ManM

"In a way, it was a choice- but not a choice in conclusions; merely a choice in addressing the problem."

That is what I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to say. Maybe I have just been approaching the wrong way. If our deepest metaphysical belief is not a choice, can someone please show me what criteria necessitates a certain foundational belief over another?

DRFseven,
The choice rests at the beginning of thought, not at the end. You ask whether or not I could choose to belief in elves. I simply ask, in relation to what? You have claimed that we cannot choose because we are bound by our experience. Tell me, how do you order your experience? If you claim that experience comes before belief, then I challenge you to explain how there are solipsists. If you claim that belief comes before experience, then how do you arrive at that belief?

ex-preacher,
I pose the same challenge to you. How is it that we cannot choose our foundational beliefs? If you claim that reality forces you into a certain belief, then what access do you have to reality that is independent of your belief?

Jamie_L

We start as children with no foundational beliefs at all. We basically have two instinctive beliefs: what our senses tell us is true, and what our authority figures tell us is true.

That's about it. There is no concept of theism or naturalism. But I would submit that the baseline is naturalism, because all we know is what we observe.

Now, how do we get a foundation for a larger belief? Eventually we come up with questions. Why is the sky blue? What happens when we die? Where do the presents come from on Christmans? We ask those questions of our authority figures, and they tell us. And THAT becomes the foundation of our belief.

Eventually, we encounter other foundational beliefs. If we get enough reasoning skill under our belts, we can compare and contrast them. Based on this examination, we will find one to have more merit than the others. Unless we are mentally unbalanced, we will believe the one that has the most merit. Some people never get to this stage. And everyone who does brings all their past experiences to the table, so we don't all come to the same conclusion.

I don't think anywhere in this process is there some step where we say: "Today I will choose whether or not the foundation of my beliefs will be theism, or naturalism, or somethingelseism."

Jamie

excreationist

It has to *genuinely* appear to us to be the best information about reality. This involves the person subconsciously weighing up the evidence (*including* fallacies such as arguments from authority, arguments from emotion, etc) and deciding.
When they are recalling what they believe, they would trigger a few memories. In my last post, I talked about emotional thought stopping. It would involve old beliefs being repressed and triggered less and less. The new (possibly fallacious) evidence might eventually outweigh the old, rarely triggered evidence.
e.g. after a while a person might have two thoughts:
"God stinks" and "That's the devil speaking!"
The first thought is a watered down form of their former beliefs. Their second thought would be reinforced by many other memories - there would be a lot of (perceived) evidence about Satan at work in the world. The first thought is just an opinion - possibly coming from the devil. The second thought comes with the implication that choosing the first opinion will result in ETERNAL PAIN. So therefore, the first person shouldn't be listened to. Unbelievers would soon realize that that eternal pain mightn't be real, but if the brain isn't allowed to question its thoughts then the idea that rejecting God equals eternal pain is taken for granted. (Assuming you're very committed at following that technique)

Well I think they are right in a way... we can't really be sure that the outside world we sense really exists. They are more certain about this though, and insist that is the truth. I think some of our natural desires include coherence and connectedness - and their world-view is fairly simplistic and self-centered. So emotionally it can be somewhat attractive. And it means that the suffering of others doesn't happen in reality since other people don't really exist. And maybe habits of belief can be as hard to give up as other habits...

excreationist

Have you tried out those ideas I suggested? I mean you did say it would be much easier if you were a theist...

HelenM

Life has made a lot more sense to me since I realized this.

Until I did I was confused continually when people did things that they claimed were rational, but I could see, really weren't.

Once I realized how emotionally-driven those decisions really were, I could understand them much better.

(Yesterday a certain poster made a point that I used the word Christians in the third person and asked what that meant about me. I wonder what it means about me that I just used "people" in the third person...yep, my secret is out! I'm not a person! )

love
Helen

philechat

I think "choosing to believe" is possible for some individuals, but not for others. The process is called "self-hypnosis" and is seen in people with multiple personality disorder. People with MPD could easily self-hynotize into another person, with different names, personalities, and beliefs. The different personalities would have different degree of awareness about the existence of other personalities, and they might be in any kinds of relationship with other personalities.

They indeed are able to utter "if I tried very hard, I can think and believe like another person".

ex-preacher

My senses - sight, sound, taste, smell, touch.

My ability to detect inconsistencies (Example: God loves us and God creates diseases).

Certainly we are inculcated with beliefs from a very early age. I was taught that Santa Claus brings presents on Christmas. I believed that until a fellow kid told me it wasn't true and I tested the evidence for myself. I didn't *choose* to stop believing in Santa. I suppose you could say I trusted my senses and reasoning more than I trusted an incoherent and unsupported story. But even that wasn't a conscious choice.

ex-preacher

Have never actually met one, I'm not sure there are any solipsists.

Can you actually prove that there are solipisists?

P.S. Please use real evidence, not your "foundational beliefs."

ManM

Jamie_L,
What measure are you comparing and contrasting them with? If you are matching them up with reality, pray tell how you have access to reality independent of your preconceptions. If not reality, then how are you deciding?

I fought through these questions years ago and came to the conclusion that while we are not free of our historical experiences, we are quite free to order those experiences in different ways. There is no logical necessity involved in this process.

excreationist,
Do we have information about reality that is independent of our conceptions of reality? If not, how can we reasonably say that our interpretation of our perceptions is necessarily the only true interpretation?

ManM

ex-preacher,
You are assuming your senses are accurate. How is this a logically necessary assumption? How does experience dictate its own interpretation?

And no, I cannot prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that some people believe in solipsism, for you might be a solipsist yourself. I have experienced the joys of debating with solipsists before, and it is quite futile. You should try it sometime. In fact, that was one of the major factors which led me to critically examine blind faith in reason.