Do you control what you believe?

[Something completely different]

I'll just throw this out there... I don't have the source, but I know I've read about this phenomenon: If you have a moving religious experience by a certain age (before the brain is fully developed, I believe towards the end of adolescence), certain areas of the brain related to critical thinking shut down. Thereby, if one doesn't have a moving religious experience early in life, one is A) less likely to have faith, and B) more open to different ideas. By having this exposure to a moving religious experience, I'd assume there would be a greater difficulty later in life of overcoming one's beliefs. Which is where you get the fundamentalists who simply won't listen to reason or accept proof or factual evidence. Thoughts?

I heard about this in a different context. Children who expirenced racism through their parents during their infancy, eaven if it`s only a bit (mother taking a tighter grip of her handbag when a black man approaches, mother or mum and dad closely observing a black man who walks by on the pavement) are more likely to releate to racist stereotyps about these people.
The early childhood years are some of the most importent in context of character-building and how one perceives the world he or she lives in.
I remember my grandma telling me at a young age, how much she hated russians and poles and how certain stereotyps followed me for a long time of my life.
.
It strenghtens the argument that teaching children not to think criticaly through religion can be considered to be childabuse.

[JohnDG]

The mind of a child is a powerful thing, misguided or not. If you could kill off anyone older than 6 months of age and design a education structure intended to make these children believe that living in an prison like enviroment was normal, it would be. And they would be slave's to the prison and happy slaves at that. Fighting for minor material rewards no doubt, in constant competition to prove they are the best for some kind of approval from their superiors.... Drifting into something else sorry. (now that I think, that's kinda how dogs are.)

[Aroura]

This seems to fall in the ball park whether or not we have free will. I am a follower of determinism, and In my opinion we don't. Our decisions and opinions are a by product of your up bringing, and your collective experiences. However, lack of free will does not negate choice. You, right now, can choose what you want to have for dinner, but everything that has happened to you up to this point has already dictated what you were going to choose long before you did it. So no, we can't really decide what we believe, but we can choose to question it, and questioning it will lead to new information that will expand upon the collective experience that dictates what you believe, and may in turn lead to you choosing a belief that differs from that with which you started.

This would make you a compatabalist, right? You believe in some admixture of determinism but also a touch of free-will, aka choice. I think a lot of people fall into this category.
But it confuses me a bit. I mean, if you aren't really technically even choosing what to have for dinner, how can you choose to question a belief?

At any rate, I don't think we choose belief or lack-of. I came to atheism very gradually at first, then all of a sudden near the end. Not quite an epiphany, just a quick realization. I didn't choose it, it just sort of happened to me.

I have studied books, videos, lectures, everything I can on determinism and free will, and due to the way my brain works I guess, have ended up a hard-determinist. I think ALL choice is an illusion.

I have to say accepting that thought was equally as difficult for me as discarding the notion of god. Both were a struggle, but I'm glad for both in the end. I think determinism, and even compatablisim, lead to a much more open minded and compassionate world view.

If you realize you didn't choose atheism, how far can you take it? Did the criminal choose to commit a crime, or was it a product of his culmative experience? I think if we start looking at crime more like an illness that (not a SIN, or a CHOICE to be a bad person), and treat it as such, we'd make much better progress in rehabilitating criminals.

Strangely, Determinism and the idea that all choice is an illusion turned me into a completely "bleeding heart liberal". I don't mind the label, I think more compassion for others can only be a good thing.

Boy, I really got off topic there a bit. Sorry.

But ok, no, I don't think anyone makes the choice to be an atheist, or anything else.

[genkaus]

As far as I know I don't control anything. I'm a slave to my genetics and my experiences.

Are you trying to say that you are something other than your genetics and experience?

[Whateverist]

if you aren't really technically even choosing what to have for dinner, how can you choose to question a belief?

At any rate, I don't think we choose belief or lack-of. I came to atheism very gradually at first, then all of a sudden near the end. Not quite an epiphany, just a quick realization. I didn't choose it, it just sort of happened to me.

I have studied books, videos, lectures, everything I can on determinism and free will, and due to the way my brain works I guess, have ended up a hard-determinist. I think ALL choice is an illusion.

I have to say accepting that thought was equally as difficult for me as discarding the notion of god.

