Free will versus belief

[Qoeleth]

Very good question. I myself struggled with belief in God for many years. Even today, I still cannot honestly say I believe things like “God will take care of things”, or “If you pray, God will help you.” But, I am tolerant of those who do.

Eventually, I decided that belief in God was necessary- it was either that or be a nihilist. But even then, I still had (and have) immense troubles believing in a ‘Being’ as such. Perhaps more like an an unknown “X”, beyond existence and non-existence, which is the object of the heart’s desire- forever beyond us, dwelling in the cold, white, inaccessible light of no-thingness. Maybe God is the void. Maybe God is simply the word or idea ‘God’. I don’t know. My apologies for toying with possibly unorthodox ideas. But whatever God ‘is’, I believe in ‘Him’.

But that is where Jesus comes in. It is possible to make a decision to follow the Gospel Law of Jesus- since it is not a proposition, but a set of imperatives and ethical principles. So, Christian ‘belief’ is not so much intellectual consent to a proposition or hypothesis, but a decision to follow the Law of God. “The only way we know God is by keeping the commandments,” as St. John wrote.

So, ‘belief’ is a decision, but it must also be qualified as a ‘quasi-belief’- deciding to act as if something were true, all the while not really ‘knowing’.

The decision in favour of ‘belief’, becomes, in effect, an act of rebellion against the universal meaninglessness.

 

[Qoeleth]

You presented that one is able to “self-brainwash” oneself into believeing something that was unbelievable.

But maybe brainwashing can be good. Imagine this- life is totally futile, and the universe means nothing but tedium and pain. So, why not brainwash oneself into believing something, eh? Maybe there is something else?

Don’t you watch ‘imaginary’ movies, or play 'imaginary ‘computer games’. Maybe it helps get you through life. By your thinking, rather than watching TV or a computer, you would prefer to stare at the wall, since that is not ‘imaginary’?

In fact, everything, social interaction and structures, the value of money, the purposes of life, the unity of the universe are all ‘imaginary’. What is the problem then?

The capacity to imagine is, in fact, a part of being human.

 

[minkymurph]

My understanding of belief is that it involves choice. To clarify, I would define belief as acceptance something is either true or false when facts and evidence are insufficient to establish for certain whether it is true or false. As such, one must make a choice in terms of what, or who, they believe. So, we can and do choose what we believe, or in fact don’t believe. Not such a strange concept when we consider the fact that we choose to believe or not believe things every day in the absence of sufficient facts or evidence.

If something is an established fact, there is no choice involved simply because there is no need to make a choice. However, one could to choose to reject the fact which in my view involves choice and belief, in that on is choosing to believe the fact is not true.

 

[Trurl]

Iron Donkey:

The tooth fairy hypothesis posits that your teeth are taken from under your pillow by a magical creature. Given that your teeth are not taken from under your pillow by a magical creature, but rather your parents, this hypothesis is false.

An incorrect hypothesis does not equal an internally contradictory one. Since you are unable to comprehend the difference, it is time to stop wasting more time on you. Good bye.

Qoeleth:

But maybe brainwashing can be good. Imagine this- life is totally futile, and the universe means nothing but tedium and pain. So, why not brainwash oneself into believing something, eh? Maybe there is something else?

We are talking about two different things here. Of course a little fantasy never hurt anyone - as long as it stays a fantasy and it is not confused with reality. if one starts to believe that the fantasy life is reality, some nasty surprises are awaiting around the corner. Reality does not care what we think about it.

Also, as long as one does not like what reality is, one can try to “fix” it, and improve it. To escape into a fantasy world is self-desctructive. Of course most theists are perfectly rational in real life. It is only when it comes to their fatasy world that they abandon reason for faith, and since that fantasy is conveniently separate from reality, this process is relatively harmless. Of course they waste a lot of time on meaningless rituals, but it is their life, so no one should try to “save them from themselves”.

Qoeleth:

So, ‘belief’ is a decision, but it must also be qualified as a ‘quasi-belief’- deciding to act as if something were true, all the while not really ‘knowing’.

“Belief” itself is not to be confused with a “decision”.

Qoeleth:

The decision in favour of ‘belief’, becomes, in effect, an act of rebellion against the universal meaninglessness.

