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?

[Justin108]

Can you provide of an example where acceptance is autonomic.

Not to you because apparently your brain functions completely differently from mine. To me and many others, belief is an autonomic process. That's all proof I can provide.

Yes the brain controls the autonomic processes, but we don't refer to this automatic process when we speak of the mind. The mind is conscious.

Are you entirely unfamiliar with the concept of a subconscious? The brain is not either/or. It can be both. Some aspects of the mind are conscious and under our control while others are not.

Please provide an example where belief is autonomic (unconscious).

- A man walks into the room
- He shoots my wife in the head
- My wife lies motionless on the ground, no pulse, no breathing
- I automatically conclude she is dead
- I do not choose to believe she is dead. It is simply out of my control that I make this undeniable conclusion

If this belief is a choice, explain to me why I would choose to believe my wife is dead?

Is there a scientific method to test sincere belief.

That's entirely beyond the point. Obviously I cannot test whether you are sincere in your belief. My question isn't "can you prove you believe I'm George Clooney?", my question is "do you believe I'm George Clooney?". If you feel the need to lie in order to prove a point, then I can't stop you.

But there is no process available to humanity to determine when a belief is sincere. We know by the actions people take.

You're contradicting yourself. And, no, we do not know by the actions people take. We can make an educated guess but that's about it

Would I sincerely believe you were George Clooney? No. I would make the decision that your statement does not match the evidence presented.

So you can't choose to ignore the evidence? Why not? Why would you throw $10 000 away like that?

I reject because the evidence is contrary to your statement.

Yes, but apparently we can just choose which evidence to believe. So why not just choose the evidence that you like most in order to get the $10 000? You make it sound as though the evidence literally forces you to believe that I am not in fact George Clooney which is exactly my point

If you had a mask on, and a voice synthesizer that matched his voice, and made the same statement, I would probably believe because the evidence supports your statement.

Oh so I need to convince you that I'm George Clooney? You can't just choose to believe I'm George Clooney without me actively convincing you first? This is looking less and less like a choice and more and more like an autonomic process

If belief is your choice entirely, why do I have to make an effort to actively convince you? If it was your choice entirely, you wouldn't need any external convincing

We make decisions to believe or not believe based on the evidence presented. Insufficient evidence, will lead to no acceptance and no belief.

Will it? Why? I thought it was a choice. If it's our choice entirely, then we can choose to believe something regardless of evidence. The fact that we rely on evidence proves my point

I am not sure if you have ever had children or it has been a long time so you don't recall, but babies often pick up things like dirt or sticks and put them to their mouth.

Yes, and it doesn't take parental intervention to teach them it tastes bad. They usually figure it out on their own.

Why is it that most people find unhealthy food delicious while healthy food is less sought after? Because taste and preference is out of our control. I cannot choose to like salad. I can choose to eat it, but I can't choose to like it

the baby is given a food it does not like and the infant learns distrust.

Yes, and this like is not a choice! They do not choose to like candy but hate vegetables! This like/dislike is an autonomic process

Yes, I believe the holocaust occured because there is enough evidence

But why do you choose to accept the evidence?

I make a decision that the evidence is sufficient (more than sufficient if you ask me) and believe it did happen

Why did you make that choice? Why not just choose you don't like the evidence and proceed to disregard it?

If you must accept the evidence, then it proves my point that belief is not a conscious decision. If it were a conscious decision, you would then be capable of rejecting the belief in something regardless of the evidence as any evidence you receive can be rejected if you so choose

The strength of this ability is what separates visionaries from those who end up working for them. A visionary like Steve Jobs began with an imaginary object.

Yes, and then he made the effort to make said object. He believed making said object was physically possible. If I were a "visionary" with an idea to control people with my mind, I would not succeed the way Steve Jobs did. Why is that? Because I lack his vision? No. Because I believe in something impossible.

So no, despite your efforts to make it seem like gullibility is a good thing... it isn't. Steve Jobs succeeded because his vision was in line with what is scientifically and technologically possible

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 81 by Justin108]

Not to you because apparently your brain functions completely differently from mine. To me and many others, belief is an autonomic process. That's all proof I can provide.

That is a very strong argument. If this is the case, you should have no issue believing in Christ. Over 2 billion people in the world also believe. Is this sufficient?

Yes the brain controls the autonomic processes, but we don't refer to this automatic process when we speak of the mind. The mind is conscious.

Are you entirely unfamiliar with the concept of a subconscious? The brain is not either/or. It can be both. Some aspects of the mind are conscious and under our control while others are not.

The brain and the mind are not the same thing. You conveniently overlooked this in my statement. The mind is where our conscious and subconscious lies. The mind interacts with the brain and vice versa. This is referred to as dualism in neurology.

Please provide an example where belief is autonomic (unconscious).

- A man walks into the room
- He shoots my wife in the head
- My wife lies motionless on the ground, no pulse, no breathing
- I automatically conclude she is dead
- I do not choose to believe she is dead. It is simply out of my control that I make this undeniable conclusion

If this belief is a choice, explain to me why I would choose to believe my wife is dead?

