• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Choosing belief.

frisian said:


That has gotten me confused, you cannot choose a belief, but you can CHOOSE to deny such a belief?

Aren't all the "positive" thinking self help books all about "making" oneself believe things that they do not?
Click to expand...

I didn't phrase that very well, I apologize. I think a better way to put it would be, you can choose to indulge in wishful thinking. Sorry, I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words.
 
Jas said:


I didn't phrase that very well, I apologize. I think a better way to put it would be, you can choose to indulge in wishful thinking. Sorry, I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words.
Click to expand...

And this wishful thinking is pre-determined?
 
frisian said:
:D You '"is" funny Atlas.
Click to expand...
Thanks frisian,

And now for something completely different.

After reading Rachella's post, I started thinking. In a way I never stopped. It seemed that way while I was reading her post but that was just a different kind of thinking.
I'm just thinking about thought and hopefully I can tie this into belief.

When I'm reading words on a page I'm engaging in a similar dialogue as when I'm listening to a friend. In both cases words become meaningful through an inner mental process. In one case the words are visually presented and in another audibly presented. I think people have their own bias in respecting the authority of one source of words over another. That is, some people can believe something more easily if they hear it, some if they read it. This has nothing to do with the truth of a statement, just whether we have a bias toward one form of communication or another.

Furthermore, there is an inner dialogue of words that has no external source. We just talk through a problem and present ourselves with a solution. We also have a bias toward believing these answers depending on our past experience and our own self esteem.

About the nature of that problem solving dialogue... we all possess qualities of both analytic and synthetic thought. Some of us are very analytical and some are very synthetical. I do computer programming and it's interesting in meetings brainstorming solutions how different people breakdown the problem and how they build a solution. Sometimes it's just experience but other times it's inspiration and insight. I love it when one guy breaks it all down creatively but doesn't know how to proceed and someone else who wouldn't have been able to do the analysis comes up with the creative solution.

Inside us this dialogue continues all the time. When presented with troublesome problems we have, I think, two techniques for reaching solutions. In one we dither and churn the problem over and over in our mind. Sometimes this yields an answer and sometimes, in Rachella's words, it weirds us out. We don't sleep well if this is our approach. The other approach is the expectant wait. We stare at the problem and our mind goes blank - a moment later something presents itself to our conscious mind. Eastern Philosophy encourages one to get good at this type of thinking through quiet meditation.

Ditherers, and we all fit this description at some time or another, need a different strategy. When the thoughts tumble without solution but only present ugly dark scenarios we either go into the abyss with them or we take conscious control of our thinking. One way is through prayer. We jabber away in our inner dialogue and it prevents the intrusion of the troublesome thoughts that afflict us. There is a distinct outward push to these prayers that is different from the tumble of dithering thought and from the inward expectant wait of meditation.

So it's my thought that we are equipped through inclination, education, and experience to prefer one style of thought over another and this correlates to our choice of belief. I don't exactly know that it correlates but I expect it does.

I think Interesting Ian and Lifegazer are synthetic thinkers. They generally know their answer before they pose a question. They're just figuring out a method to reach it. Sometimes if you bother them with facts they'll explain their position with the words, "Shut up!". Other times the synthesize complex possibilities to explain how they see things.

Skeptics are generally more analytical. But often they are that way by training as much as nature. There are also a lot of poets and musicians here among the skeptics and to me that is a synthetic process.

Speaking of musicians. This will be my last thought on personal biases that shape our choice in belief. We are both objective and subjective beings. When we are subjective we can be jammin and groovin and dancin and very much in the moment. At other times we are seeing ourselves dancing and it's not the same kind of moment at all. We all have a bias toward experiencing reality either more often subjectively or more often objectively.

I could ramble on about that but this is already getting too long. My point is along the lines of Rachella's... <blockquote> So I think that the roots of belief are many, from experiences, psychological need, habit, fear, laziness, wish fulfillment, choice, and probably others I haven't mentioned here. </blockquote> For me, we all have biases or tendencies in the way we think and experience reality that shapes our choice of belief.
 
Atlas said:
Thanks frisian,

And now for something completely different.

