Belief a CHOICE?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
rstrats
Scholar
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:37 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Belief a CHOICE?

Post #1

Post by rstrats »

A number of folks on these boards are saying or at least implying that they can consciously CHOOSE to believe things. If you are one of them perhaps one of you can help me. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, “OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is “a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron.� So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

User avatar
Crazee
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:55 pm

Post #31

Post by Crazee »

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:
Crazee wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: The premises and the conclusion aren't the same in the argument I presented.
My point is that premises inevitably contain preconceived conclusions. If we start with conclusions we are using circular logic.

This doesn't mean we have to throw out all explanations for everything because the arguments are circular, we just need to realize that an argument using fallacies is not inherently a bad one—because otherwise there would only be bad arguments.
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: Would you care to address the distinction between soundness and validity?
I'm glad you're making me think about that.

I guess I'm saying that all arguments have a certain degree of unsoundness, because they are not 100% proven, because they employ circular logic.

Validity is evidenced by how well a theory produces good results. An unsound theory can still produce very valid results. This means we see the problems with the theory, but we also see that using that theory produces favorable outcomes.
You are misunderstanding what the term "circular logic" means. This is an example of an argument that uses circular logic:

All Greeks are mortal.
Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.

This is an example of an argument that doesn't use circular logic:

All Greeks are human.
All humans are mortal.
Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.

An argument is only circular if the premise and the conclusion are the same. In the first example above, the premise and conclusion are the same. In the second example they are not. Notice the difference?

It is meaningless to point out that the conclusion follows from the premises - that is what an argument is. It is not "circular logic" to note that the conclusion of an argument relies upon the premises. Your notion that all arguments contain fallacies, therefore fallacious arguments are acceptable would render logic useless. All arguments do not contain fallacies: invalid arguments contain fallacies, valid arguments do not.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by the terms "sound" and "valid." An argument is not unsound if it uses circular logic, instead it is invalid. An argument is only unsound if the premises are false. Validity is not determined by the conclusion, as a valid argument may well produce false conclusions.

That said I'm not sure why you brought in the term "theory", we are discussing arguments.
Theories are arguments, premises are conclusions. I've already presented my theories as concisely as I care to now. It's much easier to authoritatively tell people in person I'm over discussing it, but it can still be done online.

Anyways, I wish you well on your journeys O:)
hmm or maybe 8-) more accurately represents how I'm feeling
"Let yourself be silently drawn by the strangle pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray."
-Rumi

User avatar
Fuzzy Dunlop
Guru
Posts: 1137
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am

Post #32

Post by Fuzzy Dunlop »

Crazee wrote:Theories are arguments, premises are conclusions.
This is false. In logic and philosophy, an argument is premises in support of a conclusion. Arguments can lead to true or false conclusions depending on soundness and validity. Argument is not synonymous with theory, which can have different meanings depending on the context. A scientific theory, for example, is specifically concerned with repeatable experiments and evidence about the physical world.

Premises are not conclusions. Conclusions, for example, must be based on premises and do not introduce new information into the argument.

Malachi_Smith
Student
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:41 am

Re: Belief a CHOICE?

Post #33

Post by Malachi_Smith »

rstrats wrote: A number of folks on these boards are saying or at least implying that they can consciously CHOOSE to believe things. If you are one of them perhaps one of you can help me. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, “OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is “a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron.� So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?
You just gotta read "Free Will" by Sam Harris.
If he doesn't answer all your questions to suit you, it is
still fascinating - only 13,000 words and $4 on Amazon.
He asks and answers your last question.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Belief a CHOICE?

Post #34

Post by McCulloch »

Malachi_Smith wrote: You just gotta read "Free Will" by Sam Harris.
If he doesn't answer all your questions to suit you, it is still fascinating - only 13,000 words and $4 on Amazon.
He asks and answers your last question.
Besides being a rather harsh critic of religion, Sam Harris has a PhD degree in cognitive neuroscience at University of California, Los Angeles, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Malachi_Smith
Student
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:41 am

Re: Belief a CHOICE?

Post #35

Post by Malachi_Smith »

McCulloch wrote:
Malachi_Smith wrote: You just gotta read "Free Will" by Sam Harris.
If he doesn't answer all your questions to suit you, it is still fascinating - only 13,000 words and $4 on Amazon.
He asks and answers your last question.
Besides being a rather harsh critic of religion, Sam Harris has a PhD degree in cognitive neuroscience at University of California, Los Angeles, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.
Isn't Dawkins a neuroscientist as well? I own and enjoy their books.
Their presentations in no way diminish or even challenge my personal
relationship with our Creator. I am a harsh critic of religion as well.