You choose to believe she is dead based on the evidence in front of your eyes. Your conclusion is a decision. There are many individuals who were shot in the head, and have survived. Because of shock and trauma, you may conclude she is dead when she may not be dead. The lack of a pulse, breathing and pulse is not sufficient to confirm that she is dead. You make a decision (conclusion) she is dead. If you were able to take her to the hospital quickly, her life may be still be saved.

The evidence of blood loss, lack of pulse, motionless and no breathing leads you to conclude she is dead. This is a decision which may be correct but could also be wrong.
Many individuals were considered dead (by medical professionals) only to come back to life. The doctors concluded they were dead and even officially pronounced time of death.

Lazarus syndrome or autoresuscitation after failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation is the spontaneous return of circulation after failed attempts at resuscitation. Its occurrence has been noted in medical literature at least 38 times since 1982.

Occurrences of the syndrome are extremely rare and the causes are not well understood.

CASES
Daphne Banks overdosed on drugs in Huntingdon, England on 31 December 1996. She was declared dead at Hinchingbrooke Hospital early the next day. She was found snoring at a mortuary 34 hours later.

66-year-old man suffering from a suspected abdominal aneurysm who, during treatment for this condition, suffered cardiac arrest and received chest compressions and defibrillation shocks for 17 minutes. Vital signs did not return; the patient was declared dead and resuscitation efforts ended. Ten minutes later, the surgeon felt a pulse. The aneurysm was successfully treated and the patient fully recovered with no lasting physical or neurological problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

Please take a look at the well documented cases. Your conclusion is based on evidence available. This does not always prove to be correct. Sometimes the evidence we see can be misleading or misinterpreted.

That's entirely beyond the point. Obviously I cannot test whether you are sincere in your belief. My question isn't "can you prove you believe I'm George Clooney?", my question is "do you believe I'm George Clooney?". If you feel the need to lie in order to prove a point, then I can't stop you.

I answered and stated I would not believe because the evidence is contrary to your statement. I could lie to get the money, but I do not believe because the evidence is contrary or insufficient.

Also, this is the point. You make a claim that belief is automatic but the scientific research actually supports that a persons beliefs are based on decisions and are not automatic. The process of making the same decision over and over can become automatic, but the primary decision is not automatic at all.

But there is no process available to humanity to determine when a belief is sincere. We know by the actions people take.

You're contradicting yourself. And, no, we do not know by the actions people take. We can make an educated guess but that's about it

There is no contradiction to my statements. I was speaking about scientific methods to determine belief. In the same paragraph, I stated we don't have a process available to determine when a belief is sincere. Sorry, I should have stated no scientific process. I assumed that the rules of language which imply that a paragraph focuses on a single or specific theme. The theme of that paragraph was about scientific methods.

We do not have a scientific method or process for determining beliefs, but we can know if a person is sincere by the actions they take. If a person says they believe in God, but when they write on this website, all of their statements are about disproving the existence of God, I can make a safe conclusion that the person is not sincere in their belief. Their actions betray their claim.

Is this ability to discern sincerity absolute? NO. It is entirely subjective.

So you can't choose to ignore the evidence? Why not? Why would you throw $10 000 away like that?

I can choose to ignore the evidence. This is what makes it a choice. I can choose to accept the evidence as sufficient. I can choose to reject the evidence of a different face and voice, and conclude that only the real George Clooney would be willing to spend $10,000 to defend who he is. I can choose to "take your word for it" as sufficient evidence.
We trust strangers all the time based only on unverified statements. It is a choice to accept or reject. We also reject strangers all the time based on unverified statements. If you were in the bathroom and a stranger told you to exit through the window because there is a gunman in the building. You don't know whether the individual is telling the truth, for your own safety you make a decision to trust them and exit through the window. You make a decision to accept their statement as true. You believe them.

In a similar example, you are in the bathroom and a stranger comes up to you and says you owe them $100. You reject this claim because you have no evidence to support the claim. You don't know the person, and they have not provided proof that you actually owe them. You don't believe them.

I reject because the evidence is contrary to your statement.

Yes, but apparently we can just choose which evidence to believe. So why not just choose the evidence that you like most in order to get the $10 000? You make it sound as though the evidence literally forces you to believe that I am not in fact George Clooney which is exactly my point

I can choose to accept the evidence to get the $10,000. This is where integrity and morality affect our decision making. A person with little integrity may choose to accept your statement as sufficient evidence to get the money. Those who have associated lying with wrong or evil, learn to make decisions which will support high integrity and good moral standards.

The evidence does not force me to do anything. It is the decisions I have made to be a good person with integrity, which force me to make subsequent decisions that align with this previous decision. Decision A directs Decision B. Since Decision A has been "coded" into my thought process through repetition, it will direct and dictate future decisions.

