Can one choose to believe in God?

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Can you actually make a decision to believe in God or not? Like being gay, I don't think people can choose to be gay, bi, or straight, they are what they are.

If someone says they choose to believe in God, it seems fallible. How can this be a decision? It is what it is, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you're asking. All that stuff about genetic predispositions and free will aside, sure you can choose, at least as well as you can choose anything, like what color socks to wear today (unless, of course, you have a genetic predisposition to choose black socks more often than white or colored socks).

However, are you asking: "If I choose to believe in God, how does this choice measure up against whether God actually exists or not?" In other words, are you choosing based on proof, or for some other reason?

If you're choosing to believe based on proof, well, empirically speaking there isn't any, nor will there ever be (not for a transempirical entity). That being the case, what other criteria might you adopt for choosing to believe (or not believe)?

Digi brought up Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that Pascal himself was a devout Christian. Therefore, however neutrally he tried to frame his wager, he felt that if one chooses not to believe in God, and God exists, you will be in deep doodoo when you die.

I prefer a kinder, gentler version of Pascal's Wager. I start with a neutral premise: No one really knows if God exists. Therefore you might as well at least lean in the direction of "believing" because if theism is wrong (ie, if atheism is right), you'll never know it. Period. (I would also add that if theism is right, and you weren't a believer...so what? I guess I also "believe" in a kinder, gentler God). So what've you got to lose?

Here's what you can gain: If you adopt a transcendent map of reality, one which includes empirical science, then you have a map which is just as reliable as a purely empirical map but with bonus features: a larger explanatory framework; and a tremendous source of strength and healing in times of suffering and loss (studies have repeatedly shown that--all else being equal--people with spiritual perspectives tend to recover better from loss than those who do not believe in a God).

Please understand: I'm not trying to convert you. Currently, from a proof POV, the purely empirical map is very compelling, while the transcendent map is merely intriguing. You have to decide what is important to you in a reality map and proceed from there. IMHO, what is important to you, personally, should be the basis of your choice.

** dismounting the soapbox **

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure what you're asking. All that stuff about genetic predispositions and free will aside, sure you can choose, at least as well as you can choose anything, like what color socks to wear today (unless, of course, you have a genetic predisposition to choose black socks more often than white or colored socks).

However, are you asking: "If I choose to believe in God, how does this choice measure up against whether God actually exists or not?" In other words, are you choosing based on proof, or for some other reason?

If you're choosing to believe based on proof, well, empirically speaking there isn't any, nor will there ever be (not for a transempirical entity). That being the case, what other criteria might you adopt for choosing to believe (or not believe)?

Digi brought up Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that Pascal himself was a devout Christian. Therefore, however neutrally he tried to frame his wager, he felt that if one chooses not to believe in God, and God exists, you will be in deep doodoo when you die.

I prefer a kinder, gentler version of Pascal's Wager. I start with a neutral premise: No one really knows if God exists. Therefore you might as well at least lean in the direction of "believing" because if theism is wrong (ie, if atheism is right), you'll never know it. Period. (I would also add that if theism is right, and you weren't a believer...so what? I guess I also "believe" in a kinder, gentler God). So what've you got to lose?

Here's what you can gain: If you adopt a transcendent map of reality, one which includes empirical science, then you have a map which is just as reliable as a purely empirical map but with bonus features: a larger explanatory framework; and a tremendous source of strength and healing in times of suffering and loss (studies have repeatedly shown that--all else being equal--people with spiritual perspectives tend to recover better from loss than those who do not believe in a God).

Please understand: I'm not trying to convert you. Currently, from a proof POV, the purely empirical map is very compelling, while the transcendent map is merely intriguing. You have to decide what is important to you in a reality map and proceed from there. IMHO, what is important to you, personally, should be the basis of your choice.

** dismounting the soapbox **

However, that does not mean you have to choose Christianity. There are a lot more ideas our there about God then is generally known.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, that does not mean you have to choose Christianity. There are a lot more ideas our there about God then is generally known.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Can you actually make a decision to believe in God or not? Like being gay, I don't think people can choose to be gay, bi, or straight, they are what they are.

If someone says they choose to believe in God, it seems fallible. How can this be a decision? It is what it is, isn't it?

I kind of agree.

