Do you control what you believe?

[RankStranger]

[TABA]

 

Good question.  I trust the meme is not a predictor of the tone of this thread though.  

 

Yes and No.

Seriously, yes and no.  

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I don't believe you can control what you believe, but you can control the information you take in and whether or not to give it enough thought and consideration to render an opinion on it.

 

To state "I believe X" is to render into words the position already taken.  It is the ratification of a position.  You, internally, would know whether you were lying to yourself "I believe X" while struggling with doubts knowing you don't believe yourself.

 

As I've stated elsewhere, the options are more nuanced than a black and white, yes and no dichotomy.

 

As to belief, no, you do not control what you believe, but you do control the information you consume and you control how much attention to give the information consumed.  The beliefs or lack thereof, will follow from there.

 

We certainly will struggle as we attempt to reconcile a position formerly taken, but now, on the basis of either newly considered information, or an introspection of information previously received, are having doubts as to the validity or support of the position.  This is part of the human condition.

[TABA]

I appreciate @Krowb's comments.  And it is a good question!

 

I think it may be possible to control what I believe, in certain cases.  I'm open to being wrong, though.  It certainly depends on what is being believed, or not.   I am confident I could not control my belief about the shape of the Earth, for example.   I could not make myself believe in a Flat Earth no matter what I do.  My confidence that the planet is spheroid is awfully close to 100%.  As certain as it is possible to be, considering that the only thing I am 100% certain of is my own consciousness (and no, I'm not going to digress into a debate about that at this point). So I don't see how I could possibly control what I believe about that.

 

But now consider something I am less certain about:  does my wife love me?  I'm confident she does.  There are clear signs she does, in how she acts and how she treats me.  But if it were less clear, I could see making myself believe she loves me because I want it to be true.  I would not be the first husband to be shocked to find his wife in bed with another man.

 

Which brings me to the distinction between what I believe and what I think I believe.  There is a good reason why betting markets are a better predictor of election results or sporting events than opinion polls: the mind is focused when there is skin in the game.  I thought I believed my New York Jets would win the next Super Bowl, but when challenged to bet $10,000 on it, I'm suddenly much less sure.  Just an example: I am not a Jets fan, haha. 

 

In a similar vein, I like to use a thought experiment I call the "Gun to the Head" test.  Somebody holding a gun to my head asks a series of questions and as soon as I answer one incorrectly, they pull the trigger:

Question 1: Is the Earth flat?  Immediate answer is No.

Question 2: Did Lyndon Johnson order the murder of John Kennedy?  Rather quickly answer No.

Question 3: Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?  Wow, sweating now?  I believe he did but...  I answer Yes, but fear there won't be a fourth question.  

 

Suppose I belong to an ex-christian group and I happen to believe that there was a historical Jesus.  Maybe I think there's a 60% chance some version of Jesus really existed.  I get together with my close heathen friends and I find out they all believe Jesus was pure myth.  No evidence is presented to change my mind.  I could easily start to change my belief to fit in with the group, couldn't I?  A gun to the head might provide clarity in that case.

 

Returning to the question, I think at least in cases where there is considerable uncertainty, I could make myself believe something.  And if I really want something to be true, and there is even a slight chance that it is, I can believe it - or do I only think I believe it?   

[disillusioned]

Yes, to an extent, but we need to be careful.

 

I consider that I believe something if I think it is true. There are many things about which I have no choice whether or not to believe. I can't believe, for example, that I am a tree. I simply know otherwise. On the other hand, I used to believe in Christianity. Then I educated myself, and one day I found that I couldn't believe it anymore. Now, that final realisation of my disbelief was beyond my control. But there were a lot of intermediate steps that I chose to take which ultimately led to my disbelief. I think this could be said to be exerting a kind of control.

 

For example, I don't particularly believe that any one language is superior to any other. But, if I chose to dedicate my life to studying, say, Japanese, and really committed to it, and immersed myself in it, there could conceivably come a day when I believed that Japanese is the greatest language in the world. This is not directly controlling one's beliefs, but it is exerting a kind of indirect control. Just as a habitual smoker does not choose to get cancer, but their choices do eventually lead to that result, so too we can influence our future beliefs with the actions we take every day.

 

Then, of course, there are also cases where the available evidence is insufficient to allow for any firm conclusions. Say we're playing poker, and you go all in. I now have to decide what I think is true. Either you have the cards, or you don't. Sometimes, one has a gut feeling in such situations. I have experienced this. But I have also experienced cases where I don't have any particular inclination either to believe or disbelieve that my opponent has the cards. In such cases I must make a choice about what I believe, and act accordingly. Sometimes I am right, and sometimes I am wrong. Such is life.