If a child is scolded for stealing cookie or a toy, this will likely influence future decisions by that child. The child learns that stealing could lead to negative consequences. The next time the child is presented with an opportunity to steal, the child has to make a decision whether stealing is worth the risk. Some children make the decision to adjust future decisions based on the evidence of the first scolding. Others need repeated correction.

Oh so I need to convince you that I'm George Clooney? You can't just choose to believe I'm George Clooney without me actively convincing you first? This is looking less and less like a choice and more and more like an autonomic process

If belief is your choice entirely, why do I have to make an effort to actively convince you? If it was your choice entirely, you wouldn't need any external convincing

If I write a persuasive paper, and you agree with my findings, was your decision to agree with my findings a decision or automatic.

If you claim it is automatic, then no one should be held accountable for their actions.

Scientist who write persuasive papers on a topic are often rejected, because the evidence does not support what they wrote. The paper can be the best persuasive argument ever written, but if the evidence does not hold up, most will reject. Some will not.

We do not all see things the same way. Why do some agree and others do not? If it was automatic it would be the same for every person. You have a heart that beats automatically, and so do I. The process is the same because it is automatic. The process of belief is not automatic.

Will it? Why? I thought it was a choice. If it's our choice entirely, then we can choose to believe something regardless of evidence. The fact that we rely on evidence proves my point

It is a choice on when to accept or reject the evidence. For some it is sufficient to accept testimony about Jesus as enough evidence to believe. For others such as your self you demand more evidence. That is a choice to decide what evidence is acceptable. Even in science, this decision on what evidence to accept is not uniform. For some, the evidence of an expanding universe is enough to support the big bang theory For others, there are still too many unexplained links.

Even though this disagreement continues, the fed government has decided it is okay to teach the big bang theory as fact in schools. Some children ask more questions because the amount of information provided is insufficient evidence. Others just accept the statements provided and move on.

Yes, and it doesn't take parental intervention to teach them it tastes bad. They usually figure it out on their own.

Why is it that most people find unhealthy food delicious while healthy food is less sought after? Because taste and preference is out of our control. I cannot choose to like salad. I can choose to eat it, but I can't choose to like it

Incorrect again. Some children actually like the taste of mud or wood. They have to be taught not to put these items in their mouth.

Taste is in our control. We can teach our bodies to eat healthily. The food manufacturers do not want people to learn this. They play on our addition to salt and sugar. When this addiction is broken, a person can retrain their taste buds. See below:

https://www.umsystem.edu/newscentral/mi ... aste-buds/

https://www.health-iq.com.au/contentvie ... 746b610b52

http://www.ent-surgery.com.au/can-you-r ... aste-buds/

Yes, and this like is not a choice! They do not choose to like candy but hate vegetables! This like/dislike is an autonomic process

Neuroscience disagrees with you.

But why do you choose to accept the evidence?

We choose to accept or reject evidence for different reasons. Sometimes we choose to accept due to convenience. It is simpler to accept than to verify every detail personally. Sometimes we accept evidence for the sake of speed. It may be better to believe now and verify later because we don't have the time to verify at this moment. In other cases, we accept because we have programmed our minds to continually accept certain evidence. In general, we accept evidence that is physical in nature, unless there is enough contrary evidence to reject physical reality. In the example above where I described how prank TV shows use this process against a person, we can experience a genuine physical event, and will trust the statements of others around us more than the physical evidence. This often causes us to second guess what we really experienced. Others can say the experience was not genuine, and in time we choose to believe their statement more than what actually occurred. Even in the court of law, this has happened. A witness hears the testimony of another person and it taints what they experienced. We receive new evidence and make decisions.

Why did you make that choice? Why not just choose you don't like the evidence and proceed to disregard it?

If you must accept the evidence, then it proves my point that belief is not a conscious decision. If it were a conscious decision, you would then be capable of rejecting the belief in something regardless of the evidence as any evidence you receive can be rejected if you so choose

I do not have to accept the evidence. I choose what to accept or reject. The must that you mention above is a result of another decision. Decision A informs Decision B. You claim that since Decision B must follow Decision A, it is automatic. This is not true. Decision B tends to follow Decision A but it is not absolute. It can be overwritten by a persons will.

Yes, and then he made the effort to make said object. He believed making said object was physically possible. If I were a "visionary" with an idea to control people with my mind, I would not succeed the way Steve Jobs did. Why is that? Because I lack his vision? No. Because I believe in something impossible.

So no, despite your efforts to make it seem like gullibility is a good thing... it isn't. Steve Jobs succeeded because his vision was in line with what is scientifically and technologically possible

No, you just need to create a device that can control a persons decisions and then find a way to implant it into every human on earth. You claim it is impossible because you cannot conceive or imagine how this could be done. All scientific discoveries began with someone imagining how something works or came to be. As they tested what they imagined, they would make decisions and changes.

If you have intentionally or unintentionally ignored this part of your mind, you have created a limit to what you will ever be able to accomplish.

