Doxastic Voluntarism? Can you choose your beliefs?

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Maeght]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

of course they change, why unquestioning whether you choose your beliefs relevant to whether beliefs change.

Sorry?

[Leonard James]

Sorry?

I wish I could help but the meaning escapes me. 

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Leonard James]

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!

[BeRational]

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.

[ekim]

Are you all drunk??

[Leonard James]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Leonard James]

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.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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.

[Leonard James]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?