Happy Atheist Forum

I spotted McQ using the phrase "choose to believe" in another thread. Whether or not it was supposed to be taken literally is another question, but actually I've seen this phrase used all over the place and by people of all different stripes, so it raises some interesting questions.

What does it mean to "choose to believe"? Is this a misleading phrase? Is belief ever a choice? What the heck is a "belief" anyway?

IMO, belief isn't a choice. It's what happens when you think about stuff and assess how likely it is that something is true. If I believe there is a pair of scissors in the kitchen drawer, for example, then it means that I suspect that they are probably there, based on the understanding that the drawer is where they're usually kept, and perhaps a recollection of having put them back in the drawer recently after using them. I don't choose to think that way, but I might choose not to act on my belief, and instead look for the scissors elsewhere.

Thus I'm an atheist not because I chose to believe that there is no God. I think that would imply a 50-50 expectation of whether God exists or not. If I had no inclination either way, perhaps I could choose one or the other for no reason at all. But most people aren't in this position. They are swayed by things they are told, whether by preachers or by scientists, and so on. Beliefs are in this way formed rather than chosen.

What is also interesting to me is the idea that people often don't believe the things they claim to believe. An example might be a theist who is afraid of dying, yet believes an eternal paradise is awaiting her in heaven. This is known in psychology as "cognitive dissonance". We all have this, some more than others.

Another interesting question is how "faith" is different from belief. I think faith is more of a choice than belief. Where belief is your gut feeling, faith means actively staking trust in something you don't know for certain.

So, what do you "believe"?

That's an interesting question, and one I've been thinking about  a lot lately, sinced I started reading Michael Shermer's book "How We Believe."

In it he cites a study about identical and fraternal twins raised apart, and that identical twins are twice as likely to have a similar religiosity than fraternal twins. The scientists who conducted the study went on to say that "genetic factors account for approximately 50 percent of the observed variance in our measures."

If a genetic predisposition for religiosity really does exist, can someone choose to believe or not? For example, I've been an atheist pretty much all of my life, but there was a time when I thought religious people knew something I didn't, so I wanted to find out. I explored churches, hung out with "spiritual" people, and I tried to make myself believe. In the end, I went back to atheism, because no matter how hard I tried, I didn't believe. The choice I made wasn't about believing or not, it was about whether to bother to pretend anymore.

That was a little off-topic, in a way, wasn't it? Did I even answer a question?

I agree with it being "pretending" to believe...that's what it was for me anyway...like pretending ghosts are real and monsters and red-eyed demons when I'm watching a scary movie...I'm not however gonna live my live like they are.  That's one thing that changed my mind about god, was I felt the same way about god as I did about imaginary scary  crap...it was fun to pretend it was real but I realized I don't go around carrying holy water and garlic cloves to fend off any potential vampires, so why was I doing it with religion?  I hope that made sense...

I like the biological thing you were talking about too, I've always wondered if maybe there is something genetic about believers and non believers.  Maybe some people just don't have it in them to let go of it.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I spotted McQ using the phrase "choose to believe" in another thread. Whether or not it was supposed to be taken literally is another question, but actually I've seen this phrase used all over the place and by people of all different stripes, so it raises some interesting questions.

What does it mean to "choose to believe"? Is this a misleading phrase? Is belief ever a choice? What the heck is a "belief" anyway?

IMO, belief isn't a choice. It's what happens when you think about stuff and assess how likely it is that something is true. If I believe there is a pair of scissors in the kitchen drawer, for example, then it means that I suspect that they are probably there, based on the understanding that the drawer is where they're usually kept, and perhaps a recollection of having put them back in the drawer recently after using them. I don't choose to think that way, but I might choose not to act on my belief, and instead look for the scissors elsewhere.

Thus I'm an atheist not because I chose to believe that there is no God. I think that would imply a 50-50 expectation of whether God exists or not. If I had no inclination either way, perhaps I could choose one or the other for no reason at all. But most people aren't in this position. They are swayed by things they are told, whether by preachers or by scientists, and so on. Beliefs are in this way formed rather than chosen.

What is also interesting to me is the idea that people often don't believe the things they claim to believe. An example might be a theist who is afraid of dying, yet believes an eternal paradise is awaiting her in heaven. This is known in psychology as "cognitive dissonance". We all have this, some more than others.

