You choose what you believe?

[Btodd]

I would like to see how many people think that beliefs are chosen, and their arguments for this. This stems from the 'Does atheism differ from agnosticism' thread, and my conversation with Apology. It is a frequent argument made by many Christians as well, with the notion that as an atheist, I 'choose not to believe in God'. For clarity's sake, I don't think you can choose NOT to believe in something, either. It's a natural occurrence (especially if you call yourself a skeptic).

I do not think that anyone really chooses what they believe. At the very least, it's a gross oversimplification, but I think it's closer to outright falsehood.

At best, you can choose to be more open-minded to ideas, but still cannot make yourself believe them. You do, or you do not.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you talking about choosing what you believe, or choosing what you have faith in? Beliefs are ideas you hold true because there is evidence for them. Faiths are ideas you hold true in the absence of evidence.

I think people's personalities allow for more or less faith. However, people can certainly choose to have faith in something just because they want to.

~~ Paul

[Wowbagger]

I don't think all believers choose what they believe. But, I can come up with at least two scenarios in which such a choice could occur:

1. Someone holds a particular ideology: Perhaps they would like to live in a world that has God in it, and even though such a person finds no evidence of any god, they choose to believe in such a thing, to hold true to their little idea of an ideology. This might also be called "personal preference".

2. Belief in Belief: There are those who do not really believe in God, but they believe that a belief in God is beneficial, (and also that disbelief is detrimental) so they go through the motions of believing in God, for the good of their community. Perhaps many of the brighter religious leaders actually feel this way?

[Btodd]

Are you talking about choosing what you believe, or choosing what you have faith in? Beliefs are ideas you hold true because there is evidence for them. Faiths are ideas you hold true in the absence of evidence.

I think people's personalities allow for more or less faith. However, people can certainly choose to have faith in something just because they want to.

~~ Paul

I'm talking about what a person believes. Evidence being defined as 'what supports my belief', not 'what is correct'.

[slingblade]

I used to be a Christian. Then I was Pagan. Now I'm atheist.

Are you trying to say I exercised no choice in any of that?

[kedo1981]

I didn’t choose to not believe in god, I choose to believe in reality, once you realize that the “supernatural” is a fallacy and a silly delusion, not believing in the 3 Gs “ghosts, goblins, and gods” is automatic.

[Btodd]

I don't think all believers choose what they believe. But, I can come up with at least two scenarios in which such a choice could occur:

1. Someone holds a particular ideology: Perhaps they would like to live in a world that has God in it, and even though such a person finds no evidence of any god, they choose to believe in such a thing, to hold true to their little idea of an ideology. This might also be called "personal preference".

I still don't see how that's belief. I think that person would be going through the motions, and experiencing constant cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure I equate that with 'belief'. It sounds more like a hope, and not sincere. I don't think belief or non-belief takes any effort whatsoever, or it becomes something other than belief.

2. Belief in Belief: There are those who do not really believe in God, but they believe that a belief in God is beneficial, (and also that disbelief is detrimental) so they go through the motions of believing in God, for the good of their community. Perhaps many of the brighter religious leaders actually feel this way?

In that case, they believe in belief in God, but that's not the same as a real belief in God. Once again, I don't think it's chosen. I think they see belief in God as beneficial, and thus believe in belief in God. But it still doesn't mean that they 'choose' to believe in the benefits of belief.

Did that make any sense?:o

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm talking about what a person believes. Evidence being defined as 'what supports my belief', not 'what is correct'.
Then people can certainly choose what they believe. After all, everyone doesn't believe everything. I doubt you could come up with a nonconscious explanation for exactly what each person believes and doesn't, so there is at least some conscious choice. The tendency toward careful vs. shoddy analysis of the evidence might have some genetic, educational, or social basis, of course.

~~ Paul

[Btodd]

I used to be a Christian. Then I was Pagan. Now I'm atheist.

Are you trying to say I exercised no choice in any of that?

I'm saying you acknowledged your feelings at the time. And your feelings changed, probably due to thinking about it, reading arguments for and against, talking to believers and non-believers, and ultimately.... acknowledging where you stand.

Was it a toss-up, like 50/50, and so you had to choose in order to settle the issue?

To put it another way.....your mind is persuaded, instead of choosing to be persuaded. In my own life, as a former Christian....I did not want to be an unbeliever. I just couldn't stop it from happening, unless I had been intellectually dishonest.

If I could choose to be a theist, I most definitely would.

[Btodd]

Then people can certainly choose what they believe. After all, everyone doesn't believe everything. I doubt you could come up with a nonconscious explanation for exactly what each person believes and doesn't, so there is at least some conscious choice. The tendency toward careful vs. shoddy analysis of the evidence might have some genetic, educational, or social basis, of course.

~~ Paul

But even if your analysis is shoddy, does that mean you chose? Your belief still falls somewhere based on that analysis, even if the analysis was poor. You don't have to be conscious of such a thing.

In the case I proposed to Apology.....did you choose to believe you are a man, or did you hear the definition of a man, notice that your genitalia matched the description, and acknowledge the match? Was there a time when you weren't sure, and had to solve the dilemma?

I realize this may be too simplistic, but there is a point.

[PAC]

I would like to think that my beliefs are based on an evolution of growth,
experience and learning. But, what if I was born and raised in Iran, China
or Texas? I doubt that I would have the same beliefs.

[Zalbik]

I would like to think that my beliefs are based on an evolution of growth,
experience and learning. But, what if I was born and raised in Iran, China
or Texas? I doubt that I would have the same beliefs.

Exactly. You could hardly call that choice.

I think people may only think about certain claims, to ignore arguments against their current beliefs, to be biased against certain sources of knowledge, but that in the end, their beliefs come from their experience & learning, not from choice.

If someone was intellectually dishonest enough, they could only access sources of knowledge that supported the belief they desired...but again, I wouldn't call that more self-deception than choice.

[slingblade]

When you are born into a religious family and follow that religion as a child, no, there's no choice. You're doing what you're being taught to do. But other evidence is all around you. At some point, you're going to be exposed to at least some of it.

Maybe you've never been a fundamentalist Christian, Btodd, but I have. The first choice you're often asked to make is whether or not you'll ignore that other evidence. One is often encouraged to do just that. And one can. One can even discuss one's beliefs with others, and still ignore that other evidence. Willfully ignorant, yes, but one has to choose to be so. Or one has to choose to take a harder look, outside one's beliefs.

All along the way, the same choice has to be made, over and over. At any point, the believer can stop, and say to themselves "well, that contradicts my faith too much for me to believe it. I'd have to give up my faith, or a portion of it, to believe that. So, I won't."

They have ways to rationalize willful ignorance, too. Ever heard the argument that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to deceive the faithful? Yeah. Well, there are plenty of folks who believe just that. I'm related to some of them.

To you, it may seem so obvious that no choice is implicit. To former fundies, the reality is very different. Perhaps it's not so much that one chooses to acknowledge the reality of science, but that one chooses to refute the unreality of their belief. I know a few people, after all, who are fond of saying they can agree with the theory of evolution, because they reckon god can do anything any way he likes.

