Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Bubbles on March 23, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
-
Can someone choose their beliefs ?
Doxastic voluntarism is the philosophical doctrine according to which people have voluntary control over their beliefs. Philosophers in the debate about doxastic voluntarism distinguish between two kinds of voluntary control. The first is known as direct voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that if a person chooses to perform them, they happen immediately. For instance, a person has direct voluntary control over whether he or she is thinking about his or her favorite song at a given moment. The second is known as indirect voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that although a person lacks direct voluntary control over them, he or she can cause them to happen if he or she chooses to perform some number of other, intermediate actions. For instance, a person untrained in music has indirect voluntary control over whether he or she will play a melody on a violin. Corresponding to this distinction between two kinds of voluntary control, philosophers distinguish between two kinds of doxastic voluntarism. Direct doxastic voluntarism claims that people have direct voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs. Indirect doxastic voluntarism, however, supposes that people have indirect voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs, for example, by doing research and evaluating evidence.
This article offers an introductory explanation of the nature of belief, the nature of voluntary control, the reasons for the consensus regarding indirect doxastic voluntarism, the reasons for the disagreements regarding direct doxastic voluntarism, and the practical implications for the debate about doxastic voluntarism in ethics, epistemology, political theory, and the philosophy of religion.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/
I've always thought up to a point we can?
What do you think?
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/pascals-wager/we-cannot-choose-our-beliefs/
-
I see absolutely no reason to think that I can. I can't choose to believe any given proposition if it conflicts with my reason which is ultimately built upon my experience of existence in the world. I can say that I do; I can pretend that I do; I can lie about doing so; but I can't actually do it.
-
The idea,of choosing one's beliefs creates an infinite regress
-
It's impossible. I've tried.
There are limits to how long anyone can lie to themselves.
-
I see absolutely no reason to think that I can. I can't choose to believe any given proposition if it conflicts with my reason which is ultimately built upon my experience of existence in the world. I can say that I do; I can pretend that I do; I can lie about doing so; but I can't actually do it.
So, you can't, over time change from believing that left-wing politics is the be-all and end-all, to believing that right-wing politics (or a mix of both) is?
-
I see absolutely no reason to think that I can. I can't choose to believe any given proposition if it conflicts with my reason which is ultimately built upon my experience of existence in the world. I can say that I do; I can pretend that I do; I can lie about doing so; but I can't actually do it.
Might explain why I could never be an atheist.
-
So, you can't, over time change from believing that left-wing politics is the be-all and end-all, to believing that right-wing politics (or a mix of both) is?
Can you outline where you get that from Shaker's post because it seems like a complete non sequitur. Nothing in the post states, implies or even hints at change of beliefs being impossible.
-
Can you outline where you get that from Shaker's post because it seems like a complete non sequitur. Nothing in the post states, implies or even hints at change of beliefs being impossible.
Well I was going to say that ... but you did ;)
-
Well I was going to say that ... but you did ;)
Well, the thread title is .... Can you choose your beliefs? Shakes' opening gambit in his opening post on the thread is "I see absolutely no reason to think that I can."
-
Well, the thread title is .... Can you choose your beliefs? Shakes' opening gambit in his opening post on the thread is "I see absolutely no reason to think that I can."
which has no position on whether your beliefs might change. Again can you explain why you think it has any such implication?
-
which has no position on whether your beliefs might change. Again can you explain why you think it has any such implication?
In order for opinions to change, one has to be able to choose to change. For instance, I voted Tory in 1979, because of what I saw as the danage that was being done to the British economy and even society by the previous Labour government. I have never voted Labour, and have never voted Tory since that time. I know tend to be more on the Green end of politics. I chose that movement from my original stance.
-
In order for opinions to change, one has to be able to choose to change. For instance, I voted Tory in 1979, because of what I saw as the danage that was being done to the British economy and even society by the previous Labour government. I have never voted Labour, and have never voted Tory since that time. I know tend to be more on the Green end of politics. I chose that movement from my original stance.