When I lost faith in the Christian idea of God, it wasn't because I wanted to, or because I was looking for justification to no longer belong to the religion. It just over time no longer made sense to me. The ideas of Hell in particular.

I was no longer convinced, and I went from Faith based on my upbringing to lack of Faith based on experience and questioning.

So I don't feel like I blatantly chose to no longer beleive in God, I just chose to no longer identify as Christian.

Over time, I began to believe in God again, but not my the Christian descriptions. I developed my own ideas after researching other philosophies and religions. Hinduism and Wicca had a major influence on my new ideas of God, even though I identify as neither religion.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Except it's a predetermination. Thus is born the predetermination to inhale Marijuana...

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I kind of agree.

When I lost faith in the Christian idea of God, it wasn't because I wanted to, or because I was looking for justification to no longer belong to the religion. It just over time no longer made sense to me. The ideas of Hell in particular.

I was no longer convinced, and I went from Faith based on my upbringing to lack of Faith based on experience and questioning.

So I don't feel like I blatantly chose to no longer beleive in God, I just chose to no longer identify as Christian.

Over time, I began to believe in God again, but not my the Christian descriptions. I developed my own ideas after researching other philosophies and religions. Hinduism and Wicca had a major influence on my new ideas of God, even though I identify as neither religion.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure what you're asking. All that stuff about genetic predispositions and free will aside, sure you can choose, at least as well as you can choose anything, like what color socks to wear today (unless, of course, you have a genetic predisposition to choose black socks more often than white or colored socks).

However, are you asking: "If I choose to believe in God, how does this choice measure up against whether God actually exists or not?" In other words, are you choosing based on proof, or for some other reason?

If you're choosing to believe based on proof, well, empirically speaking there isn't any, nor will there ever be (not for a transempirical entity). That being the case, what other criteria might you adopt for choosing to believe (or not believe)?

Digi brought up Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that Pascal himself was a devout Christian. Therefore, however neutrally he tried to frame his wager, he felt that if one chooses not to believe in God, and God exists, you will be in deep doodoo when you die.

I prefer a kinder, gentler version of Pascal's Wager. I start with a neutral premise: No one really knows if God exists. Therefore you might as well at least lean in the direction of "believing" because if theism is wrong (ie, if atheism is right), you'll never know it. Period. (I would also add that if theism is right, and you weren't a believer...so what? I guess I also "believe" in a kinder, gentler God). So what've you got to lose?

Here's what you can gain: If you adopt a transcendent map of reality, one which includes empirical science, then you have a map which is just as reliable as a purely empirical map but with bonus features: a larger explanatory framework; and a tremendous source of strength and healing in times of suffering and loss (studies have repeatedly shown that--all else being equal--people with spiritual perspectives tend to recover better from loss than those who do not believe in a God).

Please understand: I'm not trying to convert you. Currently, from a proof POV, the purely empirical map is very compelling, while the transcendent map is merely intriguing. You have to decide what is important to you in a reality map and proceed from there. IMHO, what is important to you, personally, should be the basis of your choice.

** dismounting the soapbox **

This is the type of perspective that I hold.

Yes, I like how you put that...much better than I could have put it.

As it relates to me, I just chose a Christian church that has a perfect plan of salvation. Meaning...everyone in this life or the life to come will get the opportunity to accept my version of God's plan to become better spiritual children to God....every soul is accounted for and just because you weren't baptized by one having authority, that doesn't mean you can't go to heaven. I find it disturbing that some Christians sects believe that if you didn't "get the gospel and accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior", you are going to hell. That is illogical of a supposed benevolent God.

This is just the path that I chose. It is logical to me. Shaky chose Buddhism, it is logical to him. Everyone chooses based on what is "kosher" with themselves.

I feel that atheism is exactly the same way. It is logical to them. But is this little voice that decides on religion's logic are atheism's logic of a volitional nature or is it simply uncontrollable? I say that its a choice. I know that there are people who really get into being a Pentecostal with the shaking and speaking in tongues and then, all of a sudden, they stop believing in it and change religions. How can one go from shaking like an epileptic and "speaking in tongues" to a completely different religion where you just sit down and listen to a person yell about Jesus for an hour or two? Sounds to me like it is a pretty obvious choice.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
"Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of free will"

I think your comment on predisposition makes a bit more sense for those who say they believe in God. But can people who say they believe actually truly believe without any reasonable doubt?

