Are Beliefs a Matter of Choice?

[dglas]

The JREF seems to be dedicated to exposing woo for woo and thereby, presumably influencing the beliefs of the consumers of woo. This would seem to suggest that the JREF, in principle, understands that beliefs are matters of decion or choice, and that people can change their beliefs about, at least, some things.

However, a common "defence" we'll hear from some believers (and some determinists) is that one cannot control one's beliefs and since, as the old ethics maxim goes "one is not responsible what one cannot control," one cannot be responsible for one's beliefs. Interesting idea, that.

Even more interesting, some people apparently feel they ARE their beliefs. How do we understand such a view? Does it change how we assign responsibility for beliefs?

Now, if beliefs are a matter of choice, is it appropriate to hold the believer responsible for their beliefs? Does accepting that one is not responsible for one's beliefs have any impact on the possibility of influencing beliefs, as the JREF clearly attempts to do?

If you hold someone responsible for their beliefs are you being a bigot (or intolerant, if the word "bigot" bothers you) or are you empowering them with the possibility of change?

Does your assessment change at all when you are talking about, say, religious faith as opposed to belief in chi manipulation?

For your consideration.

 

[Rasmus]

I cannot change my beliefs at will. But I can chose to look at the evidence, I can chose to question my believes. I have a choice between being educated or sticking my fingers in my ears and going "la la la, I can't hear you!" when my believes are being challenged.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

This would seem to suggest that the JREF, in principle, understands that beliefs are matters of decion or choice, and that people can change their beliefs about, at least, some things.

It suggests no such thing.

 

[the PC apeman]

Well said, Rasmus. I'm about as much of an atheist as they get around here and I don't see beliefs as a matter of choice. We can do the things that are likely to cause a change of belief but it seems to me that we cannot change them directly on demand.

PC

 

[dglas]

It suggests no such thing.

Then why does it bother to attempt to "educate" people about cold reading, psychic surgeons, flim-flam and other woo?

What exact kind of affect is the JREF trying to have then?

 

[Myshkin]

Then why does it bother to attempt to "educate" people about cold reading, psychic surgeons, flim-flam and other woo?

What exact kind of affect is the JREF trying to have then?

Because, over the course of our lives, we've seen our own beliefs change as our information changes. I cannot will myself to believe or not believe, but I can put myself in a position, e.g. being educated, such that my belief has a higher probability of being objectively true.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Then why does it bother to attempt to "educate" people about cold reading, psychic surgeons, flim-flam and other woo?

What exact kind of affect is the JREF trying to have then?

I'll try to skirt the popular (and insipid) debate oft heard around here about what is and is not a belief, and merely assert that a belief, however it is defined, is represented as some pattern in the brain. By trying to educate, one is trying to change that pattern. Unless you wish to defend the position that choice is the only mechanism for altering patterns in the brain, then an attempt at education is no indicator of an acceptance of choice in matters of belief.

 

[dglas]

Because, over the course of our lives, we've seen our own beliefs change as our information changes. I cannot will myself to believe or not believe, but I can put myself in a position, e.g. being educated, such that my belief has a higher probability of being objectively true.

So we are pawns of destiny, helplessly blown along on the winds of fate, subject to whatever "information" happens to intersect our blundering course?

Tell me, if I choose to cross at a cross-walk (or with the light) instead of jaywalking, am I not choosing to influence whether I get hit by a car or not?

 

[slingblade]

Excuse me, sir, but are these your worms?

I ask, because there seem to be quite a number of them, and I see you have an open container that has apparently been turned over.

We have laws against possessing open containers such as these, you understand. Now clean this mess up, and don't let it happen again.

 

[dglas]

I'll try to skirt the popular (and insipid) debate oft heard around here about what is and is not a belief, and merely assert that a belief, however it is defined, is represented as some pattern in the brain.

Okay.

By trying to educate, one is trying to change that pattern. Unless you wish to defend the position that choice is the only mechanism for altering patterns in the brain, then an attempt at education is no indicator of an acceptance of choice in matters of belief.

I never thought I'd actually see pure determinism in the real world. I role-played being a determinist, but...

So, in your view the JREF's view of "educating" is purely deterministic in nature?

So, let us assume you are correct. What are we to say then of the educators? Are they in any sense of the word "educating" or are they merely rocks rolling down a hill (determined "behaviour" patterns) in such a way that they influence (modify "behaviour" patterns) other rocks rolling down a hill?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then why does it bother to attempt to "educate" people about cold reading, psychic surgeons, flim-flam and other woo?

What exact kind of affect is the JREF trying to have then?

Not sure what JREF is trying to achieve, but I am pretty certain I grok Mr Randi's motivation: he likes to expose fraud, and in particular, he likes to expose it in his profession as magician/entertainer. He takes the honorable position that his magic act is just that, an act, and is motivated to lead others in the profession to maintain that position of integrity. As part of that leadership by example role, he has branched out from exposing Mr Gellar the alleged mentalist to other mentalists, with Sylvia Browne being a favorite target. Likewise, given the number of paranormal claims, the opportunities to take on suspect assertions of magic as other than an act make for a target rich environment within the JREF RoE.

Extrapolating beyong that runs into the usual risk of things not scaling up evenly, and axes being ground in the pursuit of a Powerball win.

DR

 

[dglas]

Excuse me, sir, but are these your worms?

I ask, because there seem to be quite a number of them, and I see you have an open container that has apparently been turned over.

We have laws against possessing open containers such as these, you understand. Now clean this mess up, and don't let it happen again.

Let's go fishing!

We might catch something. A cold maybe.

