This is a subject that comes up with some regularity in these discussions, so I'm going to start a thread for it.  I'll start with something that spun off a discussion with TitL in another thread:




Not that you've changed your wording in the two quotes here.  The first said you could "choose to follow," but the second talks about "choosing to believe."  These are NOT the same thing.  Following is an action, which you can choose to take or not take.  Belief is a reaction to your experiences, and you cannot change it based on simply deciding to do so (therefor it's not a choice).  You seem to be treating them as the same, when there are important differences between them.

Again, I posit that we can test this very easily:  if you choose to believe that Allah is not real, then you could just as easily choose to believe that he is.  Try it.  Just start believing that Allah is real (don't worry, you can change back in a few seconds if you're able to do it).  I'm guessing you're not able to do this.  You can't just choose your beliefs, you need to have experiences to change them.  You can choose to seek those experiences, but that's not the same as choosing the belief.  Choices are decisions, beliefs are reactions.  Both are important, and they influence one another, but they're not the same.




Which part is incorrect in the above, then?  Did I misremember your conversion story, or are you objecting to what I'm saying the consequences of it are?  Am I correct in remembering that your beliefs changed when you read the bible looking for contradictions you could use to prove christianity was false?




You have made choices, yes.  But what you choose is your actions, not your beliefs.  Your beliefs influence what actions you take (ie, which choices you make), but they aren't same thing.





Okay, perhaps an extended example is in order.  Let's imagine you find yourself in box, with two levers on the wall, each with a sign above them and a little slot in the wall below them.  Over the left lever the sign says "pull this lever to get a green skittle," and over the other (on the right) it says "pull this lever to get a red skittle."  Let's also assume that red skittles are your favorite.

So perhaps you think to yourself, "wow, free skittles, awesome!  I really like red skittles, so I'll pull that lever here."  A few things have happened here.  First, you've made a choice to pull the lever on the right.  You've done this because you believe that pulling this lever will get you a red skittle.  It is your intent to do what will get you a red skittle, because you desire a red skittle.

So you pull the lever, and pops a green M&M.  That is the (somewhat surprising) consequence of your action.  It was not what desired to get, it is not what you intended to get, it's not what you believed you would get, and you didn't choose to get it, but you got it nonetheless.

It would be incorrect for someone to say that because you got a green M&M that you wanted to desired a green M&M.  What you wanted was a red skittle.  It would be incorrect for them to say that because you got a green M&M that must have been what you believed what you would get.  What you believed was that pulling the lever would get you a red skittle.  It would be incorrect for someone to say you intended to get a green M&M; you intended to get a red skittle.  It would be wrong for them to say you chose to get a green M&M.  What you chose was to pull a lever.  It would be correct to say that you chose an action that led to you getting a green M&M.  It would be correct to say that your action led to you getting a green M&M.  It would be incorrect, though, to say you chose a green M&M.


--Your actions are what you do.
--Your choices are the decision you make about which actions to take.  You choose or decide</> your <i>actions.
--Your beliefs inform and guide your choices, but are not choices themselves.  They are reactions to your experiences.  In the example you believed that pulling the lever would give you a red skittle because the sign caused you to believe this.  You did not choose to believe this, you simply did believe it, because of what you saw.  You did not make a decision to believe this, it was an entirely unconscious act on your part to believe it.  Some who had run into such signs and levers before (ie, who had different experiences than you) might not believe it, but that also wouldn't be a choice, it would still be a reaction to their experiences.
--Your intent is what you are trying to accomplish.  It is your aim, or goal.
--Your desire is what you want to happen.  Often this will correspond with your intent, but not always.  It is possible to want one thing to happen, even while working to make something else happen.
--The consequences are what actually happens.  They may or may not match up with your desires, your intents, or your beliefs.

All of these concepts are related, but different.  Treating them as all the same is like saying "well, you got a green M&M, so that must be what you wanted."

When we talk about choice, we should make clear that we're talking about actions.  Because actions are the things you can choose.  You cannot choose your beliefs.  Your beliefs influence your actions.  Experiences influence your beliefs.  The arrow of causality looks a bit like this:

experience --> beliefs ]
                       ]--> intent --> choice --> action --> consequence
               desires ]

Note that belief is before choice.  Your believes influence your choices, but your beliefs aren't choices themselves.

The consequences of your actions can lead to new experiences, which can lead to your beliefs changing.  But the consequences we get are not always the ones we intended.  It is possible to desire to change your beliefs, and thus choose to take actions that you intend to lead to new experiences that will change your beliefs, but it is not guaranteed that your actions will lead to the desired result.  In TitL's case, his actions led to the exact opposite: he desired proof the christainity was false, but ended up experiencing things that caused him to believe that christianity was true.  Likewise, some people may want to believe in God, and thus decide to go to church and have an experience they hope will convince them God is real, but when they get there find the experience unconvincing.  Most of the time, though, people will not intentionally set out to change their beliefs, since doing so requires them to believe that they could have an experience that would convince them that their beliefs were wrong.  For most people, simply believing that toe be the case is enough to change their beliefs.  In other words the two assumptions "If I experienced X it would convince me that Y is true," and "I could take actions that would lead to me experiencing X" are sufficient reason to believe that Y is true.  Because of this, most of the time when people change their beliefs it is an unintended reaction, rather than something they did on purpose.

Why does any of this matter?  Frequently religious people will say that people who don't share their faith "choose to believe" something different than they do.  This is inaccurate, because we do not choose our beliefs.  It is also potentially insulting, because it can imply a degree of intent or desire, when actually what we would like or desire to be true isn't really what matters in our beliefs.

Further, some people will make statements like "if you don't follow Jesus, you must want to go to hell."  Again, this is not accurate.  The reason someone doesn't follow Jesus (ie, doesn't take the actions Jesus tells them to take) is because they don't believe that following Jesus will lead to them not going to hell.  It's a bit like the example above.  Even if I what pulling the right lever does, I shouldn't assume that you wanted a green M&M when you pulled it.  It was your incorrect beliefs that led to you getting a green M&M, not your desire to get a green M&M.

Hopefully that makes sense.  To me it seems pretty straightforward, but I've discussed it with enough people here enough times to know that not everyone seems to see it the way I do.  Would be good if we could all get on the same page on this, so we don't talk past each other, and don't use phrasing that offends others by implying intents and desires that aren't actually there.

