Belief Is It Really A Choice?

[DarthOkkata]

I think that many Christians under the mistaken impression that people can 'choose' to believe something. At least that there is much more 'choice' involved than there really is.

 

There is no evidence to support that a God exists, any God, much less Bible God. Evidence contradicts the Bible far too much.

 

I could not decide to believe in Jesus any more than I could decide to think that Santa Claus is real.

 

Sure, I could say that he was real, but I would still know better. If I said I believed in him, I would be lying. I couldn't just decide he was real and actually think that he was based on a personal choice.

 

Without convincing evidence, I could not 'choose' to believe in God if I wanted too.

 

I did not 'choose' to not believe in Jesus.

 

There's no real evidence that he ever existed.

 

It wasn't a decision, it was a realization. Not some voluntary thing that I convinced myself of. The evidence I encountered disproved it in my mind, and I became convinced that God is not real. I have no reason to believe that he is. Deistic or Agnostic God is within possibility I suppose, but a religious ideal of him? I do not believe that it is possibly true.

 

I'm not even convinced that Deistic or Agnostic God is real, only that it's within the realm of distant possibility that such a thing might exist. I don't think it cares if I think it's real or not if it does exist.

 

You do not 'choose' to believe or not believe something like that. I don't think that is how belief works.

 

The only way to change my mind is with solid evidence that you are correct. I've yet to encounter any theist of any faith that can provide such evidence.

 

Appealing to my sentiments won't work. I do not think with my emotions.

 

I'll put it this way:

 

You come across a five year old with a chocolate covered face, crumb covered clothes, a broken cookie jar, dirty hand prints indicating that the jar had been pulled down and dropped by very small five year old hands, and there are no other possible culprits, you are alone in the home with the child, and the cookie jar was not disturbed the last time you saw it.

 

The child claims to be innocent of breaking the jar and eating the contents.

 

Could you really 'choose' to believe the child?

 

Sure, you could -say- that you 'believed' the child if you wished, perhaps the child is adorable enough that you don't really want to get angry with them, but would you really not know that the child was guilty?

 

The Bible is not supported by the evidence, it is literally the 'Child' in this scenario. I don't believe it, there's no evidence that it's correct, and the actual evidence does not support it. [Existence of Dinosaurs, age of Earth, No evidence for a Global Flood, no contemporary evidence for Jesus's existence, etc.]

 

I do not think the Bible is possibly true. I could not convince myself otherwise even if I willfully tried to.

 

I do not think that belief in God is willful either. It's something that is trained into people. Even converts, it preys upon their ignorance and fills in some of the holes in things they do not understand. It fills them with fantasy explanations and uses both positive reinforcement [God loves you, love bombing, acceptance into a larger group, etc.], shame, [sin, guilt trips, you're unworthy, without God you're nothing, etc.] and fear to convince them. [Hell, eternal punishment, etc.] It uses emotion and not evidence, and then provided unverifiable and suspect 'proof' of it's claims.

 

In some cases, it uses their already in error spiritual beliefs, and convinces them that the Christian way is more correct. Ignorance as a foundation for what is simply a different kind of ignorance.

 

Belief is based upon experience and evidence, and how those things are interpreted by the individual. It's not a voluntary or willful thing. You do not try to believe. You simply do based upon what you know, were taught, or evidence that supports the belief.

 

I couldn't chose to think that Superman is going to fly down out of the sky and save me from falling off a cliff if I jumped. I would know better, and if I was falling, I would realize that I was going to die or at least get really broken. Which would be better I might be unsure of.

 

Religion is a popular idea because it's based on magic. Call it the power of God, or the Holy Spirit, or whatever you wish, it's still magic. All children believe in magic, even if only for a short time, and all of us were once children.

 

However, once we grow up, we realize that Santa isn't the one who leaves us presents under the tree, and that there isn't a giant rabbit hiding colored eggs and candy for us to find.

 

Jesus, for some reason, persists. Adults continue to believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, and that there was once a giant flood that covered the whole planet with water despite the complete lack of evidence, and in many cases, the complete contradiction of the evidence.

 

They continue to believe in magic. They don't choose to do this, they are convinced of it. It is expected of them, it is not possible that it is not true. It is not something they are making themselves do and they didn't convince themselves that it was.

 

They seek out 'proof' that it's real. There's a place in Rome that claims to have the -actual manger- Jesus spent his first night on Earth in. They continue to see the Shroud of Turin as an actual image of Jesus Christ's face. There are many examples of this sort of thing, and I don't see it as any different than a 'Ripley's Believe It or Not' museum or a side show at a carnival.

 

It is not intentional that they cling to their beliefs. They are programed to reject any idea that even suggests that it might not be true. It's not willful ignorance, it's just ignorance. Stubborn, stupid, ignorance.

 

It's thinking with your 'gut'. Don't listen to 'gut'. 'Gut' is a moron. 'Gut' will get you into trouble, and prevent brain from doing it's job.