 

[dglas]

Not sure what JREF is trying to achieve, but I am pretty certain I grok Mr Randi's motivation: he likes to expose fraud, and in particular, he likes to expose it in his profession as magician/entertainer. He takes the honorable position that his magic act is just that, an act, and is motivated to lead others in the profession to maintain that position of integrity. As part of that leadership by example role, he has branched out from exposing Mr Gellar the alleged mentalist to other mentalists, with Sylvia Browne being a favorite target. Likewise, given the number of paranormal claims, the opportunities to take on suspect assertions of magic as other than an act are a suitable target within the JREF and Mr Randi's RoE.

Is that it? He "likes" to do it?
Is Mr. Randi just a not-so-big bundle of determined behaviour with a beard? Why is his position "honourable" or is the use of the word "honourable" just another pebble in the rockslide that is human behaviour?

You know, "Fraud" is a funny word. It has implications about the motive and intent (culpability) of the fraudulent person, dontcha think?

Extrapolating beyong that runs into the usual risk of things not scaling up evenly, and axes being ground in the pursuit of a Powerball win.

DR

I am interested in whether things "scale up evenly." I can't help it, I guess...
You honestly think I write what I write just to get nominated? Okay. >shrug<

In any event, this is a derail. Keep plucking at the food pellet dispenser...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is that it? He "likes" to do it? Is Mr. Randi just a not-so-big bundle of determined behaviour with a beard?

Descent into irrelevance noted.

Why is his position "honourable" or is the use of the word "honourable" just another pebble in the rockslide that is human behaviour?

Pointless screwing off with definitions noted.

You know, "Fraud" is a funny word. It has implications about the motive and intent of the fraudulent person, dontcha think?

Not laughing.

I am interested in whether things "scale up evenly." I can't help it, I guess... You honestly think I write what I write just to get nominated? Okay. >shrug<

Writing won't earn you a Powerball win.

In any event, this is a derail. Keep plucking at the food pellet dispenser...

No.

 

[slingblade]

Okay, seriously this time.

I once said that I chose to be an atheist. I never considered this would be fodder for an argument. But it was, and how.

After a brand-new waste evacuation port had been drilled in my backside, I recanted/retracted my assertion somewhat and clarified that in my case, becoming an atheist and rejecting religion required a series of small choices I needed to make, all along the way.

My religious upbringing included a dictum against exploring other religions, as to do so might "shake my faith," or "cause me to doubt." So, in order to get from point A to point You're going to hell, you godless heathen, I had to choose to disobey that dictum and start looking at other religions, and other belief systems.

More often than not on that journey, I was confronted with certain ideas that were in conflict with my beliefs. And each time, I had to choose to examine the new idea, or choose to ignore it without examining it. At any point, I could have (and sometimes did) say "No, this idea conflicts with my beliefs too much. I'm not going to accept it."

Making a decision such as that is a choice. Choose to look at the idea, examine the idea, think about the idea, or choose to ignore it.

Eventually, all of these incremental choices led me to the place where I could say, "I really have looked at all these things, and have decided that what I believe makes little sense, is not logical, and is not the way I choose to define my beliefs."

So, I still maintain that becoming an atheist was, if not "a" choice, then a series of choices to examine memes and ideas that led me to a new and different conclusion.

I am still disagreed with, but I choose not to care. I may not be explaining what I mean very clearly, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I never thought I'd actually see pure determinism in the real world. I role-played being a determinist, but...

What makes you think you have met one now?

So, in your view the JREF's view of "educating" is purely deterministic in nature?

I said nothing about pure determinism. You said the JREF's attempt at education implied acceptance that beliefs were chosen. The only way this is true is if the only way a pattern in the brain can be changed is by choice. If there is any other way, then the attempt does not imply the acceptance, even if choice is one way in which it can be done.

As for what the JREF actually believes on this matter, I know not, nor will I presume to guess.

 

[Gate2501]

I have always (since my late teens/early twenties) been under the impression that my own free will, and ability to choose, may very well be some manner of illusion brought about by the absolutely massive amount of variables responsible for said decisions.

I am not sure of this obviously, as there is no way to really test matters of consciousness and free will such as this, so I will admit that it borders on the woo. It is just a personal belief that I hold. I have always labeled myself as a "Behavioral Determinist", I have no idea if that phrase is used outside of my own head however.

In holding this belief, I really do see myself on the same level as everyone else, no matter their wealth, intellect, etcetera.

When I interact with people on these forums, I hope that the things that I say will change them in some way, by adding the variable that is Gate2501 to that massively complex *illusion* that is going on in their own little self contained universe. I know that *I* as a person, have been greatly affected by my time here lurking and posting, by the lot of you (even you Jerome). You force me to look up things, and challenge my world views.

In fact someone will probably challenge the world view that I just presented.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, I still maintain that becoming an atheist was, if not "a" choice, then a series of choices to examine memes and ideas that led me to a new and different conclusion.

I am still disagreed with, but I choose not to care. I may not be explaining what I mean very clearly, but it makes sense to me.

Made perfect sense to me.

DR

 

[I Ratant]

Sling, I've that mile in my shoes also.

 

[dglas]

Descent into irrelevance noted.

Pointless screwing off with definitions noted.

Not laughing.

Writing won't earn you a Powerball win.

No.

WTH? Did I somehow strike a nerve or something?

Remember, I treat philosophies like tools (or toys). I don't take them too seriously, so quipping about them is par for the course for me. So often we see threads degenerate into hostility. I tried to keep it light. I didn't realize this was a bad thing. Still, if you choose not to laugh, that is your right...

It is true you did not present a determinist position, and if I seemed to paint that of you then my apologies. However, to depict my "screwing with definitions" as "pointless" is perhaps unwarranted based on the information you have so far.