I had to choose to stop disregarding things that made my faith itch and chafe like a too-tight shirt. One day, I said enough was enough, and I was being foolish. I chose to stop believing. I'm sure I thought something along the lines of "This is ridiculous! None of this crap they taught me works, and none of it is real. I'm done. My mind's made up about religion, and I've decided I simply don't believe any of it, any more."

I made a choice. I had to. I had to choose to put all of that behind me--even the secret, quickie prayers I still sometimes made, though I was pretty sure nothing was listening.

It doesn't matter if you agree I made a choice or not. I know that I did. It wasn't easy, but it was the right one to make.

[arthwollipot]

I never chose to be an atheist. One day I realised that I was one.

And knowing what I do now, I could never again choose to be a theist.

[Apology]

It's a very complex issue, isn't it? How about this:

One must choose to disbelieve. A person must be conscious of the concept of God and able to evaluate the evidence before they can truly be said to disbelieve in God.

No object or being that is intrinsically incapable of belief can accurately be said to disbelieve, since presumably they would need the same mental capabilities in order to disbelieve.

There's no doubt that a lot of people are simply indoctrinated into religion before they have the capability to make rational choices. These people do not initially choose to believe, they are indoctrinated. If you want to go inflammatory, you could even say that they're brainwashed. Obviously every theist didn't "choose" to believe, under these circumstances.

However, as time goes on, they're bound to experience the dissonance that Slingblade described. They can either do something about it, as Slingblade did, or choose to continue believing. That's why I assert that it's a choice, and also that we shouldn't use children as philosophical constructs.

[arthwollipot]

Corollary to my last post: I did originally choose to become a theist when I started going to church. I then chose to end that association. I chose to dabble in various neopagan practices. But I did not choose to become an atheist.

[Apology]

Corollary to my last post: I did originally choose to become a theist when I started going to church. I then chose to end that association. I chose to dabble in various neopagan practices. But I did not choose to become an atheist.

You chose to start dabbling in neopagan practices but you didn't choose to stop?

I don't understand how believing could be a choice but disbelieving is not. As a matter of fact, I don't know why this is such a point of contention for people, other than the facts that theists have played the "You choose not to believe in God so you're evil," card a lot. Obviously that's nonsense as well, you chose not to believe in God because, after extensive investigation, you couldn't see any reason to believe in God that made sense to you, and gave up on trying to believe in God. I'm not saying that as some sort of criticism, as if "Oh, if only you tried a little harder, you'd have found Jesus" or something. I think it's rational to give up on an idea if you can't find a good reason to believe in it. I still think it's a choice though.

[Mashuna]

I can see this ending up as another free will thread :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.

[schlitt]

I think I can see what you mean Btodd. I have thought along these lines before also.

It is all a matter of how your brain calculates what is correct or not, and the information it has to do so.

Currently, I could never believe that the earth if flat, the information my brain will calculate about the earth will tell me that it is round. Unless new information about the earth being flat was introduced and was able to supersede the existing information, i will always remain that way. It is not a choice for me to believe the earth is round, it is the default position for me, given my brain state. The same goes with any other belief.

[tuc0]

Since we have no free will I don't see how we could "choose" our beliefs. We are all just slaves of our brain chemistry...

[schlitt]

Since we have no free will I don't see how we could "choose" our beliefs. We are all just slaves of our brain chemistry...

Yeah, it does all boil down to this in the scheme of things.

[Apology]

Exactly. You could hardly call that choice.

I think people may only think about certain claims, to ignore arguments against their current beliefs, to be biased against certain sources of knowledge, but that in the end, their beliefs come from their experience & learning, not from choice.

If someone was intellectually dishonest enough, they could only access sources of knowledge that supported the belief they desired...but again, I wouldn't call that more self-deception than choice.

I propose that our experiences and learning lead us to the choices we make. Different experiences or different learning and each of us might have made a different choice. It's your learning and experience that makes you incapable of believing, not your neurochemistry.

I bring up neurochemistry because someone else mentioned free will earlier, and while I'm sure it doesn't exist the way theists propose it, I'm not sure we're completely slaves of our brain chemistry either. That rather suggests a component of belief that's somehow genetic, as if there were a "God Gene" that released a "belief neurochemical" or something like that. I don't think we have the technology to prove that type of neurochemistry, and the claim strikes me as somewhat dubious. I don't have any evidence to refute it, however, so I'm undecided on the issue. I do have evidence to refute free will as it is defined by theists, though, so I spend a lot more time doing that ;)

[Dancing David]

I would like to see how many people think that beliefs are chosen, and their arguments for this. This stems from the 'Does atheism differ from agnosticism' thread, and my conversation with Apology. It is a frequent argument made by many Christians as well, with the notion that as an atheist, I 'choose not to believe in God'. For clarity's sake, I don't think you can choose NOT to believe in something, either. It's a natural occurrence (especially if you call yourself a skeptic).

I do not think that anyone really chooses what they believe. At the very least, it's a gross oversimplification, but I think it's closer to outright falsehood.

At best, you can choose to be more open-minded to ideas, but still cannot make yourself believe them. You do, or you do not.


I have yet to read through the the thread, so i apologise if I am repeating what has been said.

Beliefs is a very strange thing and has different components.

There is classical conditioning, wherein we associate antecedants and consequences. Which can be fraught with valid and invalid associations.
Then there is perception, a very complex subject. Our brains are massive machines for creating and matching data into patterns. We often see patterns that are not there (or at least based upon direct sensation).
There is personal historic learning. there is social and cultural learning and influences as well.
There is memory which appears to be a reconstruction of events, not a recall of events.

there are three phenomena that i think are worth noting:

Confabulation: when someone is knocked unconscious they often recall events that did not happen. they know where they were but they have an invalid reason for why they were there. (IE they think they were going to the grocery store rather than the library.) Our brains also manufacture perceptions for areas like our visual blind spots.

Delusions: or 'beliefs not shared by others", as in someone who tells you they are Napoleon and they really believe it, and that you are part of the alien conspiracy.

Cognitive behavioral therpay: a process by which people learn to modify their responses and thoughts about things.



So a certain amount of belief is hardwired and ingrained, it may never be changed. You can not convince a delusional person they are not napoleon, even with evidence. It is very hard to change cultural and social beleifs as well.

But some beliefs can be changed over time.

[Grayce]

This thread is interesting.

If I'm not mistaking, I recall that some of the great philosophers once said something like (and please forgive my poor english here): there has to occur a intellectual "break-through". If you believe in god while growing up, you should eventually, if you're evolved enough, break through the bubble of b#llshit and think for yourself...
Or something like that. This is Nietzsche? :covereyes

Anyhow, my personal belief (haha) is that there's a mix of choice and non-choice. As many of you already have said.
One of my best friends is a preacher's son, and I always think "that poor guy never got to choose..." when we have religion class.

[Rasmus]

I also don't see how there could be a "choice" made. I cannot simply decide to believe in God, or unicorns, or any such thing.

If I saw convincing evidence I might change my mind - but certainly not by choice. And then, I couldn't decide to just go back, either.

Does anyone care to demonstrate how that could be done?

