Is belief a choice?

patsman07

As an atheist I regularly have conversations with family members and close friends about the existence/non existence of a God. Having read a good deal of Dawkins books, followed threads here and watched many Ted talk. youtube videos I think I usually can answer most points put to me by theists.

I''ve noticed that believers very often end the conversation with something like 'well i just choose to believe.'

I find such a statement hard to understand. For me, I don't think I choose to believe in anything-I weigh up the evidence that I have and come to a logical conclusion. Its not a choice. I have to me swayed/convinced one way or the other by evidence.

Is this the same for other atheists? or maybe for anybody familiar with the scientific method?

Is belief a choice?

duckysauce

no an enforement

ArtSmart

patsman07 wrote: »

As an atheist I regularly have conversations with family members and close friends about the existence/non existence of a God. Having read a good deal of Dawkins books, followed threads here and watched many Ted talk. youtube videos I think I usually can answer most points put to me by theists.

I''ve noticed that believers very often end the conversation with something like 'well i just choose to believe.'

I find such a statement hard to understand. For me, I don't think I choose to believe in anything-I weigh up the evidence that I have and come to a logical conclusion. Its not a choice. I have to me swayed/convinced one way or the other by evidence.

Is this the same for other atheists? or maybe for anybody familiar with the scientific method?

Is belief a choice?

let me answer your question with a question.

does free will exist?


oh, wait. you just asked that.

GarIT

I don't think belief is a choice. A belief is the thing that you think is most likely to be true, you can't decide what appears more likely to be true it just comes to you. I believe there is no god because science made me believe that, I didn't choose for science to appear right to me.

Bob Cratchet

patsman07 wrote: »

I find such a statement hard to understand. For me, I don't think I choose to believe in anything-I weigh up the evidence that I have and come to a logical conclusion. Its not a choice. I have to me swayed/convinced one way or the other by evidence.

Why do you assume theists do not weigh up the evidence and come to their own logical conclusions ?
What is evidence ?
Science is a very important and useful tool, but it does not explain, nor can it ever explain all concepts or behaviour. Science alone cannot answer any philosophical questions. Science is also confined to the known physical properties of the small amount we know about this universe. Substituting science alone as your God will not work.

Turtwig

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Why do you assume theists do not weigh up the evidence and come to their own logical conclusions ?
What is evidence ?
Science is a very important and useful tool, but it does not explain, nor can it ever explain all concepts or behaviour. Science alone cannot answer any philosophical questions. Science is also confined to the know physical properties of the small amount we know about this universe. Substituting science alone as your God will not work.

How you got that assumption from his original post perplexes me.

Zillah

Technically no, of course not. I can't choose to believe that I am Santa Claus, for example.

However, a person's emotional disposition certainly seems to influence their ability to exercise reason. Our brains' intuitive processes function brilliantly for things like catching a ball or understanding why fire is dangerous, but they are really terrible when it comes to things like our own mortality, the origin of the planet, the existence of life etc. In such cases one must exercise a sort of manual override and resist the urge to assume that a coincidental event is not divine intervention just because it happened to us.

In such "choosing to believe" circumstances, I would imagine it is often the case that they simply don't allow themselves to think about it in great detail, allowing their irrational/intuitive brain-areas get along swimmingly with their emotional centres.

Zillah

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Science is also confined to the known physical properties of the small amount we know about this universe.

Whereas you, I am sure, have a methodology that gives you access to the unknown metaphysical properties of the rest of the universe?


You people.

smokingman

patsman07 wrote: »

I''ve noticed that believers very often end the conversation with something like 'well i just choose to believe.'

Follow this by telling them that the word "gullible" has been removed from the Oxford English dictionary and watch the reaction...that'll explain things

liamw

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Science is a very important and useful tool, but it does not explain, nor can it ever explain all concepts or behaviour.

Examples of concepts or behaviour that science can never explain please?

