters as I can learn more and that it matters is, because we are told the cultural narrative that objectivity is better than subjectivity. But that better is a feeling.

If you really want to nitpick, it connects to the is-ought problem and the latter is connected to... Yes, you are right. That is good.

 

[viole]

Is belief a choice? Why or why not?

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

If belief were not a choice, we would observe uniform statistical distribution, of the gods people believe in, all over the world.
Actually, we should observe quite uniform belief for the same God, or Goddess, all over the world. Nobody would believe in different Gods.

However, the God people believe in is skewed by birthplace, or cultural belonging. And cannot therefore possibly be considered as coming from something different from just choosing what is available at the local cultural and upbringing divinity shop.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If belief were not a choice, we would observe uniform statistical distribution, of the gods people believe in, all over the world.
Actually, we should observe quite uniform belief for the same God, or Goddess, all over the world. Nobody would believe in different Gods.

However, the God people believe in is skewed by birthplace, or cultural belonging. And cannot therefore possibly be considered as coming from something different from just choosing what is available at the local cultural and upbringing divinity shop.

Ciao

- viole

Well, the same with reason, logic and evidence. They are also culture as such.

 

[viole]

Well, the same with reason, logic and evidence. They are also culture as such.

Yes, I know that 2+2=4 is valid only in Sweden. I am sure you in Denmark do not agree,

Thanks for noticing that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I know that 2+2=4 is valid only in Sweden.

Thanks for noticing that.

Ciao

- viole

Well, not all cultures have 2+2=4 as we have it. So, yes.

 

[Yerda]

Good. So, we can have thoughts that we don’t believe in and it would not be accurate to call those thoughts “beliefs”.

But can we have beliefs that are not also thoughts? Even belief-systems are made up of “thoughts” (that we believe in).

Humbly,
Hermit

It seems to me we can have thoughts about all sorts of stuff that we don't believe in. I've never believed that werewolves are real but I used to love writing stories about them when I was 12. Fiction is a coherent set of thoughts that nobody believes but one person thinks them, writes them down in sentences, another then reads those sentences and thinks those thoughts.

The nature of what a belief "is" is tricky. The ontological status that they have, or whatever, isn't clear to me. They're more like dispositions or attitudes that persist over times much longer than a thought. They are connected to and dependent upon thoughts though.

 

[viole]

Well, not all culture have 2+2=4 as we have it. So, yes.

Thank you. Took a note not to talk about such in some cultures. Danes, for instance. We know you are weird

However, is your claim culture independent?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you. Took a note not to talk about such in some cultures. Danes, for instance. We know you are weird

However, is your claim culture independent?

Ciao

- viole

No, that is the point.
Nobody is outside nature and nurture. Except you of course.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Of course I have wondered about myself as an individual and as part of existence, but mostly I try to place myself and all humans within the sphere of reality - as to where we have come from (long line of ancestors and such - from good evidence) and as to how we relate to all other life. This is foremost in my thinking.

And I seem to know enough about how our minds work - evolved over time - to know that we can so easily be deceived by our thinking. Hence why I would not necessarily trust any inner voice - which could be mistaken for any God replying to any such supposed communications. I've mentioned this before, in a quite trivial way, as to catching my inner voice out - as to not telling the truth. But no, I've never really tried to communicate with God - given that I doubt I would know if any reaction was true or not. How would I know?

Why would you accept anything as coming from God - apart from a desire to believe such?

Why would you accept anything as coming from “reality” - whatever that is - apart from a disposition to believe as much?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, let me show you a fun one.
Objective in this version: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
When I choose to go objective and explain how something works, then it is because it matters as I can learn more and that it matters is, because we are told the cultural narrative that objectivity is better than subjectivity. But that better is a feeling.

If you really want to nitpick, it connects to the is-ought problem and the latter is connected to... Yes, you are right. That is good.

Unfortunately religions are things that one can hardly miss when growing up, and the effects that so many have on societies and individuals. Hence we can't avoid them.