After reading Rachella's post, I started thinking. In a way I never stopped. It seemed that way while I was reading her post but that was just a different kind of thinking.
I'm just thinking about thought and hopefully I can tie this into belief.

When I'm reading words on a page I'm engaging in a similar dialogue as when I'm listening to a friend. In both cases words become meaningful through an inner mental process. In one case the words are visually presented and in another audibly presented. I think people have their own bias in respecting the authority of one source of words over another. That is, some people can believe something more easily if they hear it, some if they read it. This has nothing to do with the truth of a statement, just whether we have a bias toward one form of communication or another.

Furthermore, there is an inner dialogue of words that has no external source. We just talk through a problem and present ourselves with a solution. We also have a bias toward believing these answers depending on our past experience and our own self esteem.

About the nature of that problem solving dialogue... we all possess qualities of both analytic and synthetic thought. Some of us are very analytical and some are very synthetical. I do computer programming and it's interesting in meetings brainstorming solutions how different people breakdown the problem and how they build a solution. Sometimes it's just experience but other times it's inspiration and insight. I love it when one guy breaks it all down creatively but doesn't know how to proceed and someone else who wouldn't have been able to do the analysis comes up with the creative solution.

Inside us this dialogue continues all the time. When presented with troublesome problems we have, I think, two techniques for reaching solutions. In one we dither and churn the problem over and over in our mind. Sometimes this yields an answer and sometimes, in Rachella's words, it weirds us out. We don't sleep well if this is our approach. The other approach is the expectant wait. We stare at the problem and our mind goes blank - a moment later something presents itself to our conscious mind. Eastern Philosophy encourages one to get good at this type of thinking through quiet meditation.

Ditherers, and we all fit this description at some time or another, need a different strategy. When the thoughts tumble without solution but only present ugly dark scenarios we either go into the abyss with them or we take conscious control of our thinking. One way is through prayer. We jabber away in our inner dialogue and it prevents the intrusion of the troublesome thoughts that afflict us. There is a distinct outward push to these prayers that is different from the tumble of dithering thought and from the inward expectant wait of meditation.

So it's my thought that we are equipped through inclination, education, and experience to prefer one style of thought over another and this correlates to our choice of belief. I don't exactly know that it correlates but I expect it does.

I think Interesting Ian and Lifegazer are synthetic thinkers. They generally know their answer before they pose a question. They're just figuring out a method to reach it. Sometimes if you bother them with facts they'll explain their position with the words, "Shut up!". Other times the synthesize complex possibilities to explain how they see things.

Skeptics are generally more analytical. But often they are that way by training as much as nature. There are also a lot of poets and musicians here among the skeptics and to me that is a synthetic process.

Speaking of musicians. This will be my last thought on personal biases that shape our choice in belief. We are both objective and subjective beings. When we are subjective we can be jammin and groovin and dancin and very much in the moment. At other times we are seeing ourselves dancing and it's not the same kind of moment at all. We all have a bias toward experiencing reality either more often subjectively or more often objectively.

I could ramble on about that but this is already getting too long. My point is along the lines of Rachella's... <blockquote> So I think that the roots of belief are many, from experiences, psychological need, habit, fear, laziness, wish fulfillment, choice, and probably others I haven't mentioned here. </blockquote> For me, we all have biases or tendencies in the way we think and experience reality that shapes our choice of belief.
Click to expand...

I think this is one of the most interesting and insightful posts I have read here. My faith in this site has been resurrected.

:D
 
Do people actually have the power to choose what they believe?

I suppose that most religious people "get" their religious beliefs through their upbringing. Parents, friends, culture, nationalities, all of these are hugely influential on what religion people have.

However, it is quite another matter when it comes to belief in the paranormal. I have not encountered that many people who said that their beliefs in clairvoyance, astrology, mediumship, dowsing, etc. came from their parents and/or the neighborhood they grew up in. In my experience, most believers in the paranormal develop their beliefs, starting out "slowly", usually by having a belief in one phenomenon, then "add to the list".

