I choose to believe you'll answer another poll.

[Honor]

A recent conversation has got me thinking about another burr that's been riding under my blanket for a lot of miles...

At many different times in my life, I've heard people of religious faith say something like "Well... I choose to believe in God. Evidently, you choose not to." or "You're no better...! You choose to believe in evolution!"

That sheer tonnage of that implication stuns me in my tracks, every time I hear it.

I've heard reasonable people argue that it's a special use and definition of the word "choose", or the word "believe", but I've also had people close their eyes, square their shoulders, and flatly refuse to be budged.

While it's worth noting you can believe you "know something with certainty" and still be wrong, to "believe" something is to accept that thing as true... To know the truth of that thing with certainty.

So, reasonably, there are many ways to come to the self-perceived certainty of honest belief....

• You can be convinced of it by active (people) or static (reference) information,
• you can come to realize it over time,
• you can be reasoned into accepting it,
• some people can accept it blindly,
• you can choose to give it the benefit of the doubt, failing a better explanation,
• you can choose to avoid or refuse to give due consideration to information that might damage your ability to honestly believe it,
• you can even choose to pretend to believe it (an 'honorable' tack chosen by 'responsible' religious people all the time... they decide that it would be wrong to give voice to their own doubts, lest they damage the faith of others).

But you cannot choose to honestly, actually believe it.

Do you agree or disagree? Has our language actually degraded to such an extent that most people agree you can choose to believe or not believe something?


If you've gotten this far and still think you are free to choose whether or not you believe in something, try this experiment... Simply choose to alter your beliefs, even if only temporarily.

If you're a Christian, for instance, choose to believe, instead, in Islam for an hour. Not pretend... Not pay lip service to... Actually, honestly, deeply believe in the teachings of Islam as you understand them. Jesus Christ was an ordinary man, Christianity is a hoax and a false and heretical religion, and, should you choose to die in martyrdom during your hour, you will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins. Or 36. Or whatever the going rate is today.

Remember... Just as the bible says of "belief" in Christ and his God, nothing but pure and perfect belief and acceptance will do. You must actually and completely, deeply and wholly, in your heart of hearts know that the teachings of Islam are 100% true in order to claim success.

If you're not reaching that level of certainty, then I think "believe" is obviously too strong a word for your religious convictions, and, to be honest, you should choose a word or phrase that's more accurate... Perhaps, "I'm inclined toward an acceptance of Christianity"

Can you do it? I'll give you a head start. The first step, as I understand it, is to find a practicing Muslim and say "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet." to him, three times. I'll wait here for your results.

[LeftTentacleGreen]

A person does choose to believe in god or in evolution (or both). The difference is that evolution can be supported by something far more substantial than religious faith (voluntary schizophrenia).

I could choose not to believe in evolution, but then I'd be a raving lunatic for denying overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Theists tend to believe they deserve some default level of respect merely for having beliefs or for keeping the belief alive without evidence for the past 2000+ years. They don't deserve it. They do, however, have the opportunity to validate their beliefs as anyone else does. Alas, no religion has been able to do so since it was all sun worship.

If theists want me to accept the possibility of a god, then all they have to do is find a conscious entity that is not only capable of setting the constant for the speed of light on a universal level but then able to break that constant whenever it deems necessary so it could create the universe in a matter of 6 days.. or 7, I'm generous.

[Warmachine]

Wanna believe in something? Read about it, meet people who believe in it and tell yourself that it must be true till you do.

[Rand Al'tor]

Hmm, intriguing question. But I do believe our conscious choice has a large effect on what we believe, though mostly it's a conservative thing. One problem is that, suppose one is of the belief of christianity, one is not inclined to try to believe another belief, because part of their current beliefs is that those other beliefs are wrong.

Now, any belief one can shed like a coat is likely not to be a very intense belief, but on the other hand, neither is belief someone totally out of an individual's control. If one is faced with data that counters one's belief up till now (and that data doesn't have to be external, it can be a stray line of thoughts in the middle of the night), one can decide to question the beliefs, follow through on those questions, and based on the answers, affirm the previous beliefs (if the offered data/reasoning ends is found wanting or easily argued away) or change to new one (if the new data seems to debunk the old belief effectively, and offers a better sounding alternative) or possibly, go with doubting and hold no particular belief on the matter for a while. Alternatively, one can choose to close one's mind to the new data, and hold one to one's current belief. Why? Perhaps because it's scary to have your world view change, perhaps because holding the alternate worldview can seriously damage you and your loved ones, because your current belief considers open mindedness to be wrong, and perhaps out of sheer intellectual laziness.