It makes complete sense to me. Belief not being a choice is also evidenced by religious people who suffer from doubt; they want to believe more strongly yet are unable to produce it only by will.

I think the usage of "belief" in the skittles analogy strains the usage of belief a bit, but viewed only as an analogy it works just fine.

Well, I understand what you are saying, but I think you have separated them too much.

Choosing to believe is very possible. Some people will continue to believe something regardless of evidence. A choice to believe that something is true, when evidence suggests otherwise.

I know you feel that people would not choose to flip back and forth between beliefs, but that's seems very possible to choose a belief, even if it's not based on your experiences.

Essentially, desire of a result allows to choose a belief that may even counter your experience. Example, people will choose to believe an affair will be ok, even if their experience suggests that it doesn't work out for others.

I know and understand what you are saying, however, I don't agree. I feel belief is a choice, and judging from the number of people who do things that go against smart choices, I'd say selfishness allows for one to go against their beliefs if they so choose.




That we disagree that choice is only reactionary. I made a choice to believe in God.



Ok, I understand what you are trying to clarify.

Yea, I guess I disagree. I feel that beliefs can be chosen. You feel they are reactions. We disagree.

I'll be honest here, but insulting because they have didn't have similar view points? I'd take it with a grain of salt. I'm not too insulted that atheists don't have the same viewpoint as me when they discuss various ideas.

Certainly a strange tactic, but seems simple enough to point out that you don't want hell, but just don't want God in the bible to be True.

Okay, will you please prove this by demonstration, then?  You're asserting that it's "very possible" to choose to believe something when evidence suggests otherwise.  This is very simple to test, and I'm asking, in complete seriousness, to try a few tests:
1.  Take something next to you, hold it out at arm's length, and simply choose to believe that if you let go of it that gravity won't make it fall to the ground.  Then let go, and tell me if you're truly surprised when it falls.  I assert that you can't turn your belief in gravity at will.  You've just told me it's "very possible".  So try it, and let me know.  And I mean this in complete seriousness.  Please try this and see if you can do it, and let me know.  I can't do it myself, so I will be very surprised to hear that you can.
2.  If your belief in God is a choice, not a reaction, you can prove this by believing in some other god for just a few seconds.  Prove your assertion by stopping to believe in the christian God, and believe instead in Allah, or some other religion's god.  Again, I mean this seriously.  You're asserting that atheists can do this, and simply decide to believe in God at will.  Please prove this by doing it yourself.  I assert that you cannot.  If by chance I'm wrong, don't worry about doing this, since you can simply choose to change your belief back after a second or two.


Yes, people can make dumb choices, and desiring one result is part of that.  But that's something that influences your beliefs about the outcome, people don't have affairs thinking "I know I'm going to get caught," they think "hmm, maybe I'll get away with it."  They don't think to themselves, "hmm, I believe that this isn't going to work, but I want to do it, so I'll just start believing that it will work."  Seriously.  You've made bad decisions in your life, like everyone else, I imagine.  Did you honestly have that kind of thought process, where you 'decided' to believe something other than you really did, just to do justify doing something you knew wouldn't work out?

There is such a thing as rationalizing your choices, but that's not the same as choosing your beliefs.  We try to come up with reason for things we did in the past.  We often give reasons that had nothing to do with our original decision, since we like to feel (and we like others to think) that we had legitimate justification for our decisions.  And those rationalizations become part of our experiences.  But they're not an example of choosing a belief itself.

Again, this is an easily testable hypothesis.  I imagine you would like to get given a million dollars (or, if not, replace "one million dollars" with whatever you really would like to receive).  So simply choose to believe that in 5 minutes someone will knock on your door with a giant check for one million dollars.  Really, try that right now.  In five minutes, when if it doesn't happen, can you honestly be disappointed?


Can you please tell us to the experiences that led up to that, then?  And, given what you've said above, should we just conclude that you believe it because you want it to be true, rather than based on experiences you've had?


I call on you to demonstrate this, then, with the simple tests above.  Also, I wrote out a long description, breaking down the process into steps, going into a good bit of detail, and your only conclusion is that you disagree with the whole thing.  You don't give any counter, or explain how your view works, or what's different.  You just say yeah, I think your conclusion is wrong.


But it's not just a different view point, it's a view point about the person in question.  You say don't get too insulted when atheists don't have the same viewpoint, but I've seen it happen that you DO get insulted (justifiably!) when atheists express certain view points about you.  You're doing something similar to saying something unflattering about the person when you make such claims, not just about their ideas.


<facepalm>I feel like you've missed the whole point of what I've said if you respond that way.  It's like you've totally not understood the central point of what I've typed.  It's not about what I want to be true or not!  Saying "Tycho doesn't believe in God because he doesn't want God to be true" is just as bad as saying I want to go to hell.  It's the same general problem.  It's saying that I can pick and choose whatever I want to believe, which isn't true.  It's implying a desire for one thing or another, when reality is that I don't believe it because the experiences I've had are not consistent with the claim.  I couldn't believe it no matter what I wanted, just as I can't turn off my belief in gravity, and can't convince myself that a million dollar check will arrive any minute now.

I will say, I think the idea of changing beliefs as quickly as changing underwear is a bit of a flaw. There are plenty of people who believed they could walk through walls, but it was only after a long period of work (normally mental programming and exercises) that they reached the point where they were really willing to test that theory, and were surprised and disappointed they failed.

TitL, I thought about this a bit more today, and got to wondering if part of the issue was some of the preconceptions you might have about me influencing your response to what I'm saying.  Perhaps imagining me and my concerns leads you to a different conclusion than you might have if you thought about someone else.

Perhaps we'll make more progress if we consider someone else.  I think Doulos is a good candidate to illustrate what I'm talking about.  He's someone who's believed in God in the past, got into youth ministry, was 'walking-the-walk' as it were, but his experiences changed his beliefs about God's existence.  He no longer believes God is real, and this distress him.  He struggles to see any point in life now that his belief in God is gone.  He says he'd "go mad" if lived his life without believing God exists.  He has a feeling of loss now that he no longer believes that God is real.  And yet he doesn't believe God is real.