Whereas religious people rarely (can) point to evidence of their beliefs, we see it constantly in the occult beliefs: Evidence is claimed, albeit - as we know by now - of a highly dubious quality. Nevertheless, very few people seem to accept that there is no evidence of their occult beliefs, and simply "drop out". Most sink deeper and deeper into their superstitious beliefs, building higher and higher walls that shield them from - but also shut them out of - the real world.

Yes, I think that people who believe in paranormal phenomena choose their beliefs. They know that there is no evidence, they shut their minds to the possibility that they are wrong, they ignore contrary evidence. It is a conscious choice.
 
Re: Re: Choosing belief.

CFLarsen said:

Whereas religious people rarely (can) point to evidence of their beliefs
Click to expand...

I assume that you mean, can rarely point to evidence of what the believe...rather than that they "hold" a belief.
 
Re: Re: Choosing belief.

CFLarsen said:

However, it is quite another matter when it comes to belief in the paranormal.



Yes, I think that people who believe in paranormal phenomena choose their beliefs. They know that there is no evidence, they shut their minds to the possibility that they are wrong, they ignore contrary evidence. It is a conscious choice.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think people believe in paranormal crap because of pop culture and society. They even think there is evidence out there, they just don't know where. Some of these people cite personal experiences as evidence too. The belief in the paranormal is like religion, it's based on alot of faith.
 
Re: Re: Re: Choosing belief.

thaiboxerken said:
Some of these people cite personal experiences as evidence too. The belief in the paranormal is like religion, it's based on alot of faith.
Click to expand...

How is personal experience not valid? To whom, is it not valid?
 
Frisian,
I would have to say that a personal experience is valid - but not necessarily to a wide audience.

When I was young I had a vivid dream of flying. I told my Mom the next day that I could fly and she laughed and told me, "No, people can't fly." It was possibly my first acquaintance with an unbeliever. Mom had alot of these weird, grown-up ideas. I didn't mind educating her, and this seemed so easy to prove.

We were standing on the front porch when she scoffed so I said, "Watch this!" I ran the length of the porch and flung myself into the air. I bellyflopped on the green grass and started to cry. Mom helped me up.

I still think she believes that people can't fly. I haven't figured out exactly what went wrong that day. My my personal experience did not match the experience I shared with my Mom. I think it had something to do with energy waves she gave off as an unbeliever.

I haven't thought about that day in a long time. I don't run as fast as I used to and I'm a bit heavier. I think that has affected my confidence. I don't fly like I used to.
 
Atlas said:
Frisian,
I would have to say that a personal experience is valid - but not necessarily to a wide audience.

When I was young I had a vivid dream of flying. I told my Mom the next day that I could fly and she laughed and told me, "No, people can't fly." It was possibly my first acquaintance with an unbeliever. Mom had alot of these weird, grown-up ideas. I didn't mind educating her, and this seemed so easy to prove.

We were standing on the front porch when she scoffed so I said, "Watch this!" I ran the length of the porch and flung myself into the air. I bellyflopped on the green grass and started to cry. Mom helped me up.

I still think she believes that people can't fly. I haven't figured out exactly what went wrong that day. My my personal experience did not match the experience I shared with my Mom. I think it had something to do with energy waves she gave off as an unbeliever.

I haven't thought about that day in a long time. I don't run as fast as I used to and I'm a bit heavier. I think that has affected my confidence. I don't fly like I used to.
Click to expand...

:p I got your point. I certainly don't take anyone's personal experience and state that it must be true. On the other hand, can something occur that cannot be scientifically verified, that is not repeatable? That is merely subjective and relative to an individual or a group of such? Objective proof in that instance is certainly lacking, I understand that. Why must everything be able to be repeated to be real?
 
frisian said:
On the other hand, can something occur that cannot be scientifically verified, that is not repeatable?
Click to expand...
I thought about this and surely the answer is, Yes! Four hundred years ago something must have occurred between some Frisian precursors. All the best science might search in vain for these two individuals. And certainly there is no way to repeat the circumstance that led to you. You however, physically represent a "logical" proof of their existence.

