ARTelevision

IMO beliefs are indeed a choice.

.................

I prefer to "believe" nothing. I execute, operate, perform, and act skeptically on things I decide are useful tentative hypotheses. I never allow "evidence" to force a choice in me to "believe" something. Why? Because I see people believing all sorts of nonsense.

And yes, obviously, if you harbor an a priori assumption about something, that would be a belief. However, to my mind, that is still a choice.

I don't see anything precluding our ability to choose not to "believe" things.

__________________
create evolution

Bill O'Rights

In so much as no one can force you to believe anything...then, yes, beliefs would be a choice. I may "choose" to "believe" those things that are placed before me with evidence supporting thier value, but that too, I could just as easily "choose" to ignore.
*sigh*
This isn't about Santa again, is it Art? I'm tellin' ya...he's real.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

tropple

As long as only free will exists and no outside force is applied, then beliefs are a result of environmental and societal programming.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

zen_tom

Art (or is it ART?) belief may be something that people choose to do, but belief in something specific is an acceptance of a certain model of existance. If the model fits a person's experiences and way of thinking, it has potential for being believed in, you can't choose to believe in something that doesn't match your own conception of how the world works.

As described, your own beliefs are based on your own experiences and perceptions, you hold an a priori assumption that things are not likely to fit any particular model, so you reserve judgement - it is still a belief of sorts - do you choose to think these things, or are they an integral part of you?

If you believe it is a choice, then you believe in choice. Are you able to change yourself such that you no longer believe in choice?

asaris

Certainly beliefs are a matter of choice, but it's not as if, in most cases, we can wake up one morning and starting believing something radically different. There's a 'stickiness' to beliefs.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

ARTelevision

Well, Bill O'Rights, probably the most difficult thing I do and would propose is to choose not to believe in "evidence".

As far as I can see, "evidence" is nothing more than an instance of something that exists as a phenomenon, appearance, sensation, event - that sort of thing.

To choose to believe in "evidence" is no different to me than choosing to believe in anything else - including Santa...

__________________
create evolution

ARTelevision

zen_tom, yes.
I have already framed by position of ontological skepticism by stating it is a preference - i.e. a choice.

Why would anyone prefer or choose differently?

__________________
create evolution

zen_tom

Your preference suggests that you hold with the idea that instances of experience are (or at least have the capacity to be) totally unique and unrelated, that they don't necessarily form any pattern. This would suggest surprise when you wake up in the morning to find you are in the same place where you fell asleep, or that the faces of the people you recognise belong to the same people as they did yesterday, or that grass remains on the whole, green.

You may prefer to be constantly surprised at these things, but it would certainly be more practical to make some assumptions that help life become slightly less random and episodic.

Bill O'Rights

To a point, I would agree. However, when I walk into the room, and my two year old is standing next to open desk drawer, merrily throwing it's former contents about the room...I tend to "believe", from the standpoint of that particular "evidence", that he got into the drawer and made a mess. I could choose to believe otherwise, but in this case I would be foolish to do so.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

zen_tom

Sorry Art, I missed this part of your initial post - which manages to say in two lines what took me the same number of paragraphs.

In return I'd say that beliefs (things that we hold to be true) are the axioms of these models we build. The models we build provide a scaffold on which to hang our experiences, the better constructed the scaffold, the better inferences we can make about things we don't know - we can make educated guesses, and feel secure enough to take chances on them.

Of course, if our beliefs are wrong, our educated guesses are likely to be too, increasing the chances that our gambles in life are going to fail.

flstf

I am somewhat of a fence sitter as well. Believing nothing is sort of a belief in itself though.

ARTelevision

Bill O'Rights, I see your point exactly.

However, as "belief" is such an infinitely problematic concept, I prefer to operate on a similar situation as you describe by acting on the basis of a tentative hypothesis.

It seems quite clear to me that this approach leads one into less nonsense than any other.

Hence, my true wonderment regarding why anyone would choose to operate upon "belief"

__________________
create evolution

zen_tom

Art, you are operating upon belief just as much as anyone else. Or even anything else.

Is it nonsense for a bird to believe that it's capable of flight, or does it too make 'tentative hypotheses'?

Using a word like 'nonsense' suggests you have beliefs as to what has value and what does not. It suggests that there is such a thing as 'sense'.
So, you have so far expressed the following beliefs.