 

Being brainwashed is not a choice, it's conditioning. By the time they're old enough, or wise enough to make the decision on their own, it's too late. The decision has been made for them. The chance to find the truth for themselves is already taken away.

 

There's a reason children are indoctrinated into religion. It's because Adults aren't stupid enough to buy it without the conditioning and brainwashing they get during childhood. Most converts come from places where high levels of ignorance are common, or were indoctrinated into another faith in their youth so the foundation of ignorance is already laid out.

 

Adults know that Santa isn't leaving them presents, Adults know that there's no magic rabbit leaving eggs and candy, Adults know that little crackers and fermented grape juice aren't someone's flesh and blood, Adults know that snakes and donkeys can't talk, that you can't build a boat that will float that's big enough to fit two of every animal on the planet onto it, much less convince them all to get on board and get along for forty days and nights, and that you wouldn't survive being in the belly of any animal for three days.

 

People don't choose to believe these things. They are trained from birth, or force fed these ideas in place of already established ignorance.

 

Why do Christians believe that people can just decide to believe in something like their God at all?

 

As if I can just suddenly think 'God is real' and somehow be convinced of this just because I wanted to think that it was true?

 

I could say 'I think God is real' but I would be lying. I would still know better.

 

Why don't Christians understand that? What don't they get about it?

 

Russell's Teapot is a very good reason why I can't believe in their God.

 

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

 

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

 

Assuming you knew that no human astronaut ever left a teapot floating about in space, would you believe in the teapot?

 

Could you make yourself believe in it just by wanting too?

 

I couldn't. I can't make myself believe in Jesus either.

 

Christians have to prove that he was real, and that he was the Son of God.

 

Just like a Christian couldn't convince themselves that Superman was real, I can't convince myself that Jesus was. For exactly the same reasons.

 

You can't make yourself believe something. It doesn't work that way.

 

You must be convinced of a belief, and that's not voluntary.

[Skeptic]

For me, belief, or lack thereof, was never a choice. I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to be an atheist. I had a hard time believing in god all while I was growing up, and it's not like I was born to atheists or even liberal xians, either. My parents are fundamentalist xians, so I was constantly inundated with messages about how Jesus loves me and how god has a plan for me and whatnot. I didn't choose to start questioning god's existence at an early age. From the time I was 2 years old until I was around 5-6 years old, I wanted to believe in god. I wanted the relationship with god that others around me had, where they could talk to him and he'd answer their prayers and they felt like he was watching over them. I never had that. No matter what I did or how much I wanted to believe, the concept of "god" just never fully sunk in. As I got a bit older, though, I started to "rebel against god" because I was just so damn sick of putting all this effort into trying to believe and not getting any results that I just didn't want to deal with any of it anymore. I would occasionally go through phases where I would try to make myself believe again, but invariably, something would happen to make me doubt again. So choice...hmm...nope, I personally don't think I had much of a choice in the matter. I had pretty much the same amount of choice in "choosing" to believe in god as I did in "choosing" to be bisexual, which isn't too much. I can certainly lie to myself and try to convince myself that I'm straight, or a xian, which is what I did for quite awhile, but at the end of the day, I am neither of these things.

 

However, I do disagree with this statement: "It's thinking with your 'gut'. Don't listen to 'gut'. 'Gut' is a moron. 'Gut' will get you into trouble, and prevent brain from doing it's job." Actually, listening to gut instinct can prove to be beneficial in some instances. I've found that when I ignore that, I get into a shitload of trouble that way. I would argue that a "gut instinct" isn't as pseudo-scientific as the term makes it sound. It's a person's initial assessment of a situation. If you're about to cross the street and a city bus is speeding toward you, what's your first thought? It would be to step back onto the curb, correct? If you stand in the middle of the street second-guessing yourself and "using your brain", you'll be a pancake. Intuition can be a very useful tool if, and only if, you listen to it. The ability to make split-second, live-saving decisions is never a bad thing, no matter how pseudo-scientific that ability may seem.

[Deva]

Because I was raised in a strict Christian home, for many years I tried to make myself believe it but at around age 13 I started to realize that it was a big world out there with other religions that were really different but made sense to other people. Some of these other religions sounded more plausible to me than Christianity. That began to sink in when I read the Bhagavad Gita. Much later in college I took a course on religion.

 

I did not think that even if BibleGod really existed, he would approve of what the church was teaching and doing, either. I had a lot of psychological conflict because at the same time I wanted to please my Christian parents. How could they be so wrong about this religion, when it meant so much to them?

 

Belief means so much in Christianity. I began to question that. Belief meant a lot more than people's individual behavior and actions. The worldview of Christianity does not correspond to what I experience as reality, and outright contradicts the known evidence of how the world came to be as it is (evolution).