If it were as simple as choosing to believe what you want to be true, Doulos wouldn't be in his current situation.  He could get back to his old sense of purpose, and re-establish the bonds that have been broken by simply deciding to believe in God again.  I think (and I hope you'll agree), that it's not only inaccurate to say Doulos doesn't want God to exist, it's also pretty insulting to someone who's going through a difficult time, struggling with the implications of their new-found doubt.  Can you agree that it's not fair to say that Doulos wants to go to hell?  Can you agree that it's unfair to say he doesn't want God to be true?  Do you feel that he has chosen not to believe, or is it more accurate to say that his experiences have forced him not to believe despite his desire to believe?

To me it looks like Doulos wants to believe in God.  He wants God to be real.  If it were as simple as just deciding to believe, it looks to me like he'd do it in a second.  He didn't get to the position he's in now because he wanted to be an atheist.  He didn't arrive at his present view because he thought it'd be much more pleasant.  His lack of belief is due to the experiences he's had, not a desire for God not to be real.  Can you agree with that?

If belief is a choice, how do you explain a situation like Doulos'?  I explain it by saying that belief is NOT a matter of choice.  From what you've said to me, your position would seem to be that Doulos doesn't want God to be true.  Is that what it looks like to you?  It doesn't look that way to me.

Doulos has had what people have called a "crisis of faith," and he's not the first to have one.  How could anyone have a "crisis of faith" if belief were just a matter of choice?  How could anyone ever change their mind if belief was just a matter of choice?  You've gone through a change of religious beliefs.  I've always taken that to mean that you experienced something that caused your beliefs to change.  If you're correct that belief is just a choice, then it's not that something caused your beliefs to change, but rather you caused your beliefs to change because something caused your desires to change.  You didn't see something to make God seem more likely to be true, you saw something that made God seem more desirable to be true.  Is that what happened?  Was your conversion based simply on changing the perceived benefits of God existing, rather than on evidence that He really exists?  I wouldn't think that would be the case.

You are challenging the statement by providing an untrue example of that. No one is stating that what you believe becomes true.

I understand that this example seems difficult, perhaps impossible. But taking a difficult concept, or a more accurate statement would be to take a viewpoint that one normally would not do now makes your view true doesn't actually make it true now.

I think that while your point does show people don't normally change their minds rapidly back and forth, that doesn't mean you cannot change your beliefs. (Which you are stating)

Example, have you ever held a belief that you were happy? Ever change it rapidly to anger, and rapidly happy again? Such as being angry with someone, and then forgiving them?

Have you ever had a significant other? If yes, you must know the drama that can occur, and even knowing they care about you, they and you have done things that make no sense in helping them, and cause hurt feelings. You can change your beliefs about this person rapidly back and forth without facts changing, or even experiences.

How about going to a seminar on leadership or success? The speaker can likely change your beliefs easily, just as reading a book with new ideas can. Literally, with you believing you can choose to react differently the situations, you can change your choice on how to believe.




Seems relatively straight forward to believe that affairs are bad, and since to go against your belief, that you may come up with explanations to do so. But the point is if you believe something and go against it, then you can make a choice to change your beliefs. Coming up with a justification doesn't mean your not changing your belief on the issue.


I have knowingly done things I know were wrong, and did so because I wanted to do those things. I suppose I have tried to tell myself it wasn't that bad to do so. Othertimes I simply didn't care enough because I was being selfish. But I suppose to your answer, I would say that, no, I didn't change my beliefs every time.

I'd say the opposite, we change our beliefs by choice and it's recognized and given a term called rationalization.




Well I suppose I was researching faith, religion and God.
How so? I'm not saying you can't have experiences. I'm saying beliefs can be chosen. People do it all the time. They get mad, happy, sad and then angry and then happy in mere hours over the same thing, and nothing factually changes. Emotions, and thoughts and choice allow for people to do all sorts of things.


Simple, but not effective, nor does it make your point true because you came up with a test few people would attempt. Essentially, I'm saying you are basing your point on a test that is at best unlikely to be of interest to anyone. But in all honesty, we can probably video tape this occurring multiples times a day in the life of a teenager with all of their energy and hormones.

  Quite frankly, it's of little interest to me. I suppose I like more clear cut discussion where it is, or isn't and can be shown. In the end, this discussion no matter what is a thought concept.


I think over all, I still disagree. Over all, I think it's reasonable to understand that people are coming from different view points.

Considering the number of insults from me towards the other users here, and the reverse of other people from this forum making direct comments about myself and ideas, I think your point is actually invalid.

Why would it be insulting that a person thinks you are choosing your beliefs? Someone calling you a name is insulting, suggesting you don't want to know God is at best, a truthful statement, and at worst, mistaken belief.

I know.  You're stating that people can choose their beliefs.  I'm saying "okay, prove it.  Chose to believe that gravity won't work."  We both know that it WILL still work.  I assert that because we know that, you CANNOT choose to believe otherwise.  You can prove me wrong by doing the above, and feeling surprised when gravity keeps working.  I'm guessing that no amount of choice on your part can really make you surprised that gravity works.  But again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is try it.  Show me that what you believe about gravity is a choice, not something that is forced on you by your experiences.



I'm not sure why you're talking about what's true or not here.  We're talking about beliefs.  If they're a choice, you can choose to change them, regardless of whether or not they're true.  So again, prove it.  I'm asserting that you can't.  I'm asserting that you don't have the ability to change your beliefs about God by a simple act of choosing to do so.  You can prove me wrong by doing it.  Whether your beliefs are correct or not have nothing to do with it.  So again, take the two challenges I've given you.  Tell us if you are capable of making those choices or not.  Say "yes, I've tried it, and I chose to believe that gravity doesn't work, and that Allah is the one true god," and you'll have proven your position.  Your reluctance to even try implies to me that you can't do it.


On the contrary, people DO change their minds back and forth on somethings.  But that doesn't mean it's a choice to do so.


Those are emotions, not beliefs.  Your emotions can and do change rapidly, though again it's not just a choice to change them.  If it were, no one would ever be unhappy; they could just make themselves happy by deciding to be happy.  Like beliefs, emotions are a reaction to your experiences.  Like beliefs, they can and do change, but also like beliefs, it takes more than a simple choice to change them.