None of our conversation has been about gullibility. This tactic of name calling as a defense is poor and weakens your argument. Steve Jobs successes were because of innovation. To go beyond what is currently possible. To innovate is to go beyond what is currently possible with science. We push the boundary and realize we can do more than was previously believed. It was once believed impossible to get 1000 songs on a device the size of an ipod. Through innovation, we learned how to push the envelope and do what is beyond current limitations. Science has limitations, our imaginations do not. We can choose to accept the evidence of scientific limitations or push the envelope and learn that we can go past the current limitations.

Why do so many resort to calling something foolish or gullible if it does not match the conclusions you have come to?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 77 by KingandPriest]
What you said doesn't make sense and is contrary to what I have experienced.

Accepting a claim is not a task.
Accepting a truth claim is not like accepting a job offer, or accepting food. The latter two are actions, not beliefs.
You cannot make a decision to believe someone is George Clooney.
Nor can you make a decision to reject that claim.
You cannot choose to believe that one had gone through the process of a legal name change.
People choose to have gender reassignment surgeries, that is an action one takes, but that is not relevant to whether someone can choose a belief.
One cannot decide to accept their experience as true, or the contrary statements of those around them.
One cannot decide to believe those around us to be telling the truth.
Having someone one tricked into believing they are hallucinating using actors, is not a decision to believe the actors over the genuine experience.

I found your claims to be utterly bizarre.

A decision is not a task. It is a decision. Just because decisions happen so quickly you are not aware does not mean they are not decisions.

Our brains appear wired in ways that enable us, often unconsciously, to make the best decisions possible with the information we’re given. In simplest terms, the process is organized like a court trial. Sights, sounds, and other sensory evidence are entered and registered in sensory circuits in the brain. Other brain cells act as the brain’s “jury,� compiling and weighing each piece of evidence. When the accumulated evidence reaches a critical threshold, a judgment — a decision — is made.

http://www.brainfacts.org/sensing-think ... on-making/

In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/br ... you-decide

To us this feels like our decisions are automatic, but they are not. Our minds are still making decisions based on information available. These decisions are the basis for belief.

Attempting to control my mind by telling me what I can decide and what I cannot decide, was a nice try but unsuccessful.

[1213]

...you did not and cannot choose to believe.

Why is that impossible?

[OnceConvinced]

When a person is presented with a certain amount of evidence supporting a statement, they have to make a decision to accept or reject that evidence. We call that belief or disbelief.

No, that's more a case of faith in action. If you don't know for sure you can choose one or the other. You take a step of faith. That doesn't necessarily mean you suddenly believe those things.

Belief is something a lot deeper. You either believe or you don't. It's not a choice you make. When I became a Christian I already believed in Jesus. I already believed in God. I already believed that I needed to repent and be born again. If I hadn't believed then I would only have been pretending to give my life to Christ. It would be insincere and would get me know where, wouldn't it?

When I lost my faith it most definitely wasn't a matter of choosing to disbelieve. I really did lose my faith. It was something I had no control over. I had come to an inescapable conclusion that Christianity was wrong. This was not something I chose. It was thrust upon me.

As the years have past more proof has been brought forth which cements my disbelief even more. Proof is a powerful thing. It's not something you can just deny if you want to. It would require some powerful brainwashing to achieve that. Some powerful mind tricks.

If it were a simple matter of a decision to remain a Christian I would still be one today because I never wanted to be an ex-Christian or an atheist.

A person does choose what they believe in. There are people all over the world who do not believe in the big bang theory.

That is because they have been convinced otherwise. The evidence of the big bang is not compelling to them at all. It's not a matter of choosing which one you like best. It's a matter of what argument convinces you.

There are people who do not believe (accept) the evidence of an old universe. The refusal to accept evidence is a decision. For some it is a decision to reject because the evidence is insufficient.

Any rejection comes as a result of disbelief ALREADY. They reject it BECAUSE they don't believe it. The aren't disbelieving it because they rejected it. The evidence is not compelling enough for them to believe otherwise.

Rejecting something doesn't automatically mean you suddenly don't believe it. Nor does accepting something mean you miraculously believe it.

When non-theists ask for evidence of God, they typically respond to any evidence that is provided, that the evidence is not sufficient to "make them believe".

Which is exactly the case. It's not SUFFICIENT enough for them to believe it. So no choice is being made to not believe it. They have remained in a state of disbelief because the evidence is not sufficient.

Can a person believe that grass is green? Yes, they can choose to accept the mental picture as sufficient evidence.

They already believe the grass is green. Whether they wish to reject it or accept it makes no difference. If they believe it then somewhere deep in side they have already become convinced its green.

We make decisions all the time based on what information we deem acceptable. We then use these beliefs to support additional decisions down the road.

The evidence will convince us one way or another. This is not a choice being made. We have no choice over what will convince us and what won't. Nobody has magical powers like that just to believe what they want to believe. Unless perhaps they have a very fickle mind.

Decision A, leads to Decision B. This is how our minds process decisions so quickly. We train ourselves to rely on the decisions (beliefs) we previously made.

