QUESTION: Can you choose what you believe?

[Moon Ronin]

So you have verifiable (testable) evidence.
You have verifiable evidence the sky is colorless.
You chose to believe it or not.

If the verifiable evidence cannot fit with my own internal standard of the universe then I have no other choice but to reject it. IE I have no choice.
If the verifiable evidence fits with my own internal standard of the universe then I have no other choice but to accept it. IE I have no choice.

It's more than just seeing is believing.

You have verifiable evidence the sky is colorless.
How you process evidence using your own internal standard to create an apparent truth (an involuntary action) determine wither you accept it or reject it as a belief.

Fixed

The internal standards can change and as Kirby said you have the choice to challenge your belief but you can't choose what you believe. And even then if said challenge changes the belief you still have no choice, I can never go back to believing the "sky is blue" even if I wanted to. I have no choice.

[Tuck]

Belief cannot fly in the face of facts. If I choose to believe that the sky is green, then my belief will be shattered every time I look at the sky.

There's some evidence that blue and green were indistinguishable to people centuries ago. At least in some European cultures. And colors have been shown to be based somewhat on the very fact that we distinguish them. Russian divides blue into two separate basic colors, a lighter and darker shade, and native Russian speakers have been shown to be able to distinguish more subtle changed in blue than non-native Russian speakers.

There's also the more common experience of having two people - one who is highly concerned with decorating, for example, and one who is not - where the former can tell the difference between eggshell and off white, and the latter is scratching their head at the madness.


In any case, it's ultimately unknowable if you can choose what to believe. As a practical matter, it's best to live as if you can.

[foxley]

One's personal belief can totally do so. The sky is actually colorless in this you look up at the sky and see blue you are seeing the illusion that is being created by the light passing through it. If you were to go up and get a sample of the "sky" you will find that it is not blue. So I believe that the sky is colorless and my belief is not shattered every time I look up and see a blue sky.

So if I chose to believe that gravity does not exist then I float everywhere?

[Moon Ronin]

So if I chose to believe that gravity does not exist then I float everywhere?

Of course not, belief or knowledge in something does not make it true, as just because you don't believe or know about something doesn't make it untrue. Ancient man didn't know about gravity and they seemed fine.

Belief is created by our environment, experience, biological and physiological make up. So to not believe in gravity has to have some reason and an alternative for gravity is made.

Einstein stopped believing in Newton's law of gravity because it didn't fit with his theory of general relativity. Flat earthers (I keep going to them to keep the religious aspect out of it) reject the the current explanation of gravity and have come up with a whole list of alternatives.

You keep coming up with obtuse Ideas of belief but the reality of it is people believe things all the time that are not fact or proven fact. I can not bring myself to believe in the many earth theory, yet may physicist do. There is no viable evidence that it is and as we can not reach outside our universe we most likely will never be able to test it.

Many people believe that there is life on othe planets even if they have never come to earth. Religion, politics, life, love, and happiness they all contain beliefs that fly in the face of facts.

[dancj]

Yes it would be a choice; based on the verifiable evidence you would choose to change your belief to something else.
You said so yourself.

No I didn't. If future evidence changed my belief, then my belief would change - but it still wouldn't be a choice. I couldn't choose to not believe that new evidence.

While others (for whatever reason may choose to cling to their old "belief") might choose to ignore or deny the new evidence.

People sometimes cling to their old beliefs in the face of new evidence. IMO, many of these people are choosing to go through with a facade of pretending to believe, but if they're honest with themselves, they don't truly believe anymore. That facade is a choice - unlike the belief.

You saying you have no choices but to believe, is just acknowledging you are compelled to go with the evidence.
That compulsion to follow the evidence (or not) is choice = free will.

No it isn't. It is out of my control. What I choose to do with that belief (including whether I acknowledge it) is free will.

[GOLGO 13]

Yes, you can choose.

By all accounts this Jesus fellow was a solid dude that wanted us to be excellent to each other. Any Jew that can turn water into wine is alright with me. However, MOST of his followers are some of the biggest, most perverted death-cult worshipping chuds ever spawned in all creation.

[Kirby101]

Many people believe that there is life on othe planets even if they have never come to earth. Religion, politics, life, love, and happiness they all contain beliefs that fly in the face of facts.

I think those are different. I believe there is life on other planets. By this I men I think there is a probability based on the number of Earth like planets and the components of life being widespread throughout the Universe. It seems likely there is some kind of life out there. Is there advanced civilizations? I have no idea, but based on us not seeing any evidence from radio telescopes, I would say if there are, they are rare. But this is different from religious or even political beliefs.

Belief has several meanings that should not be conflated.

for instance, I hate when people equate belief that my wife loves me with a belief in God. Not the same thing at all.

[Kirby101]

Yes, you can choose.

By all accounts this Jesus fellow was a solid dude that wanted us to be excellent to each other. Any Jew that can turn water into wine is alright with me. However, MOST of his followers are some of the biggest, most perverted death-cult worshipping chuds ever spawned in all creation.

So can you choose to believe Jesus was the son of God?