Your beliefs about them can change, but not simply by choice.  Something else has to cause your beliefs to change.  But again, you can prove me wrong by simply choosing to change your beliefs about your wife/significant other right now.  Simply decide to believe that you hate them and that they're the worst person on earth, as bad as hitler.  Don't worry, you can change back to loving them again after a few seconds by simply choosing to do so.  Can you do this?  I can't.  I assert that you can't either.  But again, you can prove me wrong by trying it.


I'd say a seminar counts as "an experience" rather than "a choice."  The speaker causes your mind to change with what they say, rather than you choosing to change your beliefs on your own.  If it was just a choice, there wouldn't be seminars, because you wouldn't need them to change your beliefs.  You'd just choose to believe whatever you wanted and be done with it.  You wouldn't require any convincing by anyone else to get you there.

<
If you believe something, and act against it, you're choosing your ACTIONS, which is different from choosing your BELIEFS.

[emphasis added by Tycho]
Okay, by your own words, acting against your beliefs doesn't indicate that you've chosen different beliefs.  What more proof do you need?  You've said here a number of times that if you do something against your beliefs, that you must be choosing to change your beliefs.  But you've disproven that through your own experience.  How can you go on asserting something, when you've experienced something that proves its wrong yourself?


We're talking about different things then.  Rationalization doesn't mean "chose your beliefs."  That's not what the word means.  If that's what you're referring to, you should say that people rationalize their decisions, not that they choose their beliefs.  I'm fine with you saying that people rationalize their decisions, I have no disagreement with that.  But it's not the same as saying people choose their beliefs.  Again, there are a number of tests I've listed above to see if you can choose your beliefs, and all you have to do to prove your point is take the tests.



Can you elaborate on that a bit?  Why were you doing that research?  Was it because you had decided to believe in God, or was it because you were looking for ammunition to use against christians?  What was your intent when you started that research?  Was your goal to become a christian, or did your beliefs change despite your goal of finding something else?





Happy and angry are emotions, not beliefs.  And they change as reaction to experiences, not as choices.  If emotion was purely a choice, everyone would be happy all the time.  But again, you're implying that you can choose your beliefs, regardless of your experiences.  That implies that your belief in God is a result just of your choice, not of your experiences (ie, nothing makes you believe in God, you've just chosen to do so, and you could just as easily choose not to).



Why not?  If it's just a choice, there's no downside to trying them.  You can change your beliefs and then just change them back a few seconds later.


Really?  You can video tape a teenager deciding to not believe in gravity multiple times a day?  I'd like to see that!  You say the test is unlikely to be of interest, but I'm saying I'm interested in it.  It would prove your case, so it seems like you should have an interest in it.  I say again:  your unwillingness to even try these tests indicate to me that you're not capable of making the choices involved in them.  If you are correct, it would be trivial for you to prove me wrong.  The fact that you won't says to me that you can't, and thus are not correct in your assertion.


I'm not sure what could be more clear cut than this.  We have a very simple test, that will require almost no effort on your part, will take up a few seconds of your time, and after it, you can be 100% sure you're correct.  That's about the most clear cut discussion you'll ever have.  You'll struggle to ever find anything so easy to tests as this.  You could have conducted the test 20 times in the time it's taken you to read this post.  But again, you won't, and your only reason for this is that you claim you're "not interested."


Really, you don't feel insulted when people make claims about you?  Do you want me to go find examples of you taking offense to things people have said?


"You're a hypocritical bigot" is also at best a truthful statement, and at worst a mistaken belief.  But it's also a very insulting thing to say.  In fact, all insults could be described as "either truthful, or a mistaken belief."  That doesn't make then not insulting.  I'm telling you that what you say insults me, and that it isn't true.  I'm asking you not to make these statements about me, and I'm trying to make you understand why it's both insulting and inaccurate.  Do you feel the insulter's or the insultee's view of the statement is the one that matters most?

I don't know, I still feel pretty convinced that a person can change his own beliefs. Rarely can people change their beliefs as abruptly as saying "I no longer belief in gravity" and poof, it's true. It's also almost impossible to change your beliefs to something that is regularly proven wrong, unless you have a more complex belief system to explain it.

Changing someone's beliefs rapidly is generally called either teaching or brainwashing, depending on who is doing it. And there's no reason you can't do it to yourself. I changed my own beliefs on things like mathematics, sciences, history, philosophy, etc. by introducing external information. I've changed my behaviors by introducing external stimulus.

It's not hard, but it's rarely instantaneous, it is dangerous, and it requires creating an environment supportive of that. And I'm not sure saying 'stop believing in gravity! Believe in Allah!' are fair tests of this. It's like my asking you to test your car insurance by hitting a tree.

I think those examples are confusing belief and Knowledge.

Kowledge can be based on Belief bt is completly Different. Belief Emplyies that there is no basis for it. Knowing emplies you think you can proove it. (please note neither actually states which is fact, you can know something to be true and it not be)

For example I know that gravity Exists, If eny one askes my to proove it (other than looking at them blankly and working out if they are being serious) i can very very simply, by jumping. I bleieve hat there isn't a god, something wich i donl;t know for sure and can't proove either way. It's my oppinion tht has no real basis in anyting.

Changing someons knowledge is easy, show them something showing their logic to be flawed e.g someone jumps and never falls in the case of gravity. Changing belief is next to impossible unless you convert that belief into a knowledge. So if i knew for a fact that god didn't exist all it would take is proof of a god to change it, that would also convert belief that there isn't a god to knowledge that there is one in some cases.

Changing someones belief involves empathy reasoning debate and conversation that lasts a long time and relates to something important in their life or a major life event. no one can simply wave their finger and say i believe this is different but is something important enough happened in someones life their beliefs may be instantly changed to something radically different.

Some people However Know God exists, they don't just believe it to them it is a fact of life. this is where things are confusing as some people only believe in god, and of course the opposites are also true. Somone that knows there is a god has evidence that to them supports this validates this reasoning, the same is true in revese. and so it would be simple to change their views if eveidence could be submitted to the oppose this. Someone who simply believes in god has no reason or evidence that is simply somthing that in their heart to them is true.

But in the end this is all semantisc really.