[Wowbagger]

Did that make any sense?:o Your responses made sense. But,

I still don't see how that's belief. I think that person would be going through the motions, and experiencing constant cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure I equate that with 'belief'. It sounds more like a hope, and not sincere. I don't think belief or non-belief takes any effort whatsoever, or it becomes something other than belief. Then, you don't know the Power of the Leap of Faith!! Once someone has the mindset that God is necessary in their lives, despite evidence to the contrary, they are gosh-darn-it going to force themselves to believe, until they actually do!

Not all cases of Leap of Faith are like that, but some of them can be seen as a choice in having conviction.

In that case, they believe in belief in God, but that's not the same as a real belief in God. Once again, I don't think it's chosen. I think they see belief in God as beneficial, and thus believe in belief in God. But it still doesn't mean that they 'choose' to believe in the benefits of belief. No, it is not really quite the same. However, when questioned, their answers could be consistent with someone who seems to have made a choice to believe in God.
Most Belivers in Belief will not normally admit their real stance. Some might be inclinced to say they "choose" God's path, when asked.

[cloudshipsrule]

Some people choose to believe 9/11 was an inside job. Other's don't.

Some people think we landed on the moon in 69. Other's don't.

Some people think the government was involved with JFK's death. Other's don't.

All of those are choices based on the evidence one want's to believe. There is 'evidence' on both sides.

In some cases one side's evidence is more strongly backed by science (9/11, the moon landing, etc), and in other cases both sides have decent evidence. (Or at least the evidence on both sides can look convincing to certain individuals.)

It boils down to choosing which body of evidence, or lack of evidence, to believe in.

Christians choose to believe in something which is mostly backed by personal experiences and nothing actually provable or scientifically based. They are basically choosing a certain body of evidence over science.

When it comes to people who believe in ghosts, they choose to believe in evidence like stories and blurry pictures. Same for big foot believers. Damn those blurry pictures!

[Grayce]

When it comes to people who believe in ghosts, they choose to believe in evidence like stories and blurry pictures. Same for big foot believers. Damn those blurry pictures!
Or personal experience... :D

Good points there cloudshipsrule. I agree, it's all a matter of which body of evidence one wants to hold for true.

As controversial as it may seem, I still believe in an intellectual break-through, leading humans to believe in the right body of evidence.

[Dancing David]

Some bodies of evidence are a little more, um less subject to , er emotional, hmm thinking

[Apology]

I also don't see how there could be a "choice" made. I cannot simply decide to believe in God, or unicorns, or any such thing.

If I saw convincing evidence I might change my mind - but certainly not by choice. And then, I couldn't decide to just go back, either.

Does anyone care to demonstrate how that could be done?

Well you certainly can't decide anything if you aren't conscious enough to evaluate the evidence. When a person "chooses" to believe (and we're not talking about little children who are indoctrinated into religion) they must reject certain circumstantial evidence ("The Bible is wrong" for instance). They certainly can't reject this evidence while being unaware of it entirely. They also decide what they feel the available evidence means. (The Bible has flaws, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it's not the literal word of God, but it's still valid).

In light of convincing evidence, you do change your mind by choice. You don't want to be wrong, or seen as irrational. Naturally the choice is unnecessary without some sort of evidence that seems compelling to you. Nobody else can change your mind for you. Sure, people say "Richard Dawkins changed my mind," but what they mean is "After seeing the evidence that Richard Dawkins presented, I have decided to change my mind."

[Btodd]

There's no doubt that a lot of people are simply indoctrinated into religion before they have the capability to make rational choices. These people do not initially choose to believe, they are indoctrinated. If you want to go inflammatory, you could even say that they're brainwashed. Obviously every theist didn't "choose" to believe, under these circumstances.

However, as time goes on, they're bound to experience the dissonance that Slingblade described. They can either do something about it, as Slingblade did, or choose to continue believing. That's why I assert that it's a choice, and also that we shouldn't use children as philosophical constructs.

Apology, does a person choose to have cognitive dissonance, then?

[Btodd]

I think I can see what you mean Btodd. I have thought along these lines before also.

It is all a matter of how your brain calculates what is correct or not, and the information it has to do so.

Currently, I could never believe that the earth if flat, the information my brain will calculate about the earth will tell me that it is round. Unless new information about the earth being flat was introduced and was able to supersede the existing information, i will always remain that way. It is not a choice for me to believe the earth is round, it is the default position for me, given my brain state. The same goes with any other belief.

I agree. I posited the 'did you choose to believe you're a man' example, and still haven't heard a decent reply to the question.

Your example works very much the same way. You can't choose to believe something that you don't already find believable.

[Btodd]

Some people choose to believe 9/11 was an inside job. Other's don't.

How so? I cannot choose to believe 9/11 was an inside job, because I already believe it wasn't. I've heard both sides, and no choice was necessary, because one side is ridiculous to the extreme.

Some people think we landed on the moon in 69. Other's don't.

Some people think the government was involved with JFK's death. Other's don't.

All of those are choices based on the evidence one want's to believe. There is 'evidence' on both sides.

Some people think these things, because that's the type of people they are.

Do you think that a person cannot be persuaded to believe something, then?
Is the word 'persuade' a useless term?

In some cases one side's evidence is more strongly backed by science (9/11, the moon landing, etc), and in other cases both sides have decent evidence. (Or at least the evidence on both sides can look convincing to certain individuals.)

It boils down to choosing which body of evidence, or lack of evidence, to believe in.

Christians choose to believe in something which is mostly backed by personal experiences and nothing actually provable or scientifically based. They are basically choosing a certain body of evidence over science.

When it comes to people who believe in ghosts, they choose to believe in evidence like stories and blurry pictures. Same for big foot believers. Damn those blurry pictures!

Let's take it further. Do I 'choose' to like certain music? Do I 'choose' to like certain foods?

Do you think a scientist 'chooses' to have an analytical personality? Do I 'choose' to be a skeptic? Most people I pose skeptical questions to have never even thought of them in the first place (many Christians for example). Did they 'choose' not to think of my arguments against their position, or is it a natural extension of their personality that these questions don't occur to them or bother them?

[slingblade]

I agree. I posited the 'did you choose to believe you're a man' example, and still haven't heard a decent reply to the question.

Most of us don't deal with an unknown regarding our gender. I have ample evidence to prove I'm female, not the least of which are the two sons I bore. This is not something I believe, but know. It's not comparable to religion.

Your example works very much the same way. You can't choose to believe something that you don't already find believable.

I don't necessarily agree, but is that then true of the opposite? Can you choose to stop believing in something you no longer find believable? Or can you choose to disregard any evidence and just keep on believing in it, because that shows you have faith?

[slingblade]

How so? I cannot choose to believe 9/11 was an inside job, because I already believe it wasn't. I've heard both sides, and no choice was necessary, because one side is ridiculous to the extreme.

How did you know one side was ridiculous? How did you know which side it was, as opposed to the other? What did you use to make that determination? If you can't choose what you believe, then why don't you believe both sides are equally true?



Some people think these things, because that's the type of people they are.

Do you think that a person cannot be persuaded to believe something, then?
Is the word 'persuade' a useless term?

People are persuaded to believe things all the time, usually stemming from a lack of critical thinking skills.

Let's take it further. Do I 'choose' to like certain music? Do I 'choose' to like certain foods?