I think there are many believes who do express reasonable doubt...

but ya, everyone has sacred cows, just because you might not believe in God doesn't mean that there aren't thing you believe because it feels right more than you have empirical evidence for. Everyone does.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok ok i admit its a disease. are you happy now. did you get what you wanted 😠

Originally posted by Quark_666
I said it justifies marijuana. Who said anything about disease? 😆

Originally posted by chickenlover98
plus anything that justifies weeds great 😄

[/of any discussion....PERIOD!] 😆 😆 😆

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i think i have a disease that makes me like it. plus anything that justifies weeds great 😄

As a semi-reply to Midship's comments:

The "the only objectively defensible stance anyone can have is varying degrees of agnosticism" is well-documented in recent discussion on this forum. But as long as you qualify it with "I believe in a deity, but I don't know there's a deity" (or vice-versa with non-belief) it's still intellectually tenable to consider oneself theistic or atheist.

And even the gentler version of Pascal's Wager that you outline falls into the same trap. "Leaning" toward theism, because "what do you have to lose?" is fine in principle, but once again if someone doesn't believe in a deity, they can't lean that way based on an intellectual gambit.

I, for example, can't rationally justify belief in a deity for myself, or even probable belief in "God" (in the broad sense of the word)....I may see that it could be advantageous to have such provisional belief like you suggest, but it would be lip service only since I can't will myself to that position if the non-belief persists, which it will until information comes along that displaces my current position. I could only speak and act as though I had an agnostic sense of some kind of God (again, in the broad sense) but the belief itself in such a force/idea/deity/etc. would not be able to follow.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As a semi-reply to Midship's comments:

The "the only objectively defensible stance anyone can have is varying degrees of agnosticism" is well-documented in recent discussion on this forum. But as long as you qualify it with "I believe in a deity, but I don't know there's a deity" (or vice-versa with non-belief) it's still intellectually tenable to consider oneself theistic or atheist.

And even the gentler version of Pascal's Wager that you outline falls into the same trap. "Leaning" toward theism, because "what do you have to lose?" is fine in principle, but once again if someone doesn't believe in a deity, they can't lean that way based on an intellectual gambit.

I, for example, can't rationally justify belief in a deity for myself, or even probable belief in "God" (in the broad sense of the word)....I may see that it could be advantageous to have such provisional belief like you suggest, but it would be lip service only since I can't will myself to that position if the non-belief persists, which it will until information comes along that displaces my current position. I could only speak and act as though I had an agnostic sense of some kind of God (again, in the broad sense) but the belief itself in such a force/idea/deity/etc. would not be able to follow.

Understood. For you, proof is paramount (and with good reason), and I even agree that, in that vein, one can't literally "will oneself" to believe--at heart--whether or not "God" exists. This is why, for myself, I write "leaning toward theism," as I choose other criteria to help settle the question (since empirical proof can not). I do believe, at heart, in the path I have choosen and hope that in the end it was right: that "God" does exist (again, if I'm wrong, I'll never know it).

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I kind of agree.

When I lost faith in the Christian idea of God, it wasn't because I wanted to, or because I was looking for justification to no longer belong to the religion. It just over time no longer made sense to me. The ideas of Hell in particular.

I was no longer convinced, and I went from Faith based on my upbringing to lack of Faith based on experience and questioning.

So I don't feel like I blatantly chose to no longer beleive in God, I just chose to no longer identify as Christian.

Over time, I began to believe in God again, but not my the Christian descriptions. I developed my own ideas after researching other philosophies and religions. Hinduism and Wicca had a major influence on my new ideas of God, even though I identify as neither religion.

to digi + mindship:

What about this situation where someone changes their opinion from one thing to another. So, a believer becomes an atheist or an atheist becomes a believer. Without saying "They were X all along", lets assume they really did believe one thing and then changed their opinion.

This seems to indicate that there is a criteria for things no longer to be believed that we would each have. A necessary amount of incongruent evidence or something similar that would mechanistically pronounce the previous belief as false. Or possibly people have a schema for the properties of "true" statements, and over time the truth of God no longer fits that schema. etc, I'm rambling now, you get the picture.