Decisions are made based on beliefs. They don't suddenly make us believe something else.

You may decide to eat Brussels sprouts but that doesn't mean you believe they taste good.

You may decide to worship God, but if you do it's because you already believe in him. You're not going to worship something you don't already believe in. That's certainly not sincere and would get you nowhere.

For instance, when you make a decision for Christ you ALREADY believe. Otherwise why would you do it? Nobody genuinely comes to Christ unless they already believe what they've been told.

Actions and decisions come as a result of belief. Belief does not come as a result of actions or decisions unless those actions or decisions reveal some truth you weren't already aware of.

Most people do not check the skematics and integrity of every chair before they sit on it. They had an experience of sitting on a chair and it supported their weight. This experience led to a decision that when the person goes to sit on another chair, they will trust (believe) that the chair can hold their weight. It was the experience/evidence of Decision A (to sit on a chair) which informs and supports future decisions B, C, etc to believe that the chair will support your weight.

This is a matter of faith, not belief. You sit on a chair because previous experience tells you, you should be able to do that. You already BELIEVE that you can sit on that chair.

Now say that it's an electric chair that is electrified with a current running through it. Now try to believe you can still sit on that chair safely. You wouldn't be able to would you? Even if you did sit on it, you would still not believe it to be safe. You will know that you are going to get electrified.

So even if you choose to sit on the electric chair presuming it to be safe, once you feel that electricity coursing through you, then you will have no choice to believe it's electric and dangerous to sit on. You won't be suddenly telling yourself it's safe again will you? There will be no choice in what you believe. No amount of arm twisting is going to allow yourself to believe that chair is safe to sit on.

Stand on the edge of a building and make a decision to fly. Do you think you can convince yourself to take a dive? Would you do it? If it's as simple as making a decision, surely you could convince yourself?

When this system of decisions is broken, we go back to Decision A and become skeptical. If a person sits on a chair and it collapses, we then make a new decision to test a chair before sitting on it. Until a certain confidence is gained, we remain skeptical. After sitting on a new chair long enough or sitting on multiple chairs, Decision B, C, etc will be altered by Decision A.

You are talking about decisions. We make decisions based on things we already believe. Or we make decisions based on faith. Decisions alone do not suddenly miraculously influence your mind to believe or disbelieve.

[OnceConvinced]

I can make a decision to believe you are George Clooney to receive payment.

But you wouldn't believe it really, would you? You would just be going along with a charade. In your mind you would remain skeptical he is George Clooney. In fact I'm willing to bet you would NOT believe he's not George Clooney. So in no way would you be believing it. Not until you had proof.

You make it quite clear you would want evidence that he is George before you are willing to believe it, so no you can't just choose to believe. You would need to be CONVINCED he was George before you can believe it. Proof that belief is not just a simple choice.

When the money is in my hands or account, I can then make a decision to reject this claim. I can also choose to believe that you have gone through the process of a legal name change. This is another decision I can accept or reject. People choose to have gender reassignment surgeries. Even with hormones and surgery, some choose to ignore the effects and call the person by there birth gender. It is a decision made to believe or not believe that a person can truly change genders. You may choose to accept the effects of hormones and surgery, while another person chooses to dismiss this evidence as insufficient.

And when you meet him and discover he's not George Clooney, will you still be able to make a decision to believe he is George Clooney?

What you're describing is imagination. It's easy to imagine purple grass, but the ability to imagine it is not the same as actually believing grass is purple

What I described was the decision to accept the imagination as true. When people are touted to have hallucinated, they often need to be convinced that the experience was not a part of reality.

That is a person who is deluded. They did not make a decision to be deluded. They were already deluded to begin with.

They have to decide whether to accept their experience as true, or the statements of those around them.

Correction. They have to be CONVINCED it's true. After all they did not just decide to become deluded. Once they are convinced there is no need for a decision to be made. The evidence is there and undeniable.

Can they choose to go back to their deluded state?

Often we decide that those around us must be telling the truth if everyone is in agreement except oneself. This also allows us to be tricked in some instances. Prank shows have taken advantage of this, by having a person experience something real, and have everyone around them act as though nothing happened. So even though the event did happen in reality (not a hallucination) they feel as though it did not occur because everyone is telling them it did not occur. They make a decision to believe the actors over the genuine experience.

Nope they were manipulated and fooled because the human mind is easy to trick. They didn't choose anything. Their decisions were based on what they believed to be true.

[OnceConvinced]

You choose to believe she is dead based on the evidence in front of your eyes.

The overwhelming evidence says she is dead. There is no need to choose to believe she is dead. All one needs is an education and reasoning.

Your conclusion is a decision.

conclusion definition:
a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.

Your missing the reasoning side of it.

Using reasoning you come to a conclusion. This is not a matter of choice. It's an inevitable outcome of reasoning. When you see someone is dead, your reasoning abilities lead you to a belief which you can't simply choose.

