Choosing to/not to Believe? Not Possible?

[johan]

I understand your analogy but faith typically deals with things not concretely seen. You can provide visual proof that 1+1=2 with the apples and thus I would have to either ignore it or willfully delude myself in order to ignore that evidence and choose to believe 1+1=3.

But when dealing with things unseen, we can't really disprove them.

And with this right here you've actually answered your own question. Faith by definition requires one to believe without proof. To accept that things which are unseen and cannot really be disproved are real. To willfully delude oneself into accepting that the unseen which cannot be proven is real.

This by definition is a choice. Even if you were indoctrinated from birth, it is still a choice. In those cases its just a choice that someone else made for you but it was still a choice.

Accepting evidence that can be repeated is our default state of being. Even primates understand that 2+2 does not equal 3 and will get visibly upset if you trick them and make things seem otherwise. Faith, in any reasonably educated being is therefore a choice. Therefore not having faith for any being educated enough to know such a concept exists, is also a choice. 

I choose to accept that there is no evidence that god exists. And I choose to reject theism because of it. Likewise every theist is a theist because a choice was made either by them or by some elder relative.

[polymath257]

I think there is a difference between 'belief' and 'accepting as a working hypothesis'. I think we can choose to accept something as a working hypothesis and go about our lives based on that assumption. But I don't call such 'belief'. When I say that I 'believe' something, I mean that I find that it is mostly likely to be true. because of that, belief requires evidence and thought. Occasionally, the probabiilities can be re-evaluated and the belief can be strengthened (probability increased) or weakened (probability decreased).

But, in matters where there is no evidence, belief isn't really a possibility. Instead, there can be a 'choice' to act 'as if' the idea was true (or false). For me, this is *always* provisional. So, before the discovery of the Higg's boson, I said that it was *likely* that such existed but that I didn't know for sure. I provisionally accepted that hypothesis in doing physics, but realized if it were not eventually discovered, those calculations would have to be re-done.

It seems to me that 'faith' is taking a provisional hypothesis and elevating it to the status of an actual belief. For me, that stinks of self-delusion. That isn't actual belief: being convinced something is true. It is, instead, simply making a working hypothesis and refusing to really question it after that. And that is simply dishonest.

[brewer]

Hey guys! First of all I apologize for not hanging around much since I first joined. Life has been hectic.

This is an honest question as I'm genuinely curious what perspectives you all have on this. I recently read an article where a Christian apologist used the argument to atheists that they "choose not to believe in God". This claim was promptly met by much backlash in the comments, with many athiests claiming that such a thing was impossible.

In fact many of them went on to assert that we do not, and cannot by definition, choose to believe something.

Now this is very interesting to me because I have heard this argument from certain Christian denominations before (namely Calvinism, which I am not of that camp) but from the inverse idea that one cannot choose to believe God because only God can choose us. Now I am a Christian but fall under the Arminianism camp that believes in free will and the ability to choose. This was the first time I had heard a similar argument from the athiest viewpoint.

I'm puzzled by the notion though, because to assert that we do not or cannot choose what to believe is essentially akin to saying that we are incapable of willfully embracing faith (and by proxy, incapable of willfully rejecting a religious belief we've grown up into), no?

This isn't meant to be a challenge or apologetic. I'm honestly intrigued as to what the consensus is here on this.

Were these atheists strong believers of determinism? If they were, this might help to explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGtkDzELAI

I am not in the determinism camp. I choose to leave the programming.

[Whateverist]

I choose to believe four is my favorite color.

Do you agree that four is the best color?  If not, you've simply chosen to believe something else.  Some of you will claim only to not share that belief, but obviously you actively believe four is not the best color.  People shouldn't be so gutless when it comes to justifying beliefs which do not align with my own.

[Mystic]

States are by beliefs, and actions are by states. So if you don't choose beliefs, there is no real freedom in actions.

[Simon Moon]

Hey guys! First of all I apologize for not hanging around much since I first joined. Life has been hectic.

This is an honest question as I'm genuinely curious what perspectives you all have on this. I recently read an article where a Christian apologist used the argument to atheists that they "choose not to believe in God". This claim was promptly met by much backlash in the comments, with many athiests claiming that such a thing was impossible.

In fact many of them went on to assert that we do not, and cannot by definition, choose to believe something.

Now this is very interesting to me because I have heard this argument from certain Christian denominations before (namely Calvinism, which I am not of that camp) but from the inverse idea that one cannot choose to believe God because only God can choose us. Now I am a Christian but fall under the Arminianism camp that believes in free will and the ability to choose. This was the first time I had heard a similar argument from the athiest viewpoint.