 

Ultimately, I think that if we find ourselves actively choosing our beliefs, then we do well to be cautious. I can choose to believe that someone is being honest and still be unsurprised if it turns out they aren't. Where we have to be careful is when we make repeated choices to believe something. Then we become committed, and before we know it, we may find ourselves claiming knowledge illegitimately. This, I think, is territory that Christians who claim to *know* that Christianity is true occupy.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

36 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

Ultimately, I think that if we find ourselves actively choosing our beliefs, then we do well to be cautious. I can choose to believe that someone is being honest and still be unsurprised if it turns out they aren't. Where we have to be careful is when we make repeated choices to believe something. Then we become committed, and before we know it, we may find ourselves claiming knowledge illegitimately. This, I think, is territory that Christians who claim to *know* that Christianity is true occupy.

 

Would you say that a person's background has an effect on the default belief structure adopted?  For example, some people seem naturally inclined to assume the best (belief in honesty) while others are inclined to the opposite.  Are they really cognitively choosing to believe the person is honest, or is the background experience (absence reasons to the contrary) leading them to consciously recognize the belief already held?

This is the part I'm a bit unsure of, are we choosing the beliefs or merely giving voice to the beliefs our minds have already formed?  I remember distinctly when I said "I don't believe;" it came almost as a shock out of my mouth, but it had been a long road to that point.  That experience was less a conscious decision to jettison the belief in any god than the realization I did not, in fact, hold that belief any longer.

 

it's a surprisingly sticky subject matter and we are very close to the same wavelength.  I'm also mulling over how preferences relate to beliefs.

[disillusioned]

53 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

Would you say that a person's background has an effect on the default belief structure adopted?  For example, some people seem naturally inclined to assume the best (belief in honesty) while others are inclined to the opposite.  Are they really cognitively choosing to believe the person is honest, or is the background experience (absence reasons to the contrary) leading them to consciously recognize the belief already held?

This is the part I'm a bit unsure of, are we choosing the beliefs or merely giving voice to the beliefs our minds have already formed?  I remember distinctly when I said "I don't believe;" it came almost as a shock out of my mouth, but it had been a long road to that point.  That experience was less a conscious decision to jettison the belief in any god than the realization I did not, in fact, hold that belief any longer.

 

it's a surprisingly sticky subject matter and we are very close to the same wavelength.  I'm also mulling over how preferences relate to beliefs.

 

Yes, definitely background plays a large role.

 

I think that most, or at least a lot, of the time we basically run on autopilot. In normal conversation, I usually just believe or disbelieve what I am told intuitively. I get it right sometimes, and I get it wrong sometimes. Because I spend a fair amount of time thinking about these issues, I'd hazard that I'm probably more consciously aware of those moments of choice than the average person is, but still, it isn't as though I'm constantly analyzing every conversation as it happens and making choices regarding belief vs disbelief. But there are moments where I find myself having to make a conscious choice.

 

The deeper question you ask is more difficult. When I'm faced with one of these moments, am I really choosing, or am I just manifesting my sub-conscious predispositions? We're a half step away from the problem of free will here. Personally, my view is that we do in fact have free will, and my opinion here is that yes, I am actually choosing what to believe. It is possible to take the opposite view though. Ultimately, I don't see that it makes a great deal of difference either way, practically speaking. I have the experience of choosing. If the experience is illusory, what of it? It literally makes no difference to me. So if one wishes to believe that we do not actually choose in these situations, one can make that choice (or can they?).

[◊ Weezer ◊]

 There are degrees of "control" and degrees of "belief", and different people have diffent ideas of what each word means.    This is one of those questions designed to go on forever. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, TABA said:

 

 I trust the meme is not a predictor of the tone of this thread though.  

 

The same thought crossed my mind.

[midniterider]

For me, yes I do control what I believe. If I wanted to I could go back to church and give my life to Jesus again. But I would have to override everything I've learned here on Ex-c and my deconversion experience and my personal knowledge and experience of Christianity. 

 

But sure, emotions can override logic and knowledge and reason. If you let them. I'd much rather believe in some sort of pagan god that isn't a dick, though. Or more like a goddess with a hot bod. But I digress. 

 

My preference over the years has been for various flavors of Eastern philosophy. I won't be becoming a monk though. I can control what I believe and the practice of it seems pointless. If I am already enlightenment itself then why expend effort....damn, digressing again. 

 

Have a good day.

 

 

[Anodos]

I think it's a good question and great responses to this question too.

 

From my own perspective based upon experience, I would add, that fear can exert a powerful influence upon how much control a person over their beliefs.

 

In the absence of fear (I refer to irrational unfounded fear) we may to an extent, control what we choose to believe based upon rational thought, logic, common sense, empirical evidence and experience.

 

But fear can over ride all of this. 

 

A child may believe, (based upon experience, empirical evidence, logic, reasoning, learning) that there are no monsters under the bed.

 

He's never seen one, met one or heard one. Neither does he know of anyone who has seen, met or heard a monster under the bed.

 

He knows such things are not real.

 

Nevertheless, just before going to bed, he checks under the bed. Nope. No monsters. He climbs into his bed.

 

Then, when the lights are off and the door closed, a thought enters. What if..?

 

That thought then grows larger and larger. The fear is not based on any evidence (he even checked before getting into bed!) Indeed, the evidence is stacked against there being any monsters under the bed.

 

But that no longer matters. Suddenly, all rational thinking freezes. All empirical evidence goes out the window. And now, fear begins to control any further thought processes. Now, he is terrified. He can't move. He lies there sweating, listening. Too afraid to do anything. Now he believes there might be a monster. 

 

Later, in the morning, when the child wakes up, unscathed, for there were no monsters of course, he may wonder why he was afraid of monsters. For he knows, based upon everything he has learned, that there are no such things! 

 

With regards to religion, same thing. Fear keeps alot of people in its' grip, by exerting control over what they choose to believe. By that, what I mean is, a person may be too afraid not to believe.

 

"I'd better not, choose to believe there can be no Hell, just in case there is and God gets angry and sends me there!"

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think there comes a point at which it goes from controlling a belief to actively protecting it.  This is especially true of deeply felt or strongly held beliefs; and is not exclusive to religion, but can and does extend to politics, economics, and even romance.  At some point, even subconsciously, one will begin deliberately fighting against anything that might infringe upon the belief; and it no longer matters whether or not the belief is "true" or matches reality.  The belief must be held at all costs.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 The belief must be held at all costs.

For what reason do you think please sir.

[walterpthefirst]

My answer is Yes.

 

Yes, I controlled what I believed by an act of will when my emotions were threatening to overwhelm my reason.

 

I describe it here.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

For what reason do you think please sir.

I suppose that would depend on the belief being held and the person holding it.  I imagine ego plays a part; and the amount of time, energy, and personal investment a person has attached to the belief.  But, really, you'd have to ask someone who was actively in the throes of such a belief and see what they had to say.

[disillusioned]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I suppose that would depend on the belief being held and the person holding it.  I imagine ego plays a part; and the amount of time, energy, and personal investment a person has attached to the belief.  But, really, you'd have to ask someone who was actively in the throes of such a belief and see what they had to say.

 

Sunk cost fallacy.

[alreadyGone]

To my thinking, the act of making a conscious focused effort to shape and control what one believes is the very essence of being a rational human being.

 

What else better defines the difference between human beings and other animals?

[Edgarcito]

On 8/11/2023 at 5:56 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I suppose that would depend on the belief being held and the person holding it.  I imagine ego plays a part; and the amount of time, energy, and personal investment a person has attached to the belief.  But, really, you'd have to ask someone who was actively in the throes of such a belief and see what they had to say.

I guess I'm asking what specifically is "the cost".  I don't see the cost as a specific belief so much as more the cost of/to the individual.  What actually is lost in the if the person sells. Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I guess I'm asking what specifically is "the cost".  I don't see the cost as a specific belief so much as more the cost of/to the individual.  What actually is lost in the if the person sells. Thx.

 

You might be able to answer that question if you were to ask it of yourself, Edgarcito.

 

"What would I lose if I gave up my belief in Jesus Christ?"

 

Other similar questions might help you gain a deeper insight into yourself.

 

For instance...

 

"What would it cost me to give up my belief in Jesus?"

 

Or...

 

"Have I sunk too much into my belief to ever give it up?"

 

 

Please note that I'm not actually asking you to answer any of these publicly.  Not here, in this forum.  These are deeply personal questions which you should probably consider in the privacy of your own mind.  But if you want to understand more about "the cost" then why not ask yourself?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You might be able to answer that question if you were to ask it of yourself, Edgarcito.

 

"What would I lose if I gave up my belief in Jesus Christ?"

 

Other similar questions might help you gain a deeper insight into yourself.

 

For instance...

 

"What would it cost me to give up my belief in Jesus?"

 

Or...

 

"Have I sunk too much into my belief to ever give it up?"