1) That certainty cannot be attained or inferred from experience
2) That free-will exists
3) That some things make 'sense' and other things are 'nonsense'
4) That forming beliefs falls into the 'nonsense' category
5) That people choose to believe whatever they believe in

Or are you using the notion of belief in a less general sense? If so, please specify.

ARTelevision

I am operating on only one perspective, that of skepticism.

The discussion becomes mere semantics at exactly this point. Because we have created a concept which we call "belief" and because that concept can be used to undermine all positions, including those that reject the notion itself, does nothing more than indicate further that we have created an infinitely problematic concept.

The sensible solution is to either dispense with the concept of "belief" entirely or to circumscribe it as some others have done here.

For myself, I choose to dispense with the concept entirely, as it serves no useful purpose.

__________________
create evolution

zen_tom

Semantic issues can be resolved by more precise definitions. That's why we must circumscribe, dispensing with the notion means we can't investigate it.

In geometry, there exist a set of axioms from which sprout the various laws and relationships that can be proven and tested against one another. However, the axioms must be taken on faith. There is no way to proove them. In fact it has been shown that it is impossible to proove them. Hence mathematics (geometry is a specific example, but the idea of axioms permeates throughout the whole of mathematics) is a field built entirely on faith.

The concept is problematic, but it is also self consistant. If you accept that faith is necessary for mathematics, life and anything else (it is the hidden axiom if you will), then you solve the paradox, the problem becomes null and avenues hitherto shut open themselves up for exploration.

What then becomes important is not the concept of belief itself, but what you believe in and how closely that belief matches reality.

Ustwo

Art you are starting to sound like the man who rules the universe, so I have to ask you, do you believe you have a cat?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

asaris

ART -- I'm a little confused about your position. Exactly what is it you mean by the word belief?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

ARTelevision

I think that I have made myself clear.
And to simply say that my rejection of belief is a belief is not productive in any way, in terms of addressing the extent to which belief itself is far different than operating on tentative hypotheses, for example.

I have laid out a path of negating concepts in their reified, ossified, delusion-inducing state - the state that folks who proclaim belief in things adhere to.

It is a far different thing to go around claiming belief than it is to state that beliefs are infinitely problematic and should be avoided as much as possible. And the extent to which it is possible to avoid belief is far more than those who would simply argue that these are all just other beliefs will allow, it seems. I repeat that is semantic nonsense, useless, and undemonstrable.

I am no less in amazement now than I was before I started this thread. Why would anyone choose to believe anything?

__________________
create evolution

Ustwo

Beliefs are what allow one to function at the next level of thought. Beliefs may be flawed, or 'the truth' but without them you are constantly a new born and everything would be a wonder.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ARTelevision

Yes. I am constantly born anew and filled with wonder.

As to whether or not I believe I have a cat: no, I do not believe I have a cat.

I act as if I have a cat until it is no longer sensible to do so.

This is not the manner in which beliefs are typically executed.

__________________
create evolution

roachboy

the question of beliefs about the world, about the subject or "individual" in that world, is something that i find most useful to think about within the purview of the classical conception of the political.

maybe this is why i have some trouble with the question as it is posed--it seems to assume that what is at stake is a free-floating individual, unconditioned by socialization, and what that individual comes to understand about his or her relation to this theater called the world.

within this, it sounds like you want to oppose experience to a metaphysics.
but your viewpoint seems nontheless to recapitulate aspects of metphysics in the way you frame your opposition--the isolated individual, for example, is a metaphysical concept; the notion of experience as such is as well.
the idea of rejecting reified concepts: how is that other than an inversion? what does it actually entail? what kind of assumptions about your embeddeness in the world have to be in place for this operation to get thought about, not to mention started?


in general, i think zen-tom poses an interesting way of going about thinking on this matter of belief--that axioms are not demonstrable from within a proof that presupposes them--yes, well there you are---but if you map this onto the social, then the question does not seem to operate well within the purview of belief--rather it seems on a different register, more political in nature. one could counter a given set of arguments about the world with another set of arguments....people could find one set of arguments preferable to another, for any number of reasons. i am not sure how the question of belief as such would function in this space.

i guess i am cloudy on what is actually being discussed here.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ARTelevision

Thanks, roachboy.

The original question is still, I think, the most significant one to pursue...

Are beliefs a choice?

If not, then what are they?

__________________
create evolution

The Prophet

I can't even believe this!

zen_tom

God or NoGod

It's an option, there are two alternatives. Alternatives suggest choice, but they don't require it. I can choose to point to the first option or the second one.
But can I choose to believe the first or the second one just as easily?
Can I really choose to believe the first or second option at all?