Another interesting question is how "faith" is different from belief. I think faith is more of a choice than belief. Where belief is your gut feeling, faith means actively staking trust in something you don't know for certain.

So, what do you "believe"?

Well, I've read and re-read your post pj, and I'm either not understanding you still or there is no significant difference in what you and I are saying. It seems to me you've just worded it differently.

Would the phrase "accept the likelihood of" be more appropriate than the word "choose"?

I would disagree that the word belief implies a gut feeling. My "beliefs"...the things I choose to accept as true, are based on observation, statistical probability, on experience, on anything solid and concrete that I have to go by. So I'm guessing that maybe we are just not finding the same common ground to start with regarding definitions of words.

I used the phrase "choose to believe" to mean, in a very common context, "the things which one accepts as true". That's all. So perhaps there is just a misconception of how we're each parsing things.

It'll be good to see thoughts on this, because just when you think you're stating something clearly (meaning me and all of us), someone reminds you that you might not be as clear as you think.

I believe in a rational and scientific universe. I choose to believe it because without evidence and reason, my perception of the universe breaks down on a fundamental level. I can't be sure of anything, and an irrational universe is counterintuitive to me as a rationalist.

It's actually this belief that ironically is the basis upon which my atheism, or more appropriately my lack of belief in the supernatural, is based.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"What does it mean to "choose to believe"? Is this a misleading phrase? Is belief ever a choice? What the heck is a "belief" anyway?

IMO, belief isn't a choice.

Another interesting question is how "faith" is different from belief. I think faith is more of a choice than belief. Where belief is your gut feeling, faith means actively staking trust in something you don't know for certain.

People choose to believe all types of stuff. Like I choose to believe my Jags will defeat the Colts on Monday
I choose to believe my senses but I have no proof that they are indeed reliable but I choose to believe for convenience. I also choose to believe that my memory is somewhat reliable but I can not prove this either because it is my memory I am using to test the reliability of my memory. I also choose to believe people sometimes know what they are talking about therefore I give their words a listen and some thought.  

As far as faith... I believe the putative belief of the definition of faith is belief without proof. Although I choose to believe it means something else.

QuotePeople choose to believe all types of stuff. Like I choose to believe my Jags will defeat the Colts on Monday
I choose to believe my senses but I have no proof that they are indeed reliable but I choose to believe for convenience. I also choose to believe that my memory is somewhat reliable but I can not prove this either because it is my memory I am using to test the reliability of my memory. I also choose to believe people sometimes know what they are talking about therefore I give their words a listen and some thought.

I don't think you're really choosing to believe those things though. You either believe them or you don't. The choice is whether or not you take your beliefs seriously, or act on them, or tell people what they are, or whatever. But actually believing something isn't a choice.

"You either believe them or you don't" – Pjkeeley (Sounds like a choice to me)

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I don't think you're really choosing to believe those things though........ But actually believing something isn't a choice.

If that is what you choose to believe than that is your choice. I choose to believe that I am more familiar with my mental facilities than you. So I am going to choose to believe that I remember past occurrences where I made these distinctions. And than actively made a choice in which direction to believe fully aware that there was no universal law binding my choices in a certain direction. Although I also choose to believe that my memory does not have a 100% accuracy rate and therefore is prone to error. While I choose not to believe all my memories are fallacious. I do choose to believe that fallacy in my recollection is possible, which means there is a possibility your right and I never made those choices that I remember making. But I remember at many times in my life making choices in what to hold as a belief and what not to hold as beliefs. I also remember other individuals of all walks of life testifying they too have this capability. So because of the evidence I have available, I am going to choose to believe that my assumption holds the likelihood of being closer to the mark than yours does. That I am going to choose to believe that I have freewill over my beliefs. So if my assumption is true than I will assume that you have freewill to believe your assumption is true. I than would like to point out if beliefs are not of choice than how is it that two individuals like us have two different beliefs that each believe to be true but yet they counter each other? People make choices about what to believe all the time and everyone is free to base these choices off what they believe to be true.
   