 

I woud be lying to say I believed in BibleGod. I have also reached a point where it is just not possible to believe it. There is no evidence for it, and a lot against it. Is it really possible to believe in a personal god in the sky that loves everyone? Just look around. Everyday there are events in the world that destroy this idea. I wonder how many people are still in the churches struggling with trying to make Christianity into something real.

[mwc]

To make a choice means to make a selection or decision. This sounds obvious but it seems it is not.

 

When I believed in "god" and "jesus" I did so by choice. It was my decision. Even though I was born into it and I was "indoctrinated" into it from day one (I was baptized at 27 days...I got confirmed later on for those who don't think that infant baptisms "count") I still had to make a choice to believe all that was being said to me on the subject.

 

And that's just it. The information being given to me was from trusted sources. So the information must have been valid, right? So why not believe it? I had the ability to know, as I grew older, to know when people, even these same people, were feeding me a line of crap. But I chose to accept the "jesus" stuff and to keep on accepting it as truth. I chose to not entertain alternate views (or do so properly). I did this.

 

So (through a series of events) when the time came and I could weigh both sides for myself and I could get the chance to choose yet again I did. This time I chose against. All the times I chose before I really was choosing from a flawed set of choices, essentially ranging from "Jesus loves me" as a child to Pascal's Wager being the worst case as an adult. Later I added deism, polytheism and all the rest. Other arguments which allowed for morality of these gods to be considered as well without holding back for YHWH. I then made my choice(s) (it happened more than once). It was a choice.

 

Can I choose to go back? I don't think so but then again I never thought I'd wind up here. If I did ever go back I very much doubt I'd be the simple minded little "sheeple" I was before. I know too much. I question too much. I could never simply sit there and accept the idea of absolutely loving "god" that is entirely selfless in all ways. That makes no sense to me at all anymore. I couldn't "choose" to become the person I once was and if that's what this thread is about then this thread makes no sense. If, however, enough evidence came my way to tip the scales from "atheist" to "theist" then I would choose to be a "theist" because that is what makes the most sense. Choices are made based on such things. Earlier in my life what others told me what they believed to be true, and what a book of texts called the bible, weighed in heavily as "evidence" but now they do not. This allowed the scales to tip and choices to change. But they were choices nonetheless.

 

mwc

[Mriana]

I can't make myself believe something. I can educate myself and learn what I once thought was true is not, but not the other way around. Now, I say I believe something, just to appease people, but that does actually mean I believe it. I've done that for years with my relatives, just to keep them from getting angry. People can say anything, just to keep the peace, but they cannot force themselves to believe something that is not true.

[ShackledNoMore]

It just occurred to me as I started reading the first part of the OP that the act of "choosing" to believe may have some parallels to other "choices" in the xian mindset: "choosing" one's sexual orientation (Ted Haggard being absolutely straight), "choosing" to love your spouse as an act of volition (even if deep down you cannot stand his or her guts--no wonder evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than non-believers), "choosing" to love your neighbor (heh, right)...

 

I think it's just another example of self talk, where one cannot, dare not, acknowledge the slightest doubt. It's a dangerous place to be. This selfsame ironclad, desperate control, of one's "love" for others, of one's sexuality, and to the topic, one's thoughts and mind, and the accompanying fear of what would happen if that tightfisted control started to slip, is a disastrous thing. With a demanding god, it causes "love" to be displayed in twisted, often cruel ways. If you loosen your grip on "choosing" to believe what would happen? You've been conditioned into a belief in god, you've been indoctrinated that you are a sinner: you will loose all control, whatever evil primal impulses you have (which probably have become more of an issue because of repression) will careen out of control, and you will spend all eternity burning in a lake of fire and brimstone. Just like you'd loose the self control, which you've made tenuous (or at least, in a sense, perceive as tenuous), if you don't cling to the illusion of certainty, you'll be putting your faith, and with it, your coping mechanisms and your very soul--everything you've built your world view around at risk. It is perfectly understandable, albeit sad, why this approach of "choosing to believe" would be adopted. On this side of deconversion, having critically thought through the beliefs we were taught is a wonderful, positive thing, but it does not appear this way at all from the other side.

[chefranden]

Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.'

 

`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

[Kathlene]

There is a part inside of me that I will admit would love to go back to believing and living in a warm insulated place where I didn't have to deal with real life and have decisions made for me.

 

When I think of my previous life as a xtian every day I wanted to honor god with my life and my body. I thought I would become purer by being holy and honorable. The more I have thought about this the angrier I get.

 

One example that I keep thinking about is the whole no sex before marriage. I lived a so called holy and pure life without any sexual contact for 10yrs because that was what was expected of me as a single woman. Now I did this because the bible says so and I felt it would dishonour god, blah blah you know the story. So now I am out of it and having sexual experiences I am finding myself hurt and torn from them and I am learning a very sharp path in life. My point is though, that I am learning these things on my own. If I was a xtian I would be so called protected from it, but what about me as a human being making choices on my own and deciding if they are good for me?