How do I choose to believe something? I might want to believe, but can I really choose to?

I can decide whether to walk into a Church or a Mosque or a Synagogue, I can choose to wear the appropriate dress and I can choose to read the appropriate books. But my belief develops naturally, I can't choose it.

A stream doesn't choose to flow downhill. Our worldview or beliefs are shaped by our environment, we can choose to change the environment, but we can't choose what we believe.

Publius

Are beliefs a choice?

Hmm, I have two primary objections to this question. First, it fundamentally presupposes that we do indeed have “choice”. Second, even if we grant that we do have “choice”, this question is still a “chicken or the egg”, which comes first beliefs or choice?

After carefully weighing all sides of the argument concerning freedom of choice I find myself “believing” (note, this isn’t by choice, it is an honest belief) the theory of “psychological egoism” to be correct. For those of you not familiar with psychological egoism, this theory claims that every “choice” one takes is made because one believes it to be in one’s own personal self best interest. This does not necessarily mean that one does in fact always act in one’s own best interest, because one it liable to have mistaken beliefs about what one’s best interest may be, just that one does in fact hold a belief that a particular action was made or will be made to that effect. Therefore, all of one’s “choices” are based off of one’s “belief” that the decision reached will be in one’s own personal self best interest. Notice, by following this line of reasoning “belief” comes before “choice”.

Now lets take this a step further. Under this theory, the vast majority of beliefs one has are nothing more then mere impulses. You have an impulse to eat food, therefore you “believe” you are hungry, which leads you to “choose” a particular food to eat. Of course, you didn’t really “choose” anything, you “felt” like eating a particular food item and so you did. (Example, your at a nice restaurant with your SO and the dessert cart comes around. You looked it over trying to make your “choice” of dessert, and you ask yourself, “hmm what do I feel like eating tonight?”. After examining all of your “choices” you make a selection based upon what you “felt” most like eating. So there was actually no real “choice” involved, you simply acted out of desire.) While this example may seem to some to be a little overly simplistic, if you follow it out to its logical conclusion you can see where almost all human action is based off of nothing more then “mere impulse” and there is no real “choice” involved.

Without going into my full long spiel about how free-will does arise, let me briefly say that I do find that we have some, albeit very limited, ability to make real “choices”. To do so, however, one needs to undertake much thought, inner reflection, and meditation on the matter before a true “choice” can be reached free of (or at least shielded against)preexisting beliefs and impulses. It is then, and only then, that a belief could be reached by “choice”, but this outcome is very rare and an undertaking that most people are lucky to take more then a handful of occasions (if ever) in their lifetime.

ARTelevision

I do think this is a "yes or no" question.

Fascinating explanations are great.

I'd like to know if there are some folks out there who are able to answer "yes" or "no" to the question and elaborate...

Thanks.

__________________
create evolution

iamnormal

I think beliefs are a part of the human brain. I think some people are wired so that believe in things easier and some believe in things less.
A mix of both is what helped humans evole. Belief in what is taught help keep people safe and belief in less helps us learn new things.
Like how people believed the world was flat. This belief keeped people from going out the sea to never to be seen from again. If there wasn't people that didn't believe then we would be all in one place to never venture out.
So I think belief keeps us safe but stupid and non belief makes us smarter but die faster.

Bobbias

I chose to believe that EVERYTHING you do is a choise. You recieve ann impulse from your brain telling you that you are lacking osething, and therefore form the desire to relieve yourself of the feeling of need. you chose to relieve yourself of the need. If you fast, and your body is sending impulses of hunger, although the need for food is there, and there is food to be had, you chose not to eat, and instead to fast. You can chse weather you are going to get out of bed or not. Even if you know that you have to go to work in 20 minutes. You examine the alternative, and when you see that if you do not go to work today, you may be fired, you chose that you would rather kep your job and keep all the other things associated with having a job (good or bad) as well. Therefore, although you have the relative need to go to work, you still make a choise weather to stay home or to work.

powerclown

Yes of course; beliefs are choices...as opposed to? Instincts?
What else could they be?

wilbjammin

There are beliefs and there are values. I think values are a choice, and it follows that beliefs are a choice as well.

Short Answer: Yes.

