Choosing to/not to Believe? Not Possible?

[LadyForCamus]

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

Huh?

---

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.

JFC, MK...

[Ravenshire]

Choosing to embrace your faith is not the same thing as choosing to believe. You can choose to research, to seek out answers, but unless there is some other influence, choosing to believe or not believe those answers is impossible

---

I think parents play a big role there, yes. But that does not explain those who embrace (or change) faith later on in life, so that cannot be the end all explanation either. If that were so, only those raised in very religious homes would remain religious, but that is not necessarily always the case.

We're steeped in the beliefs of our homelands whether our parents are believers or not. Indoctrination doesn't just happen at home.

[Simon Moon]

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.

It's not just a matter of being unseen. There are many methods of detecting things that we cannot see. Atoms are demonstrable despite being unseen. We can measure the effects of electricity, despite being unseen.

The existence of gods is undetectable in any way. The universe behaves exactly, as far as ALL the evidence shows, as a universe without a god.

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

Faith exists. Many people justify their beliefs by appealing to faith. So it is not an impossibility.

But what faith is, as far as I can tell, is a very unreliable method to use to get to true beliefs. 1.1 billion Hindus and 1.5 billion Muslims use faith to justify their beliefs, yet you think they arrived at incorrect beliefs.

So, if faith can lead you to Christianity, and all those Muslims and Hindus to their beliefs, how can faith be reliable?

How am I, and outsider to ALL religions, able to discern, that your faith lead you to the correct religion, yet the same method, lead all those other billions of people to the wrong religion?

How is faith any different than gullibility?

[Succubus]

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.

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

Mark Twain.

[zebo-the-fat]

I have been told many times that I must believe or I will go to hell. The problem is, I don't believe, I cannot just say "from 9:00 am on Monday I will believe" it can't be done. If someone shows me some convincing evidence to make me change my mind that is different, but I can't just "decide to believe"

[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.

Let me add, that for the vast majority of atheists, our atheism is NOT a dogmatic position. It is a provisional position.

For me, my disbelief is provisional based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that a god exists.

I am completely open to the possibility that a god exists. All that it would take to convince me, would be, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

Without the above criteria being met, what would you recommend I use to warrant belief that a god exists?

[JairCrawford]

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.

Let me add, that for the vast majority of atheists, our atheism is NOT a dogmatic position. It is a provisional position.

For me, my disbelief is provisional based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that a god exists.

I am completely open to the possibility that a god exists. All that it would take to convince me, would be, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

Without the above criteria being met, what would you recommend I use to warrant belief that a god exists?

I actually greatly respect and commend your aversion to being dogmatic. It's something I am working on in my own Christian faith.

As for what I would recommend? I... how do I do this without getting preachy? I don't wanna get all stereotypical preachy on y'all. I guess I'll just honesty share from my viewpoint and experience. I'll start of bluntly; the scientific method isn't involved at all. I am very charismatic and revivalist, which means I believe that healing, miracles, signs and wonders, speaking in tongues, up and to even the raising of the dead, can, and still do happen today. Not scientific at all. Completely and utterly supernatural. So my honest advice to anyone seeking God is, look in the mysteries and the supernatural places, not within the realm of logic and understanding.

Now I know that this is like, the absolute ANTI-THESIS of rationality and skepticism. And believe me there are many denominations of Christians that even disagree with these views, but this is honestly my worldview, and thus an honest answer to your question from the lens of my worldview.

[Angrboda]

Let me add, that for the vast majority of atheists, our atheism is NOT a dogmatic position. It is a provisional position.

For me, my disbelief is provisional based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that a god exists.

I am completely open to the possibility that a god exists. All that it would take to convince me, would be, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

Without the above criteria being met, what would you recommend I use to warrant belief that a god exists?

I actually greatly respect and commend your aversion to being dogmatic. It's something I am working on in my own Christian faith.

As for what I would recommend? I... how do I do this without getting preachy? I don't wanna get all stereotypical preachy on y'all. I guess I'll just honesty share from my viewpoint and experience. I'll start of bluntly; the scientific method isn't involved at all. I am very charismatic and revivalist, which means I believe that healing, miracles, signs and wonders, speaking in tongues, up and to even the raising of the dead, can, and still do happen today. Not scientific at all. Completely and utterly supernatural. So my honest advice to anyone seeking God is, look in the mysteries and the supernatural places, not within the realm of logic and understanding.

Now I know that this is like, the absolute ANTI-THESIS of rationality and skepticism. And believe me there are many denominations of Christians that even disagree with these views, but this is honestly my worldview, and thus an honest answer to your question from the lens of my worldview.

Seek and ye shall find.

Good advice, perhaps, if you want to find God. I'm not sure it's as proficient at finding truth.

---

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.

Not seeing how that gets you to the conclusion that we choose beliefs. Even if I followed your logic, everything you state occurs after belief is formed and so is uninformative about the grounds which determine belief in the first place.

In short, you're still not making a lick of sense.

[polymath257]

Let me add, that for the vast majority of atheists, our atheism is NOT a dogmatic position. It is a provisional position.

For me, my disbelief is provisional based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that a god exists.

I am completely open to the possibility that a god exists. All that it would take to convince me, would be, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic.

Without the above criteria being met, what would you recommend I use to warrant belief that a god exists?

I actually greatly respect and commend your aversion to being dogmatic. It's something I am working on in my own Christian faith.

As for what I would recommend? I... how do I do this without getting preachy? I don't wanna get all stereotypical preachy on y'all. I guess I'll just honesty share from my viewpoint and experience. I'll start of bluntly; the scientific method isn't involved at all. I am very charismatic and revivalist, which means I believe that healing, miracles, signs and wonders, speaking in tongues, up and to even the raising of the dead, can, and still do happen today. Not scientific at all. Completely and utterly supernatural. So my honest advice to anyone seeking God is, look in the mysteries and the supernatural places, not within the realm of logic and understanding.

Now I know that this is like, the absolute ANTI-THESIS of rationality and skepticism. And believe me there are many denominations of Christians that even disagree with these views, but this is honestly my worldview, and thus an honest answer to your question from the lens of my worldview.

If those healings, miracles, signs and wonders are *real*, they can be documented and studied. The method of such study is the scientific method. If nothing else, science would be able to show such events do occur and that we have no current explanation for them.

Sorry, logic and understanding are what it requires to believe something.

[brewer]

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.

I believe I'll piss on this. Now that's some muther fuckin love I tells ya.