 

As a xtian you give up those rights to experience life and learn by trial and error. Thats why I am angry. What about giving me the ability to say yes I want to honor my own body because I freakin well want to for my own good, not because someone tells me to.

 

If God supposedly created us and gave us this life to live...he then wants us to give it back to him and give up our ability to make bad decisions and learn. Its like a parent saying to a child no dear, you can't do any of that stuff because I know it will hurt you and it will dishonor me so NO you are not allowed. Aren't you disrespecting that person/child as a human being and saying they are not capable of making decisions?? Even though you know they will darn well get hurt by their actions, at least they are using their own brain to make that decision.

 

I think that's what is making me angry. That you have to give up your brain and your so called will and give it to god. Im with Darth on this though. Why on earth would god want us to believe that Jesus is the son of god when there is just no historical evidence of him. Its insane. I couldn't choose to go back now because I just don't flat out believe in it anymore. Im not sure what would ever make me believe in it again either, and if I spend an eternity in hell because of my struggle with it then that's just the cruellest thing I have ever heard. That is no loving god. No mercy? hah.

[oddbird1963]

DarthOkkata,

 

The concept I think of when I read your post is 'authenticity.' If we want to be authentic people we cannot choose belief or unbelief. We can only examine the evidence. Belief or unbelief will follow.

 

However, the primary concern of religion is to make you 'bend.' That is what they are after. They would love for you to be 'authentic' and honestly believe, but they will take just plain submission: publicly acknowledge that they are right and cooperate with their system. Make the religion look good by adding your name to their membership roll, participating in activities in some way and, of course, cheerfully give to that religion. But, if you cannot be cheerful, they seem willing to take a begrudging buck or two.

 

To many churches, stepping out on faith is behaving as if you believed something were true long enough to ignore , suppress and forget your doubts ( 'talk the talk' and 'walk the walk'). Many people have the ability to do that if there is social, economic and psychological pressure upon them to do so.

 

It's not authentic belief, but it's good enough for a lot of religious groups.

[Ouroboros]

Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said `one can't believe impossible things.'

 

`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

And it's a true story. Archeologists, real Historians (not those agnostic/non-theistic Scholars like Ehrman) have proven that there exist and used to exist queens and even people with the name Alice. Psychologists can confirm that "laughing" is a real human response and emotion. And logically, based on philosophical thinking, half-an-hour a day is perfectly long enough for a person to believe up to six impossible things.

 

Ergo, we can conclude that anyone can believe impossible things.

 

 

(It's not a religion, it's a relationship with imaginary friends.)

[godlessgrrl]

I don't know how much belief is chosen, as a matter of will.

 

Yes, I can look at my inability to believe in Christianity, look back at the process of how I got here, and see that it all just fell apart - that falling apart wasn't something I chose. But I did choose to question my faith regardless of what outcome that questioning might have led to. That was a choice, and it got me here.

 

And what about people who are willfully ignorant? You know, those really frustrating folks who have managed to convince themselves of a belief, and hold to it so tightly that they refuse to give it up even in the face of contrary evidence? That sounds a lot like a choice to believe, from where I'm sitting. And isn't that, in large part, what faith is about? Believing in "things unseen" - i.e., things that don't have any evidence behind them?

 

I'm not convinced that beliefs can't be chosen. Maybe they can, to a limited extent. But if so, I don't think that being able to do so is the virtue that Christians make it out to be.

[DarthOkkata]

However, I do disagree with this statement: "It's thinking with your 'gut'. Don't listen to 'gut'. 'Gut' is a moron. 'Gut' will get you into trouble, and prevent brain from doing it's job." Actually, listening to gut instinct can prove to be beneficial in some instances. I've found that when I ignore that, I get into a shitload of trouble that way. I would argue that a "gut instinct" isn't as pseudo-scientific as the term makes it sound. It's a person's initial assessment of a situation. If you're about to cross the street and a city bus is speeding toward you, what's your first thought? It would be to step back onto the curb, correct? If you stand in the middle of the street second-guessing yourself and "using your brain", you'll be a pancake. Intuition can be a very useful tool if, and only if, you listen to it. The ability to make split-second, live-saving decisions is never a bad thing, no matter how pseudo-scientific that ability may seem.

 

'Gut' is not for critical thinking. Gut is feelings, Gut is for deciding if you like something or not. Gut is for 'I like ice cream' or 'Tits are awesome'.

 

Gut is not for deciding how to do your taxes. Gut is not for making important life decisions that will effect you for the rest of your life. Gut is not for deciding what is real and what is not. Gut is not to be trusted with anything more important than 'I like' or 'I don't like.' That's Gut's job, and Gut is good at that job and it's not an unimportant job.

 

Brain is superior however, Brain's job is much harder, Brain is more important than Gut. Brain deals with anything complex, Brain deals with anything important, Brain can see farther ahead than Gut can, Gut can only see what's right in front of it. Brain is trustworthy, Gut is impulsive and stupid.

