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?

[KingandPriest]

The process of how a person arrives at a belief is just that, a process. Not instantaneous or innate. The process primarily includes decisions as well as environment and other factors.

Okay, can you confirm that you agree with the follow:
a) I can choose to go to church.
b) I can choose to read the Bible.
c) While a) and b) could lead me to believe in God, I cannot choose to believe in God.

I can confirm a) and b). The latter part of c) contains problems because you are dismissing the choices people make when they experience the world around them. Most people (even non Christians) believe in God because of the evidence they accept all around them.

They look at the world around them as well as self actualization and conclude that their must be a higher power behind all they see and experience. Most people's belief in any higher power or person comes from this choice to accept the evidence all around them. Others choose not to accept that evidence and seek a more definitive explanation.

No one is born believing in God. We come to this belief by accepting the evidence we see or experience. A baby does not begin with a belief in God. The default position is null (similar to agnosticism). For many they have moved away from this default position because the evidence is overwhelming. For a few, they need even more evidence before concluding that God does exist.

In the same way there are some who still do not accept the process of evolution or and old earth because they deem the evidence is insufficient. Yes there is a lot of evidence, but there are still gaps which have not been answered. Many accept the current evidence, while some still refuse to.

They choose to reject the evidence as sufficient which results in a lack of belief. Many atheists and some agnostics also choose to reject the evidence as sufficient which results in a lack of belief.

[Kenisaw]

The process of how a person arrives at a belief is just that, a process. Not instantaneous or innate. The process primarily includes decisions as well as environment and other factors.

Okay, can you confirm that you agree with the follow:
a) I can choose to go to church.
b) I can choose to read the Bible.
c) While a) and b) could lead me to believe in God, I cannot choose to believe in God.

I can confirm a) and b). The latter part of c) contains problems because you are dismissing the choices people make when they experience the world around them. Most people (even non Christians) believe in God because of the evidence they accept all around them.

A couple of clarifying points to this post if I may.

Most people believe in some kind of god creature. Hindus do not believe in your particular flavor of god being anymore than you believe in theirs. So I would not agree that most people believe in "God" as you personally define it. I would also point out the existence of something does not prove where it came from. Seeing the Earth and the sky doesn't prove a god creature was the source of those things anymore than it proves the Big Bang. It is not empirical evidence, and there is no threshold of the number of people who think it is that changes that pertinent fact.

They look at the world around them as well as self actualization and conclude that their must be a higher power behind all they see and experience. Most people's belief in any higher power or person comes from this choice to accept the evidence all around them. Others choose not to accept that evidence and seek a more definitive explanation.

My above comment pertains to this quoted paragraph as well.

No one is born believing in God. We come to this belief by accepting the evidence we see or experience.

Or it because we are taught to believe. And I'm very comfortable in saying that most believers are that way because that's what they learned. There's a reason why Muslims almost always have children that are Muslims, and Christians almost always have children that are Chrsitian.

A baby does not begin with a belief in God. The default position is null (similar to agnosticism). For many they have moved away from this default position because the evidence is overwhelming. For a few, they need even more evidence before concluding that God does exist.

The default position is atheist AND agnostic. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism deals with knowledge (which a baby wouldn't have) and theism deals with belief (which a baby wouldn't have). Most people remain in that position because that is what they were taught.

In the same way there are some who still do not accept the process of evolution or and old earth because they deem the evidence is insufficient. Yes there is a lot of evidence, but there are still gaps which have not been answered. Many accept the current evidence, while some still refuse to.

Not quite the same, as evolution is backed by a mountain of empirical data, but I se you point.

They choose to reject the evidence as sufficient which results in a lack of belief. Many atheists and some agnostics also choose to reject the evidence as sufficient which results in a lack of belief.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I think this comment will cover a great many of them. The only way you can use the term "evidence" is to significantly weaken the meaning of the word. What you call "evidence" is really nothing more than a lack of knowledge. It's basically a god of the gaps argument. We don't know XX comes from, so it must be a creator type critter responsible. People look around and see stuff, and assume that it had to come from their personal supernatural being. That's not empirical data, that's god of the gaps conjecture...

[KingandPriest]

The process of how a person arrives at a belief is just that, a process. Not instantaneous or innate. The process primarily includes decisions as well as environment and other factors.

Okay, can you confirm that you agree with the follow:
a) I can choose to go to church.
b) I can choose to read the Bible.
c) While a) and b) could lead me to believe in God, I cannot choose to believe in God.

I can confirm a) and b). The latter part of c) contains problems because you are dismissing the choices people make when they experience the world around them. Most people (even non Christians) believe in God because of the evidence they accept all around them.

A couple of clarifying points to this post if I may.