If you see that person is stone dead. You have concluded she is stone dead due to sound reasoning, you can't just choose to believe she's not dead can you? Deep down you would know that's not true. You would be simply KIDDING yourself.

There are many individuals who were shot in the head, and have survived. Because of shock and trauma, you may conclude she is dead when she may not be dead. The lack of a pulse, breathing and pulse is not sufficient to confirm that she is dead. You make a decision (conclusion) she is dead. If you were able to take her to the hospital quickly, her life may be still be saved.


The evidence of blood loss, lack of pulse, motionless and no breathing leads you to conclude she is dead. This is a decision which may be correct but could also be wrong.

It is possible one can believe something and be wrong. However they have not chosen to be wrong with their beliefs. If one sees that there is a lack of a pulse and breathing, then one will naturally come to a conclusion that person is dead. They will BELIEVE that person is dead. Or they may be UNSURE, in which case they may investigate further. Then they may discover the person is indeed alive, in which case they will KNOW that the person is alive. They won't need to BELIEVE. If they were then choose to believe the person was dead, they would be attempting to kid themselves. Deep down they would know the person was truly alive.

It's one thing to choose to say "I believe" something. It's another thing to actually believe it deep down.

Many individuals were considered dead (by medical professionals) only to come back to life. The doctors concluded they were dead and even officially pronounced time of death.

Whether someone is wrong or not makes no difference when it comes to what they believe.

Once we KNOW something there is no need to choose. Knowledge trumps belief. Once you know something you can't choose to unknow it.

Also, this is the point. You make a claim that belief is automatic but the scientific research actually supports that a persons beliefs are based on decisions and are not automatic.

Please provide evidence of this claim. It's certainly not the way my brain works.

The process of making the same decision over and over can become automatic, but the primary decision is not automatic at all.

The only way to choose to believe something would be something like this. Continually telling yourself over and over again something. Many self-help gurus tell you to do this. A form of mind manipulation to convince yourself something is true. like "I am beautiful" or "I am successfull".

This is the type of mind manipulation one would have to do to force themselves to believe something they don't believe.

This is not normal though. We as humans don't usually employ these techniques when it comes to believing things. All we normally need is proof, evidence or a good argument.

I can choose to ignore the evidence.

Yes, you can choose to ignore it or you can choose to acknowledge it. If you ignore it you will continue to believe what you already believe. If you acknowledge it then you may be forced to change your beliefs. Ignoring something is a decision that allows certain people to continue to hold on to false beliefs. We call that denial.

This is what makes it a choice.

The choice is to ignore the evidence, thus allowing you to continue to believe what you already believe.

I can choose to accept the evidence as sufficient.

Something clearly convinced you that evidence was sufficient. This wasn't a matter of you choosing to accept it. You already accepted it for some reason.

I can choose to reject the evidence of a different face and voice, and conclude that only the real George Clooney would be willing to spend $10,000 to defend who he is. I can choose to "take your word for it" as sufficient evidence.

You can say anything you like, but does that affect what you believe deep down? If it were proven he was not George Clooney and just a pretender, could you then choose to believe that he really was George Clooney?

According to your logic you can.

I wonder could you choose to worship another God? Could you choose to hate Jesus and love Allah instead?

I don't know about you but I can't choose to hate or love anyone. My feelings are something I have no control over. What I can control though is how I act regarding them. But actions are different to beliefs.

We trust strangers all the time based only on unverified statements. It is a choice to accept or reject.

And if a stranger turns out to be telling a lie to you can you continue to believe he's telling you the truth?

According to your logic you can.

We also reject strangers all the time based on unverified statements. If you were in the bathroom and a stranger told you to exit through the window because there is a gunman in the building. You don't know whether the individual is telling the truth, for your own safety you make a decision to trust them and exit through the window. You make a decision to accept their statement as true. You believe them.

And what happens if there really is a gun man there and you see it for certain? Can you then choose to believe that the gunman is not actually there?

According to your logic you can. According to you it's possible to twist your own arm behind your back and believe nonsense.

In a similar example, you are in the bathroom and a stranger comes up to you and says you owe them $100. You reject this claim because you have no evidence to support the claim. You don't know the person, and they have not provided proof that you actually owe them. You don't believe them.

And if it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that you DO owe him 100 can you continue to believe that you don't? Or would you be able to lie to yourself about it?

See for me when it comes to God, I don't believe in God. However if it could be proven he was real I would be forced to believe he was real. I could not just suddenly choose to not believe. That would simply be lying to myself and I know I would be lying to myself. I would know deep down that I do actually believe, despite what I might say to other people.

The evidence does not force me to do anything.

So if it turned out he really was George Clooney then you could continue to disbelieve it if you so wished? Even with absolute proof in front of you? You could lie to yourself and fool yourself into believe he wasn't George? You'd be comfortable with living in a state of denial?

If a child is scolded for stealing cookie or a toy, this will likely influence future decisions by that child. The child learns that stealing could lead to negative consequences. The next time the child is presented with an opportunity to steal, the child has to make a decision whether stealing is worth the risk.