What are you talking about? Most of the universe is simply “dead” matter, without use, without meaning, without purpose. As far as we know only on this small, insignificant planet exists something we call “life” (Of course I hope we are mistaken. It would be awesome to see other intelligent beings “out there”.). Life is defined as an endeavor to maintain one’s homeostatis in a changing environment. As such we create “meaning” for ourselves. There was a nice saying: "The man shouts at the Universe: “Sir, I exist!”… The Universe replies: “Ok, but that fact does not create in me a sense of obligation!”… Who cares if we exist, or not? We do, and that is enough.

minkymurph:

My understanding of belief is that it involves choice. To clarify, I would define belief as acceptance something is either true or false when facts and evidence are insufficient to establish for certain whether it is true or false. As such, one must make a choice in terms of what, or who, they believe. So, we can and do choose what we believe, or in fact don’t believe. Not such a strange concept when we consider the fact that we choose to believe or not believe things every day in the absence of sufficient facts or evidence.

The point is that the decision making process largely happens in the subconscious. Sure, we do not have all the information about a claim, you are right there. When we have incomplete information, our mind starts to evaluate how likely the claim might be - all based upon our existing knowledge. If the claim is “likely enough”, we might decide to accept it (hopefully on a provisional basis). But the point is that the theists keep on harping that one can “decide” to accept even the most outlandish claims, since the process is “volitional”. Of course they are wrong, since the process is not volitional.

If you hear that Joe Schmoe has won the lottery, you might be inclined to accept it, even without further evidence, since the claim is “not too unlikely”. Thousands of people have already won a jackpot on the lottery. But is someone claims that Joe won the jackpot on ten consecutive weeks on ten different lotteries, your internal “censor” will hopefully stop you from accepting that claim without further evidence.

To sum: “the more likely the claim is the less actual evidence is required to accept it”. Really outlandish claims are instinctively rejected by our subconscious, and no amount of “self-hypnosis” can change that.

 

[minkymurph]

The point is that the decision making process largely happens in the subconscious. Sure, we do not have all the information about a claim, you are right there. When we have incomplete information, our mind starts to evaluate how likely the claim might be - all based upon our existing knowledge. If the claim is “likely enough”, we might decide to accept it (hopefully on a provisional basis). But the point is that the theists keep on harping that one can “decide” to accept even the most outlandish claims, since the process is “volitional”. Of course they are wrong, since the process is not volitional.

I would make two assertions here. The first one is, one can decide to accept and outlandish claim. Of course whether it is a good idea to accept the outlandish claim is another matter. But it is possible and does happen. I know many people who profess to believe the most outlandish claims - not only in the face of insufficient evidence but in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For instance, there are those who believe the Holocaust did not happen. To illustrate further, I was listening to a radio broadcast recently in which a man claimed women are not equal to men because they are incapable of performing certain tasks that a man can. Further to this, he claimed men should not do housework as they do things around the home a woman cannot do. Therefore, she should do the housework. Needless to say, he was eaten alive, but no matter what evidence was presented to the contrary, he stood by his claim. Ultimately, he believed what he did because he wanted to believe it.

Perhaps I should move on to the rational, thinking being. I have to say, I have never heard it said belief in God is purely volitional. That is not to say it has not been said. Merely, I have never heard that said, and I would argue it is not. There comes a point in time when one does, and must, evaluate the claim. If the claim seems too outlandish, one will tend to reject it. However, it is more than possible an outlandish claim may be true, and that is the different between belief and fact. Fact seeks to establish what is, belief seeks to establish what might be and rather than seek certainty of factual evidence, seeks truth, and establishing what is true ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as they say in court, is another matter.

To illustrate in brief. In the case of Woolmington, a man was charged with the murder of his wife. His defense was it was an accident, which on the facts of the case was highly unlikely and no one believed he was innocent., but he was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt his wife’s death was not an accident. Does that mean it was true he did not kill his wife?

In the case of Bree, the defendant was acquitted of the charge of rape because he had a reasonable belief the complainant was consenting. As such, he was acquitted. Does that mean it was true he did not rape the complainant - and the complainant was lying? This is the significance of belief. One can be acquitted or convicted of a crime on the basis of belief. I recall someone saying proving a case in court has little to do with truth. It’s about who can present the best argument and contemporary society is happy to accept the best argument and has little interest in what is actually true.

My point here while fact and truth may be intrinsically linked, in terms of establishing truth facts have their limitations. Belief fills that void and it is at least possible the belief may be true when the facts are inadequate or insufficient. It is also possible an outlandish belief may actually be true. Less likely perhaps, but not impossible. Many a staunch atheist has said to me they do not rule out the possibility that a God exists.

Therefore, the question is, is it true there is a God, or is it true there is no God? In determining the answer to this question, an element of choice is involved.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

An incorrect hypothesis does not equal an internally contradictory one. Since you are unable to comprehend the difference, it is time to stop wasting more time on you. Good bye.

I’ll try to feel disappointed.

