Hell made better

[tonyrey]

A nincompoop is some one who cannot choose what to believe and has no control whatsoever over his or her mental activity, i.e, an idiot who needs to taken to a lunatic asylum…

Correction: who needs to** be** taken to a lunatic asylum…

 

[Gorgias]

Quite contrary to some nincompoops around here, people do not and cannot “choose” what they believe. They choose to listen, or reject to listen, but when push comes to shove people believe what they find convincing.

Wait – you realize you’ve just contradicted yourself, right?

First, you claim that belief and rationality have nothing to do with one another. Now, you’ve admitted that people are convinced prior to belief! Yes… you’re right (now – not earlier); faith follows reason. Once a person is convinced, he is able to believe. You’ve got it! (So glad you see it our way, now… )

Many times they are presented with a “test”. They are urged to try to believe against their convictions, and see if they can volitionally change their beliefs.

Agreed. In other words, belief isn’t irrational – it follows the conclusions of rationality!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Wait – you realize you’ve just contradicted yourself, right?

There is no contradiction at all. Only a serious misunderstanding on YOUR part.

First, you claim that belief and rationality have nothing to do with one another.

Show me where I said anything even remotely like this. Let me see the precise quote, or a retraction of this outrageous mischaracterization. Because I did NOT claim it. Beliefs can be rational, or irrational, according their jubject. I was NOT talking about the rationality of beliefs, precisely because some beliefs are rational and others are not.

Let me repeat. I was talking about the process what leads to beliefs. This process leading to beliefs is not a volitional one. This process has been demonstrated innumerable times. I already explained it to you, when I talked about grey and white cells, the conscious and the subconscious. Read up on that subject, and when you understand it, I will be happy to continue the conversation.

As I challenged this idea many times, choose something that you do NOT believe it, like the existence of leprechauns or the existence of Santa Claus, perform some volitional mental gymnastics (called CHOICE) and arrive at the conclusion that they exist. After all you can’t “prove” that these are the only figment of your imagination. You “only” lack any convincing evidence for their existence. So, if your theorem is correct, you can CHOOSE to believe their existence.

One more time: the question is not “is the belief rational or irrational”, it is “is the belief arrived volitionally (chosen) or not”. Can’t be simpler than that. And also the word “to choose” imply a volitional process. Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[tonyrey]

Let me repeat. I was talking about the process what leads to beliefs. This process leading to beliefs is not a volitional one.

If a belief is caused by an event** beyond our control** it is irrational.

 

[ANV]

If a belief is caused by an event** beyond our control** it is irrational.

What VL is saying is that it’s not a choice or a decision made, it’s something you conclude and have conviction of, try to imagine for one moment, that you as a believer, decide to disbelieve that there is a god or that Catholicism is the true religion, do you think that will work out for you? No, you would be dishonest to yourself, because no matter how you decide or you try to disbelieve, you can’t, you are convinced of what you believe in, these are your beliefs and convictions, same for VL, he concluded his beliefs and these are his convictions based on some reasons, you don’t have to fight what is being said only because an atheist said it, you can still accept this as a believer, it’s not a major conflict.

 

[tonyrey]

What VL is saying is that it’s not a choice or a decision made, it’s something you conclude and have conviction of, try to imagine for one moment, that you as a believer, decide to disbelieve that there is a god or that Catholicism is the true religion, do you think that will work out for you? No, you would be dishonest to yourself, because no matter how you decide or you try to disbelieve, you can’t, you are convinced of what you believe in, these are your beliefs and convictions, same for VL, he concluded his beliefs and these are his convictions based on some reasons, you don’t have to fight what is being said only because an atheist said it, you can still accept this as a believer, it’s not a major conflict.

I don’t think beliefs are as deeply embedded as you make out. It is unnatural never to have any doubts, I’m sure I’m not alone in modifying my views when I realise they are faulty in some way or other, not necessarily radically but sufficiently to overcome the difficulty.

 

[Gorgias]

Show me where I said anything even remotely like this. Let me see the precise quote

Here it is, precisely:

“Rejection” is a volitional act, “belief” is not.

You’re claiming that belief is not volitional. And, if it’s not volitional, it cannot be rational. Hence, my statement that you claim that belief and rationality have nothing to do with one another is precisely what follows from your statement, above. I’ll try not to hold my breath while I wait for a retraction of your outrageous mischaracterization of my claim.

Let me repeat. I was talking about the process what leads to beliefs. This process leading to beliefs is not a volitional one.

You’re on thin ice, here. Whether or not you realize it, if you argue against volitionality, you’re arguing against rationality. If that’s the case, then none of this discussion is worth a hill of beans – all of our arguments are simply the result of brain chemistry, not rationality. Oh, perhaps there are outputs that have the veneer of ‘rationality’ (whatever that would mean, in this case), but there’s nothing that approaches ‘reason’.

Note, however, that if you claim that reason truly exists but happens unconsciously, then you’re claiming that volition happens unconsciously. Therefore, we can still claim that belief happens volitionally.

As I challenged this idea many times, choose something that you do NOT believe it, like the existence of leprechauns or the existence of Santa Claus, perform some volitional mental gymnastics (called CHOICE) and arrive at the conclusion that they exist.

This is, of course, possible. It would be objectively incorrect, of course, but it is possible to reach an incorrect conclusion. Any sane person, having reached a ‘rational’ decision, believes in the decision he reached. So, yeah… we believe the things that we think about rationally.

One more time: the question is not “is the belief rational or irrational”, it is “is the belief arrived volitionally (chosen) or not”. Can’t be simpler than that. And also the word “to choose” imply a volitional process. Elementary, my dear Watson.

How would one choose, volitionally, something that they haven’t reasoned about? (Mind you, I’m not talking about the quality of their ratiocination, or the truth of their conclusion – I’m just rebutting what follows from your claim: that reason isn’t part of the equation.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Oh, well. Let’s go back to the precise words.

“Rejection” is a volitional act, “belief” is not.

First, you claim that belief and rationality have nothing to do with one another.

That is where your misunderstanding occurred.

You’re claiming that belief is not volitional. And, if it’s not volitional, it cannot be rational.

This is a tony-like nonsense. Volitional acts are not always rational. Rational acts are not always volitional.

You’re on thin ice, here. Whether or not you realize it, if you argue against volitionality, you’re arguing against rationality.

This incorrect sentence follows from your previous error. It would really be to your benefit if you investigated the conscious-subconscious working of the brain - at least on a superficial level. The following experiment has been conducted many times: The eye-movements of the chess player have been monitored by an infrared light beam. As the player was analyzing the possible ramifications of a move, their eyes swept over the pertinent areas of the board. The original choice of the moves was volitional, but the analysis happened in the subconscious. Right before the player found the best move (the “eureka” moment), the movement of the eye increased rapidly, indicating the speed of the analysis. And all of a sudden the player realized that she found the best move. All happened in the subconscious (NON-volitional part) of the mind.

Now, of course, you still have to make a conscious decision whether to make that move, or not. Even this simple example shows that the volitional=rational assertion is simply not true.

This is, of course, possible.

It is? Could you actually decide to believe that Santa Claus exists? How did you do that? I would like to use your method and “convince” myself that God and Satan and angels and demons exist, and they are not just a figment of your imagination.

But all this is a side-track. Ah, and you should forget the usual nonsense that electro-chemical interactions in the brain are insufficient for thinking, remembering and decision making. Along with all the subconscious processing of regulating our bodies. The estimate is that about 95% of the activities of the mind happens in the subconscious.