I would disagree with you. Belief and knowledge are points on the same spectrum. Everything I believe in I have at least evidence for (that evidence can be direct, such as I prayed for a new car and the following week I won the lottery, or through reference, such as my dad says there's a god, or inference, or any of another of other methods).

Some things I have a lot of evidence for (when I jump, I fall back to the ground, evidence of gravity), and some not very much at all. Some evidence you may accept and some you may not.

But the only difference between belief in God and believe in gravity is the amount and quality of evidence, and yours and my shared experience of that evidence.

I make a distinction between belief and knowledge. Knowledge is that which has been empirically demonstrated, and belief is that which has not been empirically demonstrated but is consistent with the evidence.

(There is a third case "that which is inconsistent with the evidence", but I'm not going to risk insulting anyone by applying a name to it.)

When I work on math problems of the form 'prove or disprove P', I work towards it from both ends, not believe either alternative, and I find myself along the way repeatedly believing P, and then believing not P, before proving it. When I'm done I no longer believe; I know the answer.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:29, Fri 21 Sept 2012.

Unless you're talking about mathematics, 'proof' is just 'supported by repeatable evidence'. Gravity is not proven as absolutely true. It's possible the Earth and everything else is expanding at a constant rate which is keeping us down throuh acceleration. That's extremely unlikely, but it's difficult to disprove.

[emphasis added by Tycho]

This is what I've been saying all along here.  To change your beliefs, you require something to change it, whether it be external stimulus, a new insight you hadn't had before, teaching, experience, whatever.  It takes something else to cause you to change your belief; it's not just a choice.  You can want to believe something you don't, but that's not enough to change your belief.  Something has to happen to cause the change.  You can choose to look for that other something, whether by seeking out new stimuli, thinking on the issue looking for new insight, or whatever.  But what you're choosing is not your belief, but rather to take those various actions.  That's a big and important difference, because sometimes even when you try the various actions you think my might change your beliefs, your beliefs still don't end up changing.  You don't find the experience or insight that you're hoping for.

I don't know. I feel like choosing to change my belief, or choosing to self-administer a program which succeeds in change my belief are basically the same thing, and we're splitting hairs. It's like complaining that no one gets college degrees; they take lots of courses which warrants their getting a college degree, and not everyone is successful.

Ahhh, this is kind of going in circles. I get your point, but I think your point is based on the idea that if you can come up with an example that is really really extreme, then it proof something is always true.

I think it seems reasonable by looking at people, adults, teens, and children, that we can see examples of our beliefs changing back and forth. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. And it can be driven through time, experiences, emotions, rational, justification, or just because.








It was to argue about religion in general, christians in particular. But hindsight being what it is, I know it was because I wanted to rebel against God. People often want to have control over themselves, and that can include Christians. I wanted to prove why I didn't need God, and that he was flawed. I got upset with people for dumb things, was loud and foolish. And the people who were trying to explain or answer my critiques were doing it because they wanted for me to know God, but I was so busy tooting my own horn that I was in control, that I didn't listen to them. Literally I choose not to listen to them. Regardless of their evidence, I choose not God. The evidence was legit as it turned out.


There is biblical evidence that making the choice to believe does result in God stepping in to help you walk in the faith.





I thought I was trying to focus back on the point. You made a statement that you felt someone was being insulting because of their belief of the situation, and I pointed out that I don't think people should be all that offended because they have a different viewpoint.

You then mention that I get insulted when people make unflattering comments about me, and I reply that the number of insults from me compared to the insults from others are in disparity. (And I think that number includes slights that are from my beliefs, but viewed differently by others such as the insult of being thought as making a choice to believe.)

And the resulting question is....you asking if I don't get insulted by insulting comments?

This isn't building your point. This does not establish that name calling bothers people so therefore differing viewpoints is insulting.



Yea, I agree. I did point out that calling you a name was insulting.


Yea, I'm going to have to be clear, why do you feel it's insulting to have me state my belief on choice on beliefs?

Your argument shouldn't depend on it being your belief is that beliefs aren't a choice.

The actual insults against me seemed pretty clear cut right? Simply a dictionary says it's insulting.

  Well, the reaction for most is the insultee's view. (But often that because of our nature, and how we are looking at it. But in the end, we look at the intent of the insulter.

Example, if a 5 year old tells you you're old, and heavy, and look funny, do you really feel insulted? The intent wasn't harmful, but simple blunt honesty.

Plain and simple, you already know my intent is not to insult. That doesn't suggest that people cannot be offended by christians.

People DO get college degrees.  They CHOOSE to take courses, and they CHOOSE to pursue a degree.  Getting the degree isn't a choice; TRYING to get the degree is.  The difference may not be huge to most people, but to the people who did choose to try, but didn't get the result they were after, its insulting to say the result they got was their choice.

For example, imagine someone who studied very hard to get a scholarship so they could afford to go to college.  They worked really hard, got a scholarship, and went to college for two years, and were getting good grades.  Then one of their parents got sick, and they had to spend a bunch of time they would have used on studying to care for their sick parent.  Their grades start to drop because of this, and they end up losing their scholarship.  They're upset by this, but they realized they couldn't just let their parent go without help.  It would be insulting to them to say "well, you could have went to college, but you just chose not to."  That implies they didn't want to go to college, or were too lazy, or the like.  If you were that person who worked very hard, and came up short because of a situation that wasn't within your control, you'd likely feel hurt and stung if someone implied that your lack of degree was just because you didn't want to go to college.

That's the difference between choosing your ACTIONS which we can do, and choosing the RESULTS of our actions, which we can't.  We can pick actions that we think are LIKELY to results in results we seek, but it's not guaranteed.  When we imply that the results someone get are their choice, we ignore the fact that they might have been aiming for a very different result.

Likewise with beliefs.  When you say someone "chooses to believe" you're implying that they've just picked what they WANT to be true, and started believing in that.  It implies DESIRE for that result to be true, when in reality, they may wish for a completely different belief.  It implies that they're willfully ignoring evidence, and that they're close minded, when in reality it could be that they've looked at the same evidence that you have, but weren't moved by it in the same way.  More to the point, it implies (and is often followed by an explicit statement) "you could believe what I do, if you just decided to," but that's not the case.