"Men freely believe that which they desire." - Julius Caesar

Quote"You either believe them or you don't" – Pjkeeley (Sounds like a choice to me)

No. There's difference between sentences that infer choice and those that don't. If I said to you: "Jeremiah, you are either a mammal or you're not", you would not infer from that sentence that there was a choice involved. But since you're starting from the premise that belief is a choice, of course you see choice in my statement. That's begging the question.

QuoteI remember at many times in my life making choices in what to hold as a belief and what not to hold as beliefs.

I believe that all you were doing was identifying which beliefs were strongest (logical, plausible, justified, etc.) and which were worse or unreasonable. The choice is in how you reflect the way you preference different beliefs. But the beliefs themselves aren't chosen.

Quoteif beliefs are not of choice than how is it that two individuals like us have two different beliefs that each believe to be true but yet they counter each other?

Because we base our beliefs on different things. Experiences, information, upbringing, personality, social conditioning, etc.

I'll have to agree that belief is not a choice.

When I was younger and being dropped off at Sunday school every week, I wanted to fit in with the group and believe the stuff they were saying.  It just wouldn't take.  I felt like I was just pretending and was constantly worried that they would figure me out.  I was a young child at the time and society didn't make atheism an acceptable option.

Bottom line - I had already developed beliefs and even though I wanted to change and fit in, it just wasn't possible.  

It wasn't until I was about 19 or so that I finally "came out" of the religious fog.  It was at this time that I realized I didn't have to pretend; I finally decided to stop fighting what I already believed.  That is where the only choice takes place; you decide to keep pretending or you cut the crap and go with what YOU have learned to be true.

Okay - I'll chip in too - I don't think what beliefs I hold are a matter of conscious choice.  I "discover" what I believe.  It happens somewhere at a lower level in my mind then the conscious decision-making part.

I decide what I want to eat for breakfast.  I believe I know what I ate for breakfast yesterday.  I don't choose to believe that I had an orange yesterday.  Especially if I really believe I had cereal.  Because that would be crazy, right?

Said another way - I believe that science is a reliable tool by which to discover truths about reality.  I don't choose to believe this, my rational mind simply accepts that science is reliable (based on experience and methodology).  I can't choose to not believe this.  But - I choose to seek out scientific explanations for things.  When I come across something I'm unfamiliar with, I do make a choice: I choose to see what science and scientists have to say about it (rather than consulting astrologers, priests, mystics, weird people in alleyways, my grandma, the farmer's almanac, whatever).

So, if I said, "I choose to believe in the explanatory power of science", I guess I'd really be saying that I believe science is reliable, and I choose to educate myself on points-of-interest by consulting the scientific consideration of the topic.  Maybe that's sort of how other mean similar phrases?

Summary: I don't choose to believe, but I do choose how to use my beliefs.  Does that make sense, or am I just talking out of my beer-mug?

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I believe that all you were doing

I believe you have no idea what I was doing.  


"Autosuggestion (or the related autogenic training) is a process by which an individual trains the subconscious mind to believe something, or systematically schematizes the person's own mental associations, usually for a given purpose. This is accomplished through self-hypnosis methods or repetitive, constant self-affirmations, and may be seen as a form of self-induced brainwashing. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosuggestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosuggestion)

Well crap...does this all mean I can't "choose to believe" in vampires and witches on Halloween?  DAMNIT!!! There goes the whole season.

Nah - you can - just be careful!  If you choose to believe in vampires, for example, then make damn well sure you choose to believe they are afraid of garlic.  Then you'll be okay.

Quote from: "SteveS"Nah - you can - just be careful!  If you choose to believe in vampires, for example, then make damn well sure you choose to believe they are afraid of garlic.  Then you'll be okay.

Must quote (paraphrase, rather) from Lore Sjöberg's Book of Ratings here:

"As a food, garlic gets an A+, but as the Achilles heel of undead bloodsucking demons, I dunno.  It sounds like an insult gone awry.  'Gee, Hans, I don't know how we're going to get rid of this "vampire" of yours.  Have you tried breathing on it?'"

Funniest book ever.  I'm working on memorizing the whole thing.

:lol:

QuoteI believe you have no idea what I was doing.

