Do we choose what we believe?

[Ahanu]

One can't think straight with a monkey mind.
@Blindwatchmaker did not reject free-will altogether. As an atheist, also do not reject free-will altogether. I said it is conditional (my post, #4), based on childhood indoctrination, religious influences, education, social and personal experiences. These conditions differ from one person to another.

I want clarification, because in posts elsewhere you've stated otherwise.

"Human actions too are complex deterministic - there is no free-will. It just appears to be so."
-Aupmanyav

Conciousness "cannot influence the chemical and electric reactions, it follows them."
-Aupmanyav

Yes, one can't think straight with a monkey mind.

If actions are based on memory and experience, and memory and experience are both aspects of consciousness, how can consciousness be said to have no influence on the reactions that lead to action?

 

[Ahanu]

I want clarification, because in posts elsewhere you've stated otherwise.

"Human actions too are complex deterministic - there is no free-will. It just appears to be so."
-Aupmanyav

Conciousness "cannot influence the chemical and electric reactions, it follows them."
-Aupmanyav

Yes, one can't think straight with a monkey mind.

If actions are based on memory and experience, and memory and experience are both aspects of consciousness, how can consciousness be said to have no influence on the reactions that lead to action?

Getting back on topic, belief is not chosen because it places consciousness in a position of being a consequence. It is not a cause of anything.

Consciousness is an epiphenomenon.

No
agency
whatsoever

In my understaning this is Aupmanyav's view. Anybody is free to correct me.

 

[Ahanu]

Conciousness "cannot influence the chemical and electric reactions, it follows them."
-Aupmanyav

As soon as you believe this, it is game over for believing we have any causal agency. Any conscious agency is an illusion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I want clarification, because in posts elsewhere you've stated otherwise.

"Human actions too are complex deterministic - there is no free-will. It just appears to be so."
-Aupmanyav

Conciousness "cannot influence the chemical and electric reactions, it follows them."
-Aupmanyav

Yes, one can't think straight with a monkey mind.

If actions are based on memory and experience, and memory and experience are both aspects of consciousness, how can consciousness be said to have no influence on the reactions that lead to action?

Did I say that? Both your links take me to my post # 101 which said:

"Not for all. Some still stick to their books which are comical, claiming existence of Gods and messengers from that imagined entity."

Did I say that all our actions are automatic, without any effect from our consciousness and conscience?

 

[Ahanu]

Did I say that?

See post number 111: "Consciousness cannot influence the chemical and electric reactions, it follows them."

See post number 116: "Human actions too are complex deterministic - there is no free-will. It just appears to be so."

You also stated: "And if you talk of human consciousness, that too basically is this, chemical and electrical reaction."

 

[wil]

I am totally on the yes; but scale.

Some folks are.free to choose since birth. In one case because their parents didn't coach them on what to think, just taught them how to think (rare)

In another case if the parent taught them nothing in the way of belief.

But most of us grow up with parents of similar beliefs which is passed on to to their child, some in forms which get referred to as indoctrination others may say child abuse.

In severe cases folks are.grown up in communities or countries that go beyond peer.pressure and include parochial school, daily readings (or more often), laws and punishments for not abiding, maybe ostracization for non compliance or worse.

However ...even in the worst case scenario people.have chose, despite repercussions gone against the teachings of their elders and moved on to a new belief...hence, yes, vut.

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

As I’ve said before, I’m not arguing that we’re deterministic robots with no free will.
I do think determinism has serious philosophical support and deserves to be taken seriously—but even if we set that aside and assume full libertarian free will, my core point still stands:

Belief isn’t a choice.
We don’t decide to believe something—we become convinced of it. Belief arises when we’re convinced, and it is absent until we are.

You can’t choose to believe a proposition you find unconvincing any more than you can choose to disbelieve one that strikes you as obviously true. In that sense, belief is involuntary—even for free agents.

 

[otherbrother]

For clarity, my argument doesn't require the rejection of all free will. .I think those arguments have some merit and are interesting but for this one, I'm happy to concede that we have libertarian free will.
But it's still the case that belief can only happen when you are convinced of something (even if that's simply that its not certain but more likely than not).
And being convinced is not an act of will. It's something we discover about ourselves.

I like Blaise Pascal’s concept of placing our bets when it comes to what we choose to believe. Of course there are those who choose not to see it that way, and instead think they have a certainty, but they have chosen delusion.

 

[otherbrother]

I like Blaise Pascal’s concept of placing our bets when it comes to what we choose to believe. Of course there are those who choose not to see it that way, and instead think they have a certainty, but they have chosen delusion.