It's more that a single counter example, no matter how extreme, disproves a general statement.  You've said that beliefs are choices.  If I can find a single example of that not being the case, then it proves that you are incorrect.  Doesn't matter if my example is extreme, because your blanket statement is also extreme.

But, if you think the gravity one is too extreme, try example 2.  This one can't be labelled unreasonable, I would argue, because it is exactly the case you're saying is a choice.  Try to change your beliefs about God by a choice.  You're stating explicitly that this is something that people choose.  I'm saying, no, it's not possible to simply change your beliefs by a choice.  You can prove my wrong by trying it.  Why not give it a go?  Won't take you but 30 seconds to show me that I'm wrong.  To me, your unwillingness to try indicates that you realize, at some level, that that's not the way things actually work.  Just as you can't turn your belief in God off on a whim, neither can I turn it on by a simple act of will.

I think it seems reasonable by loo
Yes, me too.  I've never said that beliefs can't or don't change.


You're changing your position here.  Before you said it was a choice, now you're offering a list of things which can do it.  Which is it?  How can it be driven by experience if it's a choice?  Those are two completely different mechanisms.



Cool, that's how I had remembered you describing it before.  Now, which part of that would you describe as "choosing to believe in God?"  Because to me, it looks like your intent was the exact opposite of that.  You were anti-God.  You didn't want to believe in God, and you weren't actively seeking Him out.  Your beliefs changed DESPITE what you wanted.  They were forced on you by the experiences you had.  The choice you made was to look for ammunition to use against christians, and the result you got was completely the opposite of what you sought.  You didn't decide to believe in God, and then start reading the bible and looking for evidence of Him, the way you're implying (and sometimes stating explicitly) non-christians should do.  The path you took to christianity wasn't anything like the one you're telling people they should take.  Your conversion wasn't a choice you made to become a christian, but rather an UNINTENDED reaction to stuff you had read.  I'm struggling to understand how this can be so hard for you to see, when you've experienced it first hand yourself.  You've lived a perfect example of your desired beliefs not matching the beliefs that were forced on you by experience.  Why is it hard for you to believe that other people can have similar situations, but in the opposite direction?


There is also real-world evidence that sometime people making the choice to seek Jesus/God/Allah/whoever end up not finding what they're looking for, just as when you sought to disprove God you ended up with something entirely different.


Good, then we can agree that "well, my statement is at best true, and at worst a mistaken belief" doesn't mean that your statement wasn't insulting.


Because you're saying something about me which is A) untrue, and B) unflattering.


The thing is, if you did it once, I'd happily accept your intent isn't to insult.  If you said it once, and I said "actually, that's not true, and I find it rather insulting that you'd say that about me," and you said "oh, I'm sorry!  I certainly didn't mean to insult you, I won't phrase it that way again," everything would be fine and dandy.  But instead you say "actually, you can't be insulted, and you'd better just get used to it, because I'm not changing."  I can't tell if you intend to be insulting or not, but it certainly seems clear that you aren't bothered if I'm insulted.

Blunt honesty is one thing, but blunt DIShonesty is another.  I'm telling you that my beliefs are not within my direct control.  I can't simply decide to change my beliefs by a choice.  I'm telling you that what you're saying about me isn't true.  I'm offering tests for you to try, so that you can see for yourself that what you're saying isn't true.  But you say the tests "aren't interesting" to you.  If you were being bluntly honest that'd be one thing.  But you're not being honest at all, you're just asserting a false position about me, and refusing to consider the possibility that what you've said is wrong.  It'd be like me going around saying "TitL is a racist!  He totally hates black people!"  and you saying "what?!  That's not true at all?  Please stop saying such things!"  And me saying "yeah, I'm gonna keep saying it."  Then you might say "why do you think I'm racist?  What have I done to make you think that?  What could I do to prove to you that I'm not?"  And I say, "listen, I'm just going to keep saying it.  I'm not interested in you trying to prove otherwise.  This is what I believe about you, so I'm going to tell everyone.  I don't see why you're offended, it's just my belief, right?"  Then you might try to show me a bunch of examples to try to prove that you're not racist, maybe videos of you standing up to acts of racist or the like, and I say "yeah, I just don't think that's very interesting.  I'm not going to look at your videos.  I'm just going to keep saying you're racist."  That wouldn't be a case of me being "bluntly honest."  It'd be a case of me being a jerk.

That's kind of how I feel here.  You're making an asserting about me, but "aren't interested" in considering my evidence that what you're saying about me isn't true.  You're only interesting in making the claim, not in considering counter evidence.  That's very frustrating to me.  I feel like I've provided a simple test that you can use to see if you're right or wrong about your claims about me, a test so simple you don't even need to get off your chair to try it.  A test so simple you could do it in a matter of seconds without next to no effort.  But you seem to view even that as asking too much of you.  You seem to think that having to test whether the things you're saying about me are true is an entirely unreasonable expectation.  It frustrates me, and I don't understand it.  If you're wrong, don't you want to know?  Are you so sure of yourself that you think it's impossible that you're wrong?  Is 30 seconds of thought experiment really too much to ask of you to test your assertion?  We've batted this discussion back and forth many, many times now.  It's taken up a lot of time for both of us.  You could end it forever by just choosing to believe something you currently don't believe for 5 seconds.  You could say "yep, I just tried it, and like I said, it works.  I changed by belief in God to belief in Allah for 5 seconds, then switched it back.  It was that easy, just like I told you." and then I'd have no leg to stand on.  Or, if you tried it, and found you couldn't do it, you could just say "okay, I tried it, and it turns out you were right.  Sorry for the confusion, I'll say 'you choose not to read the bible' or 'you choose not to go to church' or whatever from now on, instead of 'you choose not to believe in God'" and the whole thing will be done with.  Why not try it?  Why spend the time telling me how not interested you are?  Why spend the time telling me the example is too extreme?  why not just try it, and be done with it.  It would save us both a lot of typing and frustration.  The very worst that could happen is that you'd realize you were wrong.  Is that such a horrible result?  If you are wrong, wouldn't you prefer to know?

Yes, and they also choose to change beliefs.




It may be insulting, but it would also be true. That person did have the choice to prioritize college over family. He wanted to go to college, but he wanted to care for his parents more. While the parents getting sick wasn't in his control, his decision to help them was.