I'm puzzled by the notion though, because to assert that we do not or cannot choose what to believe is essentially akin to saying that we are incapable of willfully embracing faith (and by proxy, incapable of willfully rejecting a religious belief we've grown up into), no?

This isn't meant to be a challenge or apologetic. I'm honestly intrigued as to what the consensus is here on this.

Belief is defined by cognitive scientists and contemporary analytic philosophers as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

People accept premises and propositions as being true because they are convinced that they are.

How can I choose to believe something as being true, if I am not convinced that it is? I can not choose to be convinced of something, unless it is supported by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

I can not choose to believe gods exist, unless the claim is supported by the above criteria.

[Mister Agenda]

Hey guys! First of all I apologize for not hanging around much since I first joined. Life has been hectic.

This is an honest question as I'm genuinely curious what perspectives you all have on this. I recently read an article where a Christian apologist used the argument to atheists that they "choose not to believe in God". This claim was promptly met by much backlash in the comments, with many athiests claiming that such a thing was impossible.

In fact many of them went on to assert that we do not, and cannot by definition, choose to believe something.

Now this is very interesting to me because I have heard this argument from certain Christian denominations before (namely Calvinism, which I am not of that camp) but from the inverse idea that one cannot choose to believe God because only God can choose us. Now I am a Christian but fall under the Arminianism camp that believes in free will and the ability to choose. This was the first time I had heard a similar argument from the athiest viewpoint.

I'm puzzled by the notion though, because to assert that we do not or cannot choose what to believe is essentially akin to saying that we are incapable of willfully embracing faith (and by proxy, incapable of willfully rejecting a religious belief we've grown up into), no?

This isn't meant to be a challenge or apologetic. I'm honestly intrigued as to what the consensus is here on this.

We can choose to try to convince ourselves of nearly anything, and I'm not sure that there's anything a person cannot convince themselves of if they try hard enough, for long enough. When they finally succeed, they believe what they chose to convince themselves to believe. But they still had to be convinced, even if it was by themselves. They couldn't just flip to the new belief instantly.

For instance, say I lost a bet and therefore had assumed an obligation to start being a theist. I know that community support is conducive to theistic belief, so I would join a church or temple. I know that unsupervised scripture reading is detrimental to theistic belief, so I would only engage in guided study. I might try affirmations, telling myself every day that God is real. I would pray, a lot, in particular for things that I know have a decent chance of happening anyway. I would avoid things that encouraged doubt. Over time, with relationships forged and at least some prayers answered, and an investment of time, effort, and money that would be wasted if I failed to succeed in believing, I might become a believer.

It would be very difficult for me and still might not succeed, because rational skepticism is like an inoculation against having faith in things that lack enough evidence to justify rational belief; and now that I hold the belief that one ought not to believe extraordinary claims without evidence sufficient to overcome the extraordinary nature of the claim; I'm not sure how I would go about getting rid of it. I'm not sure I can if I wanted, barring torture or immanent threat of death.

[EgoDeath]

I understand your analogy but faith typically deals with things not concretely seen. You can provide visual proof that 1+1=2 with the apples and thus I would have to either ignore it or willfully delude myself in order to ignore that evidence and choose to believe 1+1=3.

But when dealing with things unseen, we can't really disprove them. Now yes, I understand that there is a burden of proof issue but that's a different topic.

I guess what I am wondering is, do you believe that by definition, faith is an impossibility? If so, why?

So you can choose to believe that 1 + 1 = 3?
 
I don't think so. You either believe something to be true or you do not. In this case, we know 1 + 1 = 2 so there is no matter of belief there. We simply understand it as a mathematical fact.

In my case, I do not think faith is impossible... sure, you can have faith. But faith is only useful if you cannot clearly demonstrate something is true or false. In the case of mathematics, no faith is required. We can demonstrate different mathematical truths. We cannot demonstrate whether or not god is real, but we can determine whether or not we have evidence for a divine creator. The answer to that is no. That's where belief comes in.

I cannot choose to believe in unicorns the same way I cannot choose to believe in god.

I think faith is an interesting concept because it sort of implies that you want something to be true even though you don't actually believe it.

[Angrboda]

States are by beliefs, and actions are by states. So if you don't choose beliefs, there is no real freedom in actions.

Huh? It's like you've got your own private language. What are you trying to say?

[Mystic]

An action is a series of states in time, those states are usually by a goal, the goal is justified by belief.  The value of the action is by it's love, which is to the degree value is given. That all requires belief in the value of the goal behind the action.