Some children make the decision to adjust future decisions based on the evidence of the first scolding. Others need repeated correction.

What has this to do with whether someone chooses a belief or not? This is about decisions based on beliefs you already have. In the case of the child, he learns that doing something is wrong. He knows it's wrong even if he does that thing again.

If I write a persuasive paper, and you agree with my findings, was your decision to agree with my findings a decision or automatic.

There would be no decision involved. Either I already believe what you've written or you have written something that has convinced me otherwise. Something you have written has triggered something in my mind that says "Eureka! He's right!"

If you claim it is automatic, then no one should be held accountable for their actions.

Of course we are responsible for our actions. We are always responsible for our actions. What we believe is irrelevant when it comes to our actions. If I hate someone for instance, I have no choice in feeling that way. However if I kill that person, then I have made a choice. I have done something bad and SHOULD be held accountable.

Scientist who write persuasive papers on a topic are often rejected,

Because their arguments were not compelling enough to convince people. They were not compelling enough to change anyone's minds on the topic.

because the evidence does not support what they wrote.

Even better. They are shown to be wrong. Why would anyone choose to believe something that was wrong?

The paper can be the best persuasive argument ever written, but if the evidence does not hold up, most will reject. Some will not.

Exactly! So it would make no sense for anyone to believe his obvious nonsense, would it? No one would deliberately choose to believe nonsense.

We do not all see things the same way. Why do some agree and others do not?

That's irrelevant. The point is nobody chooses to see things a different way. They see things their way because that's the way they are and that is the conclusions they have come to. They don't get to choose who they are.

If it was automatic it would be the same for every person.

No way! We are all different because it IS automatic! Everyone has different temperaments. They see the world in different ways.

Incorrect again. Some children actually like the taste of mud or wood. They have to be taught not to put these items in their mouth.

Did they choose to like the taste of those things? What about the foods you hate. Did you choose to hate them? What about the foods you like? Did you choose to like them?

If we go by your logic then we can choose to like or hate any food we want to.

Taste is in our control.

]

Of course it isn't! We may be able to convince ourselves to like certain foods over a certain time by forcing ourselves to eat them. But that is hardly choosing to like that food.

We can teach our bodies to eat healthily.

This is not a matter of choosing what we believe. This is a matter of conditioning ourselves to believe something, which takes a lot of time. It can take years to develop a taste for certain foods.

Neuroscience disagrees with you.

Please show where neuroscience disagrees with him or backs up any of your arguments.

But why do you choose to accept the evidence?

We choose to accept or reject evidence for different reasons. Sometimes we choose to accept due to convenience.

[

Then we are simply kidding ourselves. That's not belief.

Sometimes we accept evidence for the sake of speed.

How does that effect our belief? All you are talking about here is an action due to other pressures. It says nothing about belief.

I do not have to accept the evidence. I choose what to accept or reject.

Base on your already held beliefs. If you reject evidence that proves you wrong, then you are simply in denial.

[Justin108]

That is a very strong argument. If this is the case, you should have no issue believing in Christ. Over 2 billion people in the world also believe. Is this sufficient?

An appeal to popularity is not a strong argument... it's a logical fallacy.

The brain and the mind are not the same thing.

I don't agree with this distinction. I see the mind as nothing but the result of the brain's activity

You choose to believe she is dead based on the evidence in front of your eyes.

No, I am forced to believe she is dead based on the evidence in front of my eyes. I have no other option.

There are many individuals who were shot in the head, and have survived. Because of shock and trauma, you may conclude she is dead when she may not be dead.

You seem to constantly be confusing "considering" with "belief". Yes, I can consider the possibility that she may have survived. Consideration is a choice. But if my consideration fails to convince my belief, then I can't do anything about it. I am forced to believe that she is dead if the consideration fails to convince me otherwise

Many individuals were considered dead (by medical professionals) only to come back to life.

All this means is that their beliefs were wrong, not that they "chose to believe"

Your conclusion is based on evidence available. This does not always prove to be correct. Sometimes the evidence we see can be misleading or misinterpreted.

Okay... so people can sometimes make mistakes. How does this suddenly make belief a choice?

I answered and stated I would not believe because the evidence is contrary to your statement

In other words, you cannot choose to believe evidence that does not support the truth. That inability is what makes belief autonomic. Evidence forces belief

I could lie to get the money, but I do not believe because the evidence is contrary or insufficient.

You don't believe because you can't believe. The fact that you can't believe logically concludes that it is not a choice.

If you have to choose between option A and option B, except you're not allowed to choose option A, do you really still have a choice in the matter? No. Since evidence forces you to choose option A, option B falls away as unchoosable.

You make a claim that belief is automatic but the scientific research actually supports that a persons beliefs are based on decisions and are not automatic.

The process of consideration is a decision, but whether consideration ultimately influences your belief is an autonomic process.