These are not comparable to religion. Music exists. Food exists. Have you any proof gods exist, or that they don't?

You are citing matters of personal taste. In what way do I need to believe music or food exists in order to know what my tastes are?

Do you think a scientist 'chooses' to have an analytical personality?

How is that comparable to religion?

Do I 'choose' to be a skeptic?

Oh, yes. Very much so. You've never met anyone who was quite comfortable not challenging his or her assumptions? People who choose not to question?

Most people I pose skeptical questions to have never even thought of them in the first place (many Christians for example). Did they 'choose' not to think of my arguments against their position, or is it a natural extension of their personality that these questions don't occur to them or bother them?

I doubt it has much to do with personality. Why do you associate critical thinking or the lack thereof with a personality type? Can you define personality? Must I prove I have one, that it exists, in order to know what mine is?

The problem is the lack of evidence. I have no evidence that demonstrates the existence of god, but I have plenty of evidence to suggest strongly there is no such thing. I could have chosen, as so many do, to ignore that evidence. Once I chose to examine it, I chose to question my faith, and once I realized it didn't stand up to my examination, I chose to abandon it, and all religious constructs.

I can't see why you have this huge problem with this concept. It seems to bother you. If you don't agree with it, then don't. So far, however, you've given me no reason to change my opinion.

[Btodd]

Most of us don't deal with an unknown regarding our gender. I have ample evidence to prove I'm female, not the least of which are the two sons I bore. This is not sometihng I believe, but know. It's not comparable to religion.

Fine. Does a person choose to believe they are homosexual?


I don't necessarily agree, but is that then true of the opposite? Can you choose to stop believing in something you no longer find believable? Or can you choose to disregard any evidence and just keep on believing in it, because that shows you have faith?

No, you cannot choose to stop believing in something you no longer find believable. If you no longer find it believable, no choice is necessary, unless you just mean the choice to verbally affirm your non-belief. Just look at how you phrased it: 'you no longer FIND believable'. If it is found, then how was it chosen?

[frankvan]

My parents tell me about God, Santa Claus, etc. I believe for a time. I later reject Santa as unlikley and harmless. God takes a little longer to reject, too many people insists that doubt and disbelief are not only wicked, disbelief that is disrespectful of an omnipotent and omniscient being is downright dangerous. fear, it seems to me, accounts for the persistence of belief despite the lack of credible evidence. I wouldn't call it choice if I disbelieve because I think I'm forced to reject what I might otherwise prefer to believe

[Apology]

Apology, does a person choose to have cognitive dissonance, then?
Sure, if they choose to investigate their beliefs. If they choose not to investigate, they don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. It's a natural reaction to contradictory input.

I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this particular question, so I'm unsure of how to explain it. When a Christian is exposed to anti-Christian ideas, they either choose to hear it and experience cognitive dissonance, or they choose not to hear it, and do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. It would be fairer to say that they choose to either consider new evidence, or they choose to reject it without consideration. The results of this particular choice may or may not be cognitive dissonance.

More loosely, one could argue that choosing to ignore new evidence is to choose against cognitive dissonance,and heeding new evidence is to choose in favor of cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure I want to make that argument, being that I'm not sure that it's right because I haven't had a lot of time to think about it. I suspect that it might be an oversimplification of the issues at hand.

[Apology]

Fine. Does a person choose to believe they are homosexual?


I don't want to answer for slingblade, but I personally just don't know. We don't know what causes homosexuality so we can't know if it's genetic, environmental, a choice, or what it is. Until I have more evidence, I'm unwilling to take any position on homosexuality at all.

I do think it would be pretty presumptuous to tell someone who says they're homosexual that they're not on the basis of them having had opposite-sex liasons in the past. Only the homosexual is qualified to say if they are homosexual or not.

[slingblade]

Fine. Does a person choose to believe they are homosexual?

I personally don't think they do, and the evidence suggests I'm correct.
I didn't choose to be bisexual, but after a few experiences, I did decide I like men better as long-term companions. Women are fun to snuggle with, but I chose to marry a man. Uh-oh, I made another choice, based on personal experience.

No, you cannot choose to stop believing in something you no longer find believable. If you no longer find it believable, no choice is necessary, unless you just mean the choice to verbally affirm your non-belief. Just look at how you phrased it: 'you no longer FIND believable'. If it is found, then how was it chosen?

Through a process of examining my beliefs and slowly choosing to reject them, one by one. I didn't do it all in one day. It took years. But there did come a particular day when I decided, I chose, to stop exercising any more belief; to have done.

I don't know there is no god. But I have chosen to live as if there isn't one.
I could have chosen, at any moment before that, to go back to the superstitious way I used to live. But once I chose to renounce my beliefs because they didn't stand up to scrutiny, I renounced any chance to go back. It was a big, brave step to take, and no less brave because you have some problem agreeing I made a choice, or that there was any choice to be made.

I've asked you before: were you ever religious? If not, I can't see how you can understand what I mean.

[Btodd]

Sure, if they choose to investigate their beliefs. If they choose not to investigate, they don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. It's a natural reaction to contradictory input.

Contradictory input won't assure cognitive dissonance, though. It's how that contradictory evidence is perceived. If it's not very persuasive, there's no reason to have cognitive dissonance. And whether or not it is persuasive isn't by choice, IMO. I can't choose to make a bad argument sound like a good one.

I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this particular question, so I'm unsure of how to explain it. When a Christian is exposed to anti-Christian ideas, they either choose to hear it and experience cognitive dissonance, or they choose not to hear it, and do not suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Again, I don't think that merely hearing an opposing point of view causes cognitive dissonance. That depends on how persuasive the opposing point of view is to the listener, which I still argue isn't by choice. How can I choose to be persuaded? If that is so, then I don't see how the word 'persuade' has much relevance.

It would be fairer to say that they choose to either consider new evidence, or they choose to reject it without consideration. The results of this particular choice may or may not be cognitive dissonance.

I agree with this part. Regardless of the choice to consider or not consider new evidence, cognitive dissonance may or may not occur. There is no direct correlation in an absolute sense.

More loosely, one could argue that choosing to ignore new evidence is to choose against cognitive dissonance,and heeding new evidence is to choose in favor of cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure I want to make that argument, being that I'm not sure that it's right because I haven't had a lot of time to think about it. I suspect that it might be an oversimplification of the issues at hand.

I think this is all an oversimplification (my arguments included). I find the notion of 'choosing in favor of cognitive dissonance' to be a bit much. I hated cognitive dissonance when I was a Christian, and would have rather avoided it altogether. It wasn't anything I wanted to happen. Again, I don't think I choose to make a bad argument sound like a good one. It either sounds good, or it doesn't, and I believe accordingly.

[arthwollipot]

You chose to start dabbling in neopagan practices but you didn't choose to stop?Not quite. There wasn't a single defined moment when I said to myself "I choose to stop dabbling now". It sort of tailed off when I realised that none of it was doing any good.