Most people believe in some kind of god creature. Hindus do not believe in your particular flavor of god being anymore than you believe in theirs. So I would not agree that most people believe in "God" as you personally define it. I would also point out the existence of something does not prove where it came from. Seeing the Earth and the sky doesn't prove a god creature was the source of those things anymore than it proves the Big Bang. It is not empirical evidence, and there is no threshold of the number of people who think it is that changes that pertinent fact.

They look at the world around them as well as self actualization and conclude that their must be a higher power behind all they see and experience. Most people's belief in any higher power or person comes from this choice to accept the evidence all around them. Others choose not to accept that evidence and seek a more definitive explanation.

My above comment pertains to this quoted paragraph as well.

No one is born believing in God. We come to this belief by accepting the evidence we see or experience.

Or it because we are taught to believe. And I'm very comfortable in saying that most believers are that way because that's what they learned. There's a reason why Muslims almost always have children that are Muslims, and Christians almost always have children that are Chrsitian.

A baby does not begin with a belief in God. The default position is null (similar to agnosticism). For many they have moved away from this default position because the evidence is overwhelming. For a few, they need even more evidence before concluding that God does exist.

The default position is atheist AND agnostic. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Gnosticism deals with knowledge (which a baby wouldn't have) and theism deals with belief (which a baby wouldn't have). Most people remain in that position because that is what they were taught.

In the same way there are some who still do not accept the process of evolution or and old earth because they deem the evidence is insufficient. Yes there is a lot of evidence, but there are still gaps which have not been answered. Many accept the current evidence, while some still refuse to.

Not quite the same, as evolution is backed by a mountain of empirical data, but I see you point.

They choose to reject the evidence as sufficient which results in a lack of belief. Many atheists and some agnostics also choose to reject the evidence as sufficient which results in a lack of belief.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I think this comment will cover a great many of them. The only way you can use the term "evidence" is to significantly weaken the meaning of the word. What you call "evidence" is really nothing more than a lack of knowledge. It's basically a god of the gaps argument. We don't know XX comes from, so it must be a creator type critter responsible. People look around and see stuff, and assume that it had to come from their personal supernatural being. That's not empirical data, that's god of the gaps conjecture...

There is a reason I did not use the word empirical when I spoke of evidence. Empirical evidence is a type of evidence. There are many types of evidence available to a person when making a decision. Sometimes that evidence is empirical while other times it is not. When people decide to get married, they do not make this decision based on empirical evidence. Most of the time, they do so based on weak evidence (dating) or the counsel of friends and family. For those athiest who pretend as though every decision needs empirical evidence, they are fooling themselves because the world does not operate in that fashion.

When it is available, we should use empirical evidence to help us make decisions. In the instances it is not available, we make decisions with the evidence available.

Evidence:
a) The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
b) Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
c) Signs or indications of something
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

The word empirical is used as an adjective to specify the type of evidence being presented. Does the way I use the term evidence cheapen the word or meet the actual definition. Many atheist and agnostics have a problem with words such as faith, evidence, or belief because they have a twisted interpretation of what those words mean. For some, the word evidence should only be used when talking about empirical evidence. For others the word belief is a derogatory term that should never be used to explain a persons thought process, unless it is used to demean and berate them. Words have meaning, even if you or other atheists don't like the actual meaning.

[OnceConvinced]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
1. You claim that most people believe in God because of influence from family and friends. Fair point, but you also conveniently ignore those who did not have any pressure or prior knowledge about God. There are millions of people around the world who have accepted Christ despite environment. How do you explain these?

No one comes to Jesus without first having someone convince them Jesus exists and that they need his forgiveness. So somewhere along the line some human has manipulated them in some way to believe.

[OnceConvinced]

The process of how a person arrives at a belief is just that, a process. Not instantaneous or innate. The process primarily includes decisions as well as environment and other factors.

Okay, can you confirm that you agree with the follow:
a) I can choose to go to church.
b) I can choose to read the Bible.
c) While a) and b) could lead me to believe in God, I cannot choose to believe in God.

I chose to go to church. Did so for many years and often more than once a week.
I chose to read the bible. Read it through in its entirety twice. Read and studied multiple parts of it many times.
Ultimately it led me to believe the bible god was not real. It was an inescapable conclusion I was unable to counter no matter how much I wanted to.

[Bust Nak]

I can confirm a) and b). The latter part of c) contains problems because you are dismissing the choices people make when they experience the world around them. Most people (even non Christians) believe in God because of the evidence they accept all around them...

That's the point - there is no choice involved, they saw and cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is a god.

Most people's belief in any higher power or person comes from this choice to accept the evidence all around them.

Nobody does that. You cannot choose to accept or reject evidence, it is either convincing or it isn't, there is either enough evidence or there isn't. Belief is a function of the evidence, choices is not a factor.