This is not to say being openminded ALWAYS leads to the more truthful believe though, especially if not combined with some sound critical mindedness. However, I can honestly say to a chrisitan that I have given the belief of crhistianity (and most religion and spirituality) a fair and openminded chance to convince me of their version of things as they are and should be. It has not done so. Not believing in christianity/islam/wicca/buddhism is not a choice for me, since I have never made a conscious choice to not believe in them (and there are people that do that), they are the result of, as I see it, rational flaws in them.

Do I believe in evolution? Is that a matter of choice. In a way it is; I'm no biologist, I know the basics of evolution, but that's it. If someone with a thorough education in the field wanted to, he could probably trash me soundly in an evolution debate, with me on the evolution side. For a large part I take the basics (and perhaps a bit more than the basics) look at the scientists, and the structure of peer review that is around it, and assume that they know better than an old book.

[Leeloo]

I could choose not to believe in evolution, but then I'd be a raving lunatic for denying overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Could you really choose not to believe in evolution, or would you just be pretending or lying to yourself?

[Warmachine]

By the way, to say that I believe in evolution would be misleading as that suggests I have faith in it. Rather, I conclude that evolution is a fairly accurate model. It is a reasonable extrapolation from a different article of faith and observed evidence. That faith is that the scientific method can derive workable and fairly accurate (at some level) models of the Universe. I have faith in a methodology, not in a set of knowledge. The Theory of Evolution is derived from this methodology and the known evidence. Plus faith that writers, scientists and TV presenters aren't involved in some vast conspiracy to fake the evidence.

Thus I do not regard belief in the Christian god as having equal merit to belief in evolution.

[WangyJohn]

That's it, my brain went on strike.

[Kittyboymuffin]

I'm gonna go with "can't just believe" for exactly the same reasons Honor gave. "And if you are just going through the motions, any omniscient being you happen to be worshipping will be able to tell..."

[Lulujayne]

Just to shit-stir a bit -

A person does choose to believe in god or in evolution (or both). The difference is that evolution can be supported by something far more substantial than religious faith (voluntary schizophrenia).

What makes you so adamant that religion is not part of our evolutionary progression. Fuck, I know if I lived in a dark little cave being stalked by a sabre-toothed tiger I'd like to believe something ultimately looked after me.

Maybe this instinct to explain the universe in such a way is now irrelevant but it doesn't warrant the title "voluntary schizophrenia".

Disclaimer: I'm not religious, you can believe what you like, and justify the world and ourselves however you see fit, as long as you don't be an asshole (see other thread) it's all fine by me

Once again I refer to the Douglas Adams quote from the other thread.

[LeftTentacleGreen]

To LeeLoo: Of course I can choose. I can also choose to change my mind. What matters is the reasoning behind it. I currently have no reason to change my mind.

Just to shit-stir a bit -

A person does choose to believe in god or in evolution (or both). The difference is that evolution can be supported by something far more substantial than religious faith (voluntary schizophrenia).

What makes you so adamant that religion is not part of our evolutionary progression. Fuck, I know if I lived in a dark little cave being stalked by a sabre-toothed tiger I'd like to believe something ultimately looked after me.

Maybe this instinct to explain the universe in such a way is now irrelevant but it doesn't warrant the title "voluntary schizophrenia".

Disclaimer: I'm not religious, you can believe what you like, and justify the world and ourselves however you see fit, as long as you don't be an asshole (see other thread) it's all fine by me

Once again I refer to the Douglas Adams quote from the other thread.

Wanting to change things beyond our control is nothing new, Lulu. This kind of magic, wishing and ritual appeasement to higher powers was being done long before God was created in man's image. We don't even need gods to do it. There are lucky horseshoes, four-leaf clovers, pennies, silver bullets and many other good luck charms that we rub and want to believe will change the outcome of nature in our favor. That's not evolution, its just fear.

Ever hear the term "there are no atheists in foxholes"? I would claim there are no christians in foxholes either. Just people who are terrified of the potential outcome. In time of war, its the potential of losing their own lives. There are similar response with lesser extremes. Professional athletes will cling to little superstitions because they feel it might give them a better performance. In that case its their jobs and lucrative advertisement deals on the line.