Like many others, I seemed to notice this fairly early on, but from some evidence (the varieties of such and conflicts between religious beliefs) I wasn't immediately taken with the one that would have been the norm for me - growing up in a default Christian household - so I left my beliefs in abeyance seemingly - until I had enough evidence to make a proper decision. So over time and reading various amounts and in various fields I came to the conclusion as to where I now stand. Not sure what else I could have done - apart from read every bit of material for every major religion - so as to influence me, but emotions didn't and still don't seem to enter into this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately religions are things that one can hardly miss when growing up, and the effects that so many have on societies and individuals. Hence we can't avoid them.

Like many others, I seemed to notice this fairly early on, but from some evidence (the varieties of such and conflicts between religious beliefs) I wasn't immediately taken with the one that would have been the norm for me - growing up in a default Christian household - so I left my beliefs in abeyance seemingly - until I had enough evidence to make a proper decision. So over time and reading various amounts and in various fields I came to the conclusion as to where I now stand. Not sure what else I could have done - apart from read every bit of material for every major religion - so as to influence me, but emotions didn't and still don't seem to enter into this.

Well, everything is not emotions, but it end in how everything matters. Even for you.
Here is an academic text on religion and the definition of it: Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

The Definition of Religion

Even most standard non-religious people are religious in that sense. They just use words rights; fair; a good, health and productive life and d'so on.
You are a humanist, if I recall right? But that is a value system that ends in emotions about a good life.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why would you accept anything as coming from “reality” - whatever that is - apart from a disposition to believe as much?

I expect things to be placed within reality - if they can't then there is a problem. There is a baseline as to what we should believe, and usually this is as to such being able to be proven, so I generally take my reality from this area. Much comes from science, and hence the respect that science usually gets for the things that are generally accepted by the vast majority of scientists and those interested in science and/or who are capable of understanding much of the science. I respect enough of science to hence believe much of what science tells us even though I will know that there is much revision to do and that there is much to learn too.

What would you expect anyone to believe in opposition to this? Given that the vast majority of those with religious beliefs will probably likewise agree with my assessment of science other than where any religious doctrine deviates from such in some way.

So I and those who differ - those believing in some particular religion - seem to differ as to what a particular doctrine says. Show the proof as to why they differ is all I ask - and citing written material from history is hardly proof of anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I expect things to be placed within reality - if they can't then there is a problem. There is a baseline as to what we should believe, and usually this is as to such being able to be proven, so I generally take my reality from this area. Much comes from science, and hence the respect that science usually gets for the things that are generally accepted by the vast majority of scientists and those interested in science and/or who are capable of understanding much of the science. I respect enough of science to hence believe much of what science tells us even though I will know that there is much revision to do and that there is much to learn too.

What would you expect anyone to believe in opposition to this? Given that the vast majority of those with religious beliefs will probably likewise agree with my assessment of science other than where any religious doctrine deviates from such in some way.

So I and those who differ - those believing in some particular religion - seem to differ as to what a particular doctrine says. Show the proof as to why they differ is all I ask - and citing written material from history is hardly proof of anything.

Yeah and for science, then there is the rest:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, everything is not emotions, but it end in how everything matters. Even for you.
Here is an academic text on religion and the definition of it: Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind.

The Definition of Religion

Even most standard non-religious people are religious in that sense. They just use words rights; fair; a good, health and productive life and d'so on.
You are a humanist, if I recall right? But that is a value system that ends in emotions about a good life.

I suppose I am basically a humanist, but like many others, I doubt we would see any of our beliefs as contributing to a religious system. Not sure I even have an ideology, and as to which I would see religions as a subset.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I expect things to be placed within reality - if they can't then there is a problem. There is a baseline as to what we should believe, and usually this is as to such being able to be proven, so I generally take my reality from this area. Much comes from science, and hence the respect that science usually gets for the things that are generally accepted by the vast majority of scientists and those interested in science and/or who are capable of understanding much of the science. I respect enough of science to hence believe much of what science tells us even though I will know that there is much revision to do and that there is much to learn too.

What would you expect anyone to believe in opposition to this? Given that the vast majority of those with religious beliefs will probably likewise agree with my assessment of science other than where any religious doctrine deviates from such in some way.

So I and those who differ - those believing in some particular religion - seem to differ as to what a particular doctrine says. Show the proof as to why they differ is all I ask - and citing written material from history is hardly proof of anything.

What does science, in your opinion, tell us about reality? And how does it do that?