ForeverSeeking

I have to disagree.

I can not choose to believe in Santa now because I KNOW he does not exist.

Although I do not follow Christianity, I certainly could choose to follow it again, because I am not certain that Jesus did not exist, or that the concept is definitively false. I guess I am trying to state that I think beliefs ARE a choice if you keep in mind that a 'belief' has to do with the unproven....faith.

Once something is proven to be true or false, then it is no longer belief at all. Many state that religion is categorically false, so therefore no, they can not choose to believe, because that contradicts the definition of 'belief'.

phlebas

Can you choose, right now, to be a Muslim? I don't mean behave as one or take a Muslim name. I mean deciding the Islam is true.

Or, if you like, skip religious issues for now. Think of a food you liked as a child but cannot stand now (or vice versa). Now, change your mind about that food. Right now. Don't start eating it on a regular basis to try to develop a taste for it, just decide.

Too bad rainbow_walking is away for awhile. Ask him about how you can change your beliefs by an act of will. He struggled for months to hang on to his Christianity, and it drifted away anyhow.

You can say that you can change your beliefs all you like, but so far no one has demonstrated it.

Megusic

I agree that beliefs can NOT be chosen. My world would be much simpler if I were able to choose to believe a certain way.

You can choose to open your mind to learning new things. You can choose to give yourself a lable. You can choose to be rational (which is not a belief btw). You can choose to explore your own emotions. These things can all lead to a change in belief, but the belief itself exists internally no matter what "choices" you make on the surface.

excreationist

There was a thread that is still going in the Existence of Gods forum about this called <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000501" target="_blank">Explanation for Choosing to Believe?</a>

Anyway I said a lot of things in that thread... I think my main point was that I don't think you can arbitrarily choose what you *genuinely* belief... what you genuinely believe is what your brain genuinely determines to make the most sense to you... though often logical fallacies make more sense to us than having a more objective view of things. I think our desire for connectedness and coherence is very strong... so strong that we can cling to foolish beliefs or choose to belief something dogmatically just to feel secure.

On the other hand, perhaps people who are hypnotized or have certain kinds of mental illnesses or actively reforce their beliefs (and block out conflicting beliefs) might be able to arbitrarily *genuinely* believe in anything - e.g. the existence of elves.

Choosing to believe in the existence of elves was a major focus of that thread... I think that if we can arbitrarily have genuine belief in anything, then we can also apply that arbitrary genuine belief to elves...

WJ

Ex!

"I think my main point was that I don't think you can arbitrarily choose what you *genuinely* belief... what you genuinely believe is what your brain genuinely determines to make the most sense to you... though often logical fallacies make more sense to us than having a more objective view of things. I think our desire for connectedness and coherence is very strong... so strong that we can cling to foolish beliefs or choose to belief something dogmatically just to feel secure."

Sounds like a sort of Kantian innate need to believe in something (ie, all effects have causes). That would explain a natural desire for your need to develop "coherence" in thought.

The next question might be why us? And, what is considered "foolish" when our own consciousness and ability to reason has no ultimate explaination?

I have not read the referenced thread, but would agree that 'certain' 'logical fallacies' make more sense than pure objectivity. Sentience is, of course, a prime example.

Are we cursed with sentience, and the will to believe?



[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

Not really. When I say I can't choose to believe, I mean I can't just freely decide to believe whatever makes me feel good. My belief is conditioned by what seems plausible to me, and there is no way I can believe a proposition that feels implausible. In fact, I *define* belief by the feeling of confidence I have in it. (Note: Belief and truth are different things. The truth isn't dependent on how I feel. And, just to avoid misunderstanding, I emphasize that the feeling involved is a feeling of plausibility; it's not a matter of whether I *like* the proposition or not.) I also use these definitions when interpreting other people's claimed beliefs. What people *affirm* is often not very strongly believed.

Gurdur

Hiya Excreationist,

Just come back from a Terry Pratchett convention - if you haven't read any of his books you should most certainly read them - they're very applicable to this debate, since Pratchett explores this concept among others in his novels (plus it's fun to get drunk with him and other fans).

People do choose beliefs - take a look at the people who first of all choose to belong to a certain group, then gradually adopt all the beliefs espoused by that group, for various reasons.

Another wee thing to keep in mind is the difference between what people believe, and what they think they believe.

Anyway, since I've noticed an ideological drive towards the (albeit atheist) fundy determinist position preaching from some posters here, as well as this new stance that somehow beliefs "cannot be chosen", I will be doing this as a new thread later for you, in addition to two others I promised you (nope, haven't forgotten, just slow).

tronvillain

Well, as far as I know I have read all of Pratchett's books several times, and I am not sure how they are supposed to apply to this discussion.

