Belief...a choice?

quote:

---

I say that is an incorrect statement. You cannot believe something without some rationalization. For example: I cannot choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, no matter how hard I try. I may be tortured enough, as in Orwell's "1984", but I don't see how I could make myself believe something like that without appropriate evidence.

---

I agree - this is what makes it impossible for me to believe in a literal Bible God, one that bases salvation on what one believes. I could try for the rest of my life to believe the statements of the Bible, but my mind is simply to skeptical to be able to force belief upon myself. That's why I started the Why is belief necessary? thread, but I believe it veered from the original question - in part because it wasn't well-stated.To those who believe that belief is a choice, however, I would wonder - do you think it is a choice only in specific situations? For example, one might choose his or her belief in abstract matters, but not concrete ones. Or do you think that one can choose his or her beliefs in any matter? I can't imagine anyone thinking they could convince himself or herself that 2+2=5, but perhaps you might.If that's the case, I wonder, then, if you could convince yourself that belief isn't a choice.

(Just because I know it will drive some people crazy, I'm warning ahead of time that this is basically all my opinion, without scientific basis)

quote:

---

you may choose to believe anything you wish. two plus two makes five? If it makes you happy, believe it.

---

But I'm saying that I can't just do that. I can't just say 2+2=5 and actually believe it. I can repeat it over and over to myself in my mind, but no matter how much I do, at the end of the day I still know that 2+2=4.Do you think that you could just make yourself believe that, so that whenever anyone asks you for the rest of your life what two plus two equals, your immediate reaction is to think 5? For me, if I were to try to believe it, what would happen is that I would think 4 by reflex, remember I was "supposed to" think 5, and say 5. What one says externally doesn't automatically equal internal belief.If I recall (it's been a long time so I apologize if this isn't quite accurate), in 1984 Winston kept repeating that two plus two was five just to stop O'Brien's torture, but that didn't mean that he actually believed it (yet), and O'Brien knew this because he knew Winston couldn't just make himself believe differently on command.To me, it's sort of like saying that (and please try not to drag this off topic, this is just an analogy) homosexuality is a choice. When did I ever sit down, think about the options, and say, "Okay, this is what I've decided to believe/be attracted to."? I don't think that we can consciously alter our beliefs. On the other hand, I do believe that we can change our mind as new information is presented (whether by epiphany or external sources) - but that is not a process we have any choice in, either. Certain posts made on this site just recently have been making me think differently about some political concepts, by presenting from a different way of thinking - but I didn't say to myself, all right, this is what I'll believe now instead; it just happened.

quote:

---

You'll point to, I dunno, prophetic scripture and supposed miracles as evidence for your belief. But the only reason you accept those things is the fact that you want to validate your faith.

---

Of course you realize that this leaves it open for them to say, "The only reason you deny those things is that fact that you want to deny God." Just as I think one is imagining or adding extra meaning to specific events, he might think I'm going out of my way to show that the event could have been falsely perceived and that the evidence is clearly in front of him.Sorry, just had a Devils Advocate, a little game of role reversal moment.

quote:

---

All of them believed in the same God so they were all crazy or they were all right.

---

Off-topic, but just wanted to point out that this statement seems to be pretty broad analysis and implies an extreme either/or situation where there is none (akin to saying that disproving evolution proves creation). What of outside influences, of societal standards, of each person's individual experiences, of the chance that they were misled? I doubt that they were all crazy but that certainly doesn't mean they were all right.Unless, of course, you mean the term "all right" as "okay". They might very well have been all right guys.

quote:

---

No no that was not my intention. I was only talking about the existence of God without taking into account evolution or creation.

---

I know - I was simply using it as an analogy to another either/or fallacy commonly seen here for comparison; I apologize if that wasn't clear.

quote:

---

To choose to follow, once you believe, is one thing (I think that is what you are referring to), to actually choose to believe is another.

​

Seriously, the crux of this matter is that some don't believe based upon their logical processing of the facts presented. So, how do you reach those folks? They aren't choosing not to follow Christ, they say that they don't see enough evidence that Christ is the Son of God...that a Holy Spirit exists....or Bible God even exists. They truly can not make that leap. So now they are being judged by God for what they can't help? Not being convinced is a sin or disobedience?

---

Thank you! This is what I've been trying to say - especially the first part - but I'm afraid I suffer from a rather constant tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon.I'd like to add, however, that it is also a possibility that some people can believe that which the observable evidence disputes (after all, as we can clearly see on this forum, people have drastically different thought processes), but I still question whether or not they are choosing to do so.Furthermore, even if they are, why should the ability of some to choose their belief overrule the inability of others? If there is even one person in the world who cannot choose his or her beliefs, doesn't that make a system that requires belief (with the alternative of eternal punishment) unjust?This message has been edited by Morte, 11-29-2004 05:18 PM

quote:

---

The evidence disputes it from your (supposedly dispassionate) point of view.

---

Bah, I don't have a dispassionate point of view, nor do I claim to. What I meant is that people can believe something even if they believe the evidence is against it. I was saying nearly the same thing - it has to do with their own way of thinking, their past experiences, how they were taught, their biases. Specifically, I was thinking of displacing evidence with trust (though I suppose that trust really could be a form of evidence, being that the trust is usually built on prior experiences, I just wasn't thinking of it as such at the time of posting).