But for the next time you try to engage in debate (which, by the way, involves addressing what people say and not just loudly claiming to be right in the hopes that they’ll come around rather than listen to you any longer), you may be interested to know that a contradiction is when you say that something is both true and false at the same time.

When I said that there was a contradiction inherent in the tooth fairy, I assumed that you were also accepting those parts of reality which are indisputable, and thus would be ok with the (empirically verifiable, if you wanted to) fact that children’s teeth are really handled by their parents (and hence that believing both this and that they were not being handled by their parents but by someone else was a contradiction).

However, given your insistence in claiming that what you believe is obvious despite the fact that only a minority believe it, and expecting statements that Catholicism is full of errors to fly with Catholics, I now realize that it was a mistake to assume that you’d take the indisputable parts of reality as part of your working assumptions. I apologize, I should have realized that earlier. It probably would have saved us both some time.

In any case, good bye and God bless.

 

[Trurl]

I know many people who profess to believe the most outlandish claims - not only in the face of insufficient evidence but in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For instance, there are those who believe the Holocaust did not happen.

Oh, yes, you are correct. But these people already accept those claims on faith. I am not talking bout those gullible people who will fork over their life’s savings to a con artist (like Jim and Tammy Baker).

Perhaps I should move on to the rational, thinking being. I have to say, I have never heard it said belief in God is purely volitional. That is not to say it has not been said. Merely, I have never heard that said, and I would argue it is not.

Yes, such claims are all over the place, and I am glad you do not subscribe to them.

There comes a point in time when one does, and must, evaluate the claim. If the claim seems too outlandish, one will tend to reject it. However, it is more than possible an outlandish claim may be true, and that is the different between belief and fact.

Agreed. Looking at your offered (very good!) examples, sometimes we cannot make a “surefire” decision. But this is not really the point here. You have a very well established opinion or belief that Santa Claus is just a myth. By using your “free will” you are unable to “brainwash” yourself to believe that the “myth” is truly reality.

Many a staunch atheist has said to me they do not rule out the possibility that a God exists.

As a matter of fact, I am one of those atheists. I cannot proclaim that it is logically impossible that “some god” might exist. But I can say with 100% certainty that if a “god” exists, it cannot bear any resemblance to the “God” as described by Christianity, since that particular “God” is partly nonsensical and partly self-contradictory. But this is the topic of a different thread.

Therefore, the question is, is it true there is a God, or is it true there is no God? In determining the answer to this question, an element of choice is involved.

Where? I do not know if a “generic” god exists or not, but it has no bearing on my behavior whatever the case might be.

 

[minkymurph]

Where? I do not know if a “generic” god exists or not, but it has no bearing on my behavior whatever the case might be.

Choice is involved where we have insufficient knowledge, facts, understanding or experience to establish if something is true or false for certain. That is what I was referring to. Not how you or anyone else may behave or act. However you raise an interesting point which I will address.

When we are faced with this scenario, we choose what to believe. That is not to say it is an uniformed choice, but there is an element of choice. The reason why there is an element of choice is lack of certainty one way or the other. Of course one could decide to remain non-committal or undecided.

In terms of how we behave and act, what we choose to believe may have no bearing on how we behave or act. It would depend on what we believe an in relation to what. If it’s something we don’t really care about, it probably does not affect how we behave or act. If the belief we form relates to something of major significance to us, and/or something we feel passionate about, then it would.

 

[DCNBILL]

Not “inherently”. A specific person can believe that he is actually Napoleon, or that he is actually a chicken - in the looney bin. But that does not extrapolate into the world of sane people. Just contemplate the question: “can you make yourself to believe that your father was a chimpanzee and your mother was a dolphin?”

You are confusing belief with truth. If someone believes something, this very fact makes that something believable, at least to that person at that time. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time.

 

[Trurl]

When we are faced with this scenario, we choose what to believe.

A “choice” by definition is an act of volition. When I think about the “faceless, generic, deistic god”, I do not ponder: “should I believe that such an entity exists, or not”? I simply do not believe it, and no amount of self-hypnosis can change it. I think we did beat this particular dead horse into pulp. There is no real reason to carry on, unless you have some new idea you wish to talk about.

 

[minkymurph]

A “choice” by definition is an act of volition. When I think about the “faceless, generic, deistic god”, I do not ponder: “should I believe that such an entity exists, or not”? I simply do not believe it, and no amount of self-hypnosis can change it. I think we did beat this particular dead horse into pulp. There is no real reason to carry on, unless you have some new idea you wish to talk about.

Then don’t believe it. The only ‘new idea’ I could bring is in my view, choosing not to make informed choices based on what facts are available, and choosing not to to believe anything that cannot be irrevocably proven has it’s advantages, in that it absolves one of any personal responsibility for the decisions they make and the arduous task of having to think for oneself in the absence of irrevocable proof. There is evidence such an approach hinders cognitive development which is an essential element of higher thinking skills, but what would I know?