We may have a closed mind that demands certainty even if a false truth/belief, and if closed mindedness is seen as a personal characteristic, then it appears to negate choice. But fact is, we can choose to open our minds at any point, whether it is a default program (as in the case of creative thinkers?) or not. We may accept closed mindedness, but it is not a congenital condition. Development psychologist Piaget conceptualized assimilation vs accommodation. Assimilation is when you make the perceived thing/situation fit into your existing thought boxes. Accommodation is when you change the boxes to fit what is perceived. But even perception can be tainted by preconceptions. I wrote a song about a fellow plagued with alcoholism and wild lifestyle. The main line in the chorus is: “You only see what we know.” It goes on to say …”You reap what you sow, but you sow sound asleep.”
My “bet” here is that we CAN choose to wake up, even if we haven’t developed the habit of waking up (accommodating to new realities) yet. We have the potential to wake up. A world heavy on Moshka (sp?) and short on Perushna (sp?) can be rebalanced towards understanding and enlightenment one free willing person at a time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

See post number 111: "Consciousness cannot influence the chemical and electric reactions, it follows them."

See post number 116: "Human actions too are complex deterministic - there is no free-will. It just appears to be so."

You also stated: "And if you talk of human consciousness, that too basically is this, chemical and electrical reaction."

I stand by my statements 1 and 3. Let me explain the second (post #116):

My choice of questions depends on my childhood indoctrination, education, religious beliefs, social and personal experiences.
We Hindus, term it as 'Samskaras' (totality of learning).
God and soul do not come to me naturally. Similarly Big Bang and Abiogenesis will not come naturally to you.
Our mind presents to us choices which correspond to our 'samskaras'.
On seeing a necklace, a thief's 'samskaras' will make him/her think as to how it can be stolen, and if caught in the act, what consequences may have to be faced. Now, is that not deterministic?

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

We may have a closed mind that demands certainty even if a false truth/belief, and if closed mindedness is seen as a personal characteristic, then it appears to negate choice. But fact is, we can choose to open our minds at any point, whether it is a default program (as in the case of creative thinkers?) or not. We may accept closed mindedness, but it is not a congenital condition. Development psychologist Piaget conceptualized assimilation vs accommodation. Assimilation is when you make the perceived thing/situation fit into your existing thought boxes. Accommodation is when you change the boxes to fit what is perceived. But even perception can be tainted by preconceptions. I wrote a song about a fellow plagued with alcoholism and wild lifestyle. The main line in the chorus is: “You only see what we know.” It goes on to say …”You reap what you sow, but you sow sound asleep.”
My “bet” here is that we CAN choose to wake up, even if we haven’t developed the habit of waking up (accommodating to new realities) yet. We have the potential to wake up. A world heavy on Moshka (sp?) and short on Perushna (sp?) can be rebalanced towards understanding and enlightenment one free willing person at a time.

Hi OtherBrother,

Thanks for your thoughtful and evocative reply. I really appreciate the way you're weaving together ideas from Pascal, Piaget, and your own creative reflections.

There’s something deeply important in what you’re pointing to: the ability we have to challenge our assumptions, to grow, to “wake up.” I fully agree that people can (and do) learn, shift perspectives, and even radically reframe their worldview. That’s part of what makes humans so psychologically flexible and morally interesting.

But I want to draw a key distinction here — because it’s central to the argument I’m making.

Changing our openness to new evidence or perspectives is a volitional act.
But believing something — truly believing it — is not.

You can choose to expose yourself to different ideas. You can choose to reflect, question, even meditate or pray. But the actual moment of belief — the mental state of being convinced that something is true — isn’t something you can switch on by will. If I asked you right now to believe that the moon is made of cheese, or that Vishnu is the one true God, you couldn’t do it sincerely. Not unless something genuinely persuaded you.

That’s why Pascal’s Wager, for all its cleverness, doesn’t really solve the problem. You can wager with your behavior — go to church, pray, speak as if you believe — but unless those actions eventually result in actual conviction, you’re still unconvinced. And that’s the core issue: if belief is required for salvation, yet belief isn’t directly voluntary, then it raises moral questions about holding people accountable for what they cannot will into existence.

You write, “We have the potential to wake up.” That, I think, is absolutely true. But having the potential to arrive at belief through a long process of openness and transformation is not the same as having the ability to choose belief itself. At most, we can cultivate the conditions under which belief might arise. But even then, if it doesn’t — despite sincerity, curiosity, and moral effort — then condemning someone for unbelief still seems unjust.

Would love to hear more about your song, too — the line “You only see what we know” is hauntingly apt for this very conversation.

Warmly,
BW

 

[Thomas]

Some folks are free to choose since birth. In one case because their parents didn't coach them on what to think, just taught them how to think (rare)

But that 'freedom' will generally sit within a cultural context.

But most of us grow up with parents of similar beliefs which is passed on to to their child, some in forms which get referred to as indoctrination others may say child abuse.

Everybody indoctrinates ...

However ...even in the worst case scenario people.have chose, despite repercussions gone against the teachings of their elders and moved on to a new belief...hence, yes, vut.

Yes ... they have come to their own convictions, which I think is what @Blindwatchmaker is saying.