"Autosuggestion (or the related autogenic training) is a process by which an individual trains the subconscious mind to believe something, or systematically schematizes the person's own mental associations, usually for a given purpose. This is accomplished through self-hypnosis methods or repetitive, constant self-affirmations, and may be seen as a form of self-induced brainwashing. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosuggestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosuggestion)

Your argument is weakening. Are you really suggesting that every time we examine our beliefs we are applying "self-hypnosis methods" or "self-induced brainwashing"? I think most people would disagree with you there. Most people aren't constantly trying to brainwash themselves. We just believe things!

SteveS used a good example:

QuoteI believe that science is a reliable tool by which to discover truths about reality. I don't choose to believe this, my rational mind simply accepts that science is reliable (based on experience and methodology).

SteveS isn't using "repetitive, constant self-affirmations" or any other techniques of autosuggestion to convince himself science is reliable. He believes it based on previous experience. He can't simply choose not to believe it. He just does.

Besides, if you accept the notion that beliefs can be self-induced through autosuggestion, then you also must accept that external influences too (including other people) can similarly induce beliefs, which is exactly what I'm arguing. Ergo, there are many situations where belief is not a choice. The difference is that the latter is far more common than the former. How many people have even heard of autosuggestion?

Quote from: "MysticalChicken"

Quote from: "SteveS"Nah - you can - just be careful!  If you choose to believe in vampires, for example, then make damn well sure you choose to believe they are afraid of garlic.  Then you'll be okay.

Must quote (paraphrase, rather) from Lore Sjöberg's Book of Ratings here:

"As a food, garlic gets an A+, but as the Achilles heel of undead bloodsucking demons, I dunno.  It sounds like an insult gone awry.  'Gee, Hans, I don't know how we're going to get rid of this "vampire" of yours.  Have you tried breathing on it?'"

Funniest book ever.  I'm working on memorizing the whole thing.

oh man I love this place  

Back it up with references Pjkeeley; that I can not choose to believe what I want or your just blowing smoke. Wild speculation, thoughtless mannerism and suppression of beliefs sounds like a religion to me.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"SteveS isn't using "repetitive, constant self-affirmations" or any other techniques of autosuggestion to convince himself science is reliable. He believes it based on previous experience. He can't simply choose not to believe it. He just does.

This is exactly true.  In fact, if I was going to try to self-induce belief in myself, I'd first have to decide what I want to believe and then decide to "make" myself believe it.  Why on earth would I do that?  In other words, I'd have to identify something, identify that I wanted to believe it (?!? weird, right?), and then somehow brainwash myself into believing it.  This doesn't seem very rational to me - or very sane.  In fact, if I don't believe something there is a strong likelihood that it is because my rational mind is rejecting it.  What you are describing here is a way to force my emotional desires to take precedence over my rational mind (I don't believe [rational] but I want to [emotional], so I'm gonna somehow force myself to believe).  I can hardly endorse such behavior (even if it is possible - maybe it is, maybe it isn't, don't know because I've never tried  :wink:  ).

Quote from: "SteveS"What you are describing here is a way to force my emotional desires to take precedence over my rational mind (I don't believe [rational] but I want to [emotional], so I'm gonna somehow force myself to believe).  I can hardly endorse such behavior (even if it is possible - maybe it is, maybe it isn't, don't know because I've never tried  :wink:  ).

If it was not for the emotional you would not have an aesthetic appeal to the intellectual.

Quote from: "Jeremiah"If it was not for the emotional you would not have an aesthetic appeal to the intellectual.

What about an intellectual appeal to the intellectual?

Here we go, I found and article on the subject that supports both sides of the argument.

http://home.earthlink.net/~writetdrange ... twill.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~writetdrange/beliefatwill.html) <--- more in link

QuoteInitially, we could, in the abstract, divide people into two groups, those who are able to directly control their own beliefs by means of their wills and those who are not able to do that. It would be an open question whether or not the first group is empty. Assuming it is not empty, people within it could be arranged in a spectrum according to how easy it is for them to directly control their own beliefs and how often they do it. Some people do it easily and frequently and others are totally unable to do it at all, with still others falling between these two extremes. The extreme positions on the spectrum could be called the "voluntaristic end" and the "involuntaristic end." It would then be an empirical question whether there are people at the voluntaristic end, and if so, how many. My own encounters with students and others have led me to the hypothesis that there do indeed exist people who are able to directly control their beliefs and that they are arranged all along the described spectrum. I would say, then, that some people are more or less able to control their own beliefs by direct acts of will, while others, myself included, totally lack that ability. Just what the various numbers might be, I cannot say for sure. However, I would venture the guess that at least 10% of people can directly control their beliefs, at least on some occasions and to a slight extent.