Science alone cannot answer any philosophical questions. Science is also confined to the known physical properties of the small amount we know about this universe. Substituting science alone as your God will not work.

So, if science cannot answer these questions, what can? How do we know these questions are valid? Is this alternative methodology testable and falsifiable?

Dades

Genuine belief is not a choice. Those who "choose" to believe don't have a genuine belief.

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Science alone cannot answer any philosophical questions.

You mean science can't make stuff up without being accused of just making stuff up?

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Substituting science alone as your God will not work.

Why substitute anything for a god myth? We all managed without Santa when we discovered he wasn't real.

cavedave

There is a large genetic component to most of our beliefs. Hanson gives some examples of how much genes influence our beliefs here

Its not a choice. I have to me swayed/convinced one way or the other by evidence.

Prove to me you love your wife? And while your at it prove to me you made a rational decision in picking a wife? You may not be married but my point is that very few of our decisions are rationally explainable.

mikhail

To answer the OP's question, no one could choose to believe something different tomorrow, but some people are more open to or even pursue having their beliefs tested.

robindch

patsman07 wrote: »

I''ve noticed that believers very often end the conversation with something like 'well i just choose to believe.'

That really just confirms that religion is basically an emotional response, instead of an intellectual conclusion. I think it's also a signal from the other side that they're no longer prepared to debate, and just want a bit of peace

Wibbs

cavedave wrote: »

Prove to me you love your wife? And while your at it prove to me you made a rational decision in picking a wife? You may not be married but my point is that very few of our decisions are rationally explainable.

Actually you can rationally explain that stuff. It's just most people, even strident atheists will sprinkle some magical thinking on that old devil called love. I suppose not surprising as the chemicals released during the honeymoon stages of human pair bonding mean you're pretty baked when you're in love. OK prove you love your wife? Simple enough, you're still with her, you devote time and resources, physical and emotional to her. You've picked her out from other potential mates and continue with her to the exclusion of other potential mates, even after the first flush of romance and youth has passed. =Love. What rational decisions did you make in picking her in the first place? Well many were out of your control, but of the ones that were quite a few. Men tend to pick women "in their league". They tend to pick women they have a chance with. Duh. Most "5"s end up with other "5"s. You picked her on social status compatibility too. You also picked her on emotional stablity, but mostly there are shedloads of physical reasons you picked her. You liked her smooth skin, breasts and hips and higher pitched voice. All reproductive signals of her fertility and the fact she's a woman. Then she let you pick her. Of course look at how many men who love their long term partners/wives who then increase social status and drop said love like a ton of bricks for a better model?

Dades wrote: »

Genuine belief is not a choice. Those who "choose" to believe don't have a genuine belief.

I'd agree with that D. I've known people with a genuine belief. Highly rational people among their number*. It seems if strong enough in some people the belief centre of the brain can happily coexist with the logical side of the brain and not bump off each other abrasively. Mostly I have found though that one "side" usually wins out. The logical or the belief. Well there is a strong third side too. Social pressures and fitting in.




*One reason I can't abide some atheists who trot out that all theists are idiots on some level

CerebralCortex

cavedave wrote: »

There is a large genetic component to most of our beliefs. Hanson gives some examples of how much genes influence our beliefs here



Prove to me you love your wife? And while your at it prove to me you made a rational decision in picking a wife? You may not be married but my point is that very few of our decisions are rationally explainable.

Cool you're an Overcoming Bias fan? Any interest in LessWrong the sister site? It has a wealth of resources concerning beliefs and how to formulate them rationally.

Zombrex

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Why do you assume theists do not weigh up the evidence and come to their own logical conclusions ?
What is evidence ?
Science is a very important and useful tool, but it does not explain, nor can it ever explain all concepts or behaviour. Science alone cannot answer any philosophical questions. Science is also confined to the known physical properties of the small amount we know about this universe.

Science also says we don't know anything about the other stuff, that any claims otherwise are just hypothesis (ie guesses, educated or not)

You can choose to ignore that if you wish, but that would be some what silly.