That aside, I have to agree with you. There is no reason to continue engaging in dialogue.

 

[kingpomba]

I think this is a very good question and a very important one too!

I’m deeply interested in philosophy of religion and one of my favourite arguments (despite all its flaws) is pascals wager, i like it so much i named a blog after it.

I’ll answer the question through the lens of the wager.

Say i find out through the wager, i am actually indeed better off believing than not, even then, i just can’t will myself into belief.

Imagine this, i take your entire family hostage and i can read your mind. I will brutally murder all of your family, one by one, unless you form the true belief a purple elephant is in the room. Even with such a huge (and of course twisted scenario) motivating factor, could you do it even then?

With my current set of knowledge, i just understand it to not be probably true. For me as someone who doesn’t believe, i think the suggestion that i can just suddenly choose to believe is about as hard as suggesting to the believers on here that you can should just suddenly choose to be a Hindu tomorrow. It’s that level of difficulty.

In-fact, i dont think we have much in the way of free-will in regards to basic beliefs about the world like religion. They arise out of our prior knowledge and prior experiences. If my prior knowledge say of philosophy and how i see the world shows me a certain set of facts that makes it more likely God does not exist, i do not really have much say in what i will believe to be true, given what i know. Using that framework, that is why something like conversion fascinates me.

 

[DCNBILL]

I think this is a very good question and a very important one too!

I’m deeply interested in philosophy of religion and one of my favourite arguments (despite all its flaws) is pascals wager, i like it so much i named a blog after it.

I’ll answer the question through the lens of the wager.

Say i find out through the wager, i am actually indeed better off believing than not, even then, i just can’t will myself into belief.

Imagine this, i take your entire family hostage and i can read your mind. I will brutally murder all of your family, one by one, unless you form the true belief a purple elephant is in the room. Even with such a huge (and of course twisted scenario) motivating factor, could you do it even then?

This is an interesting concept and a premise that I can very much accept. It would seem that one could, in no way, force ones self into believing in something that they know does not exist. Conversely if I believe in God I must have some basis for that belief, some knowledge of the existence of God, otherwise I would be unable to believe in Him. This is an excellent point!

 

[zro_x]

why can’t I take this poll?

 

[minkymurph]

I think this is a very good question and a very important one too!

I’m deeply interested in philosophy of religion and one of my favourite arguments (despite all its flaws) is pascals wager, i like it so much i named a blog after it.

I’ll answer the question through the lens of the wager.

Say i find out through the wager, i am actually indeed better off believing than not, even then, i just can’t will myself into belief.

Imagine this, i take your entire family hostage and i can read your mind. I will brutally murder all of your family, one by one, unless you form the true belief a purple elephant is in the room. Even with such a huge (and of course twisted scenario) motivating factor, could you do it even then?

With my current set of knowledge, i just understand it to not be probably true. For me as someone who doesn’t believe, i think the suggestion that i can just suddenly choose to believe is about as hard as suggesting to the believers on here that you can should just suddenly choose to be a Hindu tomorrow. It’s that level of difficulty.

In-fact, i dont think we have much in the way of free-will in regards to basic beliefs about the world like religion. They arise out of our prior knowledge and prior experiences. If my prior knowledge say of philosophy and how i see the world shows me a certain set of facts that makes it more likely God does not exist, i do not really have much say in what i will believe to be true, given what i know. Using that framework, that is why something like conversion fascinates me.

I don’t think anyone can ‘suddenly’ believe anything. We can convince ourselves of anything simply because it’s what we want to believe, but that is not a genuine belief or a reasoned belief. For example, if I don’t like someone I can choose to believe theyare stupid, and assume they have a bad motive for any good they may do simply because I don’t like them and distrust them. Further to that point, if you don’t trust someone and have good reason not to, and they profess they have turned over a new leaf, you will not readily believe them just because you may want to. You would have to make a choice whether or not you are going to give them another chance based on little more than their word they have changed, and it would take time to re-establish trust to the point where you could believe them. So, we can’t ‘suddenly’ believe in something. Unlike facts, it can take time to establish belief and may involve a calculated risk.

The same can be said of belief in God. People who do not believe in God can’t just decide to, and asking someone to act on something theydon’t believe is putting the cart before the horse… What they can do is choose to consider the possibilty God exists, and run with it from there. Then make choices based on the conclusions they draw. Of course that’s working on the assumption they want to know whether or not it’s true. If one does not care whether or not it’s true, then one won’t make the choice.