I don't understand how believing could be a choice but disbelieving is not.I don't understand how disbelieving could be a choice. Unlike when I stopped dabbling in neopagan practices, there definitely was a specific moment when I realised that I was an atheist. I had been reading Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe at the time and I realised that the universe for me no longer required the existence of a deity of any kind. It trundles along quite happily without any kind of divine influence. I did not at any time decide that I was an atheist - I just realised that the label applied to me as I was at that time. I did choose at that time to call myself an atheist - that's not the same thing as choosing to be an atheist. I already was an atheist - I just hadn't realised it until that moment.

Fine. Does a person choose to believe they are homosexual?
I chose to make an attempt to find out whether I was bisexual, by choosing to have sex with a man. I realised that I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed sex with women. Again, I didn't choose to be mostly-heterosexual. But I took the opportunity to make sure. :D

[slingblade]

Maybe I was brainwashed too much. I had to make a forceful withdrawal from my belief. I had to give myself permission to stop believing.

Maybe we're talking too much about personal experience and not realizing that our own truth isn't universally applicable to others. I have no problem accepting that you don't feel to believe or not believe is not a choice. I do have a problem with you trying to invalidate my experience and my perception of it. I had to make drastic changes in my thinking, and I didn't do them unconsciously. I did them deliberately. And it. was. hard.

I mean, I can remember spending hours, in emotional misery, arguing with myself about this! Trying to convince myself to let it go as the superstitious claptrap I had come to see it as, and being afraid to do so. Being afraid a god I couldn't believe in anymore would punish me for not believing in him. If you've never been religious, maybe this is one of those things you just can't get.

I made a choice. A conscious, deliberate choice. You apparently don't choose to believe me.

Irony gives me such a tummy ache. ;)

EDIT: Also, Btodd, I went back and re-read, and I see you were once religious and gave it up. I don't understand how you don't see a choice there to make, but if you say you didn't, then you didn't, and I've no problem accepting that what you say is true for you. You made no choices. You just woke up one day and you were atheist. Fine.

I did not wake up atheist. I had to fight for every step of ground I gained. I had to choose.

[arthwollipot]

I sincerely apologise if I gave you any impression that I was trying to invalidate your experience. It was not at all my intention. Of course people have different experiences. The day I decided to leave the church I had attended for a couple of years (which was some time before my atheistic epiphany) was a little bit traumatic for me, but not overly so - mostly because I realise now that I didn't have a lot of emotional investment in the church in the first place.

Maybe we're talking too much about personal experience and not realizing that our own truth isn't universally applicable to others.You're spot on here, and it's not an uncommon problem. I had intended only to talk about my own experiences, and not to try and refer to those of others. It seems I was unsuccessful.

I made a choice. A conscious, deliberate choice. You apparently don't choose to believe me.Again, I apologise for giving you this impression. I do believe you. Your experiences parallel the experiences of a number of people I have spoken to. I personally did not have anywhere near as much trouble discarding religion - but I never intended to suggest by saying this that other people should have had an easy time as I did.

[Apology]

Maybe I was brainwashed too much. I had to make a forceful withdrawal from my belief. I had to give myself permission to stop believing.

Maybe we're talking too much about personal experience and not realizing that our own truth isn't universally applicable to others. I have no problem accepting that you don't feel to believe or not believe is not a choice. I do have a problem with you trying to invalidate my experience and my perception of it. I had to make drastic changes in my thinking, and I didn't do them unconsciously. I did them deliberately. And it. was. hard.

I mean, I can remember spending hours, in emotional misery, arguing with myself about this! Trying to convince myself to let it go as the superstitious claptrap I had come to see it as, and being afraid to do so. Being afraid a god I couldn't believe in anymore would punish me for not believing in him. If you've never been religious, maybe this is one of those things you just can't get.

I made a choice. A conscious, deliberate choice. You apparently don't choose to believe me.

Irony gives me such a tummy ache. ;)

EDIT: Also, Btodd, I went back and re-read, and I see you were once religious and gave it up. I don't understand how you don't see a choice there to make, but if you say you didn't, then you didn't, and I've no problem accepting that what you say is true for you. You made no choices. You just woke up one day and you were atheist. Fine.

I did not wake up atheist. I had to fight for every step of ground I gained. I had to choose.

This is a really good post, slingblade. I can't say my transitions were an agonizing choice like many other people's. It was more of a complex series of simple decisions that ultimately lead to my final conclusion. I didn't just wake up one morning and say "I don't think we can know!" I'm not that smart. I had to read a lot of work by people who already had thought about a bunch of different sides of the argument, and frankly, the non-religious philosophies threw me a left curve and I had to rethink a lot of things then. I spent inordinate amounts of time on it, so I was clearly interested or concerned, but it didn't hurt much.

Btodd, I'm going to think about your last post for a while before I respond. Gosh I like your arguments because I really have to think about them, and they zoom into areas where I'm completely and exquisitely unsure. It's like a philosophical internet thrill ride wheee!

[Btodd]

Slingblade and Apology, I appreciate the discussion and we've at least uncovered that it's not an easy thing to sort out. I don't want to tell you what your experience was or wasn't, I'm merely debating in favor of a position (one which I do hold). This isn't a personal thing at all, but it unfortunately involves personal beliefs. My intention for the thread was to see if my thoughts hold up to counter-arguments, not to tell you what to think.

I'll continue thinking about some of the examples you offered, and perhaps a better way of articulating what I don't think I've fully done yet.:)

[Apology]

Slingblade and Apology, I appreciate the discussion and we've at least uncovered that it's not an easy thing to sort out. I don't want to tell you what your experience was or wasn't, I'm merely debating in favor of a position (one which I do hold). This isn't a personal thing at all, but it unfortunately involves personal beliefs. My intention for the thread was to see if my thoughts hold up to counter-arguments, not to tell you what to think.

I'll continue thinking about some of the examples you offered, and perhaps a better way of articulating what I don't think I've fully done yet.:)

It's shaping up into a nice, non-contentious philosophical argument! Everyone can feel free to sleep on an answer if they like too. I'm not expecting you to devote all your time and energy to contemplation. We're merely arguing sides of a position, and anyone can feel free to change sides or retract a statement without fear of the horrible shame of being irrational.

Plus I get tired and decide I can't contemplate any more that day. :)

[slingblade]

It's been a good discussion so far, and I wouldn't still be here if I wasn't getting something from it, so thanks to you, Apology, Btodd, and Arthwollipot, for sharing it with me.

Arth, don't worry about it. No harm, no foul, buddy. I always like talking with you.

I certainly can agree with you, Apology, about the curves investigating different modes of thinking can throw you! I felt for a while there as if everything I knew was suspect, and then to discover that this is how I ought to be thinking really tossed me around! Everything ought to be at least somewhat suspect, if I've always just accepted whatever I was told....ooh, that is a scary place to be, at first.

Then it gets exciting. :) Then you start to learn.

Sorry I'm so defensive, guys. I'm learning about that, too. I feel as if my life has been a lot like sleeping on a roller coaster, and I'm waking up just as the ride is ending....I missed so much, though I was there for all of it, and now I'm scared I woke up far too late.

Anyway, keep trying, Btodd, to express what it is you want to say. If I can learn from that, I'd enjoy it. I'll keep trying to get it. :)

[Smiledriver]

I think if we agreed that we could not choose what we believe the forum would have to disband and Randi would go back to magic.