No, in order for views to change, they have to change. Inserting 'choose to change' is begging the question here. If views are caused by influences, then changes in influences will change the views. Nothing in the idea that we do not choose beliefs has any implication that views do not change.
-
Might explain why I could never be an atheist.
There are other explanations aplenty for that.
-
In order for opinions to change, one has to be able to choose to change. For instance, I voted Tory in 1979, because of what I saw as the danage that was being done to the British economy and even society by the previous Labour government. I have never voted Labour, and have never voted Tory since that time. I know tend to be more on the Green end of politics. I chose that movement from my original stance.
and, in addition to the other questions, can you explain how choice of belief works given the infinite regress it causes?
-
In order for opinions to change, one has to be able to choose to change.
This of course is merely a rather (well ... entirely) redundant restatement of doxastic voluntarism, and not a justification for it.
-
For instance, I voted Tory in 1979
Well that's at least one of those to blame identified. You're on the list.
-
Well that's at least one of those to blame identified. You're on the list.
Well, at least we weren't condemned to another x years of Labour Government. The mines would probably have been shut even quicker had we had that. ;)
-
Inserting 'choose to change' is begging the question here.
I would disagree. One can question and interrogate influences, just as one can question and interrogate anything. One still has to choose to do that questioning (or not as the case might be). It isn't automatic.
-
I would disagree. One can question and interrogate influences, just as one can question and interrogate anything. One still has to choose to do that questioning (or not as the case might be). It isn't automatic.
You still cannot choose beliefs.
Beliefs are emergent from your analysis or weighing up of the data you have.
Can you choose to believe that your God does not exist?
-
Can someone choose their beliefs ?
I've always thought up to a point we can?
What do you think?
You can change your belief. Whether it's a choice to change perhaps depends upon what the belief is based upon. If it is based upon an emotion e.g. through fear of falling I believe I could not walk a tightrope across a canyon, but through years of practice, I have overcome the fear and now choose to believe I can and I follow this by testing the belief and walk the walk. If I have an emotional attachment to a belief in an afterlife, after a rational assessment of probability I could choose an alternative belief, which so far can only be tested when I die.
-
I would disagree. One can question and interrogate influences, just as one can question and interrogate anything. One still has to choose to do that questioning (or not as the case might be). It isn't automatic.
You are simply repeating the assertion, and also showing the infinite regress your position creates since you would have to believe that one should question the belief which would mean you would have to believe that it was right to believe that it was right to question the choice and to believe that it was right to believe it was right to believe that it was right to question the choice and so on ad infinitum
-
You cannot choose at any given moment to believe in something you don't or to change your beliefs. Beliefs and opinions can change over time. As ever in this debate it comes down initially to what is meant by choosing and those who claim you can choose your beliefs tend to see this as a long term process and those who don't are referring to 'at any moment'. That's how I see it anyway.
-
You cannot choose at any given moment to believe in something you don't or to change your beliefs. Beliefs and opinions can change over time. As ever in this debate it comes down initially to what is meant by choosing and those who claim you can choose your beliefs tend to see this as a long term process and those who don't are referring to 'at any moment'. That's how I see it anyway.
I don't see this is the case, I agree that beliefs are formed over time and I don't think there is a choice.
-
I don't see this is the case, I agree that beliefs are formed over time and I don't think there is a choice.
Perhaps the choice come in when you choose to act upon a belief e.g. with the tightrope walker, despite a lingering belief he could fall he believes he won't and chooses to face the moment of truth.
-
I don't see this is the case, I agree that beliefs are formed over time and I don't think there is a choice.
I don't think there is a choice either - so wondering what you meant by 'I don't see this is the case'.
-
I don't think there is a choice either - so wondering what you meant by 'I don't see this is the case'.
You posted that those who don't think there is a choice are referring to 'at the moment', I am not referring to 'at the moment', and I don't think there is a choice
-
You posted that those who don't think there is a choice are referring to 'at the moment', I am not referring to 'at the moment', and I don't think there is a choice
Okay - but my point was about what was meant as a choice. When you say you don't think there is a choice what do you mean, can people's views never change?
