Choosing to believe

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Just because a person might believe in an particular belief it doesn't mean that it will always be correct.

People used to believe in all kinds of things, which were true for their particular circumstances and environment. But now we are able to do those very things that were once impossible. We cross oceans in a matter of hours. We eat food from around the world. We can see the person we are talking to on the other side of the world. All of those things would be considered miracles by ancient people.

People have believed in ancient ethnocentric religious fairy tales for thousands of years even though they are not part of those particular ethnic groups. The question is should people in the 21st Century continue to believe in such ethnocentric religious fairy tales, especially since they don't understand them?

[Simon Moon]

The most accurate definition of belief that I've seen, as defined by philosophers of mind is, "the psychological state in which an individual accepts a premise or proposition to be true", then no, I can't decide what I believe.

I base my beliefs on: demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid/sound logic, I will only believe something if it meets those criteria. If something meets those criteria, I will be compelled to accept it (provisionally) as true. I can't just decide to believe something, unless it meets those criteria. Nor can I decide to stop believing something if it does meet those criteria.

[Angrboda]

I would agree that you can't simply choose to believe something that you are set against believing. However, I think there's a lot more gray than this. For one, it assumes that reason is the main faculty of mind involved in determining how to evaluate a proposition. I think there are more players at the table, including emotions, intuition, cognitive biases, and the person's environment. So while you can't simply will yourself to believe or disbelieve something, you can incline yourself toward developing a belief or disbelief depending on things other than whether you find the belief reasonable or not.

In the question of acting and feeling, we know that how you feel affects how you will act, but it's also the case that how you act will affect the way you feel. This is the premise behind several well regarded therapeutic techniques. I think that, just like with feelings and action, belief can be encouraged through manipulation of these other factors. The stories of people turning to religion after a stressor are common, so obviously our emotional lives can influence what our reason accepts as plausible. And people can turn away from religion as a result of causes having little to do with reason.

So, no, we can't simply will ourselves to believe or disbelieve without regard to reason and plausibility. However, we can make choices based on things other than reason which increase or decrease the likelihood of belief, and some of those factors are under our control.

[*Deidre*]

I wonder if what is meant is that something always "drives" our beliefs. People often wouldn't choose to believe in heaven or hell for example, except for fear. Fear drives religion. Without it, I'm not sure many people would "choose" it.

We could name every scenario under the sun, but when it comes to religious beliefs, they are not based on absolutes (absolutes are based on facts and not beliefs)but rather a driving cause in each "believer" as to why they choose to believe.

[Angrboda]

I wonder if what is meant is that something always "drives" our beliefs. People often wouldn't choose to believe in heaven or hell for example, except for fear. Fear drives religion. Without it, I'm not sure many people would "choose" it.

“If everything on earth were rational, nothing would happen.”

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky


One interesting theory of religion is that belief systems are cobbled together using aspects of cognitive abilities used for other functions under non-religious circumstances. For example, the idea of an invisible mind, if disengaged from the requirement that it accompany a body, can become ghosts or gods. The thing is that many of these cognitive functions aren't really under rational control: the mind calls upon the systems, but the systems are largely subconcious in operation. Many of these cognitive "side-effects" are involved in things like social functioning, and are not therefore driven by reasons so much as by social needs and emotions.

[Minimalist]

In the sense of, I can't choose to have diarrhea, but I can choose to eat half a pound of figs.

Good choice, Jake. That should get you pretty close to a pile of xtianity.

[Esquilax]

Choosing the path of belief then. That certainly makes more sense, send is broadly compatible with Pascals Wager.

Having enjoyed both an atheist and theist selection of literature I do see in both (although the theists are much worse) a tendency to take the worse, most simplistic and weakest arguments of the other to attack. If one was exposed to only one its easy to see how one could choose to deny oneself evidence to support either position.

I dunno... it seems sort of strange to me to think of someone believing solely on negative attributes like that. That's not really choosing a belief so much as it is restricting the amount of information you have with which to derive your beliefs. By sealing yourself in an echo chamber like that you might be able to influence your beliefs, but does manipulating the environment around your beliefs really count as an active choice?

Is ignorance of other paths the same as choosing the one you're on?

[Whateverist]

I have a 90 minute drive to work on a Wednesday. I try to vary my audio book / podcast listening pleasure. Hence this morning was the rather entertaining "across the pond", a current affairs Christian podcast, and this evening was "the God delusion".

On of prof Dawkins statements, under Pascals Wager, was that one can't simply decide to believe in something. I wonder if that's true.

What say you?

It depends. Let's assume you have no evidence for thinking whatever it may be is true. You might still start with a hunch in that direction. Or perhaps a desire for it to be true? Perhaps you have what you take to be personal evidence. So long as you have a motive I think you can find a way to 'justify' the belief.

But in the absence of any of those, it is hard to imagine how arbitrarily believing something is true without evidence or motive would work. That would be pretty chaotic.

Personally, I think belief should passively follow what you have reason to think true .. not advantageous. Keeping wishes separate from conclusions seems the better way to go about it.

[Clueless Morgan]

choose[/i] a belief as they become (rightly or wrongly) convinced of a belief.

This.

I, for instance, couldn't believe in unicorns just by choice, because I am insufficiently convinced of their existence. That's not to say that I couldn't be convinced that it's possible that they could exist.

I think there is a sliding scale of convincability, as well, and the more you are convinced of something, the less choice you have to believe what you are convinced of.

For example, I am absolutely convinced I am biologically female, and, I think, incapable of actually believing I am biologically male. It's factually and evidentially false and I would always know it.

I am sufficiently convinced that no unicorns exist - sufficiently enough to declare a firm opinion on the matter and profess a strong belief that I am correct in this assessment.

I am insufficiently convinced I am not a brain in a jar, and I see no clear way to make a determination one way or the other so I feel like in this instance my belief is something of a choice in that I get to choose the option I like the best.

[Mister Agenda]

I have a 90 minute drive to work on a Wednesday. I try to vary my audio book / podcast listening pleasure. Hence this morning was the rather entertaining "across the pond", a current affairs Christian podcast, and this evening was "the God delusion".

On of prof Dawkins statements, under Pascals Wager, was that one can't simply decide to believe in something. I wonder if that's true.

What say you?

I think you can convince yourself of anything, given enough time and effort; or be convinced of anything through sufficient brainwashing and/or torture; but you can't change your beliefs on a whim. Changing beliefs can happen quickly if you hold your beliefs lightly and are willing to amend them based on new information, but I don't consider that merely choosing to believe something different.

For instance, I stopped believing Harvestmen are deadly poisonous once I learned they are not, on the spot. Coming to believe that I am an earthly agent of the loa would probably involve more effort.