 

Brain is what you should be listening to when deciding to base your entire life on a system of beliefs, or whether or not you should move to Nevada, or whether you should take this really hot, but emotionally suspect lover up on the offer to get married after the second date.

 

If Brain and Gut are in disagreement say 'Cheese taste great!' vs. 'I'm lactose intolerant!', then Brain should always win the argument. If Gut wins, then you regret it later.

 

Obeying your instincts is a good idea at times, but it's also a very bad idea most of the time. Especially with important issues that require more thought than 'I like' or 'I dislike'. One should not ignore feelings, but they are not to be used to make important decisions in most cases. Gut's input can be considered, but Brain should always have the final say.

 

Remember, even chickens have instincts, and chickens are stupid disgusting creatures who will peck out each others eyes, fuck their own parents and siblings, eat turd covered seeds, and try to escape by running away despite having wings.

 

Gut is a moron, even morons can make some simple decisions without any trouble, but they shouldn't be trusted with important decisions. That's what Brain is for.

[DarthOkkata]

Well, choosing to question is not the same as choosing what to believe.

 

You can choose to research a topic, choose to ignore certain evidence, choose to use or avoid critical thinking, but as with Pandora's Box, once it's out, it's out.

 

There is choice involved, I'm not saying that there isn't, but the choice doesn't really involve deciding what to believe. The belief comes based on how you analyze the evidence, what conclusions you come to.

 

What a person believes, and what a person would like to believe or claims to believe are very often entirely different things.

 

The choice is in the seeking of further information, not what is discerned from that information. You choose to do the research, think critically, examine evidence, and test the theories that result. [Or not to do so in some cases.]

 

You do not really get to decide what the results are.

 

It's true, you could go about trying to prove something is true, but most of us here know that's not how one does proper research.

 

Many people are not aware of that, but even then, the result is not always what is expected either. Many people try to prove something, and end up disproving it despite their best efforts not to.

 

Most people don't bother to even question religious beliefs, out of fear, or simply a kind of arrogant ignorant certainty, they don't feel the need to bother. After all, they -know- they're right already.

 

Others, simply seek out 'proof' that supports that they already think or believe. They look for supportive evidence alone, and willfully ignore or avoid anything that does not support or agree with what they already believe. Again, not the way to do proper research.

 

This is how creationism continues. Creationist aren't interested in what the facts of Evolution really are, but are more interested in promoting their religious based beliefs and disproving 'Darwinist', so much so they can't be bothered to find out what the Theories really are, or what they actually say or involve, and instead create a mythic psuedo science and make up theories and research evidence figures to fit what they think is already true. Claiming odd proofs that have little or nothing to do with actual science and completely disregard the scientific method altogether most of the time.

 

The problem with this system is that it needs a group of people involved who -know- better, but lie, create false information, misrepresent real information, and intentionally mislead and create ignorance in order to further their own agendas, usually for personal gain.

 

Others simply make stuff up that supports what they believe, pretend as if it's been proven and discovered, and then wait around for their conclusions to be proven right. After all, even if that sort of evidence hasn't been found, it's only a matter of time before it is. I'd say idiots like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron fall into this category, though Comfort may fall into category one as well, the greedy prick. Cameron is just a stooge reading lines Comfort provides for him. He's just a moron I think.

 

Most normal everyday creationist aren't 'trying' to be ignorant or stupid, they're succeeding despite themselves. They do not choose their beliefs, they simply wallow in them and refuse to think critically about them, either from a lack of ability, or a lack of desire to do so.

 

It's not really the belief that's the choice, it's the act of researching, thinking critically, and examination of evidence that results in the belief.

 

The belief comes on it's own, based on what someone is taught, and what someone is willing to listen to or examine, and personal experience.

 

Sometimes these factors are misinterpreted or just plain wrong, but I don't think the belief that comes from them is a willful or chosen belief.

 

Belief is essentially the sum of what someone has learned, experienced, and trusts. It's the end result of several factors, and not something that an individual chooses for themselves.

 

There might be some choices involved in the causes of belief, but not in the end result of what those beliefs turn out to be.

[Skeptic]

'Gut' is not for critical thinking.

 

I agree. As I said, gut instincts prove highly useful when making decisions on the fly. If you sit there and really think hard about what to do in a life-or-death situation, nine times out of ten, you will be fucked. That's just how it is.

 

Gut is not for making important life decisions that will effect you for the rest of your life. ... Gut is not to be trusted with anything more important than 'I like' or 'I don't like.'

