Is belief a choice?

[Justin108]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

[Jax Agnesson]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

Assuming that's a rhetorical question, are you implying that belief is not a matter of choice?

You're suggesting that conservative Christians cannot choose to be sceptical about their beliefs?

Edit: Welcome to the forum by the way

Hmmm... tough one... I'd say that being skeptical is different from choosing what to believe in that to be skeptical is do deliberate more on the facts. Conservative Christians may choose not to take the steps of critical analysis but that isn't the same as choosing what to believe. I'd say skepticism is merely a step in your reasoning. Either way, you cannot deside on what conclusion your reason follows without being dishonest with yourself.

PS. Thanks

Let's say that the child's brain is constructed to learn from the adults. If so, belief in the truth of what adults tell you is 'natural'. Then you get a bit older and realise that adults are not infallible.
Let's say the learning process generally includes the strengthening of connections by affirming instances, and severing connections when confronted by counter-evidence. And let's say the 'strengthening' process is less demanding; (call this 'confirmation bias'). So again, believing is an early step, and affirming or rejecting early beliefs constitutes the development of 'knowledge'.
We know we are fallible, so absolute certainty is impossible, and in practice we assign the word 'knowledge' to ideas which seem pretty well confirmed by experience, by analysis, by discussion and argument, etc.
All this adds up to belief being malleable, but not by the individual in isolation. We are social animals. Discussion and debate shift our beliefs, but we don't individually 'choose' to believe, though maybe we do choose to pretend particular beliefs for social reasons.

Also welcome, Justin108. Good OP.

[Justin108]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

Assuming that's a rhetorical question, are you implying that belief is not a matter of choice?

You're suggesting that conservative Christians cannot choose to be sceptical about their beliefs?

Edit: Welcome to the forum by the way

Hmmm... tough one... I'd say that being skeptical is different from choosing what to believe in that to be skeptical is do deliberate more on the facts. Conservative Christians may choose not to take the steps of critical analysis but that isn't the same as choosing what to believe. I'd say skepticism is merely a step in your reasoning. Either way, you cannot deside on what conclusion your reason follows without being dishonest with yourself.

PS. Thanks

Let's say that the child's brain is constructed to learn from the adults. If so, belief in the truth of what adults tell you is 'natural'. Then you get a bit older and realise that adults are not infallible.
Let's say the learning process generally includes the strengthening of connections by affirming instances, and severing connections when confronted by counter-evidence. And let's say the 'strengthening' process is less demanding; (call this 'confirmation bias'). So again, believing is an early step, and affirming or rejecting early beliefs constitutes the development of 'knowledge'.
We know we are fallible, so absolute certainty is impossible, and in practice we assign the word 'knowledge' to ideas which seem pretty well confirmed by experience, by analysis, by discussion and argument, etc.
All this adds up to belief being malleable, but not by the individual in isolation. We are social animals. Discussion and debate shift our beliefs, but we don't individually 'choose' to believe, though maybe we do choose to pretend particular beliefs for social reasons.

Also welcome, Justin108. Good OP.

Good points. And thanks for the welcome

[A Troubled Man]

How is belief a choice?

Religious beliefs are often a choice, but a choice made by others, usually parents and peers and not the individual themselves.

[alive]

Everything is a choice...When I was young I was forced to believe by being forced togo to Church and never was told there was a alternative...Even if I was to Question They would just pull the pin On the Bible verse Grenade to confuse me even more...But at somepoint it all just seemed wrong and I at First looked at the other religions then relized it was all a scam...I don't blame them for pushing their beliefs on me they were done the same...At least the chain was Broke with my Generation..

[Jax Agnesson]

Everything is a choice.. ..

Your experience and mine have differed. I really really wanted to go on believing in God, but ended up concluding, very reluctantly, that there was no such Being. For me, 'what I believe' and 'what appears to be the case' are synonymous.
I don't understand how it could be otherwise; ie I don't see how one could believe anything other than 'what appears to be the case'.

[Danmark]

I don't think the issue is all that clear cut... at least not for everyone all the time.

When investigating anything it is very difficult to not try to skew the results. This is why science insists on repeatability and on precautions like double blind studies. They are quite aware that their personal biases can work unconsciously.