I can choose to ignore the evidence. This is what makes it a choice. I can choose to accept the evidence as sufficient. I can choose to reject the evidence of a different face and voice, and conclude that only the real George Clooney would be willing to spend $10,000 to defend who he is. I can choose to "take your word for it" as sufficient evidence.

Then you and I function in entirely different ways. I would be physically unable to make this conclusion

I can choose to accept the evidence to get the $10,000. This is where integrity and morality affect our decision making. A person with little integrity may choose to accept your statement as sufficient evidence to get the money. Those who have associated lying with wrong or evil, learn to make decisions which will support high integrity and good moral standards.

Fine, let's adjust the scenario: suppose a man tells you to believe he is God or else he will kill a room full of babies. Will you be able to force yourself to sincerely believe this man is God? Suppose, in order to avoid your adjustment of my scenario, you were wearing a highly advanced lie detector that is 100% accurate in detecting whether you sincerely believe he is God.

If I write a persuasive paper, and you agree with my findings, was your decision to agree with my findings a decision or automatic.

Then it is the persuasiveness of the paper that makes me believe.

The choices I made in this scenario would include
- The decision to read your paper
- The decision to consider it
- The decision to compare it to other findings

Once all of these decisions were made, whether I believe or not becomes an automatic process.

Look at it this way... suppose I was cooking dinner. I would make the choice to try certain ingredients, certain spices, cook it a certain way... but at the end, whether I actually enjoy the food is an automatic process.

Belief works in the same way. I can make the choice to look at the evidence, consider alternative explanations, contemplate in different ways... but int he end, whether I actually believe the conclusion is an automatic process. I cannot choose my belief any more than I can choose to like food.

Incorrect again. Some children actually like the taste of mud or wood.

Do they choose to like it? Or is it an automatic process that they like it? Should people with eating disorders be blamed for having their disorders?

They have to be taught not to put these items in their mouth.

They are taught not to eat it because it was unhealthy. But they are never taught that it tastes bad. Whether it tastes good or bad to them is out of anyone's control.

They play on our addition to salt and sugar.

If taste was a choice, addiction would not exist.

When this addiction is broken, a person can retrain their taste buds.

Retrain? Why would we need to retrain our taste buds if it was just a choice? The fact that we actually need to be trained tells us there is an amount of unconsciousness in play in forcing us to want sugary food. If it was nothing but a choice, no one on earth would suffer from addiction

Neuroscience disagrees with you.

Do you have any support for this?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 88 by Justin108]

If I write a persuasive paper, and you agree with my findings, was your decision to agree with my findings a decision or automatic.

Then it is the persuasiveness of the paper that makes me believe.

The choices I made in this scenario would include
- The decision to read your paper
- The decision to consider it
- The decision to compare it to other findings

Once all of these decisions were made, whether I believe or not becomes an automatic process.

Look at it this way... suppose I was cooking dinner. I would make the choice to try certain ingredients, certain spices, cook it a certain way... but at the end, whether I actually enjoy the food is an automatic process.

Belief works in the same way. I can make the choice to look at the evidence, consider alternative explanations, contemplate in different ways... but int he end, whether I actually believe the conclusion is an automatic process. I cannot choose my belief any more than I can choose to like food.

So you agree that belief is based on decisions. I never said belief is a decision. I said it is based on a decision. You make a decision which informs or leads to belief. This process happens so fast in our brains, it feels like it is automatic.

You have to make a decision first, and then that decision or decisions come together to form a belief. No one is born with beliefs already programmed. If beliefs were automatic in the sense you described, a persons belief would never be predicated on a decision. The heartbeat never needed a decision or input from the brain. The cells which are responsible for creating the heartbeat form 3 weeks prior to those cells which develop a brain in a baby. This is an automatic process.

Fetal Development-from Conception to Birth

Time
Fetal Development
Day 6
The embryo is implanted in the uterus at this stage
Day 22
The baby’s heartbeat starts as the blood flow begins. The baby often has a different blood type from the mother.
Week 3
Baby’s spine and the nervous system form. Other organs like the liver, kidney and intestines take shape.
Week 4
The child is now 10,000 times the size of the egg when it was first fertilized.
Week 5
Baby’s limbs (hands and legs) begin to grow.
Week 6
Brain waves are detectable. The lips, mouth and fingernails develop.

http://www.newhealthguide.org/When-Does ... tbeat.html

I will assume you ignored the many links I have posted which support how fast the brain makes decisions. Speed of decision is still a decision. Like all assumptions I may be wrong, but as of yet, you have still yet to provide anything more than your opinion. I am providing evidence to support my claim that beliefs are based upon decisions. As I stated earlier, Decision A informs Decision B which eventually creates a belief. It is because these decisions happen so quickly you claim them to be automatic.

See Post 83,

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 83 by KingandPriest]

That's all moot since you are talking about decision, not beliefs. You cannot choose to believe, you can only choose to act.

...you did not and cannot choose to believe.

Why is that impossible?

Because only actions can be chosen.