It might be maintained that belief is subject to the will but not immediately, only over an extended period of time. H. H. Price held such a view. He said the following:

 Can one make oneself believe something, or make oneself go on believing it, just by an effort of will? ... It seems to me pretty clear that one cannot do it directly, by just making a voluntary effort here and now. ... Indirectly, though not directly, and over a period of time, though not instantaneously, one can voluntarily control one's beliefs - at least up to a point. ... Pascal recommends somewhere that if a man's religious faith is weak, he should "Use holy water and order masses be said."

By such methods - by dwelling upon a proposition continually and repeatedly, by considering again and again what it would be like if it were true and imagining in detail what it would be like (if you can), by acting as if the proposition were true on all occasions to which its truth or falsity is relevant, and by increasing the number of these occasions wherever possible - by such means you will gradually get into a state of believing the proposition. You will wake up one fine day and find that you do believe it. ... Of course the state you have got into is one of non-reasonable belief, just because it is independent of the evidence ... But the point at present is that it is a state of belief, and of very firm belief too; and that it is brought into existence by your own voluntary efforts. ... Everyone admits, of course, that such a state can be produced in us involuntarily, by what is called "Social Conditioning" (the process which Hume in the Treatise calls "education"). But it was worthwhile to point out that it can be produced voluntarily too, though only with considerable effort and trouble, continued over a long period of time.[2]

I would call this view also a form of voluntarism, though it is not as robust a form as that which proclaims it possible to control one's beliefs not only over an extended time but also immediately.

Strong Voluntarism
Voluntarism can be thought of as a series of views ranging from strong to weak, where the strong form maintains that direct and immediate self-inducement of belief is very common, and so should be considered (statistically) "normal." It is the way beliefs are usually formed. The basic principle of strong voluntarism is: "People usually believe whatever they want to believe." If evidence plays any role at all, it is merely an advisory role, influencing the will but not in any way determining it. At the other end of the spectrum is weak voluntarism, which only grants that some people sometimes form beliefs through direct acts of the will, but it is very rare and not "normal" in any sense. Perhaps it can be done at all only over an extended period of time, as Price maintains. Evidence still dominates the belief-formation process in almost all cases. Price would be classified as a weak voluntarist, and I would put myself in that category as well. However, I would differ with Price on the issue whether people ever self-induce beliefs by immediate acts of will. He denies that it ever happens, but I think it does, on occasion. Price and I would both be weak rather than strong voluntarists because we would both regard belief acquisition through self-inducement to be rare and abnormal. The usual way by which people form beliefs is through an assessment of the evidence presented to them, that assessment being an automatic process which does not involve the will.

I have two main objections to strong voluntarism. One is simply an appeal to observation. I have talked to many people about the matter and at least 90% of them claim not to have much, if any, control over their beliefs. The majority are like me, claiming to have no such control whatever. I assume that if they do indeed have control then they themselves would be aware of it. Since so many people deny ever (or often) self-inducing belief by a direct act of will, I conclude that the strong voluntarist's claim that it is very common and is the usual mode of belief acquisition is simply false.

I had a brush with insanity almost 10 years ago. I don't want to get into the details but it did cause a good deal of change in how I think. Perhaps my thought methods are abnormal.

Hey Jeremiah - for what its worth, I think that people can change their beliefs through the methods you discuss.  I just don't think this is normal (i.e. how most of us hold most of our beliefs).  Obviously, something is making me choose a belief - my only argument is that it is not my conscious mind doing this.  I am exposed to something, and I either believe it or I don't.  I spend time considering it, thinking about it, thinking about the options - and then I think to myself "Gee, I'm not buying this" or I think "Huh - seems right to me".  This is more of a personal "discovery" than a conscious thought "I'm going to believe this" or "I'm not going to believe this".