[arthwollipot]

I think that if all of us could agree on everything there would be no need for the forum.

[Apology]

I think if we agreed that we could not choose what we believe the forum would have to disband and Randi would go back to magic.

Oh, my, that's surprisingly profound, and cuts my contemplation time quite a bit :D I nominated you.

I think that if all of us could agree on everything there would be no need for the forum.

I imagine that it would be like most all-Christian forums are today:

Christian 1: "God exists."

Christian 2: "Yup."

Christian 1: "Jesus saves, too."

Christian 2: "Amen."

<crickets>

So basically I think nearly everyone would abandon it if we were all in agreement. :D

[Dancing David]

I agree. I posited the 'did you choose to believe you're a man' example, and still haven't heard a decent reply to the question.

Your example works very much the same way. You can't choose to believe something that you don't already find believable.


That is a very difficult issue for some people. I had a rather confused gender until I had sex with a woman, then all my gender idenity issues resolved. I decided i was male but did not have to act like other men.

[Dancing David]

Not quite. There wasn't a single defined moment when I said to myself "I choose to stop dabbling now". It sort of tailed off when I realised that none of it was doing any good.

I don't understand how disbelieving could be a choice. Unlike when I stopped dabbling in neopagan practices, there definitely was a specific moment when I realised that I was an atheist.


the main reason to be a neopagan is to have fun and annoy other neopagans by being a sceptic.

Ritual is a great charge just like any stage preformance.

But lighters should always be carried to burn scripts!

[arthwollipot]

the main reason to be a neopagan is to have fun and annoy other neopagans by being a sceptic.

Ritual is a great charge just like any stage preformance.

But lighters should always be carried to burn scripts!
:D

Actually I was into it to improve my chances of getting laid. But there you go.

[Dancing David]

:D

If you like em, needy and freaky!

[Autolite]

It is a frequent argument made by many Christians as well, with the notion that as an atheist, I 'choose not to believe in God'.

That theist argument always irks me. Saying that Atheists "choose" disbelief is nonsense. My reply is that I "believe" that there's no god the way that you "believe" that 2+2=4! How can one assert that acknowledging reality is somehow a "choice"? The concept of choosing one idea over another implies that the individual choices each have equal merits, which in this case, they do not ...

[arthwollipot]

:D

If you like em, needy and freaky!Beggars can't be choosers.

[Apology]

That theist argument always irks me. Saying that Atheists "choose" disbelief is nonsense. My reply is that I "believe" that there's no god the way that you "believe" that 2+2=4! How can one assert that acknowledging reality is somehow a "choice"? The concept of choosing one idea over another implies that the individual choices each have equal merits, which in this case, they do not ...

I propose that you do choose disbelief, just not for the reasons that the theists say---that you are inherently evil, not trying hard enough, or somehow defective. That's bunk. You could make the same argument, that their minds are defective and that's why they can't use reason effectively. You can make that argument if you want---I wouldn't touch it, personally.

You chose disbelief because their evidence was so paltry and you found it unconvincing, just like you'd do if someone wanted you to believe in Bigfoot. Of course individual choices have equal merits. Choose wrongly throughout life, and you will surely meet with disaster. Choose rightly throughout life, and you'll probably be successful.

Choosing which pair of pants to wear in the morning obviously doesn't have the same gravity as choosing to believe or not believe in God. All choices aren't equal in that way. There are many choices that have little to no effect on the overall outcome of our lives, or we might accidentally purchase the Newspaper of Doom or something. Agnosticism is reserved for only those occasions where delay in decision is acceptable. If I see a child chasing a ball into the path of a bus, it's safe to assume that the child won't get out of the way in time and go after the little bugger. It's unsafe to delay the decision or hope it all works out.

[arthwollipot]

But isn't that just like "choosing to believe" that the sun will come up in the morning?

[Autolite]

But isn't that just like "choosing to believe" that the sun will come up in the morning?

Yes! My point exactly!

[Apology]

But isn't that just like "choosing to believe" that the sun will come up in the morning?

You choose to believe the sun will come up based on a preponderance of the evidence. The weight of the evidence makes believing that the sun will come up a pretty easy choice. If the evidence of the sun rising every morning wasn't so strong, it would be a much more difficult belief to adopt. Also, you only have 24 hours from sunrise to decide, so remaining agnostic about it would be futile---the question will be answered with proof.

[arthwollipot]

But that doesn't really seem to be a "choice" - for me at least. I do not "choose to believe" that the sun will come up - I just know it will. Similarly, I didn't "choose to be" an atheist - I just knew I was.

[Autolite]

to shttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choose

"elect from a number of possibilities; pick by preference"

Apology, did you mean to imply that the sun not rising is a reasonable possibility?

[slingblade]

What if one comes from a culture of denial, though? What if one is skilled at looking evidence or contrary opinions in the face and refusing to see them? Fingers in the ears, la-la-la-la.... If one is ever going to change one's opinions, one will, at the very least, have to start with choosing to stop ignoring "the other side," as it were.

I'm not willing to come down on one side or another--to say with conviction that beliefs can or cannot be matters of choice--because I think there are multiple sides and possibilities to consider. I think these vary with the individual. I think there's a great deal of grey between the black and white.

Beliefs are ideologies, in essence, yes? Instead of asking if evidentiary things can be chosen, let's look at ideological matters. I can't, for instance, really remember choosing to be Liberal. My outlook tends to match many of the ideals contained in liberal thinking as opposed to conservative thinking. As with those who say they just know they are atheist, I just know I'm a liberal.

I was reared in a Democratic home, so I also can't remember ever choosing to be a Democrat, nor examining that ideology against Republicanism. I've just always been a Democrat.

Are there other, similar idealogical identities that we don't specifically choose...we just seem to end up there, or to have been there all along, without a great deal of conscious thought?

[Apology]

to shttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choose

"elect from a number of possibilities; pick by preference"

Apology, did you mean to imply that the sun not rising is a reasonable possibility?

No, I'm saying that based on the weight of the evidence in favor of the sun always rising, most people don't view choosing to believe it will as a difficult choice. Their selection in favor of "Yes it will rise" is so quick and easily made that there's no sense of "choice", although it's there. There's a remote possibility that the sun might explode overnight, and not rise again tomorrow, but the preponderance of the evidence is so strongly against that possibility that few people even consider it.

[Autolite]

there's no sense of "choice", although it's there.

Apology, I submit again my "2+2=4" argument. I claim "2+2=4". Is this simply an acknowledgement of reality or is it a choice I've made on the presumption that there might be other possibilities???

[Apology]

Apology, I submit again my "2+2=4" argument. I claim "2+2=4". Is this simply an acknowledgement of reality or is it a choice I've made on the presumption that there might be other possibilities???

It's a choice based on proof. You get two apples, you get two more, you count the new pile of apples, there are four, you now KNOW that 2 + 2 = 4. There is a huge difference between believing something in light of a lack of proof and knowing something based on direct conclusive evidence. You don't believe that 2 + 2 = 4, you know it does. In order to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, you need to discard or discount the conclusive evidence for whatever reason. In the case of small children, they do not yet know that 2 + 2 = 4 and may not be intellectually mature enough to understand the proof, so they're easily fooled.