Its just a question of how much may be lost, how insecure the person is and how far the individual is willing to go to appease their specific good luck charm. Theists not only rub and worship their good luck totems, they go out of their way to build statues, places of worship and try to rewrite the rules of civilization to appease their personal little good luck charm. This is a voluntary response to the hope that their efforts will not be wasted and that their personal sky genie will grant their every wish.

If that's not voluntary schizophrenia, I don't know what would be.

There is another kind of faith that I believe you are referring to. That is the interpersonal faith that people have between one another that allows people to trust one another in society which they base on their own individual experiences. This differs from religious faith in that religious faith is trust in that special invisible sky genie based on events they really, really hope happened.

[Orwell]

I'd say yes you can choose to believe what you will. Your experiences will determine your probable belief, but that doesn't mean you can't choose to believe the false, or true as the case dictates.

What about those who, despite living in horrible conditions and could easily change them with just a single action, believes that they will improve if they just wait. But if they change their beliefs, they could commit to that single action and give themselves a better life.

Besides, I don't believe in not having a choice. The notion that your path is chosen is nonsense, nobody is looking after you, nobody is watching, nobody but another person is going to cry foul because you didn't follow your chosen path.

[Honor]

Speaking of being stunned in my tracks. Essentially Ten to Seven. And Five of the Ten are squarely in what would be analogous to the "Evolution isn't real and the rapture is coming... Soon!" camp.

This is far worse than I imagined possible.

Some definitions... (In all cases, I have emphasized words I wish to expand on by underscoring and/or color, and I have excluded irrelevant definitions... We don't need, in this conversation, to discuss "trust" in the sense used by bankers & lawyers.)

choose
· v.
1 pick out as being the best of two or more alternatives.
2 decide on a course of action.

Seems ok, so far... You can choose which socks to wear, you can choose which soup to have with your lunch, or you can choose to have a salad. You can choose both. We could just choose to reference Warmachine's sig line from trainspotting. But in this case, we're not talking about any of that. We're talking about a belief. The use of the second word moderates the weight and direction of the definition of the first.

And there's that word "best" in there...

best
· adj.
of the most excellent or desirable type or quality. Ø most appropriate, advantageous, or well advised.

Still seems ok. If all our neighbors are Catholic, choosing to be Catholic ourselves would certainly be advantageous and well advised... Particularly four hundred years ago.

But that would only be choosing to be identified that way... Choosing to make the expected motions so that others are led to believe that we believe as they do. Simply choosing to go to the church and say the words doesn't automatically mean that we believe the words. And there's that word "belief" again.

belief
· n.
1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Ø a firmly held opinion or conviction. Ø a religious conviction.
2 (belief in) trust or confidence in.

Now we're getting somewhere. An acceptance that something exists, or is true. Not that we'd like it to be true, not that we're willing to suppose it's true for the sake of argument or social acceptance... But rather to literally accept that it is true. And, just to underscore...

accept
· v.
...
3 believe to be valid or correct.

We close the circuit with the relevant definition of "accept". The lack of leeway is underscored. This is not a wishy-washy commitment, or, for that matter, a "commitment" of any kind. Rather a qualifier to describe the status of the perceived validity of two or more ideas or competing bits of information in your mind. In this case, something you cannot choose to assign, but rather something that is assigned by your mind, based on available data.

For instance... If I give you two "facts" about myself... First, as it happens, I'm twenty-four feet tall. Second, it also happens that I was born in the sixties.

Now that you have taken in those two bits of information, your brain has assessed them, at least summarily. One of them may seem plausible to you, and the other not... In which case, even without proof, you are inclined to think that one of them is more likely to be true. You may, in fact, doubt both or them, or you may find both of them equally reasonable and likely.

The point is, you did not consciously choose which of those states these bits of information would occupy. Nor could you.

If you disagree, simply prove it by altering the status of one of both "facts" in your mind. Once you can honestly, literally, believe - hold it to be absolutely true - that I am twenty-four feet tall, let me know.

This is not the "predestination" that Orwell is arguing against, but merely the function of our brain's involuntary interaction, in real time, with the information it encounters.

So, LeftTentacleGreen... Could you, in fact, choose to believe that evolution is not more acceptably true than, say, "intelligent design"? Could you flip some intellectual switch in your brain, by concious choice, and suddenly view the 'evidence' on the side of evolution to be inferior and less likely to be true than the evidence on the side of ID?