-
Okay - but my point was about what was meant as a choice. When you say you don't think there is a choice what do you mean, can people's views never change?
of course they change, why unquestioning whether you choose your beliefs relevant to whether beliefs change.
-
of course they change, why unquestioning whether you choose your beliefs relevant to whether beliefs change.
Sorry?
-
Sorry?
I wish I could help but the meaning escapes me. ::)
-
Sorry?
Ah predictive text inserted an 'un' in front of questioning! Why does the idea that we do not choose our beliefs imply they don't change?
-
Ah predictive text inserted an 'un' in front of questioning! Why does the idea that we do not choose our beliefs imply they don't change?
We can't 'choose' to change them, and if something new comes along to cause a change, we can't 'choose' not to accept it.
Oh gawd, that sounds as puzzling as yours!
-
Sorry?
You could change your beliefs on some subject a thousand times a day.
You do not choose your belief you just flip flop a you consider the evidence and a belief emerges.
-
Are you all drunk??
-
You could change your beliefs on some subject a thousand times a day.
You do not choose your belief you just flip flop a you consider the evidence and a belief emerges.
Exactly! The ability to reason decides whether something is true or not, and we can't then choose to change that decision.
-
Flipping predictive text!!!!!
Anyway .... I think we are sort of talking at cross purposes, so if I just sunnarise what I mean again perhaps we can check if we are agreeing or disagreeing.
I think what people believe at any moment is due to the state of their brain, particularily how it is 'wired'. I don't think it is possible to consciously change that state of mind and therefore your belief at any particular moment. If to choose means to consciously select a position/view/belief at any given moment then I don't think this is possible. In various discussions on here I see that people, such as me, who say you cannot choose your beliefs mean you cannot consciously choose to believe something which you didn't previously believe at any one moment in time.
When discussing this on other threads people who say you can choose your beliefs have explained this to mean that you can seek God, read the Bible, study etc and that over time you can come to believe. I would accept that this can happen since I think study etc can change the state/wiring of the brain. I don't see this as choosing to belive though.
So the point I was tring to make then was really that in my experience people have different ideas ofwhat 'choosing to believe' means which leads to issues when the topic is discussed.
So, are we agreeing or disagreeing - I'm not sure.
-
Are you all drunk??
No, yer 'onor! I don't normally drink until the glass of wine with dinner, and today is not an abnormal day. ::)
-
Flipping predictive text!!!!!
Anyway .... I think we are sort of talking at cross purposes, so if I just sunnarise what I mean again perhaps we can check if we are agreeing or disagreeing.
I think what people believe at any moment is due to the state of their brain, particularily how it is 'wired'. I don't think it is possible to consciously change that state of mind and therefore your belief at any particular moment. If to choose means to consciously select a position/view/belief at any given moment then I don't think this is possible. In various discussions on here I see that people, such as me, who say you cannot choose your beliefs mean you cannot consciously choose to believe something which you didn't previously believe at any one moment in time.
When discussing this on other threads people who say you can choose your beliefs have explained this to mean that you can seek God, read the Bible, study etc and that over time you can come to believe. I would accept that this can happen since I think study etc can change the state/wiring of the brain. I don't see this as choosing to belive though.
So the point I was tring to make then was really that in my experience people have different ideas ofwhat 'choosing to believe' means which leads to issues when the topic is discussed.
So, are we agreeing or disagreeing - I'm not sure.
I agree with that completely. We cannot choose a belief, but we can be indoctrinated by repeated cultural/religious views, especially as children.
-
When discussing this on other threads people who say you can choose your beliefs have explained this to mean that you can seek God, read the Bible, study etc and that over time you can come to believe.
Hi,
I don't see this as consciously choosing either though. If the state of your brain at the time tells you that studying the Bible is a waste of time then you are not going to do it.
-
Hi,
I don't see this as consciously choosing either though. If the state of your brain at the time tells you that studying the Bible is a waste of time then you are not going to do it.