So, because there is a criteria for how information can move from true to false in an person's mind, if one could become aware of that criteria, it would be possible to subject oneself to the proper conditioning to create the belief in whatever. So, in Digi's case, there are certain criteria about what you consider to be true that God does not have. Through, essentially, a rigorous classical conditioning paradigm, your conception of truth or your conception of God could be manipulated until they were congruent. I think in your case, the satisfaction with your beliefs and the lack of any motivation or desire to have any belief may be a better explanation for your unbelief than a natural inability to believe.

Originally posted by inimalist
to digi + mindship:

What about this situation where someone changes their opinion from one thing to another. So, a believer becomes an atheist or an atheist becomes a believer. Without saying "They were X all along", lets assume they really did believe one thing and then changed their opinion.

This seems to indicate that there is a criteria for things no longer to be believed that we would each have. A necessary amount of incongruent evidence or something similar that would mechanistically pronounce the previous belief as false. Or possibly people have a schema for the properties of "true" statements, and over time the truth of God no longer fits that schema. etc, I'm rambling now, you get the picture.

So, because there is a criteria for how information can move from true to false in an person's mind, if one could become aware of that criteria, it would be possible to subject oneself to the proper conditioning to create the belief in whatever. So, in Digi's case, there are certain criteria about what you consider to be true that God does not have. Through, essentially, a rigorous classical conditioning paradigm, your conception of truth or your conception of God could be manipulated until they were congruent.

But what you're essentially saying is that the belief could be changed with proper evidence ("proper" as being defined by the believer in question). And that of course is true. There are hypothetical points at which we would all change our beliefs, though most are likely to go unmet.

But the thread's original idea of "choice" implied a lack of external forces to influence the decision, and much more like the wager Pascal (or more reasonably, Mindship) proposes. Systematic change through either a shift in one's conception of "truth" or access to new information wouldn't qualify as choosing the belief or non-belief, but would be a more frequent conversion from one belief to another.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think in your case, the satisfaction with your beliefs and the lack of any motivation or desire to have any belief may be a better explanation for your unbelief than a natural inability to believe.

I don't know that it's a lack of desire to believe something different. Certainly, most of us desire to believe exactly what we do, so there isn't a strong motivation to change our beliefs. But I believe what I think is in accord with reason and evidence. Desire doesn't enter into the equation....I saw an interview with a scientist/atheist once and he was asked "What are your thoughts on the afterlife?" His response, "I'm for it, of course!" He didn't believe in an afterlife, saw no reason to justify its existence, but admitted that he hoped he was wrong. In that case, and others, the desire was actually at odds with his belief.

And while I don't harbor a strong desire for, say, a Christian paradigm to be correct, I'll admit that I'll probably be thrilled if I'm wrong and end up in an afterlife of some sort. I simply can't justify such belief on any grounds.

As for an inability to believe, you're right in labeling it as a non-factor. We can all believe in something, just as we all have the capacity not to believe in something. There's millions of things each of us believes and doesn't believe...we just don't normally associate them along with religious belief. Less generally, I almost entered a Catholic semenary when I finished with High School. I, and anyone really, is more than capable of belief or non-belief in almost anything. And in my case, I've run the gamut through Christianity and Eastern mysticism to where I am now, so I've actually embodied that principle.

Originally posted by inimalist
What about this situation where someone changes their opinion from one thing to another. So, a believer becomes an atheist or an atheist becomes a believer. Without saying "They were X all along", lets assume they really did believe one thing and then changed their opinion.

This seems to indicate that there is a criteria for things no longer to be believed that we would each have. A necessary amount of incongruent evidence or something similar that would mechanistically pronounce the previous belief as false. Or possibly people have a schema for the properties of "true" statements, and over time the truth of God no longer fits that schema. etc, I'm rambling now, you get the picture.

So, because there is a criteria for how information can move from true to false in an person's mind, if one could become aware of that criteria, it would be possible to subject oneself to the proper conditioning to create the belief in whatever.

1. People create and adopt a reality map because that map empowers them: it helps them deal with this strange thing we call life.

2. A person changes their map when something compromises its effectiveness, for example, proof to the contrary or failed expectations. The map is modified by either incorporating that proof or failed expectation, or it is shored up against that proof/failed expectation. This depends on the psychological constitution of the map-maker.

This was a quickie response, so feel free to nit-pick.