For many they have moved away from this default position because the evidence is overwhelming. For a few, they need even more evidence before concluding that God does exist...

You say that but why does that not lead you to the inescapable conclusion that there is no choice involved?

Again, I challenge you to believe in 2+2=5. You said it cannot be chosen instantaneously but is a process, fine. Take your time, slowly come to that belief by accepting the evidence you see or experience, moved away from the existing 2+2=4 position; choose to reject the evidence for 2+2=4 as insufficient; choose to accept there is enough evidence for 2+2=5. How long do you think you'll need?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

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

For ten large, I'd try... How long do I have to choose to pretend to believe that you're GC?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 136 by Bust Nak]

I can confirm a) and b). The latter part of c) contains problems because you are dismissing the choices people make when they experience the world around them. Most people (even non Christians) believe in God because of the evidence they accept all around them...

That's the point - there is no choice involved, they saw and cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is a god.

I guess you ignored the part above in bold.

Most people's belief in any higher power or person comes from this choice to accept the evidence all around them.

Nobody does that. You cannot choose to accept or reject evidence, it is either convincing or it isn't, there is either enough evidence or there isn't. Belief is a function of the evidence, choices is not a factor.

People accept and reject evidence all the time. Check your local municipalities legal cases and you will see evidence being accepted or rejected all the time. Evidence does not automatically lead to a specific conclusion. We all weigh the available evidence and make a decision based on the evidence. Our conclusions are choices made based on evidence.

Even empirical evidence is not always accepted. There are many who see the evidence presented for evolution as inconclusive. They reject the evidence as sufficient. This is a choice.

For many they have moved away from this default position because the evidence is overwhelming. For a few, they need even more evidence before concluding that God does exist...

You say that but why does that not lead you to the inescapable conclusion that there is no choice involved?

I do not conclude that there is no choice involved. This is your conclusion.

I conclude that choice is involved. The choice to accept or reject evidence.

Again, I challenge you to believe in 2+2=5. You said it cannot be chosen instantaneously but is a process, fine. Take your time, slowly come to that belief by accepting the evidence you see or experience, moved away from the existing 2+2=4 position; choose to reject the evidence for 2+2=4 as insufficient; choose to accept there is enough evidence for 2+2=5. How long do you think you'll need?

You continually bring up 2+2=4 vs 2+2=5. The problem with this is that the equation 2+2=4 is not a belief. No one "believes" in the tautological nature of mathematical equations. These are viewed as facts. Facts and belief are antonyms of one another. 2+2=4 is a fact just like the sun is hot is a fact. Facts do not require belief. Belief is the result of decisions as well as other factors. Facts do not take a persons decisions into consideration. Whether or not I have an opinion, 2+2 will equal 4.

You attempt to prove belief is not a result of choice by attempting to change a fact. So your question of believing in 2+2=5 is in error, because you are asking me to believe a nonfactual statement is factually correct.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 138 by KingandPriest]

People accept and reject evidence all the time. Check your local municipalities legal cases and you will see evidence being accepted or rejected all the time. Evidence does not automatically lead to a specific conclusion. We all weigh the available evidence and make a decision based on the evidence. Our conclusions are choices made based on evidence.

Even empirical evidence is not always accepted. There are many who see the evidence presented for evolution as inconclusive. They reject the evidence as sufficient. This is a choice.

Evolution is presented as a well established scientific fact. Evolution and natural selection are now so thoroughly integrated into the biological sciences that it is impossible to teach biology without at least having some understanding the principles of evolution and natural selection. NOT believing in evolution is a step that must be taken as a conscious choice. Very much the way that plate tectonics and continental drift are integral to understanding modern geology. Fifty years ago when I took my first geology class, plate tectonics was still considered an unproved and largely hair brained notion by many college professors. The overwhelming weight of empirical evidence has so thoroughly established plate tectonics to be an undeniable fact, that fifty years later it is hard to understand why it took so long to recognize. But you see, the weight of empirical evidence eventually becomes undeniable.

The weight of empirical evidence for evolution has long since passed the tipping point from mere hypothesis to having become as well established a scientific principle as any other well established scientific principle. Rejecting evolution on the basis that it conflicts with one's religious beliefs is a choice in contradiction to the evidence. Because the "evidence" provided by believers in support of their beliefs invariably proves to have been derived from claims which are not based on a foundation of empirical fact. At which point believers inevitably plead that the things which they imagine to be true have just as much potential for being true as things which can be shown to be true based on empirical evidence. And this is the difference between the scientific method for attaining knowledge and the make-it-up-and-declare-it-to-be-true method employed by ancient people, and still employed by many people today. Deny the science behind the computer one is sitting at while at the same time declaring the inerrant truth that a corpse once came back to life and flew away, and that this same corpse is about to return at ant moment now, despite a 2,000 record of futility and being DEAD WRONG. This is a very clear choice that must be made in direct contradiction to the physically obvious, in favor of that which is obviously unrealistic. In other words, for those who subscribe to this system of belief it is not what is actually true that is important, it is what they prefer to be true that is important. But the universe does not work according to a popularity contest.