Now, exactly how is choosing to join a group, and then gradually adopting that group's beliefs, an example of choosing a belief. Unless someoneone says to themself, "I am going to join this group because I want to believe what they believe!" it does not appear to be. Can you even give an example of this in action?

Also, exactly what is "the (albeit atheist) fundy determinist position"? I am essentially a determinist, though whether strict or probablistic is not entirely decided. There do not appear to be any other options.

Gurdur

I refer you to Small Gods, the Watch series and also Feet Of Clay.
Pratchett discusses the concepts quite a bit.

Quite simple.
People often will join a group, then as a marker of belonging to that group will adopt as they will various beliefs of that group.
I'm not quite sure what you don't understand about this, since it's quite evident in social life everywhere.
Commonly, people will adopt beliefs as membership markers, but will not adopt - or only partially adopt - beliefs that they find stick in their craws.

Nope. Your argument here is somewhat strained and rather non-sequiter.

D'oh, how many would you like ?

I've known atheists on this board move to tentative belief that all morality is purely subjective, simply because that seems to be the majority view of the group; I've known Libertarians to adopt the belief that "objective" morality can be magically derived by a process of specious "logic"; I've known converts to Catholicism to move slowly through the entire panopoly of Catholic beliefs, choosing or rejecting as they like; I've known Communists to adopt somewhat strange beliefs merely to stick with the group.
One thing in common to all is the main premise of the group, as it looks to the new member, and after that come all the ancillary beliefs, as a kind of membership-marker package, quite often treated as a kind of voluntary shopping list.

Fascinating.
The majority of philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists appear to be compatibilists of various stripes; I guess to them there does appear to be further options.

And by the "the (albeit atheist) fundy determinist position" I am referring to the ideologically agenda-driven promulgation of the determinist position as the only truth.

I have no problems with those who argue for the determinist position as a strong possibility, but those who argue that the determinist view is simply "true" and discount or ignore all views to the contrary - in what is an extremely complex field - are simply guilty of preaching.

BTW, I've noticed that some here who push the determinist position - often in very crude ways, disregarding most philosophical work in this field - also will suddenly do a back-flip when it comes to morality, and insist that all morality is purely subjective.

Seeing the great philosophical contradiction inherent there is left (for the moment only) as an exercise to the reader.
_______

Edited for non-determinist spelling.

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

excreationist

WJ:
...Sounds like a sort of Kantian innate need to believe in something (ie, all effects have causes). That would explain a natural desire for your need to develop "coherence" in thought.

Combined with the desire for "newness", this is what motivates learning behaviours that increase our intelligence. (By learning problem solving strategies and patterns about how the world works, etc)...

The next question might be why us? And, what is considered "foolish" when our own consciousness and ability to reason has no ultimate explaination?

This potential for a lot of intelligence would give people a military advantage... perhaps that is the reason why our relatives were wiped out - or taken over... when our intelligence is developed to a sufficient level, we are able to do things like kill any beast - from lions to elephants and even whales... we survived the ice-age which I think involved a very rapid change in climate... we did this simply by wearing skins and living in shelters - rather than evolving extra fur and fat at an ultra-rapid rate. So anyway, the potential and desire for high intelligence/competence has its advantages.

I have not read the referenced thread, but would agree that 'certain' 'logical fallacies' make more sense than pure objectivity. Sentience is, of course, a prime example.

I think this mostly involves us learning language and telling ourselves "I this" and "I think that", etc... when we tell ourselves those things it is just automatically triggered based on stimulus... perhaps religious fanaticism requires a need for a certain level of self-awareness... this is because religions often use rewards or punishments in the afterlife to motivate or comfort their followers. Or personal status could be a motivation - that would also require some self-awareness. And religious fanaticism would allow huge groups to form - that might want to invade the world to convert people. I think agriculture is very important too... it allows cities with tens or hundreds of thousands of people - many can pursue science or warfare... but hunter-gatherers just wander around in small bands. The native Americans could have larger groups though, because of their horses and buffalo.
That's probably not a very good justification for sentience... a better explanation would be quite long....

Are we cursed with sentience, and the will to believe?


I think sentience is learnt. We only are born with the *potential* for sentience... BTW, what do you mean by "sentience" anyway? I mean, is an ape sentient? What about a dog? Or an infant? Or a babbling toddler? Or a talkative questioning toddler? I think consciousness occurs when toddlers start questioning everything... and I also use the word "awareness" - that would apply to things like mammals in general with a minimal amount of real-world experience.
I don't know what you mean by "the will to believe"....