[edpower]

Oh. Wow. OP here. I assumed this thread would just have died with no on responding to it.

Some really good conversations here. Although it seems, I may have come back as it may be going a little off the rails.

But anyway, my original point was this (and some of you have also made this point above):

I'm agnostic. I don't think I'm smart enough to "know" if there is a creator, but when I hear the...pitches?...for different religions I think "That's not it."

But to me, I'm not choosing to be agnostic. It's what literally, with no thought, just makes sense to me.

Like, I couldn't CHOOSE to believe in any of the religions I've heard about and strike me as untrue. Gun to my head, I could fake believing in one, but that's not believing.

To put it another way to those who do believe in a religion, I'm assuming you could chose to be an atheist to agnostic, or chose to believe in any religion except your own, correct?

I mean, I am guessing. Let me know if that's incorrect.

[Tuck]

I'm agnostic. I don't think I'm smart enough to "know" if there is a creator, but when I hear the...pitches?...for different religions I think "That's not it."

But to me, I'm not choosing to be agnostic. It's what literally, with no thought, just makes sense to me.

But your position is based on your requirement that a creator be comprehensible through reason. A God (at least as described by Abrahamic religions) would have to be as incomprehensible to us as we are to an amoeba (if not more so).

We could look at another situation where reason doesn't give concrete answers . . . or at least none that cannot be challenged with well-constructed arguments: Do you believe in objective reality?

[Moon Ronin]

I think those are different. I believe there is life on other planets. By this I men I think there is a probability based on the number of Earth like planets and the components of life being widespread throughout the Universe. It seems likely there is some kind of life out there. Is there advanced civilizations? I have no idea, but based on us not seeing any evidence from radio telescopes, I would say if there are, they are rare. But this is different from religious or even political beliefs.

Belief has several meanings that should not be conflated.

for instance, I hate when people equate belief that my wife loves me with a belief in God. Not the same thing at all.

I was trying to keep the religious aspects to a minimum, so philosophy and science the next best thing. Love is actually a great example. With the advances in neurobiology our emotions may only be a mix of chemicals in the brain, a basic organic process that is all. Where in philosophy has in places love as a "force" that is beyond the scoop of mans under standing something to write songs about. Does your wife love you?.. Yes, I'm sure she does. Why does she love you? That all depends on what you believe. Could you control that belief to chose what you want? It's a Brave New World.

Belief is a grander concept than just religion. In 13th century Europe the idea of extraterrestrial life would be almost ludicrous as societies' acceptance of the idea was not very strong. Yet also during 13th century Europe you would most likely be Christian and believe in God as societies' acceptance of it was very strong. Now today, the acceptance of the probability of extraterrestrial life is very strong and accepted by a huge majority of the population and the idea of Christianity is falling to way of secularism with the greater acceptance that there may really be no grand creator. Richard Dawkins once said that it would be hard to be an atheist in the 13th century and that if he were alive back then he most likely would have believed in God. The same way of thinking can be applied to other beliefs other than religion. Can you chose not be believe that there is life on other planets?

[Tuck]

I was trying to keep the religious aspects to a minimum, so philosophy and science the next best thing. Love is actually a great example. With the advances in neurobiology our emotions may only be a mix of chemicals in the brain, a basic organic process that is all.

Those are biological correlations to love.

To say love is those biological symptoms is declarative. It is more than the evidence proves.

[Moon Ronin]

Those are biological correlations to love.

To say love is those biological symptoms is declarative. It is more than the evidence proves.

That is why I used the words may only be and not is and I also gave equal credence to that philosophy side. I did not say my own feelings on the subject and had no declarative statement that supersede the evidence. I didn't answer Haddaway's burning questions of what is love? But asked what do you think love is? To the idea that a belief of love can be just as subjective as belief in God.

[Tuck]

That is why I used the words may only be and not is and I also gave equal credence to that philosophy side. I did not say my own feelings on the subject and had no declarative statement that supersede the evidence. I didn't answer Haddaway's burning questions of what is love? But asked what do you think love is? To the idea that a belief of love can be just as subjective as belief in God.

That's the thing. There is no 'may'. "What is love?" is not under the purview of science.

It's why a lot of scientists are skeptical of neuroscience in general. Not that the science isn't valid, per se, but that people are leaping unbridgeable gaps. (Sam Harris probably isn't helpful in this perception.)

[Moon Ronin]

That's the thing. There is no 'may'. "What is love?" is not under the purview of science.

It's why a lot of scientists are skeptical of neuroscience in general. Not that the science isn't valid, per se, but that people are leaping unbridgeable gaps. (Sam Harris probably isn't helpful in this perception.)

Everything is under the preview of the physical and natural world and science is only our current understanding of it. That is why science can "change". And I agree that there are groups of study that are guessing beyond the scope of vision to things we will never be able to see, String Theory cough cough. But skepticism shouldn’t tip over into total disbelief especially in a young field like neuroscience. You've discredited it before all of the evidence is presented by saying there is no "may" . That, was a declarative statement.
That is not unless you believe that love not part of the physical and natural world. If so where does it come form? (beliefs may very).