Elaboration:

It seems to me that focusing on the concept of beliefs centers around making asserations about that which cannot be known in some way or another. Coming from an existentialist standpoint that existing is absurd, and most everything we're confronted with is absurd because there is no ultimate <b>known</b> reason for it to be there, I am left in a similar state of skepticism.

I have values, and reasons behind my values, but I always try to back those values up with empirical evidence of some kind. And I can demonstrate that with choices in how I live and intrepret my life:

1) The feeling of love is something that I have and it demonstrated to me through actions, not merely through my mental imagination of what I think others feel about me.

2) The concept of believing in God, or not believing in God doesn't change the absurdity of existence - so, for me personally, the question is moot. I can't make assumptions about what a God would or wouldn't want, so I look for other clues in my existence for how to live my life.

3) Fundamentally, I am constantly looking for cause-effect relationships in deciding what I prefer. For instance, talking about whether something is fundamentally right or wrong doesn't interest me as much as what I would prefer or not prefer for myself or society, or anything else.

Example: the question of being pro-life or pro-choice - I don't find abortions desirable because they pose some risk to the mother, it places many in undesirable personal ethical and moral dilemmas, and in general it seems that it would be better to not get pregnant then to get pregnant and then decide that one didn't want to be pregnant. However, we live in a complicated world, there are plenty of people everywhere, and most importantly - there is always going to be people that put themselves in situations where they desire abortions. Abortions happen whether it is legal or not. So, my response to the abortion debate is that I think abortion should be legal to keep the practice safe, and that if we really want to decrease the numbers of abortions we should do that through education, more availability of contraceptives, etc.

4) I'm always attempting to analyze whether I am being confronted with fact or opinion. When confronted with opinions, I typically try to break down the foundations of those opinions to determine if they're based on something that I can logically understand and agree with, or not. There are cases when I disagree with people even though their logic is sound, and there are cases when I disagree with people because their opinions seem to have a nonsensical foundation to it.

5) I avoid superstition.

__________________
Innominate.

zen_tom

OK willbjammin, you've expressed a very logical, straightforward, no-nonsense take on the world, much as Art has. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you hold dear the ideas of scientific method, not jumping to conclusions, simplest explanation etc

To you, the idea of a higher power is a non-sensical one, it's surplus to requirements, it *may* be true, but you're not ready to throw your money down on one side or the other, and you remain skeptical on this and many other unknown areas of life.

So that's your worldview, those are your 'beliefs' - Now you and Art are also saying that you've chosen those beliefs. Let's try a thought experiment.

Do you think you could ever decide to throw up this view of the world and start believing whole-heartedly in a god or gods, or spirits etc? If someone offered you a hundred million dollars to completely convert to Catholicism (or some other arbitrary huge reward and equally arbitrary religious faith. - If you are reading this from a religious viewpoint, imagine embracing the logical/scientific model that the non-religious among us adopt) could anyone honestly train themselves to do that?

Let's say you had 3 months to convert and then had to stand in front of a group of people and convince them that you believed in The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Could you do it? Maybe you could convince them, but would you have honestly convinced yourself?

I really don't think it's possible, and this is why I'm saying that No, beliefs are most definitely not a matter of choice.

If beliefs are a choice, then both you and Art are saying that you would be capable of changing those beliefs should a sitation arise like the one described.

martinguerre

is belief a choice? no. it is a requirement of life.

are beliefs a choice? yes. so far as the operation of our free will is not interfered with, we are capable of chosing between different beleif systems.

art, i see no fewer value judgements, biases, and leaps of faith in your reasoning than anyone else. sorry, but i don't buy the "relentless" skeptic. your mind is made up on a great deal of things, some of which defy rational explanation to a person such as myself. your theory on language in particular is amazingly faith based. well thought out, and a show of your beliefs. but it's not provable, nor less conditioned on assumptions than any faith i've got.

honestly, we are belief filled creatures. we see patterns to help us survive, we fill in data to make our lives easier, we think in lines when there are only dots. you seem to believe it's a weakness. i think it's one of our strengths...

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Suave

Everything is a belief; even the choice not to believe in something is still a belief. It is absolutely impossible to be a sentient being without having some sort of beliefs. The choice not to believe in something is not an absence of belief, it is just a "negative" belief toward that concept.

Now, for a bit of a tangent.

They, like everything else, are a very limited choice. Basing this scientifically, you are born with genetic dispositions to certain cognitive attributes. Then, you are raised and socialised in a way that further affects the way in which you are most likely to perceive things. There are variations within the framework provided, but it essentially dictates the boundaries within which your beliefs will fall.