 

[Thomas]

But I want to draw a key distinction here — because it’s central to the argument I’m making.

You can choose to expose yourself to different ideas. You can choose to reflect, question, even meditate or pray. But the actual moment of belief — the mental state of being convinced that something is true — isn’t something you can switch on by will.

I find myself convinced by this.

I am of the opinion that 'moment' can creep up on you ... or strike like lightning out of the blue.

Either way, I don't think it, alone, is a product of the will and its choices.

Three cases, within a religious context, two of conversion to a different faith, the third a deepening within it.
1: A man, walking past a church, heard a Greek Orthodox choir. (Bishop Kallistos Ware)
2: A man saw sunlight coming through the stained glass window at Chatres Cathedral. (Valentin Tomberg)
3: A man saw a rose bloom through raindrops on a window. (Cardinal Avery Dulles)

(Cardinal Dulles story: He was going through passport control at the airport in Washington, and the check-in officer said, "Ha, this airport's named after you!" "No," Cardinal Dulles replied, "My dad, actually.")

In all three cases, there seems to be a 'turning moment' which does not logically follow any process of the operation of the will – they were all 'accidental' – and are described in the language of 'inspiration', 'realisation', 'enlightenment', etc.

I would say Faith is an intellectual discipline – an exercise of the will. Belief is an emotional response.

That’s why Pascal’s Wager, for all its cleverness, doesn’t really solve the problem.

LOL, not with God, He doesn't buy it, either.

You can wager with your behavior — go to church, pray, speak as if you believe — but unless those actions eventually result in actual conviction, you’re still unconvinced. And that’s the core issue: if belief is required for salvation, yet belief isn’t directly voluntary, then it raises moral questions about holding people accountable for what they cannot will into existence.

A good point. By way of reference, if one looks at 'belief' in the New Testament then it's used very rarely in the Synoptics, a little more in John, but a lot in Acts ... I think that would shed light on any further discussion in a Christian context.

But having the potential to arrive at belief through a long process of openness and transformation is not the same as having the ability to choose belief itself.

I think this is a point the sages have made often, the unspoken assumption that freedom of choice 'naturally' and 'necessarily' conditions one to right belief, too often with the unspoken assumption that a 'cradle belief' is somehow defective or deficient.

It's notable that in the NT, where Christ praises 'blind faith' or 'belief' it's in people like the Centurion, the Canaanite woman, the Widow at the Temple, and so on ... all of these people were indoctrinated into their belief systems.

The flip-side being, of course, that one can equally lose one's faith/belief/conviction ...

 

[wil]

But that 'freedom' will generally sit within a cultural context.


Everybody indoctrinates

Absolutely! Agree on both counts.

But I do differentiate between the cultural context of indoctrination of our Mennonite friend who was here for a while and the indoctrination of folks who don't teach their children there is only one way to believe and choose to expose their children to multiple paths and allow them to choose which to explore more of

 

[Thomas]

Yeah, but that 'pick a path' rarely works, I think ... do the teachers know enough about the religions in question to do them justice?

 

[Blindwatchmaker]

I find myself convinced by this.

I am of the opinion that 'moment' can creep up on you ... or strike like lightning out of the blue.

Either way, I don't think it, alone, is a product of the will and its choices.

Three cases, within a religious context, two of conversion to a different faith, the third a deepening within it.
1: A man, walking past a church, heard a Greek Orthodox choir. (Bishop Kallistos Ware)
2: A man saw sunlight coming through the stained glass window at Chatres Cathedral. (Valentin Tomberg)
3: A man saw a rose bloom through raindrops on a window. (Cardinal Avery Dulles)

(Cardinal Dulles story: He was going through passport control at the airport in Washington, and the check-in officer said, "Ha, this airport's named after you!" "No," Cardinal Dulles replied, "My dad, actually.")

In all three cases, there seems to be a 'turning moment' which does not logically follow any process of the operation of the will – they were all 'accidental' – and are described in the language of 'inspiration', 'realisation', 'enlightenment', etc.

I would say Faith is an intellectual discipline – an exercise of the will. Belief is an emotional response.


LOL, not with God, He doesn't buy it, either.


A good point. By way of reference, if one looks at 'belief' in the New Testament then it's used very rarely in the Synoptics, a little more in John, but a lot in Acts ... I think that would shed light on any further discussion in a Christian context.


I think this is a point the sages have made often, the unspoken assumption that freedom of choice 'naturally' and 'necessarily' conditions one to right belief, too often with the unspoken assumption that a 'cradle belief' is somehow defective or deficient.

It's notable that in the NT, where Christ praises 'blind faith' or 'belief' it's in people like the Centurion, the Canaanite woman, the Widow at the Temple, and so on ... all of these people were indoctrinated into their belief systems.

The flip-side being, of course, that one can equally lose one's faith/belief/conviction ...

Thank you for such a thoughtful reply Thomas.
Much appreciated.