User avatar
dusk
Sage
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Austria

Post #36

Post by dusk »

No Dawkins is a biologist. He researches inheritance, evolution and everything related. What he knows about neuroscience is just the stuff he reads like a computer science guy can also read physics papers just for broadening his/her horizon.
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?

- Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #37

Post by Ooberman »

Mr.Badham wrote: I have a 2 year old daughter. She looks like her mother, and nothing like me (her mother says she sees me in her). I have faith that my wife didn't cheat on me, but I've never done a DNA test on my daughter. I do however believe with all my heart that she is mine.

Am I choosing to believe?
It's a great question and I think it's an excellent example for how we believe, what we believe and how we form opinions that contradict other beliefs.

Here is what I believe about your example.

I believe that if we explored all the options of why you believe what you do, including background knowledge, general probability, intuition and all the rest, that how and why you believe your daughter to be yours, and the truth of that fact that your daughter IS (most probably) yours will give us clear insight into why the Gospels and religious beliefs in general cannot be given any of the same kind of confidence.


Let's assume we KNOW all the facts. Including yours and your wives psychological states, the psychological states of the people writing the birth certificates and all other documentation.

I think we'd see a vast web of "conspiracy" - of agreement and cooperation in the facts and actions - that would lead us all to say "your daughter IS yours".

However, you saying you believe your daughter to be yours is also predicated on a number of prior steps and beliefs that lead you to believe, today, that you have no reason to doubt.

I think that if we peeled back all the information and thought processes we'd see the stark difference between knowing we are our mother's son (or daughter) and the "knowing" religious believers talk about when they say they "know" Jesus, or "know" he rose from the dead.


I think your question is excellent and a deep study of it would prove there is no warrant to believe Jesus rose for the dead, or God exists, etc...
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
dusk
Sage
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Austria

Post #38

Post by dusk »

The difference with religious claims is that an objective unbiased person would see no reason why one should should be approached with any less doubt that another.
Like a judge that hears three witnesses all claiming different things, all claiming to speak the truth and he ultimately has to decide which one to trust or dismiss the case based on insufficient evidence to make a fair judgement.
In case of believers most only hear the witness of their parents and aren't presented with any other until late in life or never. If you only face one witness, it is much easier to assume one doesn't face a liar.
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?

- Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #39

Post by bluethread »

The presumption seems to be that this choosing it believe in something is exclusive to theists. Scientific humanists also choose to believe in things. This is generally a hypothesis has not been disproven or is based on statistical analysis. The idea that this is not belief is based on the fallacy that something that has not been disproven is true or the fallacy that statistical analysis is binding on a specific event.

The example;

All greeks are human.
All humans are mortal.
Therefore, all greeks are mortal.

is not fallacious. However, the two premises are beliefs. If one chooses to believe bot of them. then the conclusion follows. If one does not choose to believe one or both of the premises, then the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Now one may say that on is not choosing to believe these premises, because they are self evident. However, such self evidence is based on one of the two fallacies. Either, one argues that they have never seen a greek that was not human or a man that is not mortal, or one states that all samples have shown that 100% of the samples support these particular premises. However, these things do not disprove the existance of an immortal greek, but merely support the belief that there are none based on either personal experience or statistical analysis.

So, what can cause one to choose to change one's belief? Well, either personal experience or one's view regarding that applicability of the statistics to the specific case. Now, it appears that most of the posters see personal experience, specifically social acceptance, as a subjugation of reason to belief. However, statistical generalization, specifically general concensus, is also subjugation of reason to belief. Therefore, it boils down to what degree one chooses to believe in personal experience as opposed to statistics. It is rare that either is 100% reliable.

User avatar
dusk
Sage
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:38 am
Location: Austria

Post #40

Post by dusk »

I think it is more than that. It is not only that you have some supporting evidence like all the statistics point to this. You have equally supportive evidence for mutually exclusive stuff. Accept this book or this. Regard Buddha as wise or Jesus as a god.
What is obvious but remains a mystery to me is how one gets from choosing one faith to convincing oneself that this is the right one. That they got it right is what many if not most believers think.
From my judge and his three witnesses example. The odd thing is that later the judge not only decides to believe one witness but convinces himself that he had sufficient reason to believe this one. That this works with religions like Mormonism (sorry dianaiad) is beyond me.
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Post Reply