 

With all due respect, I beg to differ. A person's initial instinct in a situation is crucial in making important life decisions, such as whether or not you will get out of a dangerous situation alive. I would say that such a decision would undoubtedly affect you for the rest of your life. Let's stop calling it the "gut" and call it what it really is. What you call the "gut" is really just a more "primitive" part of the brain. It's the autonomic nervous system, or, more specifically, the sympathetic nervous system, which is a branch of the autonomic nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system deals with the "fight or flight" response, which is what I am primarily referring to when I say "gut instinct". Maybe you define "gut instinct" differently than I do? In any case, different parts of the brain have different functions, and the parts that make up what is referred to as the "gut" here are no less important than the ones that are referred to as the "brain". Think about it: is the gastrointestinal tract of any animal, including homo sapiens, truly capable of any sort of thought whatsoever? No, it isn't. I know I'm being pedantic when I say that, but the term "gut" is not anatomically accurate when it is used in reference to a different part of the brain.

 

Brain is superior however, Brain's job is much harder, Brain is more important than Gut. Brain deals with anything complex, Brain deals with anything important, Brain can see farther ahead than Gut can, Gut can only see what's right in front of it. Brain is trustworthy, Gut is impulsive and stupid.

 

There are situations where you need to be able to only see what's right in front of you and make an impulsive decision based on what you see. Just because the "brain" can make more complex decisions does not mean that it is more important or that the "gut" is stupid. Both types of decisions, and, by extension, both parts of the brain are important. I will say that it's not good to always be impulsive and act on your first instinct, but neither is it good to always take copious amounts of time to think before acting. It's better to have a balance between the two rather than to look at it as all-or-nothing.

 

Remember, even chickens have instincts, and chickens are stupid disgusting creatures who will peck out each others eyes, fuck their own parents and siblings, eat turd covered seeds, and try to escape by running away despite having wings.

 

So what if other animals have instincts? All that tells me is that it's an evolutionary trait that is crucial to survival. I fail to see what is so horrible about this. Aren't humans also animals? Why shouldn't we have many of the same instincts that animals have?

[Kurari]

I wouldn't say belief itself is a choice. Before creating a belief you have to have thought, feeling, and experiance. Belief is what's formed out of this input you've received.

 

I believed in gods because my thought, feelings, and experiance convinced me that gods existed. Till I came here, sorted through the discussions, arguments, and facts, and felt, "Well, you know, they are right." So I no longer believe my previous experiences were the results of the work of gods due to new information and way of doing things.

[agnosticator]

'Gut' is not for critical thinking.

 

I agree. As I said, gut instincts prove highly useful when making decisions on the fly. If you sit there and really think hard about what to do in a life-or-death situation, nine times out of ten, you will be fucked. That's just how it is.

 

Gut is not for making important life decisions that will effect you for the rest of your life. ... Gut is not to be trusted with anything more important than 'I like' or 'I don't like.'

 

With all due respect, I beg to differ. A person's initial instinct in a situation is crucial in making important life decisions, such as whether or not you will get out of a dangerous situation alive. I would say that such a decision would undoubtedly affect you for the rest of your life. Let's stop calling it the "gut" and call it what it really is. What you call the "gut" is really just a more "primitive" part of the brain.

 

Right! If I had listened to my "gut", I would have avoided an exhausting marriage and fundagelicalism! But no, I had to follow prayer and faith and others' opinions rather than that sickening feeling something isn't quite right.

[HRDWarrior]

I don't think belief is much of a choice - because, boy, I sure tried hard to believe for a long time, and finally realized that was never going to happen, especially as my knowledge growth only made belief that much more impossible. Heck, even as a xtian I believed in "predestination" where god chose people, and we could not force our way one way or the other. Guess I fell on this side of that fence LOL!

 

On the matter of gut instinct - I use it a lot, and it generally serves me very well. Even when I was a cop and making life and death decisions not only for me but on the rare occasion possible for others as well, gut instincts were exactly what was used. My caveot to this, however, is that for me, gut instinct is my brain using all the information I've already learned through training, education, experience, etc coming together in a moment without my consious use of it. Sitting and thinking it through doesn't always work - but our gut instinct takes all the knowledge we have and puts it together without needing to use the brain and consiously go through each and every angle. Our minds take in more than we ever realize, and our "gut" instinct assesses that without our knowledge.

 

If we have time to think things through, then we don't need to rely on gut instinct to begin with, but sometimes in life our brain comes to a crossroads where each way seems just as good as the other. At that point, I go with my "gut" because in my experience there is something that I am missing in my brain, and chances are my "gut" has picked up on it.

[DarthOkkata]

I don't think that 'Gut' is being defined the same way I mean it.

 

Instincts aren't bad, but they have their place, and higher brain function has it's own place. That's all I was implying. I was referring to trusting them too much, not completely mistrusting them all the time.

 

Gut is less about instinct, and more about doing what 'feels right' in spite of it being an incredibly stupid idea.

 

We're not discussing life and death situations here. Belief isn't that sort of problem, and to be honest, I'm not sure how it got brought up.

 

No, Gut is not the same thing as 'instinct' though the two are related I guess. I don't think Gut is quite so base as that, Gut is more emotional and perhaps a bit more sensitive than instinct is.

