Beliefs not subject to will

[KevinK]

Do you think our beliefs are subject to our will? Beliefs are based on evidence, not on the basis of desire. No matter how much you may want to believe that a proposition is true, you cannot bring yourself to do so simply by willing that you do so. You cannot will yourself to believe that God dictated the Koran to Muhammed or that it is the year 1955. How can non-believers will themselves to believe in God, or non-Catholics in Catholic doctrine, if the evidence doesn’t move them in that direction?

 

[adgloriam]

Beliefs are based on evidence

Beliefs are based on believing. Certainty or knowledge are based on evidence. Faith is based both on believing and certainty.

You can believe a lie or not believe it. Without evidence it is matter of belief. You can also not believe evidence.

So, you can want to believe. And accept matters of faith with or without evidence.

 

[Kei]

Why do people have different political opinions?

 

[dmar198]

Do you think our beliefs are subject to our will?

Yes.

Beliefs are based on evidence, not on the basis of desire.

Sometimes they are based solely on desire. This is unfortunate.

No matter how much you may want to believe that a proposition is true, you cannot bring yourself to do so simply by willing that you do so.

Yes you can. People do it all the time with conspiracy theories, ufos, and veganism. They have no evidence for their new beliefs, but they decided one day that they wanted to believe it, so they did.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you think our beliefs are subject to our will?

You ask a question, and then answer a subtly different one.

Are you asking whether our beliefs are entirely subject to will? That is, that only the will determines belief?

No. There’s more than will, so not in entirety. Yet, the will is engaged in the process of belief. I can take your example and turn it on itself: one might have enough evidence to reach a conclusion and yet, simply by force of will, decide not to believe in the proposition which the evidence supports.

 

[MPat]

Do you think our beliefs are subject to our will?

Yes, they are. To some extent.

Beliefs are based on evidence, not on the basis of desire.

I’m afraid that is precisely the example of a belief based on desire and not evidence…

Desires can also “manipulate” the evidence that is presented.

No matter how much you may want to believe that a proposition is true, you cannot bring yourself to do so simply by willing that you do so.

Have you ever tried? It is not hard. For example, I believe that P = NP. Not because of any evidence, but because I am more likely to discover a good algorithm for NP-complete problems, than to discover a proof that this is impossible.

The problem is that you are assuming that you are dealing with just two options: 1) beliefs are based on evidence, nothing else plays any part, or 2) beliefs are based on desires, nothing else plays any part.

And both those options are wrong. Many things play a part in our coming to believe something. Yes, evidence does play a part, and desires play a part too.

 

[adgloriam]

KevinK:

Do you think our beliefs are subject to our will?

You ask a question, and then answer a subtly different one.

Yes, @KevinK tends to do that.[What for is a good question? Shamelessly misleading…]
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[AIPM1615]

Beliefs are based on evidence, not on the basis of desire.

Not to politicize this, but I would say transgendered people believe they are a different gender based on desire instead of empirical evidence and biology. Many of them believe it wholeheartedly. But that doesn’t make their belief any less false.

No matter how much you may want to believe that a proposition is true, you cannot bring yourself to do so simply by willing that you do so.

Like Dmar198 said, people do this all the time.

Beliefs are based on will. They are not based on evidence. Reason being, you first have to will to accept the evidence before you can believe what it supports.

That’s a good point. Accepting evidence is itself an act of the will. One has to desire truth and to desire a set of beliefs for evidence to make any sense at all.

How can non-believers will themselves to believe in God, or non-Catholics in Catholic doctrine, if the evidence doesn’t move them in that direction?

If the evidence doesn’t move them in that direction, then they can’t will themselves to believe. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But where the evidence takes a person can’t be generalized. Just because you don’t feel compelled to believe in Christianity doesn’t mean that someone else can feel differently. C.S. Lewis, for example, was a staunch atheist before evidence drew him to religion.

 

[BlackFriar]

Beliefs are not exactly based on “evidence” as with science.
They are based on a reasonable conviction about the testator I would think.

But reason comes into it as the launching pad (the “motives of credibility”).
But “take off” requires actual grace from God.

 

[pocaracas]

KevinK:

Beliefs are based on evidence

Beliefs are based on believing. Certainty or knowledge are based on evidence. Faith is based both on believing and certainty.

You can believe a lie or not believe it. Without evidence it is matter of belief. You can also not believe evidence.

So, you can want to believe. And accept matters of faith with or without evidence.

Why do people have different political opinions?

I think you’re both on to something… Why do people believe in whatever they believe?

As we develop, during our childhood, we are taught a series of things. Most are useful for practical things, like how to eat, but some end up informing our internal “picture” of reality. Most of this comes from our caretakers, our parents, our teachers - people in our lives in whom we trust… Why do we trust them? Some keep us alive, some feed our intellect, some say things we can’t disprove…
If I believe the person in whom I trust, I believe the things that person conveys, I believe the interpretation of reality that this person gives me… and if more people around me agree with it, I get reinforcement of that interpretation, strengthening my belief in it.

It seems that ultimately, it has to do with trusting the people who feed us… we believe in what they say, and, eventually, we do it to others, thus maintaining a self-perpetuating cycle.
As long as it’s not something that is easily disproved, belief rules, regardless of the actual truth value of the thing being believed.

 

[Kei]

I don’t think it is so simple. For instance, my sister is very much a Democrat whereas I am more a Republican. We were both raised in the same household. It would be odd to say it is based upon the beliefs of our parents, for both of our opinions have changed and grew over the years.