[Marquis de Carabas]

What if one comes from a culture of denial, though? What if one is skilled at looking evidence or contrary opinions in the face and refusing to see them? Fingers in the ears, la-la-la-la.... If one is ever going to change one's opinions, one will, at the very least, have to start with choosing to stop ignoring "the other side," as it were.
The idea that the other side can be safely ignored, though, is itself a belief. To say one chooses to stop it as opposed to just saying one does, in fact, stop it, is merely to push the debate about belief and choice back one step.

I am an atheist because with the inputs of the evidence I have seen and the arguments I have heard over 31 years, the output from the algorithm I laughingly call a brain is: I don't believe in God. I cannot believe in God. Additional input might change that, but at this moment here I stand; I can do no other. The key is I do not remember choosing the algorithm, either. I never said to myself I choose to become the sort of person who believes things based on blah blah blah. I just am that sort of person.

[slingblade]

Apology, I submit again my "2+2=4" argument. I claim "2+2=4". Is this simply an acknowledgement of reality or is it a choice I've made on the presumption that there might be other possibilities???

This is just like the "do you choose to be male/female, or do you just know you are?" question, though. I can quickly produce evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, with any objects at hand, so I can prove to myself there are no other possibilities, and don't even need to consider them. I can produce evidence that I'm genetically female, and if I do have doubts, a doctor or genetics expert can provide the evidence, scientifically.

Can you produce evidence of god? Is god something we know, or is it something we must believe without knowing?

One has to account for other possibilities only in cases where knowledge is incomplete or absent. The knowledge regarding 2 + 2 = 4 is neither.

Try to find an example that has no way to prove it, yea or nay. I think that would be more helpful than the examples for which there is evidence.

[slingblade]

The idea that the other side can be safely ignored, though, is itself a belief.

You added a word, though, and it changes the meaning somehow. I'm not sure how, but I feel it does: "safely." What does it mean to safely ignore something, and why should it matter to the discussion? I don't mean to challenge you, at all, but I do need it clarified, or else removed, because it isn't part of my argument. I don't think ignorance is ever "safe."


To say one chooses to stop it as opposed to just saying one does, in fact, stop it, is merely to push the debate about belief and choice back one step.

I'm sorry, I'm honestly not bright enough to see how it does so, or even what that means. Presenting my argument pushes the debate back? So I should just blindly accept that what you say is actually how it happened to me, regardless of what I think, and shut up, because I'm pushing the debate back?

I thought the debate was about whether (at least some) belief can be chosen or not. If my side harms the debate, then the debate is over before it begins, isn't it?

I am an atheist because with the inputs of the evidence I have seen and the arguments I have heard over 31 years, the output from the algorithm I laughingly call a brain is: I don't believe in God. I cannot believe in God. Additional input might change that, but at this moment here I stand; I can do no other. The key is I do not remember choosing the algorithm, either. I never said to myself I choose to become the sort of person who believes things based on blah blah blah. I just am that sort of person.

So I should still believe in god, but just not in religion?

[Marquis de Carabas]

You added a word, though, and it changes the meaning somehow. I'm not sure how, but I feel it does: "safely." What does it mean to safely ignore something, and why should it matter to the discussion? I don't mean to challenge you, at all, but I do need it clarified, or else removed, because it isn't part of my argument. I don't think ignorance is ever "safe."
You may discard it.

I'm sorry, I'm honestly not bright enough to see how it does so, or even what that means. Presenting my argument pushes the debate back? So I should just blindly accept that what you say is actually how it happened to me, regardless of what I think, and shut up, because I'm pushing the debate back?
Please point out where I gave you any advice about shutting up and blindly accepting what I say.

I thought the debate was about whether (at least some) belief can be chosen or not. If my side harms the debate, then the debate is over before it begins, isn't it?
And where I said you or your side harmed the debate.

So I should still believe in god, but just not in religion?
And where I said you should believe in god, or indeed where I gave you any instruction on what you should believe about anything.

[Autolite]

It's a choice based on proof.

I disagree. The term "choice" is based on the presumption that there is more than one rational possibility (choose; "elect from a number of possibilities; pick by preference"). As there are no other possibilities for "2+2=4", one cannot assert that there is a choice involved. It is simply an acknowledgement of a fact ...

[slingblade]

You may discard it.


Please point out where I gave you any advice about shutting up and blindly accepting what I say.

No, no, I asked if that's what "pushing the debate back" means. If it doesn't, can you explain what it does mean?


And where I said you or your side harmed the debate.

Because I'm saying some beliefs can be chosen, so...see above, I don't understand the term "pushing the debate back."

And where I said you should believe in god, or indeed where I gave you any instruction on what you should believe about anything.

I'm simply confused and asking for clarity. Okay, I shouldn't have guessed what you meant before you could clarify. I'm sorry.

But, could you? Please?

[Apology]

I disagree. The term "choice" is based on the presumption that there is more than one rational possibility (choose; "elect from a number of possibilities; pick by preference"). As there are no other possibilities for "2+2=4", one cannot assert that there is a choice involved. It is simply an acknowledgement of a fact ...

If one did not know 2 + 2 = 4 were a fact, one would have to examine the pro and con arguments. Then one would choose to believe 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact based on the evidence. With simple ideas with this, our reasoning moves so quickly that we're unaware of making any "choices". As soon as our eyes hit the pile of apples and register that there are indeed 4 of them, the evaluation and belief stages are over in the blink of an eye. We now know.

There's no benefit to belief that 2 + 2 = anything other than 4, either. There isn't really a "con" group that are against the idea that 2 + 2 = 4. Most people over four years old aren't confused by the concept. There's no reason to doubt a fact after the initial presentation of it. Religion doesn't deal with facts in any way, and that's why we never get past evaluation, belief and disbelief to actual knowledge.

[Autolite]

Then one would choose to believe 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact based on the evidence.

One "chooses" to believe "2+2=4" as opposed to what other rational possibility???

[Apology]

One "chooses" to believe "2+2=4" as opposed to what other rational possibility???

As opposed to two cents being worth more than a nickel, because there are two of them. Anyone who is confused about 2 + 2 = 4 for very long is not a rational person. Have you never offered a small child ten pennies in exchange for a quarter in order to teach them the value of money? (Before you get mad, I don't keep it, and the little students end up with a piece of gum, the pennies, and their quarter). It takes them more than two seconds to evaluate the evidence and believe you. It may take further repetition of similar lessons before they can really be said to know it.

Most of us don't remember our initial experience with 2 + 2 = 4, so we don't remember evaluating the evidence, choosing to believe, and finally knowing. We only know now.It's also the reason why children make such poor constructs most of the time. Few of us can remember what it was really like to be under age ten once we're past, say, age thirty. That's why kids seem to have such a frustrating lack of common sense sometimes too. We expect them to know better, but they really don't.

[Autolite]

As opposed to two cents being worth more than a nickel, because there are two of them.