That depends entirely on your personality. Some people are more susceptible to suggestion than others, and can respond positively to repeated claims that it is not a waste of time. :)
-
You are simply repeating the assertion, and also showing the infinite regress your position creates since you would have to believe that one should question the belief which would mean you would have to believe that it was right to believe that it was right to question the choice and to believe that it was right to believe it was right to believe that it was right to question the choice and so on ad infinitum
At the risk of incurring your ''interwrath'', surely it depends on what stacks up rather than the primacy of changing one's mind.
In other words infinite regression is not a necessity because one can settle on what stacks up at any point in the process.
Your thesis completely ignores this aspect in order to reach for the infinite regress.
-
When discussing this on other threads people who say you can choose your beliefs have explained this to mean that you can seek God, read the Bible, study etc and that over time you can come to believe. I would accept that this can happen since I think study etc can change the state/wiring of the brain. I don't see this as choosing to belive though.
This was Pascal's argument, wasn't it - the corollary to his wager: his recommendation to the atheist that if they go to Mass, read the Bible, wear a crucifix, basically go through the motions of acting as though they were believers for long enough, in time they will actually come to believe.
Like many a superficially plausible idea, however, it falls apart in the light of human experience. There always have been and doubtless at this very moment somewhere in the world are priests, preachers and the like who are delivering sermons, know their Bibles backwards and all the rest of it yet don't believe a word of what they're doing and saying. We know this is the case because there are so many published accounts of (formerly) religious people in that very position - Dan Barker and Jerry DeWitt, for example. The issue is sufficiently large that there's even an organisation - The Clergy Project - to cater for such individuals.
-
This was Pascal's argument, wasn't it - the corollary to his wager: his recommendation to the atheist that if they go to Mass, read the Bible, wear a crucifix, basically go through the motions of acting as though they were believers for long enough, in time they will actually come to believe.
Like many a superficially plausible idea, however, it falls apart in the light of human experience. There always have been and doubtless at this very moment somewhere in the world are priests, preachers and the like who are delivering sermons, know their Bibles backwards and all the rest of it yet don't believe a word of what they're doing and saying. We know this is the case because there are so many published accounts of (formerly) religious people in that very position - Dan Barker and Jerry DeWitt, for example. The issue is sufficiently large that there's even an organisation - The Clergy Project - to cater for such individuals.
I think there probably has to be a bit of a hint of belief there already for that to really work. That hint is then reinforced by such activities, but if you are just going through the motions I doubt it would have much effect. It depends on how open to the ideas you are to start with - but that openness cannot be chosen but is to do with the state of your brain in my view.
-
I think there probably has to be a bit of a hint of belief there already for that to really work.
Yes, I think so too. If it isn't there, it isn't there.
That hint is then reinforced by such activities, but if you are just going through the motions I doubt it would have much effect. It depends on how open to the ideas you are to start with - but that openness cannot be chosen but is to do with the state of your brain in my view.
Agreed.
-
This was Pascal's argument, wasn't it - the corollary to his wager: his recommendation to the atheist that if they go to Mass, read the Bible, wear a crucifix, basically go through the motions of acting as though they were believers for long enough, in time they will actually come to believe.
Like many a superficially plausible idea, however, it falls apart in the light of human experience. There always have been and doubtless at this very moment somewhere in the world are priests, preachers and the like who are delivering sermons, know their Bibles backwards and all the rest of it yet don't believe a word of what they're doing and saying. We know this is the case because there are so many published accounts of (formerly) religious people in that very position - Dan Barker and Jerry DeWitt, for example. The issue is sufficiently large that there's even an organisation - The Clergy Project - to cater for such individuals.
Must happen a bit in cultural Christianity.
In the UK of B though we are in a secular culture so to coin a phrase you can come and go like reception of a famous radio station in the Chilterns.
Luther would have agreed with you since he concluded that no amount of monkery would have got him to heaven.
Whether you are right about Pascal I don't know ......wasn't he a Jansenist?