Belief a CHOICE?

[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?

[McCulloch]

I think an inherent part of reality is that we are responsible for our actions. If we don't believe that belief is a choice, then we may feel that we aren't responsible for our actions—because actions are derived from beliefs.

Actions are derived from beliefs. Whenever we take an action, we run it through our beliefs about How Things Are—and decide that action is the most reasonable.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as appeal to consequences, [[font=Times New Roman]argumentum ad consequentiam[/font]]. It is an argument that concludes a belief to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. You want to believe in free will and personal responsibility, therefore you must accept that beliefs can be chosen.

Maybe it is possible to choose to ignore evidence that points to conclusions I wouldn't like. Would that work?
Would I then be choosing to believe something?

You cannot choose to ignore evidence. If the evidence is known to you, you can discount it, but you really cannot ignore it. You can only discount it if you believe, for whatever reason, that the evidence you wish to ignore is weaker than the evidence you wish to emphasize.

[Crazee]

I think an inherent part of reality is that we are responsible for our actions. If we don't believe that belief is a choice, then we may feel that we aren't responsible for our actions—because actions are derived from beliefs.

Actions are derived from beliefs. Whenever we take an action, we run it through our beliefs about How Things Are—and decide that action is the most reasonable.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as appeal to consequences, [[font=Times New Roman]argumentum ad consequentiam[/font]]. It is an argument that concludes a belief to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. You want to believe in free will and personal responsibility, therefore you must accept that beliefs can be chosen.

Meh, that doesn't really bother me. Any argument can be made out as a logical fallacy.

I believe that the universe is inherently good. I've learned through experience that this belief attracts good people and things to me. Why shouldn't I get what I want if the universe is a good place?

Personal responsibility is a good part of the good universe we live in.

You know my opinion on the logical fallacies, they are useful like the 10 commandments are useful.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Meh, that doesn't really bother me. Any argument can be made out as a logical fallacy.

I don't think that's the case.

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

What logical fallacy do you think you can make that argument out to be?

[Crazee]

Meh, that doesn't really bother me. Any argument can be made out as a logical fallacy.

I don't think that's the case.

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

What logical fallacy do you think you can make that argument out to be?

This is the way I think of it.

All positions and/or arguments have assumed premises. Even if the assumed premises are just the definitions of words, they are still preconceived conclusions that we are employing to back up what we think.

For this argument to not be fallacious, you'd have to give me a definition of what a Greek is. After that you'd have to define every word that you used to define the definition, and then every word you used to define that. This goes for every other word-premise.

Since a premise is a fancy word for a conclusion we state first, and we are using premise-conclusions to support all our arguments, we automatically commit circular logic.

Language is based on series of definitions that we regard in a similar way. Dictionary.com defines a definition as: "the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear."

Well, that's not very clear, is it?

The logical fallacies are great guidelines. But, we have to see their limitations and how they disprove themselves when examined closely.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Meh, that doesn't really bother me. Any argument can be made out as a logical fallacy.

I don't think that's the case.

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

What logical fallacy do you think you can make that argument out to be?

This is the way I think of it.

All positions and/or arguments have assumed premises. Even if the assumed premises are just the definitions of words, they are still preconceived conclusions that we are employing to back up what we think.

For this argument to not be fallacious, you'd have to give me a definition of what a Greek is. After that you'd have to define every word that you used to define the definition, and then every word you used to define that. This goes for every other word-premise.

Since a premise is a fancy word for a conclusion we state first, and we are using premise-conclusions to support all our arguments, we automatically commit circular logic.

Whether an argument is fallacious or not has nothing to do with the truth of the premises. An argument simply states that given the premises, the conclusion follows. An argument can be based on false premises without being fallacious, it will just be an unsound argument. You seem to be conflating validity and soundness.

[Crazee]

An argument simply states that given the premises, the conclusion follows.

Exactly! Given the conclusions, the conclusion follows.

[McCulloch]

Meh, that doesn't really bother me. Any argument can be made out as a logical fallacy.

This shows that you do not understand what a logical fallacy or even what logic is. There are many arguments which are not fallacious. Yours is not one of them.

You know my opinion on the logical fallacies, they are useful like the 10 commandments are useful.

If we accept fallacious arguments, if we throw out logic, then we cannot debate or reason about anything. I don't believe in God because of the furiously sleeping colorless green ideas. Try to argue against that without invoking logic.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

An argument simply states that given the premises, the conclusion follows.

Exactly! Given the conclusions, the conclusion follows.

That doesn't make any sense. The premises and the conclusion aren't the same in the argument I presented. For the argument to be circular, it would have to look like this:

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

Would you care to address the distinction between soundness and validity?

[Crazee]

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.

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.

Meh, that doesn't really bother me. Any argument can be made out as a logical fallacy.

This shows that you do not understand what a logical fallacy or even what logic is. There are many arguments which are not fallacious. Yours is not one of them.

Show me one, I'll tell you how circular logic is employed in any argument you or I can think of. The easiest way is to do what I did before—show that word definitions are circular.

You know my opinion on the logical fallacies, they are useful like the 10 commandments are useful.

If we accept fallacious arguments, if we throw out logic, then we cannot debate or reason about anything. I don't believe in God because of the furiously sleeping colorless green ideas. Try to argue against that without invoking logic.

I don't think the fallacies should be thrown out. I think they are, like the ten commandments, useful guidelines. I'm not bothered by people pointing out logical fallacies as a part of their counterargument. I'm bothered when someone states a logical fallacy and expects that to be the only explanation necessary.

Using a logical fallacy as the bottom line is a lot like using god as the bottom line. I know some greatly dislike that comparison but I want to be honest about how I see it.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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.

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.