Choosing to believe

[Jacob(smooth)]

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?

[eyemixer]

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?

If none of my options have any more of a reasonable expectation of truth than any other, I can choose to believe any of them. If you mean have a belief in something that does not meet my criteria of having reasonable chance of being correct, I cannot.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

I can choose to believe I have a massive member.

The fact that it's true backs such a belief up.

---

However, I can also believe that I am a millionaire.

Or I could believe I might become a millionaire.

There, the distinction shifts and becomes quite interesting.

I can't believe in a state in which I cannot possibly exist, based on the truths I know and the accepted parameters in which I presently live. But I could choose to believe in the possibility of an occurrence that is inherently possible due to that belief still existing within the accepted parameters of my life, but being highly unlikely.

This is where religion falls down.

The beliefs in the possibility of a deity, alongside the affirmation that there is a deity are both without merit under the current known parameters. Since parameters outside of those which we currently know - and those that are at all possible - would be inherently flawed.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider even the possibility.

[Bad Wolf]

I can't help believing what I believe. Its how my mind works. And so I don't make any choices on my beliefs, if I don't believe something, I can't help it.

[FreeTony]

Here's a test.

1. Find a tall building
2. Choose to believe you can fly
3. Jump off the building

(Please don't try this at home in case you can)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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 seems easy enough to test (but I suppose belief is too intensely personal for this to apply to everyone). Answer honestly the following questions.

-Can you choose to believe there are faeries in you garden?

-Can you choose to believe that Greenland does not exist?

-Can you choose to believe that oak trees are actually made of edam cheese?

-Can you choose to believe that there are no such things as codfish?

-Can you choose to believe that the people you see on television are only a few inches high and actually live inside the box?

There's more, but that'll do to go on with. I doubt very much that people can choose to believe or disbelieve in a proposition, based solely on the nature of that proposition. They must be presented with evidence, compelling arguments, 'best explanation' scenarios - something that (to their minds, at least) justifies having a particular belief.

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the overwhelming majority of religionists believe in their particular god(s) via a combination of inertia and ignorance: their parents and grandparents held this belief, and they either haven't been presented with alternatives, or the reject the alternatives due to inertia.

I suppose, then, that people don't so much choose a belief as they become (rightly or wrongly) convinced of a belief.

Boru

[Jacob(smooth)]

What if you choose to expose yourself to only Christian literature, discuss religion with only Christian people, and avoid trains of thought which head down tracks you don't wish to consider?

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

[Jackalope]

What if you choose to expose yourself to only Christian literature, discuss religion with only Christian people, and avoid trains of thought which head down tracks you don't wish to consider?

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

In that sense, one probably could.

But is that choosing what to believe, or is it choosing a path that reduces the anxiety of cognitive dissonance?



I thought of the question in these terms: Could I choose to believe as true, something that I currently think is a load of codswallop?

I do not think that I can.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What if you choose to expose yourself to only Christian literature, discuss religion with only Christian people, and avoid trains of thought which head down tracks you don't wish to consider?

Again, inertia + ignorance. In what you mentioned here, this is deliberate, willful ignorance: you are choosing to read the things you already agree with, so as to help convince yourself that the believe you already hold is correct. If you don't give yourself an option, they you cannot, logically, 'choose' anything.

In a very real sense (sorry, folks) a good number of non-believers are just as guilty of this sort of behaviour. How many times have you run across an atheists who proudly proclaims his/her ignorance of the Bible, or of any other scriptures? People like this haven't made the choice to be an atheist, they are prevent themselves for having to make a choice in the first place.

Boru

[Jacob(smooth)]

What if you choose to expose yourself to only Christian literature, discuss religion with only Christian people, and avoid trains of thought which head down tracks you don't wish to consider?

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

In that sense, one probably could.

But is that choosing what to believe, or is it choosing a path that reduces the anxiety of cognitive dissonance?



I thought of the question in these terms: Could I choose to believe as true, something that I currently think is a load of codswallop?

I do not think that I can.

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.