What goes around coming around? Hard to see how "accepting a thought" is much different than "choosing to question a belief". Both of you seem to accept that there is a role for you to play in deliberation. Neither of you is saying: no thought is necessary, just relax and enjoy the ride. So I take it you must believe that when you really put some effort into it, the choice you make will be the one you are 'determined' to make. But so long as there is the possibility of getting it wrong, there is some freedom in the system. Perfect, god-like freedom? Of course not.

As sentient and sapient beings we are aware of multiple attractions and outcomes to avoid. I want to define 'free will" as the necessity of choosing between a plethora of relevant options, in most cases without certain knowledge of which outcome will please us most (or displease us least). If the actual choice I end up making is already determined by my DNA and environment, but I am unaware of what that choice may be, that doesn't really do me a fat lot of good. There is obviously enough freedom in the system for me to act in ways which are not what my DNA and environment would incline me toward.

From my perspective as a conscious being, I cannot be free from the necessity of choosing. Nor can I take a laissez faire attitude toward the task of choosing. I must expend some effort for any choice to get made. So long as I am constrained to participate and so long as I am unaware of what the the inevitable outcome should be, I remain -perhaps regrettably- free. Free to fuck up. Free to be disinterested. Free to be self-destructive. Free to join a movement and make their cause my own. Or .. free to accept uncertainty and the necessity of choosing for myself. Choosing the latter, I say I have free will.

[Aroura]

if you aren't really technically even choosing what to have for dinner, how can you choose to question a belief?

At any rate, I don't think we choose belief or lack-of. I came to atheism very gradually at first, then all of a sudden near the end. Not quite an epiphany, just a quick realization. I didn't choose it, it just sort of happened to me.

I have studied books, videos, lectures, everything I can on determinism and free will, and due to the way my brain works I guess, have ended up a hard-determinist. I think ALL choice is an illusion.

I have to say accepting that thought was equally as difficult for me as discarding the notion of god.

What goes around coming around? Hard to see how "accepting a thought" is much different than "choosing to question a belief". Both of you seem to accept that there is a role for you to play in deliberation. Neither of you is saying: no thought is necessary, just relax and enjoy the ride. So I take it you must believe that when you really put some effort into it, the choice you make will be the one you are 'determined' to make. But so long as there is the possibility of getting it wrong, there is some freedom in the system. Perfect, god-like freedom? Of course not.

As sentient and sapient beings we are aware of multiple attractions and outcomes to avoid. I want to define 'free will" as the necessity of choosing between a plethora of relevant options, in most cases without certain knowledge of which outcome will please us most (or displease us least). If the actual choice I end up making is already determined by my DNA and environment, but I am unaware of what that choice may be, that doesn't really do me a fat lot of good. There is obviously enough freedom in the system for me to act in ways which are not what my DNA and environment would incline me toward.

From my perspective as a conscious being, I cannot be free from the necessity of choosing. Nor can I take a laissez faire attitude toward the task of choosing. I must expend some effort for any choice to get made. So long as I am constrained to participate and so long as I am unaware of what the the inevitable outcome should be, I remain -perhaps regrettably- free. Free to fuck up. Free to be disinterested. Free to be self-destructive. Free to join a movement and make their cause my own. Or .. free to accept uncertainty and the necessity of choosing for myself. Choosing the latter, I say I have free will.

No, accepting the thought was hard, but it wasn't choice. It would be like saying, breaking my arm was painful and the recovery was hard. The recovery isn't a choice, it just happens after you have a break. Sometimes it's easy or heals well, sometimes it's hard or heals badly. That isn't a choice you make. It's an effect after a cause.

Choice is something often implied in language, because the illusion of it is there.
I've read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape, Daniel Dennett's Freedom Evolves (As well as watching TED talks on it, and watching other lectures, etc). These all influenced how I view the topic, of course. I used to firmly believe in free will.
I have no choice about how I view free will anymore, anymore than I have a choice on how I view god, but naturally now I realize I didn't before either! lol.

Just because we may be unaware of all of the factors that cause us to have no choice when faced with that plethora of options, giving us the appearance of having "chosen" one, it does not mean those factors aren't there. And if we are indeed part of a giant Rube Goldberg machine, without any real choice, that doesn't mean you give up and stop doing things. That isn't human nature.

At any rate, ultimately it matters little. Whether it is an illusion or not, we mostly all operate as if it were true, because humans evolved to need the idea of free-will. Well, IMO I should say, because I'm not saying this is 100% true, it's just what scientifically appears to be true, from what I know of it. Future scientific discoveries could indeed uncover evidence of true free-will.