That is merely subjective and relative to an individual or a group of such? Objective proof in that instance is certainly lacking, I understand that. Why must everything be able to be repeated to be real?
Click to expand...
Things that we can perceive objectively and things that we can repeat naturallly seem more "real". On the other side of the galaxy a real live intelligent species may exist. They are not relevant. There is no way to prove that they exist - They are light years away.

For many, remaining skeptical is a surer way to truth. Subjective experience, while real, leaves no objective residue that confirms the underlying truth of it. I may see a ghost. Many people have. Do they exist? The Ghost-Busters will come in and, with their flashing control box, capture it. The skeptic will probably make you feel foolish.

You will certainly feel better after the Ghost-Busters rid your house of that pesky poltergeist - but now you will forever believe in ghosts and you will pay the bill for their service.

Did they really provide a service or just make you pay?

Nobody denies that humans have spiritual experiences. Most here despise how organized religion co-opts that experience and overlays a dogma that explains the deeper related mystery and charges you for the service. All with less proof than a flashing control box.

I still have my own wonderful experience of truth, beauty and love. Science cannot verify or repeat my experience. I know it is real for me. I cannot point to it in reality however. I can lead another to this water of life - I can't make them drink it, and even if they do, they may not have been thirsty, or it may even taste bad to them.

In other words, objective reality offers us quality proofs. Subjective reality offers us truths about our human nature, but interpreting those experiences can enrich us or bind us to the world of ghosts.
 
Ah, well I can give you my ancestors dating to the 1600's...as far back as I have gotten to date....in Fryslan.

;)

More interesting thoughts you had, thanks again.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Choosing belief.

frisian said:


How is personal experience not valid? To whom, is it not valid?
Click to expand...

Personal experience is not valid because it's fallible. These anecdotes mean little to finding truths unless they are backed with evidence.

It's not valid to me, or to science.
 
When I was in high school ('60s), parochial high school, that is, we of course had to take "religion" each semester, church history, apologetics (that damned watch argument), etc. Even after 14 years (K through 12th Grade), none of this every really "took" in me. I could recite the approved answers back, but "believe," no.... Never have, never will. When I was a senior, and taking apologetics, in an era before the church had OFFICALLY sanctioned belief in evolution - or perhaps just HAD (I believe), the nun who taught my senior Apologetics class said that we should not (necessarily) expect to have "faith," true belief, with an emotional content/commitment (though some did - witness the Evangelicals), but that faith was an "act of will." Apparently, I don't have that "will." Hmmmm.... she also told us that it was certainly permissible to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, and that the question was more "at what point did God breathe a soul into that evolving being." Whatever. Always wondered if she remained a religious.... sounded like she was getting a bit off the approved track, for the era.....
 
Sandy,

I was in public school back then and our priest conducted our catechism classes. I can still remember him telling us that we did not have to believe in the Adam and Eve story but that we must believe that at some point God put a soul into the evolving creature and then it was man.

The idea that one's faith may not have an emotional component seems oddly correct too. In the summer the nuns showed up for 2 weeks of instruction, and they could talk about God's love with a kind of harshness that made me wonder if they liked being a nun.

I suppose when the life is drained from your faith through reason and doubt it necessarily becomes an act of will to maintain it.

What a cruel fate. To choose to become a bride of Jesus out of an undying love for God and have the emotional component sucked out of it, making everyday a chore that can only be faced through an act of sheer will.
 
Do people actually have the power to choose what they believe?
Click to expand...

TBK,

I remember you and hope our discussions this year prove more fruitful than last year. Before the above quote you depict belief as either choice or conviction. I see more that choices are the result of conviction.

As to the question do people choose their belief.... sure they do. I drive across a bridge every day on the way to work. I believe that bridge will hold the weight of my car. I don't think about it, nor do I agonize about driving over it. I just keep pressing the gas. My belief in that bridge and the constructors of that bridge have become unconscious requiring no conscious choice.

Now tie a bungi cord to that bridge and ask me to take a dive next Monday morning. An entire different set of conscious choices will be made regarding such an activity. Belief is a scale on which we all fall, utilizing different convictions to place ourselves on that scale. Some of us are on the lower end, some on the higher end, but all of us for different reasons.

Flick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom