Do you control what you believe?

[Edgarcito]

14 hours ago, Wertbag said:

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.

I agree, thank you.  Not sure that I'm contemplating such an extreme example.... but suppose we have a relatively smart individual, and we are talking moral perspective.  We could imagine experience plays a large role in that individual's perspective.  There may be an absolute morality which would yield a right and wrong, or there may be perspectives which yield an extreme.  

 

I guess cultures, laws, religions all move us to some level of moral perspective where we might coexist.....or not.  Just not sure what the marker is for deciding if any moral perspective doesn't have at least some validity.  And then how to treat that vs. our own perspective.

 

 

[Wertbag]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I guess cultures, laws, religions all move us to some level of moral perspective where we might coexist.....or not.  Just not sure what the marker is for deciding if any moral perspective doesn't have at least some validity.  And then how to treat that vs. our own perspective.

When it comes to moral standards there are two separate ones in play, societies and our personal ones.  These two standards don't always align, with people often disagreeing with certain laws or moral norms.  Society usually has punishments laid out for breeches, while our individual standards will only influence our own actions and what we pass on to our children. 

No one sees themselves as immoral, so even horrific stories from the Taliban murdering people, they will self-justify that their actions are for the greater good.  Our standards say they are horrible people, but their standards say they are not.  We can point to various ideas such as human flourishing, reduction of harm or similar benefits to society, but if they have selected a different standard (that the war god Allah demands the death penalty to gays, adulterers and unbelievers for example) then we will never come to agree on the moral questions.  In these cases, it has to be a might makes right situation.  If people choose to break laws, then there are clear punishments for doing so.  Those punishments are only a valid deterrent if there is sufficient power behind the threat to carry it out.

This is why morals are a subjective thing.  There is no agreement on standards, and the standards selected have changed by country, culture and over time.  

[pantheory]

On 8/9/2023 at 3:27 PM, RankStranger said:

 

[pantheory]

As a complete atheist, yes, I control what I believe. Being an atheist, I believe that all religions of the world are all pure BS, but many have inspiring philosophies mixed in with religion. I have studied all major religions of the world today to some extent, like a person from the future that can hardly believe all the BS in today's world like religion.

 

I also don't believe in some aspects of "modern physics" for example. I'm not a hater and have always liked the inspiring aspects of religion. In politics I'm more of a state's rights person. Here in the US most are very lucky and free to follow whatever beliefs and path in life that fits our beliefs and personality. Family aside, if I liked it somewhere else better I would go there instead -- in another US state, or another country.

 

I'm a scientist -- but quite different from most. I don't follow or believe the prescribed path of science unless it makes total sense to me. I feel no reason to have blind faith in anything. But I am very positive and generally an optimist, and a humanitarian in general. I care for nearly all plants, animals, and humans -- the Earth and its natural beauty.

 

But I understand and  believe that almost everything we believe is simply a subjective perspective of reality. Thinking there is just one true reality is just following the human need to believe in something certain and inspiring.

[RankStranger]

That's interesting Pan.

 

As an atheist, I didn't consider 'belief' to be something I could directly control.   I saw 'belief' as sort of an involuntary result of my own experiences and my own understanding of the world around me.  That hasn't really changed.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Hello again Rank.

 

In the light of what you said about 'belief' being something involuntary that seems to be outside of our control, I was wondering what you thought about this?

 

From my Aug 11 post in this thread...

 

 

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.

 

I felt the old emotional pull of faith again this weekend - and I resisted it. - Rants and Replies - Ex-Christian.Net

 

 

Not calling your views into question here. 

 

Just curious about how you reconcile your views with my experience.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[Edgarcito]

We don't know the mechanism for belief...

 

Edit: More just a personal opinion of what data we hold as the best fit/explanation for our experiences.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

We don't know the mechanism for belief...

Do we believe the mechanism for knowledge?

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

We don't know the mechanism for belief...

 

Edit: More just a personal opinion of what data we hold as the best fit/explanation for our experiences.

 

But we can still exercise control over that mechanism, whatever it is.

 

If that were not so then I could not have controlled what I was tempted to believe, in that church recently.

 

I didn't need to know and understand what the mechanism of belief was at that moment.

 

But I could recognize that it was tied in with my emotions.

 

Once I realized that I was then able to exert conscious control.

 

To prevent my emotions from causing me to believe in things that I knew were irrational, illogical and unsupported by evidence.

 

 

 

This suggests to me that the mechanism of belief must lie in our emotions.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Wertbag]

50 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But we can still exercise control over that mechanism, whatever it is.

 

If that were not so then I could not have controlled what I was tempted to believe, in that church recently.

 

I didn't need to know and understand what the mechanism of belief was at that moment.

 

But I could recognize that it was tied in with my emotions.

 

Once I realized that I was then able to exert conscious control.

 

To prevent my emotions from causing me to believe in things that I knew were irrational, illogical and unsupported by evidence.

 

 

 

This suggests to me that the mechanism of belief must lie in our emotions.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Surely belief is therefore a combination of effects, from our education, indoctrination, experience, gullibility, scepticism, upbringing, evolution and pure emotional response.  I think the sunk cost fallacy, where people will double down on things that are proven wrong, show that evidence alone is only part of the puzzle.  We are stubborn, emotional and hate to think we are wrong, so would rather fight a losing battle rather than lose respect to ourselves or from others.

The source of ideas matters, in that a random person on the street telling you the earth is flat will get easily ignored, but the same message from your parents or teachers is likely to stick.  You already know the source and trust that it is giving you facts about the world, even without needing evidence to confirm what you are being told.  Evolution makes us automatically follow our elders, as listening to advice will keep us safe when we are too young to know better.

Self-image plays a big part, with people wanting attention, so will latch on to ideas that make them feel special, and only seeing themselves as right in all things.  The crazy Qanon group seems to be more attention seeking patterns than actually based on a single shred of evidence.  If people feel insignificant then a natural inbuilt feeling is that they need to get that attention, whether that be crazy hair, loud clothes, facial tattoos or taking on beliefs that will set them apart from others.  To some degree It's often not even conscious, just our evolutionary traits saying those who gain attention are more likely to attract a mate.

[walterpthefirst]

34 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Surely belief is therefore a combination of effects, from our education, indoctrination, experience, gullibility, scepticism, upbringing, evolution and pure emotional response.  I think the sunk cost fallacy, where people will double down on things that are proven wrong, show that evidence alone is only part of the puzzle.  We are stubborn, emotional and hate to think we are wrong, so would rather fight a losing battle rather than lose respect to ourselves or from others.

The source of ideas matters, in that a random person on the street telling you the earth is flat will get easily ignored, but the same message from your parents or teachers is likely to stick.  You already know the source and trust that it is giving you facts about the world, even without needing evidence to confirm what you are being told.  Evolution makes us automatically follow our elders, as listening to advice will keep us safe when we are too young to know better.

Self-image plays a big part, with people wanting attention, so will latch on to ideas that make them feel special, and only seeing themselves as right in all things.  The crazy Qanon group seems to be more attention seeking patterns than actually based on a single shred of evidence.  If people feel insignificant then a natural inbuilt feeling is that they need to get that attention, whether that be crazy hair, loud clothes, facial tattoos or taking on beliefs that will set them apart from others.  To some degree It's often not even conscious, just our evolutionary traits saying those who gain attention are more likely to attract a mate.

 

How about this, Wertbag?

 

The scientific method and the process of peer-review are used to reduce personal bias as much as possible from the discipline of science.  So what might happen if we substituted robots for humans and had two of them perform exactly the same experiment?  Allowing for instrumental error and other non-human factors they should arrive at the exactly the same result.  Since they have no personal biases to affect the procedures and protocols they carry out and no such biases to affect how they present and publish their results, both robots should publish the same results.  As mentioned above, any possible variations would be down to non-human factors.

 

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but I would submit that the the fundamental difference between human scientists and robotic ones is emotion.  The robots have no mechanism with which to 'believe' in anything.  They don't think and they don't feel - they just run programs.  (# 5 is alive!)  

 

If the absence of emotion yields the inability to believe, then the presence of emotion yields the ability to believe.  

 

You've even covered the ground in your post, Wertbag.  Emotion is the common denominator of all that you list.  Education, indoctrination, experience, gullibility, scepticism, upbringing and evolution all require the presence of emotion.  Remove emotion from any of them and they become impossible.  The sunk cost fallacy wouldn't exist if it were not for the presence of the believer's ego.  Authority figures and the concept of trustworthiness depend on the emotional weight the believer accords to them.  Self-image, feelings of insignificance and attention-seeking behaviours also rely on emotion.  

 

I therefore further submit that all of the factors you mention are either underpinned by emotion or rely upon it to function.

 

The more I look into it the more persuaded I am that belief is a function of our emotions.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

The fact that three weeks ago I consciously exerted control over my beliefs argues against belief being entirely involuntary.

 

It also argues against it being an evolutionary function that somehow occurs under the radar of our conscious minds.

 

It further argues against it being a purely emotional response that we just cannot help and which we are carried along by.

 

I made a conscious and deliberate choice on that day.

 

On the basis of that event I submit that belief is a choice.

 

If we do not control our choices, then all of this discussion and debate is moot.

 

But if we do control our choices, then I reiterate my claim.

 

Belief is a choice.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

35 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Belief is a choice.

Could you choose, right now, to believe in salvation from sin through the grace of god and the blood of christ?  I could not.  I could pretend to believe, even go through the motions of praying and worshipping and showing up at church.  But I could not actually believe, no matter how hard I tried or how badly I wanted to. 

 

Perhaps some beliefs can be chosen; obviously not all, though. 

 

I therefore disagree that belief is a choice.  I think that such a blanket statement is an oversimplification of what really is a very complex, and often confusing, conundrum. 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Could you choose, right now, to believe in salvation from sin through the grace of god and the blood of christ?  I could not.  I could pretend to believe, even go through the motions of praying and worshipping and showing up at church.  But I could not actually believe, no matter how hard I tried or how badly I wanted to. 

 

Perhaps some beliefs can be chosen; obviously not all, though. 

 

I therefore disagree that belief is a choice.  I think that such a blanket statement is an oversimplification of what really is a very complex, and often confusing, conundrum. 

 

I've been thinking overnight about what I wrote yesterday, Prof.

 

Your points are well made and I accept them.  So I've modified my position and, given the complex nature of the issue, will probably have to modify it again as this thread evolves.  Therefore, how about this?  As an interim and provisional position, liable to be changed.

 

 

Belief is a choice.

 

The continued belief in something where there is ample evidence to the contrary is a conscious and deliberate choice.

 

 

As far as I can see that deals with your objections Prof and it also covers what I went through three weeks ago.  I couldn't return to believing in the blood of christ back then because I knew too much about the evidence against it.  

 

So then, what about this question?  When a person raised as a YEC christian is faced with evidence that the Earth is billions of years old, are they making a conscious and deliberate choice to reject the science and continue believing the bible?  Right now I can't answer that question.  But I will think upon it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

14 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Belief is a choice.

 

The continued belief in something where there is ample evidence to the contrary is a conscious and deliberate choice.

 

     I'd like to agree with you but I cannot.  Take a look at Belief perseverance.

 

     A little tl;dr:

Quote

 

Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism[1]) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.[2] Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect (compare boomerang effect).[3]

...

The causes of belief perseverance remain unclear. Experiments in the 2010s suggest that neurochemical processes in the brain underlie the strong attentional bias of reward learning. Similar processes could underlie belief perseverance.[25]

 

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks Walt and mwc.  There is a huge difference between choosing not to believe something you already don't believe, haven't believed in years, and have every reason not to believe, versus choosing to believe something without some greater external force acting upon your emotions and compelling you towards that belief. 

 

The majority of people who believe in the christian religion have been indoctrinated since childhood, leaving them little choice.  Of those converted latter in life, it nearly always happens as the result of some traumatic, life-altering event such as the death of a loved one, a divorce, drug addiction, or trouble with the law.  These events afford the individual with a level of desperation, that can easily be mistaken for willingness, to accept anything that promises to salve the soul.  The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous describes it as "grasping at a flimsy reed that turns out to be the very hand of god."

 

Perhaps the most impossible "choice", though (out of the three impossibilities) is the choice not to believe something that you already believe, have believed for years, and have every emotional excuse for believing.  This is often when the line gets crossed from simply controlling to actively protecting the belief.  Even this, though, is not a conscious or deliberate choice, in my opinion. 

 

The belief acts somewhat like a virus or parasite that takes over the active machinery of the mind with the sole purpose of self-preservation.  Anything that threatens the belief must be either eliminated or neutralized.  This includes evidence to the contrary, the court of public opinion, logical and well-reasoned counter-arguments and/or anything else that might dislodge the parasitic belief from the host mind.  Emotions are often the strongest weapon in the belief's arsenal; but it might also employ cognitive dissonance, dissociation, anxiety/panic (a [mal]function of the flight or fight instinct), or any number of other psychological defenses.  The important thing is that the belief remains intact, the mental and emotional well-being of the individual is secondary; and whatever pretzel-bending the belief has to inflict upon the mind is merely an acceptable means to that end.

 

In cases such as this, belief is as much of a choice as having a tapeworm.  

[mwc]

     I think belief, in general, is fairly complex but I'll put it in simple terms.  I think that it is pretty much the first step we take.  When presented with something we form a belief on that same something.  Whether or not that belief is true or false, or strong or weak, or whatever else all sort of happens.  That's why some folks will, in the same situation, form quite a different number of beliefs (in some sense opinions) on the spot.  Some of those people might be so effected they hold it a long time and others seem to forget it immediately with others all over the spectrum.

 

     What I'm saying here is we have a sort of immediate acceptance or rejection of whatever is presented but it doesn't seem apparent what the mechanism is.  It seems to work at a sort of primal emotional level.  Like looking at art or listening to music but can be anything really.  It happens before reasoning.  Those who have some level of acceptance will either sit around and not think about it but hold that belief nonetheless while others will go on to think about it.  They'll test it to see if it's actually valid.  If they find it is valid, according to their tests (this does not assume their tests are valid), then they will hold onto this as a much stronger belief.  They'll consider it a form of truthful knowledge instead of just a simple belief.  However, as I said, this last bit is only as good as the tests used against the belief and if the person is open to retesting their knowledge over time to see if it remains valid.

 

     Anyhow, that's my simple take on it.  It's surely far more complex than that.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, mwc said:

     I'd like to agree with you but I cannot.  Take a look at Belief perseverance.

 

     A little tl;dr:

 

          mwc

 

 

This is fascinating mwc.  Thank you.

 

Despite what the Wiki article says about cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect, I submit that we should not give too much weight to the idea that we are the hapless victims of forces and compulsions that we are totally unaware of.  I agree that the picture must be more complex than that.  Blanket oversimplifications don't help here - I've learned that.

 

Our capacity for self-awareness must surely be latent in all of us and probably better developed in some - upbringing, culture and exposure to differing viewpoints having their due effect.  If this were not so, then how can the following examples be explained?

 

 

1.  (From the Wiki page.)

Belief persistence is frequently accompanied by intrapersonal cognitive processes. "When the decisive facts did at length obtrude themselves upon my notice," wrote the chemist Joseph Priestley, "it was very slowly, and with great hesitation, that I yielded to the evidence of my senses."

 

Priestley's mind was changed, not just by the evidence itself, but by a deeply personal process of reflection, comparison and realization.  At every stage he would have had to make choices.  Is that true or is it false?  Why does this contradict that?  And perhaps most tellingly... How do I feel about this new evidence?  If he couldn't clear the obstacle of his current emotional commitment to what he thought he knew, how could he possibly accept the new evidence that contradicted it?  He would have had to negotiate with himself and the act of doing that clearly demands the conscious and deliberate making of choices.

 

What happened in Priestley's case couldn't have been accidental or just the result of unconscious forces and compulsions leading him to change his mind.  He was not the unwilling victim of anything.  He was self-aware and made clearly thought-out decisions and choices.

 

 

2.

The presence of Ex-Christians in this forum who have experienced childhood indoctrination and who have since become apostates argues that they had the self-awareness to consciously choose to change their beliefs.  

 

 

3.

Three weeks ago, I became aware of where my emotions were pulling me.  If I had been unaware of what was happening within me its quite likely that I wouldn't be writing this post, from this particular p.o.v.  Instead I would be typing out something quite different, under the banner of Authentic Christian Believer.  So, I therefore submit that self-awareness and choice making must be pivotal when it comes to the issue of belief.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But we can still exercise control over that mechanism, whatever it is.

 

If that were not so then I could not have controlled what I was tempted to believe, in that church recently.

 

I didn't need to know and understand what the mechanism of belief was at that moment.

 

But I could recognize that it was tied in with my emotions.

 

Once I realized that I was then able to exert conscious control.

 

To prevent my emotions from causing me to believe in things that I knew were irrational, illogical and unsupported by evidence.

 

 

 

This suggests to me that the mechanism of belief must lie in our emotions.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

If we are aware of the mechanism...

Just a thought....our needs seem to influence belief.  I need X,.... the data that points to X is favored, becomes gospel.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

If we are aware of the mechanism...

Just a thought....our needs seem to influence belief.  I need X,.... the data that points to X is favored, becomes gospel.

 

Well, I don't know if you intended to go here, Edgarcito...

 

...but you seem to be arguing that beliefs are taken up to fulfil the needs of the believer.

 

Which would suggest that believers aren't really interested in finding out what is actually true.

 

They are more interested in finding what feels true for them.

 

 

Apologies if I've misread you.

 

Please correct me if that's so.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, I don't know if you intended to go here, Edgarcito...

 

...but you seem to be arguing that beliefs are taken up to fulfil the needs of the believer.

 

Which would suggest that believers aren't really interested in finding out what is actually true.

 

They are more interested in finding what feels true for them.

 

 

Apologies if I've misread you.

 

Please correct me if that's so.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

No, I think that's right.... we can rationalize to believe something or disbelieve something based on our needs.  Was about to edit that post to say just that.  

 

Still, I think there is something even outside of that, that makes an internal assessment.....that classifies whatever the data, into "true/I believe that data" or "no, I can't make that data go over the internal belief standard bar".  Not sure where the "bar" is derived from....experiences, learned input, natural influences?  

 

Gonna bow out ....took some medication....making me tired.  Carry on please.

[Edgarcito]

Let me add one thing please.....maybe we need to look at the definition of "true" from another direction.  True to me historically has been "truth" to me.  "yes, that's what I experienced, the witness, the outcome, the data in, the effects/conclusion out", etc.  But what is "true" actually include despite our subjective perspectives.  And I know that everyone is saying, "Ed, dummy, that's science".  My point is what is "true" where all human subjectivity is part of the data set.  

 

For example politics....what are the commonalities between parties, not the "truths" that define the parties themselves.  There is likely a greater truth that the individuals.

 

Lol, who knew cough syrup could be so freeing...or dumbing, you pick.  Lol.  Ok, I'm done.

[Edgarcito]

Absolutes of the human condition......and if so, do they point to a positive/benefit to the condition or otherwise.  And then, what is the positive that is being illuminated....or negative.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

No, I think that's right.... we can rationalize to believe something or disbelieve something based on our needs.  Was about to edit that post to say just that.  

 

Still, I think there is something even outside of that, that makes an internal assessment.....that classifies whatever the data, into "true/I believe that data" or "no, I can't make that data go over the internal belief standard bar".  Not sure where the "bar" is derived from....experiences, learned input, natural influences?  

 

Gonna bow out ....took some medication....making me tired.  Carry on please.

 

Ok then, Ed.

 

 

But I don't know if you fully realize the implications of the position you seem to be taking here.

 

If personal needs determine personal truth, then why bother with the bible at all?  Just make up whatever satisfies your needs and call that 'truth'.  Why bother doing as you've done many times here, trying to argue that there is evidence in genetics for sin?  Why not just invent whatever you like to satisfy your personal needs and call the the 'truth'?  Why bother tying your beliefs to reality at all? 

 

You seem to give more weight to whatever qualifies as your personal 'truth' than to anything out there that might actually be real.  Or do you go so far as to be 100% solipsistic and actively deny that there is a reality that is external to you?  One that rudely intrudes on your own subjective reality from time to time?

 

I'm not trying to smack you down here.  Honestly, I'm not.  It's just that the questions I've posed naturally arise from the stance you seem to be taking. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

On 8/30/2023 at 7:56 AM, RankStranger said:

That's interesting Pan.

 

As an atheist, I didn't consider 'belief' to be something I could directly control.   I saw 'belief' as sort of an involuntary result of my own experiences and my own understanding of the world around me.  That hasn't really changed.

 

 

That's cool. I'm a scientist, but I question anything in science also that does not sound logical to me -- similar to religion. A lot of atheists "rebel against religion," but from my experience these kinds of atheists often lack knowledge of both science and religion. The understandings of the world around us is mostly subjective. There are almost countless valid perspectives of reality, but few people understand or realize this. Many such people are scientists and religious folk.  For me I can't think of anything involuntary concerning my beliefs. Of course this philosophy is based upon perspectivism -- whereby beliefs and reality itself is mostly subjective.

 

Cheers