One is born into a particular faith that is shared by his entire family. He starts out believing it. There may be very little real choice at that point. As he gets older and more knowledgeable he has more of a choice. But in many cases as he is investigating the truth or falsity of that faith, he is likely guided in his search by what he wants to discover.

If he rejects that faith, he may feel lost, and adrift. At that point, even tho' he tells him self he does not believe, he may find he wants to believe. At that point he prays 'O! Lord, help my unbelief' Or looks and the Book of James and sees that if he draws near to God, God will draw near to him. Suddenly he has that 'conversion moment and 'believes. In that sense he believes because he chooses to.

Not sure it is much different for the Atheist. As a man of faith he has his doubts, he questions, he researches. But I suspect his search is guided by what he wants to find. At some point of course he is so overwhelmed by the evidence, that he can no longer choose to believe. Or can he? Time will tell.

I certainly feel like I have no choice now, but to reject the faith I grew up with, the faith I have not had for 30 years or so. But I think that is likely to be sprinkled with some self deception. It wouldn't be so bad to believe in a life in paradise after I die. Tho' at least at the moment it would be intellectually dishonest of me to even consider it. It would in fact be absurd. But if I really wanted to believe and was willing to start the process to believe, I'm sure I could find a way to that required self deception.

[Mithrae]

Heck, I even choose to believe that the inside of my skull mostly consists of nothing at all! It's a pretty whacky view, but to my knowledge that's what atomic theory suggests, so I choose to believe it. I could just as easily choose to be sceptical, could I not?

Being skeptial is not the opposite of believe. You can be skeptial of atomic theory and believe atomic theory at the same time.

True. This leads into the question of exactly what we mean by belief. The way I see it, for any proposition there could be various points of evidence or reasoning in favour and various points against it, and for each of these there are other points in favour and against them. Scepticism/doubt (and their opposites, trust/faith) describes how critically we evaluate all those points and the associated reasoning. Belief describes where we draw the line as to what we're willing to affirm. So as you say, we can have doubts or criticisms of various supporting aspects associated with atomic theory or anything else (in my opinion we should question everything), but still draw our line of 'belief' somewhere above our evaluation of all that evidence.

It would probably take quite a bit of effort to make myself believe that Justin is George Clooney - I'm not sure that I personally could manage that feat without months or even years of training - but you just need to look at the hype around popular music acts or major political issues to get a feel for how malleable belief is.

Malleable sure, but it's not under your control. You may actually believe after repeatedly acting as in you believe, that is not choosing to believe.

I would say that is an extreme example of choosing to believe (essentially brainwashing oneself) - but we may be running into the free choice/determinism issue there. Or just different ideas on what 'belief' means.

-----------

Assuming that's a rhetorical question, are you implying that belief is not a matter of choice?

You're suggesting that conservative Christians cannot choose to be sceptical about their beliefs?

Hmmm... tough one... I'd say that being skeptical is different from choosing what to believe in that to be skeptical is do deliberate more on the facts. Conservative Christians may choose not to take the steps of critical analysis but that isn't the same as choosing what to believe. I'd say skepticism is merely a step in your reasoning. Either way, you cannot deside on what conclusion your reason follows without being dishonest with yourself.

I agree that belief isn't a simple on the spot choice. But any specific belief is not an inevitable product of our nature and circumstances either (childhood and some cultural paradigms aside). It's a product of how we think about personal experience, trust in others, evidence, reasoning and worldviews.

For example someone who believes that they personally and many others they know and respect have all witnessed miraculous healings in Jesus' name, along with personal words of prophecy and even exorcisms grounded in Scripture quotation, they'd probably say they've got very good reason to believe a bible-based worldview. In the specific case of evolution they may have done plenty of research and perhaps, against their wishes, found that it's a pretty strong case and contradicts the account in Genesis. Now certainly they could re-evaluate and reinterpret the Genesis story in light of that; or they could keep believing in a six-day creation as part of their bible-based worldview. There's choice in how to interpret Genesis, there's choice in whether or not to research evolution and there's no doubt choice in whether or not to believe they and others had witnessed Christian/bible specific miracles. Whether or not they're being dishonest with themselves I couldn't know without being in their heads, but it seems clear to me that even as a product of all those other choices, the final beliefs are ultimately described better as at least partly chosen rather than as unchosen.