[Angrboda]

I'll just throw this out there... I don't have the source, but I know I've read about this phenomenon: If you have a moving religious experience by a certain age (before the brain is fully developed, I believe towards the end of adolescence), certain areas of the brain related to critical thinking shut down. Thereby, if one doesn't have a moving religious experience early in life, one is A) less likely to have faith, and B) more open to different ideas. By having this exposure to a moving religious experience, I'd assume there would be a greater difficulty later in life of overcoming one's beliefs. Which is where you get the fundamentalists who simply won't listen to reason or accept proof or factual evidence. Thoughts?

I know offhand that (supposedly) 85% of conversions occur between the ages of four and fourteen, but I would have to do some research. I just ordered a book from Amazon last night on the science of religious belief, so I'm gonna check there first (J Anderson Thomson).

What you cite sounds familiar, but it also sounds like the "Republicanz haz small brains," too. I'll see what I can find. There's also related threads on the nature of the self on Ratz (rationalia.com), but they've tended to either pure philosophy or extremely reductionist neuroscience

[Whateverist]

No, accepting the thought was hard, but it wasn't choice.

Was healing your broken arm hard? Did you feel actively involved in that? Probably not. You didn't stress it and you protected it so the autonomic processes could be effective. But it would be odd for you to take responsibility for the result. No deliberate action or decision on your part was involved. So I wonder if you think we ever truly "take action" or "decide" anything? Perhaps you imagine that all this is taking place and we're just weaving a story that makes us the main character in a story we aren't ourselves writing.

Personally I think both are true. I think there is decision making and volition apart from those I consciously participate in but then I think there are many other instances in which, for instance, the act of raising my arm can be linked back to a conscious decision I've made. I don't see why there should be but one source of actions. We don't have to relegate our entire conscious selves to the status of ghosts-in-the-machine to recognize that not every action or reaction which springs from us is one which originates from conscious deliberation. I think the truth is more complex than either explanation alone. We do have the ability to raise our arm on command just as naive common sense would have it. But our arm can also raise in reflex to a perceived need before we consciously are aware of the reason for it.

[Aroura]

No, accepting the thought was hard, but it wasn't choice.

Was healing your broken arm hard? Did you feel actively involved in that? Probably not. You didn't stress it and you protected it so the autonomic processes could be effective. But it would be odd for you to take responsibility for the result. No deliberate action or decision on your part was involved. So I wonder if you think we ever truly "take action" or "decide" anything? Perhaps you imagine that all this is taking place and we're just weaving a story that makes us the main character in a story we aren't ourselves writing.

Personally I think both are true. I think there is decision making and volition apart from those I consciously participate in but then I think there are many other instances in which, for instance, the act of raising my arm can be linked back to a conscious decision I've made. I don't see why there should be but one source of actions. We don't have to relegate our entire conscious selves to the status of ghosts-in-the-machine to recognize that not every action or reaction which springs from us is one which originates from conscious deliberation. I think the truth is more complex than either explanation alone. We do have the ability to raise our arm on command just as naive common sense would have it. But our arm can also raise in reflex to a perceived need before we consciously are aware of the reason for it.

No deliberate action or decision was made for how hard it was to heal up from realizing determinism is true either. It just happens. I didn't decide to make it hard. Factors in how I had been raised to view the world made it hard, nothing within my control at all.

As far as the truth being more complex, as I said earlier, it's possible some vague form of free will exists, and if there is evidence (besides "common sense") for it, I'll totally accept that. But so far, science only indicates a deterministic world. Note that randomness does not equal choice.

---

I just wanted to say that I don't find determinism or free-will to be all that important to me. I don't really want to get into an argument about it. I was just sharing thoughts, not looking to argue about it.

[Whateverist]

And if we are indeed part of a giant Rube Goldberg machine, without any real choice, that doesn't mean you give up and stop doing things. That isn't human nature.

Interesting that you permit notions as vague as whatever 'human nature' might be but balk at 'common sense' or 'free will'. Oh wait. You don't really have a choice, do you? You think what you must, what the momentum of the universe compels you to think. Not much point in chatting about it then, is there? You confess you aren't in charge of your own thinking and you must believe I am no more capable of influencing what I must belief. Is all discussion therefore moot?