I don't personally subscribe completely to the scientific view of it, but it's the one that I suppose could be argued to be the most credible.

wilbjammin

If there is a higher power, I have no access to it. Because of that, I see no reason to alter how I live my life based on what a higher power would want. To change my life based on what a higher power would want would mean that I'm making assumptions about the nature of God, and I don't feel like I'm in a position to do that.

If you notice, this is your second reference to money. You're making an assumption that I care more about money than living well. The idea of changing beliefs as proof that beliefs are chosen is also non-sensical. If I have reasoned out why I have formed an understanding of this thing or that thing, or disagree with this thing or that thing, then I would need a catalyst of some sort to prompt the change in my worldview. Money as a reward is not a catalyst for me, it is meaningless. I don't think that I'm necessarily as "belief-less" as Art, at least in how I describe my existence. The reason for this is my propensity to observe the world and exist on metaphorical terms.

Starting with a basis of absurdity and an understanding of the inherent abstractedness of living in a world of thought, I know that directly interpreting anything as the thing-in-itself is impossible. Forming thoughts into words is a type of mediation of reality. On top of that, we are living in a mediated age. Most of what we know is a result of mediation of some sort, often being filtered through several sources before reaching us.

This discussion of the nature of my understanding of reality is important, because that factor shapes my ability to be skeptical and choose my views. My point is that education-level and being interested in honest living are huge factors in the ability to actively choose. Regardless, everyone does choose in some way or another, whether they know it or not.

So, to get back to your hypothetical questions - I couldn't just randomly change my views, and beliefs (as you call my views) aren't chosen in a vacuum.

I couldn't do it in an intellectually honest manner.

Giving a false choice, such as using money as the only reason to change your views upon something, does not disprove anything.

No, our views can be changed by being given compelling reasons to do so.

__________________
Innominate.

zen_tom

Excuse my over-use of monetary terms - I was trying to think of a cheap way of putting my point across. Note that I did concede "or some other arbitrary huge reward" meaning something which has value for you. I don't want to get into what has value and what doesn't, what I do want to do is determine where choice gets involved in the development of belief.

So yes, using money might be a 'false choice' as you put it, how about some other reason. What reason would make for a valid choice?

Anyway, you got the idea - and as you say at the end of your piece views can be changed by being one being given 'compelling reasons to do so'. Note that being compelled to do something suggests lack of choice (from Websters: Compel: To force to yield; to overpower; to subjugate.)

You've stated that your views are more important than money. So what, if anything might compell you to change your views?

I hope you don't think me rude for asking questions like this, I really mean no offense at all - and hope none is taken. But I honestly don't understand this idea of being able to conciously choose what I believe in.

ARTelevision

In response to those who would have us accept that a procedure that moves through a succession of tentative working hypotheses is the same thing as a system of beliefs, I state that simply typing something doesn't make it so.

To recognize the difference between beliefs and working hypotheses requires more than some are willing to offer, it seems.
To say two clearly different things are the same thing is a fascinating opinion and nothing more...

__________________
create evolution

Suave

Well, to say that belief is purely a choice is a fascinating opinion and nothing more as well. It's not like anyone here is speaking in objective terms here. A working hypothesis is based in some form of a belief. If one doesn't at least partially believe something to be true, why would one form a hypothesis on it?

ARTelevision

The working hypotheses I employ have nothing to do with "truth" - which is another concept I do not espouse.

I employ them as long as they are provisionally useful.

__________________
create evolution

powerclown

To go back to Ustwo's question to you ART regarding whether you believe you have a cat, and you stating that, no, you don't believe it so, you only act as if you have a cat until it strikes you as nonsensical to act otherwise. This is a fascinating point of view, yet I am struggling to understand it. Is the point here to take emotion out of the thought process entirely? To proceed based soley on an intellectual basis? Some other basis? If I have this correct, how do you (in any capacity) reconcile the inherent emotional nature of man with an outlook of pure logic?

When you say you don't 'believe' in anything, I understand this to mean not that you don't place value on anything, but that your values aren't based on emotion. Are you refuting the existence of emotion in your thought processes entirely?

To proceed more constructively, this understanding might make things clearer to all involved.

iamnormal

Are beliefs a choice? Yes and No.
Yes you can choose to believe fire would not hurt you.
No, when you stick your hand in the fire you no longer have a choice.