I don't think you can, and the proof of it is in your own statement... You say yourself that if you were to view the evidence thusly, it would require that you be a "lunatic". That's not a choice, that's an affliction.

Then, we have Warmachine using the word "faith" to describe his acceptance of scientific method and principal... This is damaging because so many people of religious faith find it useful to make the same erroneous allusion, to imply that "faith" is the supernatural is just as valid as "faith" in science.

But do you actually have faith in science?

faith
· n.
1 complete trust or confidence.
2 strong belief in a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
3 a system of religious belief.

"...rather than..." i.e: "...instead of...".

Many things have influenced my acceptance of scientifically proven principals and theories... But "spiritual apprehension" is not one of them. Nor am I in the habit of accepting them on the basis of "trust" or without "proof".

trust
· n.
1 firm belief in someone or something. Ø acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation.

The concept of "trust" itself flies in the face of scientific principal. Even when we choose to give a scientific report the benefit of the doubt, without conducting the experiments ourselves, we are allowing the reputation of the scientists themselves or the institution they represent to stand in as evidence of their habitual veracity, accuracy, and impartiality... Therefore, even reading something in Scientific American and considering that it's probably verifiably true is not an act of faith, but rather an allowance based on previous experience and judgment.

proof
· n.
1 evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. .... Ø the proving of the truth of a statement.

So, once you have reliable, factual evidence of something, it becomes, by definition, impossible to have faith in it... Faith, after all, is the acceptance of something without evidence of proof.


So... Someone please... Please tell me you want to change your vote... Or that you have a solid, logical argument against the evidence presented above.


You simply cannot choose what you believe. It is, by definition, impossible.

[Plek]

I feel that your poll is lacking in deffinition. You cannot choose to believe in something you know is untrue. You can choose to ignore facts, points, gaping holes in logic but you're still stuck with the knowledge that whatever it is, is in fact untrue.

That does not apply to the discussion that this poll is referring to. The existence, as far as I know, of a god cannot be proven true or false. Its an intangiable. As such, you can choose to believe in such things. With as many holes you blow thru their logic, the only thing they have to fall back on is that nothing actually proves the non-existance of god.

In a similar way, most athiests choose not to believe in god. There reliance on logic and reason pushes them away from a god figure because it represents a hole in knowledge, and they believe that the hole can be filled with knowledge completely, eventually.

Errr, I guess to sum it up simply. Since you cannot be sure is its a yes/no answer, you can choose between either. If you can be certain, then there is no choice.

[Error of Logic]

One brief question to Honor: how many people actually get science, as in understand it and the explanations it gives? And how many people listen to the little bits they do understand, then later accept more and bigger things because they are said to be scientifically proven?

[LeftTentacleGreen]

So, LeftTentacleGreen... Could you, in fact, choose not to believe that evolution is not more acceptably true than, say, "intelligent design"? Could you flip some intellectual switch in your brain, by concious choice, and suddenly view the 'evidence' on the side of ID to be inferior and less likely to be true than the evidence on the side of evolution?

I don't think you can, and the proof of it is in your own statement... You say yourself that if you were to view the evidence thusly, it would require that you be a "lunatic". That's not a choice, that's an affliction.

I have the potential to choose to believe creationism is more acceptable than evolution. But in order to do that, and be honest with myself, and the world around me, I would have to see direct, reproducible evidence of the existence of any god with the ability to do exactly that. The switch is there, but it was yet to see reason enough to use it.

Until they produce that evidence, however, I don't have to treat these creationists with any more respect than I do any crackpot. As for their trying to get ID or Creationism into science classes, I could come up with about a dozen pseudo-science that deserve more attention than Creationism does.

I even stuck a list of them on the Kirk Camerahog page on IMDB.

The term lunatic was used as a metaphor. As in I would have to be mentally or ethically "shut off", by choice or by affliction, to accept creationism as it is now.

[Honor]

I feel that your poll is lacking in deffinition. You cannot choose to believe in something you know is untrue. You can choose to ignore facts, points, gaping holes in logic but you're still stuck with the knowledge that whatever it is, is in fact untrue.

That would be option one if they successfully shield themselves from controversial information, or if they are exposed to it bu honestly fail to grasp it... Option three if the -do- grasp it but choose to ignore it. That's nothing but a pretense to belief, for whatever reason.