GarIT

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Science is also confined to the known physical properties

Funny thing is I believe that there is only physical properties and nothing else.

cavedave

CerebralCortex

Cool you're an Overcoming Bias fan? Any interest in LessWrong the sister site? It has a wealth of resources concerning beliefs and how to formulate them rationally.

I am indeed. There is some very good stuff on lesswrong.

Wibbs

You've picked her out from other potential mates and continue with her to the exclusion of other potential mates, even after the first flush of romance and youth has passed. =Love. What rational decisions did you make in picking her in the first place?

Many of the things we enjoy are pretty coincidental.

We happen to be born in a particular area and a football team invokes a religious devotion. The best band when you were 15 is the best band ever forever. Your country is clearly the best as every flag sucker knows. You were statistically lucky to be born with parents who had just the right invisible friend otherwise you would burn in hell. You happened to go to the same university at near the same time as your soulmate. You learned this programming language first and anyone suggesting another language is better is a religious zealot.

Most of us here (I imagine) see these types of passions of ours as lucky accidents to a significant extent. I will still shout on the Irish team as if I am actually doing something useful. It is good fun even if I know it is not entirely rational.

Mark Hamill

smokingman wrote: »

Follow this by telling them that the word "gullible" has been removed from the Oxford English dictionary and watch the reaction...that'll explain things

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7sdhRsXOQ

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

<YOUTUBE>yE7sdhRsXOQ[/YOUTUBE]

In fairness that was unnecessary all you had to do was state how you voice the Joker and played a Jedi Knight.

bnt

I honestly don't know. However, I do think that the antidote to blind faith is education, and once you get beyond the compulsory education, further education is a choice.

However: it's no coincidence that "religious reasons" is one of the primary motivations for "home schooling" in the USA (source); and then you have religious "universities". Result? The young people coming out of that environment aren't able to make a real choice about religion; their options have limited to those selected by their parents. Some choice: presented with a few options, all of them religious. :rolleyes:

Enkidu

cavedave wrote: »

Most of us here (I imagine) see these types of passions of ours as lucky accidents to a significant extent. I will still shout on the Irish team as if I am actually doing something useful. It is good fun even if I know it is not entirely rational.

I'm not really sure by what you mean when you say "not entirely rational". Do you mean irrational or arational? I can see that loving your wife, supporting a football team, e.t.c. is arational, but not that it is irrational.

Turtwig

bnt wrote: »

I honestly don't know. However, I do think that the antidote to blind faith is education, and once you get beyond the compulsory education, that is a choice. It's no coincidence that "religious reasons" is one of the primary motivations for "home schooling" in the USA (source); and then you have religious "universities". Result? The young people coming out of that environment don't know enough about the real world to make real choices; their options are limited to those selected by their parents, and they have to "rebel" just to find more options.

I think this explains that problem all too well. Victory Bible Camp Alaska comedy for kids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3No9lL_pkps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjNzEar6Nw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzV1FUjoM1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmelbz-gfT8

cavedave

Enkidu

I'm not really sure by what you mean when you say "not entirely rational". Do you mean irrational or arational? I can see that loving your wife, supporting a football team, e.t.c. is arational, but not that it is irrational.

People go to a hockey match, lose, have a riot and a bit of a snuggle*. Maybe arational would be the right term for hockey induced rioting romance.


*may not be a kiss, one photo could be deceptive

Enkidu

cavedave wrote: »

People go to a hockey match, lose, have a riot and a bit of a snuggle*. Maybe arational would be the right term for hockey induced rioting romance.


*may not be a kiss, one photo could be deceptive

:)Funny story! I can see that completely extreme actions like this may be irrational, but I still don't really see how "loving your wife" or "supporting a football team" is irrational. They're just part of the human experience.

CerebralCortex

Enkidu wrote: »

:)Funny story! I can see that completely extreme actions like this may be irrational, but I still don't really see how "loving your wife" or "supporting a football team" is irrational. They're just part of the human experience.

They're_just_part_of_the_human_experience != rational;

Turtwig

cavedave wrote: »

People go to a hockey match, lose, have a riot and a bit of a snuggle*. Maybe arational would be the right term for hockey induced rioting romance.


*may not be a kiss, one photo could be deceptive

In fairness that riot was premeditated by riot/anarchist groups nothing to do with winning/losing what was a terrific 7 game series of hockey.

Enkidu

CerebralCortex wrote: »

They're_just_part_of_the_human_experience != rational;

Yes, they are not equal to rationality, however how are they irrational?

Enkidu

Let me be clearer, "loving your wife" and "wanting to climb a mountain" are both just arational feelings human beings have. They may eventually motivate irrational actions (just like anything), but they are not irrational in and of themselves.

CerebralCortex

Enkidu wrote: »

Yes, they are not equal to rationality, however how are they irrational?

Good question.

cavedave

Enkidu

Let me be clearer, "loving your wife" and "wanting to climb a mountain" are both just arational feelings human beings have. They may eventually motivate irrational actions (just like anything), but they are not irrational in and of themselves.

What would be irrational? I am not trying to be funny here. Drug addiction can be classed as rational if you look at it the right way.

This is a bit like the Ayn Rand bit in Adam Curtis new documentary where everything you do can be described as rational because we are sure we are rational.

The wife analogy is a weird one. I got it from Taleb

"Why do I go to church? It’s like asking, why did you marry that woman? You make up reasons, but it’s probably just smell. I love the smell of candles. It’s an aesthetic thing.”

antiskeptic

patsman07 wrote: »

As an atheist I regularly have conversations with family members and close friends about the existence/non existence of a God. Having read a good deal of Dawkins books, followed threads here and watched many Ted talk. youtube videos I think I usually can answer most points put to me by theists.

I''ve noticed that believers very often end the conversation with something like 'well i just choose to believe.'

Funnily, I've not noticed believers over in the Christianity forum say such a thing. Perhaps you're hanging with the wrong sort of believer. The believers over in the Christianity forum usually have a thought out rational for the hope that they have. Indeed..

I find such a statement hard to understand. For me, I don't think I choose to believe in anything-I weigh up the evidence that I have and come to a logical conclusion. Its not a choice. I have to me swayed/convinced one way or the other by evidence.

...a weighing up of the evidence sits central to most believers belief over in the Christianity forum. I'd exclude the more fundamental Roman Catholics from this generalisation: Rome says it, I believe it, that settles it isn't exactly a thought out rationalisation of belief.

I would be worth pointing out that 'evidence' wouldn't be limited to what you can examine in a test tube. I mean, according to a fundamentalist empiricists standard of evidence, you could never conclude a painting 'beautiful'.

Is belief a choice? I suppose you do have a choice as to what evidence you'll permit into your court. So yes, as much a choice as is involved in unbelief.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would be worth pointing out that 'evidence' wouldn't be limited to what you can examine in a test tube. I mean, according to a fundamentalist empiricists standard of evidence

And I'd like to point out that just because the only actual method of inquiry sees no evidence whatsoever for a god doesn't mean you can make up another method inquiry that conveniently leans towards what you want to believe.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

And I'd like to point out that just because the only actual method of inquiry sees no evidence whatsoever for a god doesn't mean you can make up another method inquiry that conveniently leans towards what you want to believe.

Yet it's not science itself that allows you to conclude science-uber-alles. It's a belief system (which conveniently leans towards what you what to believe) about science that does that for you.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

We all managed without Santa when we discovered he wasn't real.

I cried for weeks (age 22).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet it's not science itself that allows you to conclude science-uber-alles. It's a belief system (which conveniently leans towards what you what to believe) about science that does that for you.

So, you think it is unwise to place more stock in something which can be seen and measured than something that cannot?