Similarly, we can choose to <insert steps> change our beliefs. You can enroll yourself in cults or churches. You can undergo behavior modification programs. You can create a self-consistent philosophy. It may take more work and cost more than you're willing to pay, but you can do it.



This is a different point. If your paradigm is "I believe what the Koran says" or "I believe what I can independently test", then someone saying Jesus is lord won't sway you on its own. You could change that paradigm so you could believe. But you have no motivation to do so. And that's a totally different question.

I don't believe in Allah because the paradigm I used to understand the world doesn't support it, and because I don't think it would be a profitable decision for me. I recognize this is the case. If I were motivated to believe in Allah, if my wife said I have to, and I really wanted to make her happy and was willing to sacrifice anything for her, I could learn a different paradigm, a different way to understand the world, and build a belief structure which supports believing in ALlah.

It may be insulting, but it would also be true. That person did have the choice to prioritize college over family. He wanted to go to college, but he wanted to care for his parents more. While the parents getting sick wasn't in his control, his decision to help them was.</quote>
It would be accurate to say they prioritized helping their sick parent over college, yes, that would be fair to say.  But that's different from saying they chose not to go to college.  In fact, they chose to go to college, but had to drop out, against their will, because their grades fell and they could no longer afford it.  They could have chosen not to help their parent, and that would likely have led to them finishing college, but they couldn't just choose to end up with the degree.  If it were up to them, they'd have helped their parent AND gotten a degree, but that option wasn't on the list for them.  When you say "you didn't want to go to college," you're implying something very different.  And "you chose not to go to college" implies more or less the same thing.




Yes, you can TRY to change your beliefs, but there's no guarantee it will work.  You can definitely say "you choose not to go to church" or "you choose not to enroll in this cult" or the like, that would be accurate.  But many people have gone to church, and still ended up not believing.  Many people have enrolled in cults, and later realized they didn't buy what was being told to them there.  These things increase the chances of getting one result or another, but they don't guarantee it.  That's why it's important to separate the things that are under our control (e.g., going to church, joining a cult, etc.) from the things that aren't (i.e., what our beliefs turn out to be after taking those actions).


You could TRY to do those things, and you MIGHT succeed, but I assert that there's no guarantee that they would work (if there were, there would never be crises of faith, never been conversions, etc--everyone would just believe whatever they were motivated to believe).  And again, doing all that work, putting in that effort, is different from "choosing".  Making a choice is an instantaneous, just-in-your-head thing.  Doing a bunch of work in attempt to change your own mind is different.  That's an action, usually an extended, involved one.

Why this is important is because some people (such as myself) have done thing things that people tell them will change their beliefs.  They've gone to church, they've read the holy book, they've prayed, they've done this or that, and still not been convinced.  Telling them that they've "made a choice" creates the impression that they haven't done all that.  It implies that they're not willing to give it a fair try.

I have been following this conversation and cannot pretend to understand all of the nuances of the discussion but I thought that this final paragraph was an important one.  It's the very core argument of some religions (particularly of the LDS church) that if you don't agree then you have made the CHOICE not to agree (or that you have not actually done what you have claimed - pray for the confirmation of the burning in the bosom for example), when in fact that isn't the case at all.  You may have done all of what is asked of you with real sincerity and not come to the same conclusion because of forces external to your own beliefs.  My own experience resonates with this wholeheartedly in that I prayed like a madman to have a confirmation of the existence of God only to have complete and utter silence on the issue and thus being forced to change my beliefs despite my desire not to.

I can see more of where you are coming from here now Tycho.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 21):

http://www.advocate.com/politi...t-choose-be-straight

This seems relevant to this topic as well.

I'm cutting a lot here because I think your example is poor, and this bit gets to the point.

Yes, not everyone will succeed at something. In this case, there are three big factors;
1) The belief may be too hard to accept. For instance, relativity is hard for me to even understand, so it's hard for me to accept it. Similar with Natural Law.

2) The person may not be willing to sacrifice enough to get it. Sure, it's nice to say 'if you pray for thirty seconds, you'll know', but I don't think that's really likely. If you aren't adopting the mental paradigm behind it, if you don't accept the authorities, or if you do accept contradicting authorities, you'll not get it. And the only way to get over that is to do that tough work to change your personality and make yourself into ground fertile for that idea.

3) The person may just be incapable of doing it. Just like there are some people who can't pass a college course no matter how hard they try, some people won't be able to. All of his friends can, but he can't, and nothing will change that.

4) The person doesn't want to, and being motivated to the contrary, will never succeed.

The second and fourth are most certainly choices. I can't think of any other options (you're welcome to suggest some). Even with more, we can at least agree that these four do stand.

Okay, excellent!  I'm making at least a little progress here, at least.  I know it's a somewhat subtle issue, and probably seems like splitting hairs to many folks, and I'm sure I'm not doing the best at articulating it, but it's encouraging that at least one other person can sort of see what I'm trying to get at here.  Probably helps that you've had the experience of trying to choose one belief, and arriving at another, so know first hand that we don't just get to believe whatever we want.



Okay this is at least something to build on.  Very first off, lets say that you've identified at least four possibilities, and said two of them are choices.  That indicates that 2 of them AREN'T choices, no?  So just from that, it seems fair to say that we shouldn't lump all of them together under the same description of "choice," right?  Since they're all different, I'd say that we should describe them all differently.

So for #1, instead of saying "you choose not to believe!" say "This is too hard for you to understand."  That's still a bit insulting, but I'd prefer someone to call me stupid than to call me willfully close-minded.  And it least it makes more clear that the person doing the talking views themselves as mentally superior.  If that's their view, then that's what they should say, rather than making it a "choice" thing.

For #2, the actual choice is to do the hard work, so we should say that, rather than try to make it sound like no work it all by just saying "you choice not to believe."  I have no problem with someone saying that I choose not to go to church, because it's true.  I have no objection to anyone saying that I choose not to study the bible 20 hours a day.  I have no problem with someone saying I choose not to submit to brainwashing.  I have no problem with someone saying I choose not to make huge sacrifices in my life, such as leaving my family to join a religious order, or giving up all my worldly possessions.  I do, indeed, choose not to do those things.  I'd prefer if anyone pointing all that out acknowledged the REASON I don't do all those things, though.  It's not just that I'm lazy, it's that I don't think it'll work.  I'd be willing to do many of those things IF I really thought it'd lead to a better view of the truth.  But even if they just said I choose not to do those things without mentioning why, I'd still be okay with it, because it would be true.  I'm happy for people to talk about the actions I choose to take.  But when they equate them with choosing beliefs, they're imposing their views on the likely effects of those actions on me, and it starts to become inaccurate.