That does not apply to the discussion that this poll is referring to. The existence, as far as I know, of a god cannot be proven true or false. Its an intangiable. As such, you can choose to believe in such things. With as many holes you blow thru their logic, the only thing they have to fall back on is that nothing actually proves the non-existance of god.

Your own language gives lie to your assertions... Either they are unconvinced - the assertion that the existence of God has not been sufficiently disproven - or they are being disingenuous and claiming a belief they no longer actually hold.

In a similar way, most athiests choose not to believe in god. There reliance on logic and reason pushes them away from a god figure because it represents a hole in knowledge, and they believe that the hole can be filled with knowledge completely, eventually.

Nope. Cannot choose to believe or not to believe... Address the definitions of the words. What in the definition of "belief" implies the possibility of "choice"? Atheists believe God does not exist because the evidence presented for is, in the involuntary evaluation of their brains, inferior to the evidence given against.

Errr, I guess to sum it up simply. Since you cannot be sure is its a yes/no answer, you can choose between either. If you can be certain, then there is no choice.

"Belief" doesn't require absolute correctness of certainty... Only that the preponderance of credible evidence lies in favor of a given option. Such a belief can, of course, be changed later by the addition of more or better information... But that is evidence, not choice.

Sound logic does not allow for an unlikely option to be given full weight of credence simply because another option is incompletely proven.

You don't know my height, but that doesn't mean it's equally likely that I am five feet tall or twenty-four feet tall... You involuntarily believe one of those options to be more likely, even though both are false.

[Honor]

One brief question to Honor: how many people actually get science, as in understand it and the explanations it gives? And how many people listen to the little bits they do understand, then later accept more and bigger things because they are said to be scientifically proven?

Immaterial. The question is not whether you fully or correctly understand it, but whether you believe your understanding of it is sufficient to form an honest opinion. This glaring frailty in the mental processes of most human beings is responsible for most or America not accurately understanding evolution...

They have been given 'bad' information which sounds, to them, credible and plausible, and they have been given 'good' information they don't understand. ...Thus their honest belief is flawed. But not chosen.

[Honor]

I see you got hold of that quote before I fixed the glaring grammatical errors that made it say the opposite of what it was intended to say...

Anyway, since it's clear you took it at it's intended meaning...

I have the potential to choose to believe creationism is more acceptable than evolution. But in order to do that, and be honest with myself, and the world around me, I would have to see direct, reproducible evidence of the existence of any god with the ability to do exactly that. The switch is there, but it was yet to see reason enough to use it.

There's the key, right there...

...in order to do that, and be honest with myself, and the world around me, I would have to see direct, reproducible evidence...

You would have to see evidence... Thus taking it directly out of the realm of "choice" and into the realm of an involuntary reaction based on given data.

Once you had this theoretical "evidence", of course, you could still choose to pretend you found the evidence for evolution more compelling... But that would not, by definition, be "belief".

[Plek]

Honor you are just playing word games. You are of course correct, you cannot choose belief because belief in itself is the choosing.


Edited for pointlessness.

[Honor]

Honor you are just playing word games. You are of course correct, you cannot choose belief because belief in itself is the choosing.


Edited for pointlessness.

you must have caught it just in time... the version that came up under "quote" is different than the version I was reading when I clicked it. ...though I saw nothing impolite in the version I saw.

I'd be forced to challenge the idea that using words as they are defined in the dictionary is "playing word games". I think I'd reserve that epithet for applying different, non-standard definitions as the situation arises.

And no... Belief is not "the choosing". Belief is the result of an involuntary valuation of available information.

And, to the part you edited out, the word "God" is not part of the poll. "Belief" is a concept independent of the divine. I believe I'll be in LA by midnight, I believe I'll be in Mira Loma an hour later, and in Fontana by 2pm tomorrow afternoon. I believe I'll be in Los Lunas, New Mexico within a week after that. I believe my next paycheck will be deposited by 1 or 2 am Tuesday, and I believe I'll have most all of that money spent on overdue bills within 24 hours of that time.

None of this has anything to do with God, and none of it is by choice. If I choose to ignore my duties, I might not be in LA by midnight... That part is choice... But the belief that, if I follow my planned course of action and nothing goes terribly wrong I will be in LA, on time, is not subject to choice... Either I believe it, or I don't.