Good posts by Jax and Danmark also I think it's a very interesting topic, and some of my (work-in-progess) views were posted in my old thread The nature of 'belief' - I think scepticism corresponds broadly to 'analysis' in my grouping at the end, but what I consider especially interesting is 'evaluation' or the thresh-hold at which we consider views reasonable or the evidence sufficient to warrant belief:

• Mithrae wrote:
  Agreed - though it's actually difficulties in discussing the gospels in past forums which really got me thinking about another facet to this question. I'll just C&P from the thread Textual Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels:
  
  • Mithrae wrote:
    More broadly though may I say that these are worthy questions which anyone genuinely interested in Christian origins should consider at some point (even if only to see what others have to say on the topic ). They're questions which have actually provided the groundwork for some of my key intellectual philosophies, because ultimately these questions boil down to where we each draw our personal lines regarding what constitutes 'persuasive' evidence. . . .
    
    If it's applied consistently, I really can't see a good argument against any particular threshold of 'persuasive' evidence that an individual chooses; in this field or in any other. Personally, while I retain doubt and scepticism about all my views, the threshold at which I consider views worthy of entertaining and perhaps accepting is probably somewhat lower than most other sceptics (perhaps because I'm more sceptical about the 'big picture'). What tends to concern me is not so much the particular threshold an individual might choose, as whether it's not simply an inconsistent/biased approach to religion (or some other subject).
  Just thinking about it now I'd guess that there are at least three broad aspects to how and why we hold 'beliefs':
  
  Tenacity - We internalise beliefs from our upbringing, from our culture and from the kind of influences or patterns of thought we expose ourselves to (eg. debate forums). We also internalise beliefs or ideas in particular when they relate to our personal memories or to lessons which we have personally discovered or acquired. We're resistant to change in our established beliefs, and the more 'internalised' our beliefs or thought patterns are, the more resistant they'll be to change.
  
  Analysis - When we encounter new information we consider it in light of our existing values or thought processes. The information acquired from the performance of a Hindu 'miracle-worker,' for example, will almost certainly be interpreted in very different ways by a child, by an adult Buddhist and by a professional magician. We tend to subject information which fits poorly into our existing worldviews to greater scrutiny or interpretation than information which fits well. Different people also apply different criteria in assessing information; for example some people show a preference for anecdotal evidence from those they know in forming their view of the world, whereas others seek broader and less personal grounds for a worldview through which they filter their perception of individual experience. (I'll need to think about this one a lot more, I suspect.)
  
  Evaluation - As above, different people hold different thresholds at which they'll consider views or thoughts worthy of entertaining or ultimately accepting. These are not necessarily always consistently applied. Some people will happily entertain theories of UFOs, ghosts and Atlantis, while others remain dubious about a link between smoking and cancer or carbon emissions and climate change. This is related to 'tenacity,' in that our thresholds for considering evidence persuasive will obviously be higher when it potentially conflicts with our existing views.

[Bust Nak]

True. This leads into the question of exactly what we mean by belief. The way I see it, for any proposition there could be various points of evidence or reasoning in favour and various points against it, and for each of these there are other points in favour and against them. Scepticism/doubt (and their opposites, trust/faith) describes how critically we evaluate all those points and the associated reasoning. Belief describes where we draw the line as to what we're willing to affirm. So as you say, we can have doubts or criticisms of various supporting aspects associated with atomic theory or anything else (in my opinion we should question everything), but still draw our line of 'belief' somewhere above our evaluation of all that evidence.

Well, to me, believe means being convinced that something is true. It is something that happens to you, or something that's done to you.

I would say that is an extreme example of choosing to believe (essentially brainwashing oneself) - but we may be running into the free choice/determinism issue there. Or just different ideas on what 'belief' means.

Here I would say you are choosing to undergo brainwashing, like choosing to skip lunch as opposed to choosing to feel hungry.

So I guess, we do have different ideas on what belief means.

[ozell]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Life and death is set before all

Choose

[McCulloch]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Life and death is set before all

Choose

What an absurd example! No one, except perhaps an extreme masochist, would choose cursing over blessing, death over life. That is not the choice. The choice is whether to believe that the one offering the choice (in this case a prophet alleging to speak for God, not God himself), is true.