 

Gut is action hero and bravado and caveman. Gut isn't for deciding what is or is not real. Gut is emotional and all about feeling. Gut decides what you like and what you want to smash. Gut will keep you alive when you're in danger, but it's not as good at that as Instinct is. Gut is what makes you do something stupid after you've gotten out of danger, so Instinct has to save your sorry butt again.

 

If you nearly blow your hand off and capsize your boat trying to fish with dynamite, Gut is what wants to light another stick and try again. Gut thinks he's James Bond, Neo from the Matrix, Duke Nukem, and Conan the Barbarian. Gut is more related to ego than instinct, but is perhaps a medium between the two.

 

You don't need an action hero to do your taxes, decide what is or is not reality, or whether you should take your credit cards to Vegas with you or leave them at home to avoid temptation. Gut is the part of people who enjoyed Transformers 2. Gut is easily amused and knows what it likes, and what it doesn't like. Gut is the part of people that remembers the two things that an Astrologer got right, but forgets the fifty things they got wrong.

 

Gut is more about 'Should I really paint this wall that color?' or 'Will I like peanut butter pickle ice cream?' or 'Will it feel good to tea bag the annoying kid I shot in the face playing Halo?'

 

I think Instinct often gets some of it's credit taken by Gut. Sometimes instinct takes some of the credit for what brain does too.

 

Gut is instinct, inner child, and a bit of ego. Gut is a moron, but not really in a bad way most of the time. Gut can be fun where brain is a boring asshole. Gut is the part most people listen to when they're drunk essentially.

 

Needless to say, Gut isn't to be trusted with important decisions. Gut thought paying $12.00 to see Transformers 2 in Imax was a good idea after all, and didn't feel bad about it when it was over.

 

I'm not talking neurology here. It's not so complex an idea. No different than saying 'I love you with all my heart' which isn't true either. Saying 'I love you with that part of my brain' just isn't so romantic. Gut doesn't like the way it sounds, and brain could give a shit either way.

[mwc]

Maybe "belief" should be defined for the sake of this argument as well? I'm seeing it used differently by everyone.

 

What I noticed in the long OP was "beliefs" were being countered by evidence or lack thereof. In the case of the child and the cookie jar it would be easy to believe the child's story but then the example goes on to supply direct evidence to contradict it making the child a liar. Without that, placing a bit of ambiguity about the story, then anything could be possible. Add a second child. Now which child did the deed? Or imagine the only child telling this story to an outsider. They'd omit the obvious details and it would be easy to believe the child was innocent until the adult in the story filled them in which would then alter said beliefs (unless that adult came off somehow less trustworthy than the child).

 

To me beliefs are based on information. The information may be good or it may be bad it is ultimately up to the individual to decide. Once that decision is made the person then uses that information to form their belief. In the case of religion (I'll use xianity) the information is from the bible and usually by way of a friend, family member or pastor. This information is considered not only to be good but the best of the best. All other information that is related to these same topics that do not come from the bible are considered inferior. So beliefs that are formed consider only the best information (ie. the bible via the sources I mentioned) and dismiss the inferior information. So it's easy to see how people would believe these things happened even though there's no real world evidence for them. From this perspective they're accepting flawed information as fact but from their perspective we are.

 

So what is meant by "belief?"

 

mwc

[Legion]

So what is meant by "belief?"

Hmm... good question MWC. I don’t know that I have an answer for it.

 

Maybe something like... A belief is a held proposition.

 

I have mixed thoughts about whether a belief is a choice. There are visual illusions like the Necker Cube which demonstrate that we have some control over how we will perceive things.

 

 

Do you see this cube from above or below? Can you change your perception of it at will? I can.

[Guest end3]

So do you think that faith only applies to the things not seen, or do you think that faith applies to sustaining one's belief as well?

 

What I am saying is this:

 

I can have faith that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully.

 

That would be different than applying faith to belief.....let's suppose that right now I am having trouble with belief in the knowledge sense. Can I apply faith to "my belief is waning, but I have faith that it will wax" until the knowing might return?

 

What we think we know changes most frequently....

[chefranden]

So do you think that faith only applies to the things not seen, or do you think that faith applies to sustaining one's belief as well?

 

What I am saying is this:

 

I can have faith that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully.

 

That would be different than applying faith to belief.....let's suppose that right now I am having trouble with belief in the knowledge sense. Can I apply faith to "my belief is waning, but I have faith that it will wax" until the knowing might return?

 

What we think we know changes most frequently....

 

Friend End, I hope you are not as confused as this sounds.

 

I can have faith that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully.

 

What is the difference between this and. "I can pretend that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully."?

 

"something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully."

 

If heaven is the better place to be, why do you want to put off going there? When I was a Christian, I wanted to leave sooner rather than later. I would have bought my own ticket, except that I wasn't sure if that would disqualify me or not. It's a good thing that the CoC wasn't into suicide bombers in those days.

[Guest end3]

So do you think that faith only applies to the things not seen, or do you think that faith applies to sustaining one's belief as well?