For #3, just say I'm not capable of holding a certain belief.  I certainly think that's true in many cases, and I don't mind if people say so.  Again, though, it's not a choice, so don't call it a choice.

On #4, I think we disagree somewhat on whether motivation is a 100% protection against changing belief.  I think its usually a pretty good shield, but even people motivated against a particular belief sometimes end up holding it.  TitL is a good example.  He wasn't just an atheist, he was actively anti-christian.  He was reading the bible to seek out evidence AGAINST God that he could throw at Christians.  He was as motivated to not accept a change in beliefs as they come, it sounds like, and yet he became convinced by what he read.  If someone who's actively hostile to christianity can have their mind changed, surely someone who's just skeptical of it (such as myself), could as well, and thus we shouldn't put their beliefs down just to choice, no?

I think something I mentioned in point 2 is important to highlight.  When we make choices, we do so from a certain perspective.  What we already believe will influence what we choose.  Choices we make might turn out to have bad results, but still be the best decision at the time based on what we knew/believed/expected.  When we say things like "you choose to X" where X is a result, not an action, we skip over the important aspect of whether you think you can actually get X by taking a certain action.

That's probably a bit too abstract, so I'll try another example.  Imagine that on saturdays you normally take your kids to soccer practice while your wife sleeps in.  On friday night your wife says "ya know, I haven't seen the kids play soccer in quite a while, I'd really like to take them to practice tomorrow.  How 'bout I take them to soccer and you sleep in for a change?"  You say "Sure thing, hun!"  So saturday comes, the wife and kids hop in the minivan, and head off to soccer practice, and you go back to sleep.  An hour or so later there's a knock at the door, and you see a policeman on your doorstep.  You are informed that there's been a horrible car accident, and that your wife and kids have all been killed.

Obviously this a horrible, horrible situation.  It's also one that happens in the real world.  Now you made choices in this story.  Your wife made choices in this story.  And the result was a horrible tragedy.  But it's not fair to say that you chose that tragedy. It's not fair to say your wife chose it.  It would be a cruel person indeed who would say "well, you chose to let your wife and kids die so that you could get a few minutes more sleep."  It wouldn't be just cruel to say that, it'd be factually incorrect.  You did choose to sleep in, yes, but DIDN'T choose for your wife and kids to get into an accident and die.  That happened, in part as a result of your choice, but it's not what you chose.

What you choose, and what you get as a result of your choice are two different things.  If someone says you chose to let your wife and kids get into a car accident, they're implying a few things.  First, that you were aware, or at least expected, that their death would result from your choice.  Second, it implies that it was your goal/desire/intention to achieve that result.  By saying you chose it, they're implying that it wasn't just an unintended or unexpected consequence of your decision, but rather the intended outcome of it.

It's similar with religious beliefs.  I make many choices about my actions.  I'm happy to own all those choices, and for people to point them out and draw attention to them.  It may also be the case that if I made other choices, my religious beliefs would change.  I'm happy for people claim this explicitly, such as saying "if you went to church, you'd be overcome by the holy spirit and you'd start to believe."  I probably won't agree with them, but they're making a testable claim, one I can give a try if I like (or in this case, one I've already tried in the past).  When they make such claims, they're not blurring the issue of who believes what.  It's clear that they think action X will lead to result Y, and I'm free to say "okay, I'll try it" or "yeah, I don't think that will actually work," but it's all above board in this case.

But once they make the leap to "you choose not to believe," they're shifting their beliefs about the effect of the actions onto me, and implying that I share those beliefs, and still choose not to take the action.  They're tacitly saying "you know that going to church will lead to your beliefs changing, but you're still not doing it!"  They're ignoring the fact that I don't actually think going to church will change my religious beliefs.  Like the father in the example story, my expectations about what will happen could be way, way off.  But that's an error in my ability to predict the outcome of the action, not a desire for the outcome that results.  And it's a crucial difference.

And this is why it's not just splitting hairs in my opinion.  The reason TitL takes different actions than me is because we have different beliefs about the likely results of those actions.  It's not that he's a hard worker, and I'm lazy (though that may be the case).  It's not that he's a good person and I'm a horrible person (though that may be the case).  The important difference is that he thinks going to church will lead to one result, and I think it'll lead to another.  It's entirely possible that he's right, and I'm wrong.  But if I thought he was right, I'd do the same thing he does.  The difference isn't our decision making, it's the prior information we use to make the decisions.

The different decisions are consequences of our different beliefs.  When we call the beliefs choices, we get the cause and effect backwards.  My decisions are the right ones based on what I know and believe.  TitL's decisions are the right ones based on what he believes.  Change our beliefs, and you'll change our decisions.  The difference between us isn't our decision making, it's the beliefs and knowledge that inform the decision making.

When we call something a choice, we're making a claim about the other persons goals, desires, intents.  But in the case of religion, those aren't things that differ between TitL and I.  We'd both prefer to go to heaven than to hell.  We'd both prefer God to be loving and good rather than hateful and evil.  We'd both like to be forgiven for the bad things we've done.  We'd both like to see people get punished for the bad things they've done.  We'd both be more than happy to put time, effort, sweat, tears, etc., into helping a good, loving God make the world a better place.  We agree on all that stuff.  Where we disagree is on whether God is real.  On whether going to church, praying, reading the bible, or whatnot lets you experience God one-to-one.  The reason we act differently is not so much that we want different things to happen, but rather that we EXPECT different things to happen.  Calling it just a difference in choices hides all that.  It brushes over the real difference, and tries to attribute the difference to something else.

In the same way it's not fair to say that the father in our example story chose to let his wife and kids get into a car accident, it's not fair to say someone chooses not to believe something.  In both cases, we don't expect the stated result to come about from our actions, and if we did, we'd make different choices.  By calling it a choice, you imply desire or intent for the result (whether that be a dead family, or a different religious belief), when there really isn't intent there at all.