Mark200

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet it's not science itself that allows you to conclude science-uber-alles. It's a belief system (which conveniently leans towards what you what to believe) about science that does that for you.

Do you even know what science is? (rhetorical question, you clearly don't)

philologos

OP: Of course. The idea that belief isn't a choice is absurd. How come people become converts? Or people who mightn't be initially inclined towards belief later accept it?

antiskeptic

Galvasean wrote: »

So, you think it is unwise to place more stock in something which can be seen and measured than something that cannot?

I don't see it as either/or. Where science is useful let it be used. Where it isn't leave it to one side.

antiskeptic

Mark200 wrote: »

Do you even know what science is? (rhetorical question, you clearly don't)

Relevance to what you quoted?

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

OP: Of course. The idea that belief isn't a choice is absurd. How come people become converts? Or people who mightn't be initially inclined towards belief later accept it?

I think the essence of the post (correct me if I'm wrong OP) is that you don't choose to believe, but rather you just believe what you believe. Basically you can't decisde what you believe, it just basically happens.
In the cases like converts etc. they are just following up a change in their beliefs, not choosing to change them.

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

I think the essence of the post (correct me if I'm wrong OP) is that you don' choose to believe, but rather you just believe what you believe.
In the cases like converts etc. they are just following up a change in their beliefs, not choosing to change them.

I think the essence of the post is fundamentally mistaken at least in my experience.

I would wish that people would stop trying pseudo-psychology and just ask us.

Enkidu

cavedave wrote: »

What would be irrational? I am not trying to be funny here.

Well it's a difficult question, I'm not really sure. It's just that I've become wary about the tendency to conflate emotions with irrationality when no real justification is given. Let me take something less "controversial" than love, for instance mountain climbing. If I want climb a mountain and then climb it, is that a rational action or not? Or if I want to dance and then dance?

philologos

patsman07 wrote: »

Is this the same for other atheists? or maybe for anybody familiar with the scientific method?

Is belief a choice?

This doesn't explain why many Christians are research scientists. The same is true of other believers.

It's the lazy and false assumption that atheism and science are bedfellows.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I think the essence of the post (correct me if I'm wrong OP) is that you don't choose to believe, but rather you just believe what you believe. Basically you can't decisde what you believe, it just basically happens.
In the cases like converts etc. they are just following up a change in their beliefs, not choosing to change them.

Sounds about right to me I think

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I think the essence of the post is fundamentally mistaken at least in my experience.

I would wish that people would stop trying pseudo-psychology and just ask us.

So you have conscious control over what you really, truly believe?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet it's not science itself that allows you to conclude science-uber-alles. It's a belief system (which conveniently leans towards what you what to believe) about science that does that for you.

Given that logic or truth support nothing about this sentence I can only assume you've chosen it to make sense.

philologos wrote: »

This doesn't explain why many Christians are research scientists. The same is true of other believers.

I don't think anyone is saying all believers are "choosers", as it were. Some truly do believe for sure. But we do get posters here who slackly use the word choose which says a lot about how or why they believe.

philologos wrote: »

It's the lazy and false assumption that atheism and science are bedfellows.

It sure is. My primary reasons for my atheism are nothing to do with science.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying all believers are "choosers", as it were. Some truly do believe for sure. But we do get posters here who slackly use the word choose which says a lot about how or why they believe.

I am arguing that it is a choice in that it is an informed life decision.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

I am arguing that it is a choice in that it is an informed life decision.

I think you're overthinking this.

belief is not an informed life decision

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

belief is not an informed life decision

It certainly was for me. That's why the idea of even asking if it is a choice seems so absurd

Edit:

gvn wrote: »

So you have conscious control over what you really, truly believe?

I remember a specific point when I decided to follow Christ and I prayed to Him to repent and to ask Him to help me to follow Him fully. It made sense to me and as a result I did this.

It's not true in my experience to say that I didn't decide. It's something I thought about thoroughly.