 

What I am saying is this:

 

I can have faith that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully.

 

That would be different than applying faith to belief.....let's suppose that right now I am having trouble with belief in the knowledge sense. Can I apply faith to "my belief is waning, but I have faith that it will wax" until the knowing might return?

 

What we think we know changes most frequently....

 

Friend End, I hope you are not as confused as this sounds.

 

I can have faith that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully.

 

What is the difference between this and. "I can pretend that there is a Heaven, something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully."?

 

"something I will not have knowledge until later hopefully."

 

If heaven is the better place to be, why do you want to put off going there? When I was a Christian, I wanted to leave sooner rather than later. I would have bought my own ticket, except that I wasn't sure if that would disqualify me or not. It's a good thing that the CoC wasn't into suicide bombers in those days.

 

I have faith that Heaven exists Chef.

 

I can't know it like I know the contents of my refrigerator.

 

I hopefully will know it in the same way if I should make it there.

[Guest end3]

I would have bought my own ticket, except that I wasn't sure if that would disqualify me or not.

 

I certainly know that feeling Chef.

[DarthOkkata]

Could you just decide that there was no heaven and convince yourself that it wasn't real?

 

Could you just change your mind about God and stop believing in him?

 

Could you really sit down one day and think to yourself 'I don't want to believe in God anymore' and actually stop believing in him?

 

That's the real question here. It's not about what you believe, but rather how much choice you have in the matter.

 

It's also not about what you 'want' to believe. Sure, you could say that 'I wouldn't want to do that', but that's not the issue. The real question is: 'Could you if you wanted to?'

 

Is the mere act of wanting to believe something different enough to change your mind?

 

Would you require some kind of evidence to change your mind first? Something that proves what you already believe is wrong, or could you just do it based on the desire to not believe in God?

 

That's the real question of the opening post.

 

There is some choice involved in the things that lead to a particular belief. I just don't think that the Belief itself is actually a willful choice. It's an effect of knowledge, whether that knowledge is in error or not, and not a willful thing.

 

Sure, I can perceive the cube as above and below. However, I don't think I could just decide that God was real. I'd need more than just the desire to change my mind.

 

I'd need some form of convincing evidence to change my mind. A Christian would likely need the same thing, though many avoid anything that might be.

 

Belief is not really a choice, it's the sum of a person's experience, knowledge, and how they perceive the evidence. Which is also how I'm defining it BTW. It's the end result of all those things, what they come together to form. It is what they perceive as true or accurate.

 

Essentially what someone really thinks is correct, regardless of what they might act like or say that they think is correct.

 

It's what they honestly think is really correct.

 

I'm not suggesting that everyone is dishonest about that, but some people are. Perhaps even many people.

 

Sure, they might be wrong, they might be misinterpreting the evidence, misreading their experience, or their perception may be faulty. There are any number of reasons how a person might be in error, be it an Atheist or a Theist of any kind.

 

However, I still do not think that Belief is a willful choice. It's the sum of several parts that do involve choice, but it's something that's formed outside of it, and outside of the control of the individual.

 

A person might be dishonest about what they really believe, misrepresent it for social reasons, personal gain, or any number of reasons. I don't think they have much control over what that belief is.

 

They do have some control over the factors that create a belief, it is possible to change them, but not to decide what the end result will be. You believe something, or do not believe it, there really is no 'try' involved.

 

Based on what I know, I could not just change my mind and believe that Jesus was real just because I wanted too.

 

That's not to say that future evidence might not be able to alter that belief. However, it wouldn't be something I decided based upon the mere will or desire to believe in Jesus.

 

I don't think there is as much choice involved as Christians would like to think there is. Especially when dealing with people who don't share their beliefs.

 

Of course, I could say the same about any faith, including many Atheists.

 

People can't want to believe, they have to be convinced. What that takes differs from person to person, but I do not think that 'I want to believe that' ever really comes into play in the matter.

 

They believe because they perceive that the evidence presented is enough and it convinces them, whatever that evidence might be. It's not really a 'decision'. At least I don't think that it is.

 

It seems somewhat reasonable considering the bulk of posts seem to agree that is the case. There's little choice involved in what someone ends up actually believing according to the anecdotal evidence.

 

I also freely admit that a majority does not equal correct either. I'm only asserting that it 'seems reasonable' based upon the evidence within this thread.

 

I don't think it's a voluntary response. It's the end result of something more than that, and an individual person has little to no control over the result, though they do have some control over the process that leads to the result.

 

I honestly don't think that I could believe in Jesus no matter how much I wanted to. At the end of the day, I would still know better, or at least, that's how I would perceive it. I could lie, but I still wouldn't actually really believe.

 

If I did say I believed in Jesus, I would just be dishonest. I don't think that's right or that it would be healthy for me, or fair to others to do.

 

I think I would feel bad if I was leading others into a belief like that if I didn't really think it was true.