I really wasn't talking about children who have yet to learn the concept of money. Your rationale would also apply to an adult of diminished capacity or perhaps a mentally fit individual who isn't familiar with the exchange rate between the USD and, lets say, the Norwegian krone. What I've been attempting to illustrate is that the concept of making a choice is dependant on the existence of two or more rational options (that is to say, several possibilities of which the hypothetical subject individual is cognisant of) . Pertaining to the 2+2=4 argument, if we assume that one understands mathematics, there is only one possible rational determination. If only one possible rational determination exists then, by definition, choice is not possible...

[Apology]

I really wasn't talking about children who have yet to learn the concept of money. Your rationale would also apply to an adult of diminished capacity or perhaps a mentally fit individual who isn't familiar with the exchange rate between the USD and, lets say, the Norwegian krone. What I've been attempting to illustrate is that the concept of making a choice is dependant on the existence of two or more rational options (that is to say, several possibilities of which the hypothetical subject individual is cognisant of) . Pertaining to the 2+2=4 argument, if we assume that one understands mathematics, there is only one possible rational determination. If only one possible rational determination exists then, by definition, choice is not possible...

In my estimation, a rational determination is also a choice. Your other choice is to irrationally believe in something else, or to disbelieve that 2 + 2 = 4 without offering any other option for what 2 + 2 equals. There's just no agenda for disbelieving it, and one has everything to gain by believing it. A lack of irrational options doesn't really make a rational determination any less of a choice, only an easier choice. Indeed, the choice is so easy to make that one might be unaware of having made a choice at all.

[Autolite]

In my estimation, a rational determination is also a choice.

I suppose we could consider this the reason for the disagreement. It seems that we each have a different interpretation of the term "choice"...

[Dancing David]

Apology, I submit again my "2+2=4" argument. I claim "2+2=4". Is this simply an acknowledgement of reality or is it a choice I've made on the presumption that there might be other possibilities???


Mathematics is not a good choice.

It is a self referencing set of symbols and by defintion 2+2=4. The presumption was made before you were taught it.

As is language the symbols are arbitrary, they only have meaning in reference to something concrete that is defined by consensus.

The issue comes down to many things, yes you are conditioned that the sun will rise in the morning. You are socially and culturally taught that the sun will rise in the morning.

Some beliefs have more of an element of choice than others.

[Dancing David]

I disagree. The term "choice" is based on the presumption that there is more than one rational possibility (choose; "elect from a number of possibilities; pick by preference"). As there are no other possibilities for "2+2=4", one cannot assert that there is a choice involved. It is simply an acknowledgement of a fact ...


It is more axiomatic than a fact just as 'four'='quatro'. It is a fact of defintition.

[Dancing David]

As opposed to two cents being worth more than a nickel, because there are two of them. Anyone who is confused about 2 + 2 = 4 for very long is not a rational person. Have you never offered a small child ten pennies in exchange for a quarter in order to teach them the value of money? (Before you get mad, I don't keep it, and the little students end up with a piece of gum, the pennies, and their quarter). It takes them more than two seconds to evaluate the evidence and believe you. It may take further repetition of similar lessons before they can really be said to know it.

Most of us don't remember our initial experience with 2 + 2 = 4, so we don't remember evaluating the evidence, choosing to believe, and finally knowing. We only know now.It's also the reason why children make such poor constructs most of the time. Few of us can remember what it was really like to be under age ten once we're past, say, age thirty. That's why kids seem to have such a frustrating lack of common sense sometimes too. We expect them to know better, but they really don't.

Yet is is a learned social construct.

There is that phase where through repition that word 'four' is associated, through conditioning and small abstraction, is learned to be applied to the concept of 'four object' or 'the number that follows three and procedes five'.

I would say that before the evidentiary phase there is a long curve of associative and conditioned learning. And what they have learned in the evidentiary phase is a number of things, the correct aplication of a social norm, exchange value theory and cynicism. i am not sure that the fact learned is that 10<25 as much as it is the correct application of a social norm in communication, the social values of preference in exchanges and that one should judge choices.

I think that the experiment could be skewed tather easily by personal preference, say by polishing and painting the pennies or making the quater unatrractive.

The value of money and the preference of exchange is a social construct.

[Apology]

I suppose we could consider this the reason for the disagreement. It seems that we each have a different interpretation of the term "choice"...

I suppose we do...I sure enjoyed discussing it though!

The theoretical nature of consciousness is full of these little junctures where you must either believe or disbelieve, since there's no known "truth". Naturally I can't be sure if I'm right or not, but after careful thought this is what I've come to believe. If we knew more about consciousness, we'd have androids by now. We've really come a long way in making robots move and talk, but we haven't been able to make them conscious. I think some day we might come to "know" these types of answers, and at that juncture my beliefs will be proven right or wrong. I sure do hope it happens in my lifetime. :popcorn1

[chris epic]

yes, jumping in late- maybe repeating something, maybe not. Someone mentioned 'Free Will,' which is exactly what I saw underlying Btodd's query. I would love to think that 'Free Will' existed, especially for as 'ideological' as I am...but when I critically analyze that, I am forced (hehehe) to say that people...well, ANYTHING is in a vacuum of manipulation. That's it. That's how everything works. No thing or body makes any decision completely independent of itself. We are all coaxed to live or die, move and breath. It seems like a waste of imagination, but the mind is very 'good' at making it easy to seem as though we do have free will (absolute, complete).

You don't choose squat. You can always trace your "choice" to one external influence or another. And that choice will never be an option- rather, I should say 'the act of choosing will never be an option, because the choice not to choose is still a choice. A choice WILL be made, whether its 'this' choice or 'that' choice; you will see that your 'choices' are limited. That limitation is placed upon us by our environment. Limitation is the antithesis of Free. You will see that there really aren't any choices at all, just a limited amount of varied requirements.

[Big Les]

I don't see how choices limited by experience and environment are somehow not choices at all. Of course they're limited, but the differentiation between courses of action, regardless of the known or unknown impetus behind each, is still a differentiation, or as I think of it and people pragmatically see it, a "choice" - the sort of active vetoing of pre-determined courses of action that are made by everybody on a daily basis and shape the world we live in. When I pick up a biscuit fully intending to eat it because of whatever predetermined urge to do so, and then suppress that actively in an attempt to prevent taking in the excess calories, regardless of how inevitable that latter veto might be in philosophical terms, practically speaking, in another identical situation another day, I might fail to veto and eat the biscuit - same situation, different choice. To all intents and purposes, it's a choice, and I see the same where the alternative course of action is less accessible i.e. a more unique situation where I make my choice based upon my past experience and active sub-conscious etc. I am able to exert conscious veto (even if it's deliberately irrational and actively disadvantageous in an attempt to prove a limited form of free will ;) ). Given the same situation again, I could take a different course of action based upon near-identical predetermined input. I just don't think saying that uber-theoretically (if we had access to every single thought and stimulus ever), each and every choice is totally predetermined, is very useful as far as understanding real life goes. Regardless of the reasons for the decisions, the decisions are still being made, and are part of what defines us as "us". That's good enough for me, and I don't see how it qualifies as "illusion" any more than me seeing my computer screen is an "illusion". It's just pointless roll-necked sweatered, navel-gazing, "nothing is real", "consider the lily" hand-waving.

Or maybe I just don't understand philosophy and find it bewildering and frustrating.

[arthwollipot]

Tell me Les, is there any aspect of life that you do not consider to be a "choice"?