I reccomend that people are simply different. Sometimes people are lacking in reason or study, and this causes a differing opinion, but in other moments it comes down to the differences in people.

The same evidence can often be interpreted in differing ways. There is a phrase I believe just may be true, that it is not the facts of a matter the heat are persuasive, but the arguments using them.

 

[chieft]

Many of my beliefs are from Grace. Sanctifying Grace. We believe simply because God said so. Period. What no eye has seen or ear has heard.

 

[KevinK]

The same evidence can often be interpreted in differing ways.

The question is whether we have the free will to interpret evidence a certain way. If two people interpret the same evidence differently it doesn’t seem likely they are “choosing” which way to believe. It seems more likely the biology of their brain is deciding. Otherwise a person should be able to “will” themselves to believe in a particular religion even if they innately don’t find the evidence persuasive. People often accuse atheists on not “wanting” to believe in God; but if their brains cannot accept the evidence provided, how can they believe otherwise?

 

[Kei]

Belief in God is innate in humanity.
That’s kinda undeniable.
Here are two ways to look at that:
1 is to deny God even further through it, saying that it’s biological and why we come to believe is wired in us (implying that this would then imply that our biology is against truth).
2 is to say that we are created with a longing for God because God exists, and hence we are created to believe in and love Him.

Now, which one one leans towards is likely decided by his or her previous beliefs or conclusion.
So then the question is really how we come to our basic beliefs about the nature of reality.

And the anewer can vary depending upon how much we take of proper reason, our experience, and the evidence gathered to us.
Our experiences are all different (naturally). The evidence for this way or that differs from person to person (naturally). And, the amount of proper reason taken up by someone will also naturally differ.

If Catholicism is true, then faith is a gift, and one which grows the more one interacts with it. Also, reason is a thing used when one interacts with it wilfully. Hence, our ability to decide our basic worldview then is determined by our willingness to be open to/accept the graces and gifts of God, according to the Catholic worldview (from my estimation. Another Catholic correct me if I am wrong).

 

[MPat]

The question is whether we have the free will to interpret evidence a certain way. If two people interpret the same evidence differently it doesn’t seem likely they are “choosing” which way to believe. It seems more likely the biology of their brain is deciding. Otherwise a person should be able to “will” themselves to believe in a particular religion even if they innately don’t find the evidence persuasive. People often accuse atheists on not “wanting” to believe in God; but if their brains cannot accept the evidence provided, how can they believe otherwise?

Isn’t it interesting that this very text points out several beliefs (“It seems more likely the biology of their brain is deciding.”, “People cannot will themselves to believe a religion if they don’t find the evidence persuasive”, “People wrongly accuse atheists of not wanting to believe in God.”), but no evidence whatsoever?

And, of course, the last sentence points out the desire to think that those beliefs were true… For if they were true, atheists (including the author of the post) would be blameless…

For that matter, it is not that hard to see that evidence shows that beliefs can be affected by will - some arguments have been given in this very thread, one can also look at St. Thomas Aquinas in “Summa Theologica” arguing about unbelief (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A2THEP1) or about act of reason being commanded by will (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS017.html#FSQ17A6THEP1).

Not to mention one more piece of evidence: none of this is likely to change the relevant beliefs of the original poster.

 

[pocaracas]

I don’t think it is so simple. For instance, my sister is very much a Democrat whereas I am more a Republican. We were both raised in the same household. It would be odd to say it is based upon the beliefs of our parents, for both of our opinions have changed and grew over the years.

I recommend you read what people write, before disagreeing:

Most of this comes from our caretakers, our parents, our teachers - people in our lives in whom we trust…

 

[whyeyeman]

Why do people have different political opinions?

Because some people are wrong.

 

[pocaracas]

Belief in God is innate in humanity.
That’s kinda undeniable.

Yes, kinda…
The reason for that, however, is debatable.

Here are two ways to look at that:
1 is to deny God even further through it, saying that it’s biological and why we come to believe is wired in us (implying that this would then imply that our biology is against truth).
2 is to say that we are created with a longing for God because God exists, and hence we are created to believe in and love Him.

See?.. let’s take your #1, our tendency to believe is biologically wired in us. Why would that be against truth?
What is the truth of the matter? Do you know? Does anyone know? How could anyone know?

There are speculations and the one I’ve heard that seems to me to be most plausible is the social inclusion factor.
On a society, a tribe, a family group, etc. in which a majority of people believe in a particular superstition, it is beneficial for a particular individual to also believe in it, so as to belong to the group and not become an outcast with little chance of ever propagating his/her genes.
Given enough generations, a tendency for belief in superstitions arises… but it hasn’t had quite enough time in humans, that’s why you still need the support of other people to bring forth that belief and strengthen it… preferably as a child.

 

[Kei]

Perhaps you misunderstood my point.
In my #1, which I meant to be the atheistic world view (though indeed it is not necessarily against belief) was that our biological inclination would be against truth, as our biological inclination would be to believe in God, which an atheistic worldview rejects.

 

[pocaracas]

Perhaps you misunderstood my point.
In my #1, which I meant to be the atheistic world view (though indeed it is not necessarily against belief) was that our biological inclination would be against truth, as our biological inclination would be to believe in God, which an atheistic worldview rejects.

Yeah… I must have.
I see you using the word truth here and before as if the belief towards which we are inclined is representative of any truth.
What is truth, to you?

For example, our biological inclination is to consider the ground beneath our feet as a flat expanse… and also that the stars, moon and sun spin around us… but are those the truth?
Or should one be careful with how one interprets the reality around us?
Which, would you say, is our best mechanism for ascertaining truth?