 

 

Please note that I'm not actually asking you to answer any of these publicly.  Not here, in this forum.  These are deeply personal questions which you should probably consider in the privacy of your own mind.  But if you want to understand more about "the cost" then why not ask yourself?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

You were doing a really good job not responding to me Walter...please continue.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I guess I'm asking what specifically is "the cost".  I don't see the cost as a specific belief so much as more the cost of/to the individual.  What actually is lost in the if the person sells. Thx.

How would I know the answer to that question, Ed?  I certainly cannot answer for anybody else; I could only answer for myself.  The problem I would run into, though is that if I believed in something strongly enough to actively fight against evidence to the contrary, most likely I would not realize I was doing so; and if I even suspected I was, I'd never admit it.  So, even if there was an answer associated with me, I could not give it to you.

 

However, Walt has given you a way you can answer the question for yourself.  Grandpa always said, "Never turn down good advice just because you don't like the person who gave you it."  Perhaps that is relevant here.

[RankStranger]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this question.  Don't have much to add at the moment (been very busy the past several days).  But it seems we all agree that there are both voluntary and involuntarily (aka subconscious?) elements to belief.

 

Do I actually 'know' that the sky is blue?  Or do I merely have faith that my fellow human apes use the same word to describe it?  And faith that science-people aren't just making shit up when they talk about wavelengths and electron valences and shit?  

 

I've never done any physics experiments to confirm to myself that certain wavelengths are in fact blue, or that dropping to a lower valence level from an excited state actually produces said wavelength.  But the math makes sense and the story makes sense, so I have faith. 

 

It's not a faith that I actively chose though...

[RankStranger]

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

It's not a faith that I actively chose though...

 

Maybe it's a faith I've been convinced of?

[Wertbag]

On 8/14/2023 at 7:46 AM, Edgarcito said:

I guess I'm asking what specifically is "the cost".  I don't see the cost as a specific belief so much as more the cost of/to the individual.  What actually is lost in the if the person sells. Thx.

One example of the sunk cost fallacy is the UFO cults.  People who sell their houses, leave their families, quit their job and are so convinced that they will be taken up to the mothership, that they throw away their lives.  Then, when the claimed day comes and goes, rather than accept that they were wrong, they double down and try to work out a new date, find excuses and believe harder in spite of the failure.  People so convinced they are right that they won't accept evidence to the contrary.

The cost is financial loss, loss of family/friends, loss of respect and the great waste of time and effort that has been invested into this falsehood.  To some the shame of admitting they were wrong is more painful than living a lie.

Whether it is neo-nazi's or flat earthers, there is an investment in time, energy and of your life.  To later realise that investment was a waste is a hard thing to face.

[walterpthefirst]

15 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this question.  Don't have much to add at the moment (been very busy the past several days).  But it seems we all agree that there are both voluntary and involuntarily (aka subconscious?) elements to belief.

 

Do I actually 'know' that the sky is blue?  Or do I merely have faith that my fellow human apes use the same word to describe it?  And faith that science-people aren't just making shit up when they talk about wavelengths and electron valences and shit?  

 

I've never done any physics experiments to confirm to myself that certain wavelengths are in fact blue, or that dropping to a lower valence level from an excited state actually produces said wavelength.  But the math makes sense and the story makes sense, so I have faith. 

 

It's not a faith that I actively chose though...

 

How about this for food for thought, Rank?

 

 

When it comes to controlling what you believe you have the opportunity to perform the necessary physics experiments to confirm for yourself that certain wavelengths are in fact blue.  Ok, it would take some effort from you in terms of the money, getting the equipment, training yourself how to use it, etc.  But you could do it.

 

And you could also do that for a lot of other things, to make sure that science-people aren't just making shit up.  Are vitamins as good for us as they say?  Is the San Andreas fault really moving apart?  Do bees really pollinate flowers?  Again, you'd have to put in the work but you could do it.  You do have a measure of control over what you believe in terms of non-religious faith.

 

But when it comes to matters of religious faith, can you confirm the things you believe by faith by actually checking them?  Did Jesus really convert water into wine?  Did he actually talk to Moses and Elijah on the top of a mountain?  Did he really ascend into heaven while his disciples were watching?  Logic suggests that you cannot possibly check and confirm these things for yourself.  That when it comes to matters of religious faith, you don't have the same degree of control over them as you do with non-religious faith.

 

Which suggests that these two types of faith are quite different and shouldn't be lumped together.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 comes to mind.

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

 

Perhaps you could never see the religious things you believe in by faith, but you could see the secular things you believe in by non-religious faith.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.