[Kenisaw]

There is a reason I did not use the word empirical when I spoke of evidence. Empirical evidence is a type of evidence. There are many types of evidence available to a person when making a decision. Sometimes that evidence is empirical while other times it is not. When people decide to get married, they do not make this decision based on empirical evidence. Most of the time, they do so based on weak evidence (dating) or the counsel of friends and family. For those athiest who pretend as though every decision needs empirical evidence, they are fooling themselves because the world does not operate in that fashion.

Utter nonsense. There is no empirical evidence that someone loves you? The way they treat you, what they say to do, how they say it, do they stand you up or do they arrive when expected, physical signs of affection, etc...all able to be viewed by others and therefore "empirical". Your decision to marry someone is OBVIOUSLY based on all sorts of empirical evidence. If they stab you, or beat you, or ignore you, etc than there is plenty of empirical evidence they don't love you and you shouldn't marry them (some idiots will do so anyway, but conclusions aren't always reached rationally, are they). Your statement is pure folly I'm afraid.

When it is available, we should use empirical evidence to help us make decisions. In the instances it is not available, we make decisions with the evidence available.

Let me ask you a question in response to this statement if I may - What situation exists, when wanting to make a decision, where you CAN'T gather empirical evidence? In other words even if you don't have any empirical evidence at this moment, what possible scenario exists where you can't go out and get some empirical data?

Evidence:
a) The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
b) Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
c) Signs or indications of something
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

The word empirical is used as an adjective to specify the type of evidence being presented. Does the way I use the term evidence cheapen the word or meet the actual definition.

You cheapen it I'm afraid, because you misuse it. As I already explained in my earlier post, the existence of something (say the Earth for example) does not constitute proof that any god being created it. It isn't actually evidence of anything related to the source of the Earth.

If someone sees the Earth, and wonders how it got here, and concludes that a god must have done it, they have not reached that conclusion via evidence. What data set shows that to be the case? None that I know of. Their conclusion is not reached rationally.

Many atheist and agnostics have a problem with words such as faith, evidence, or belief because they have a twisted interpretation of what those words mean. For some, the word evidence should only be used when talking about empirical evidence.

There's a good reason for that. First, there is the problem of first-person/second-person. Any first-person can reach any conclusion using their personal experiences. That is what I will call first-person evidence. That evidence is not empirical, however, because it cannot be validated or verified by a second person. The problem is that as soon as another individual is brought in, the second-person has no ability to determine the truthfulness of the claim. The only evidence that BOTH people can use to reach their own conclusion is EMPIRICAL evidence. You need data that anyone can collect in order for any rational discussion to commence. That is why empirical matters.

In a court of law personal testimony can be entered in as evidence. But the fact remains that no one can tell if that person is lying or not. You could have five people tell you the same story. Can you say for sure that they aren't lying? No, you can't. Can you say that their brains worked properly and they processed the information that their input systems received accurately? No, you can't. Eyewitness testimony is a shaky thing. Whole towns in Germany at the end of WWII all said they knew nothing about the concentration camp located outside of their boundaries. Later evidence was found that many worked there and that local papers ran stories on the camp. The WHOLE town lied. Without that empirical evidence, could we have ever known whether or not they were telling the truth? Obviously not.

Empirical evidence is so critical in fact that science cannot progress without it. I don't think you can disagree with how valuable the scientific method has been to humanity and to the knowledge gained through it. Empirical evidence is the bedrock of that value and knowledge.

For others the word belief is a derogatory term that should never be used to explain a persons thought process, unless it is used to demean and berate them. Words have meaning, even if you or other atheists don't like the actual meaning.

There are studies in fields like psychology which clearly show the unreliability of the human mind to accurately process data. Our brain filters out all sorts of "extra" info. Your vision actually jerks all over the place when you walk (like if you held a video camera in front of you and taped while you walked), but your brain filters out the jostling and what you "see" is a smooth picture. Your brain will actually change memories over time. Ever hear of the study in a classroom setting where a "robber" runs in, grabs something off the teachers desk, and leaves? When the students describe the person, the description varies all over the place. Height, weight, color of clothing...even gender and race will differ.

If you can't have everyone study the same data, or be able to gather the same data, and compare thoughts and conclusions, in a controlled setting that avoids error sources and information contamination, then there's no way to validate and verify the findings.

Empirical matters. It matters to you in your everyday life, in all the things you use and do. Why would you suddenly throw empirical aside when your belief system comes up? It's an odd double standard...