This is an interesting topic - for now, I'm going to stick with my theory that when someone says "I choose to believe" what they really mean is that they do believe and they choose to trust that belief and act upon it.  Either that, or they don't believe but they're going to act as though they did.

Thanks for posting the abstract - it was an enjoyable read.  The idea of long and continued effort to influence our belief seems to support the idea that belief is a sub-conscious function: the only way our conscious mind can somehow control belief is to work long and hard to "fake-out" the sub-conscious part.  Obviously I have no personal experience as to whether or not this is even possible --- I have never tried (at least not consciously,  :wink:  ).

Makes me wonder if anyone has investigated this in a scientific setting?  The abstract is great, but its philosophical - it would be nice to supplement the philosophy with something empirical.  Any brain-science types ever studied this?  Done experiments?

"for now, I'm going to stick with my theory that when someone says "I choose to believe" what they really mean is that they do believe and they choose to trust that belief and act upon it. Either that, or they don't believe but they're going to act as though they did. " - SteveS

I would be careful in believing something to quickly it ends the pursuit.

If a person acts against their beliefs than are they not saying to themselves that they don't really believe that belief? Unless of course you believe that I am being deceitful in which I would simply straightforwardly tell you; strangers are not worth the effort of lying.

You claim no experience in changing a belief and you claim not to have any research handy in this area. But you still formulate a belief and than you called my belief abstract. To be honest I am beginning to think it is the other way around.

But perhaps you are just think to abstractly.

Let's try two:

Let's believe for a moment that your eyes have a dysfunction and this is known to you.
Say that you eyes sometimes see yellow as yellow and sometime yellow as red. Also let's consider this dysfunctional color shift is unpredictable and sporadic. How would you react every time you saw yellow or red? What would you believe you're looking at?

If my reasoning mind believes life has no meaning but yet my emotional mind believes life has meaning.
Which one should I believe as true?

------

"If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news?" - Dr. Robert Anthony

People base their beliefs, thoughts and actions off their beliefs. So it seems to me you're touching on a much bigger issues here and that is free will. Does it exist or is it just an illusion?

Jeremiah, I'm having trouble following you here, man.

Quote from: "Jeremiah"I would be careful in believing something to quickly it ends the pursuit.

Quote from: "Jeremiah"But perhaps you are just think to abstractly.

Not trying to be a jerk, but I can't make any sense out of these statements.

Quote from: "Jeremiah"If a person acts against their beliefs than are they not saying to themselves that they don't really believe that belief?

Well - I just don't know.  What if my child goes missing, and I believe that they're dead, but I keep looking for them anyway.  I think our rationality and our emotions are in conflict all the time --- part of me believes the child is dead - the other part refuses to give up looking.

In the case of acting as though you believe something you don't --- maybe somebody goes to church and plays along because they hope everything in their religion is true, but they actually have serious and grave doubts about the whole business.  They're acting as though they believe, but they don't really.  Does that mean they really believe?  I don't think so.

Quote from: "Jeremiah"You claim no experience in changing a belief and you claim not to have any research handy in this area. But you still formulate a belief and than you called my belief abstract.

Take it easy killer - the whole discussion is abstract to me.  I certainly didn't mean to insult you and I didn't specifically call the topic abstract, but I do think it is abstract.  And of course I formed my own belief on the matter - I couldn't help it  :wink:   !

Anyway, I do claim "no data handy on the subject", which is part of why I can't offer a complete and compelling solution to the disagreement.  The way I see it, you don't really offer up any data either.  So what's the difference?  We're just discussing this philosophically.  The only thing I really have to rely on is my personal experience, my experience interacting with others, and what seems to make sense to me philosophically.

My personal experience is just that - my personal experience.  I can't remember ever "wanting" to change my beliefs.  I can't remember ever trying to change my beliefs.  I can't remember anybody telling me, "I never really believed that, but I kept repeating it to myself until I did".  Usually, I have conversations of this sort of nature:

Person 1: Did you believe that story?
Person 2: No.
Person 1: Why not?
Person 2: Well, I think because.....

Which lends me to believe that beliefs are not under our conscious control.  We have to think about why we hold them.  Why would that be, if they were under our conscious control?

Also, if I "made" myself believe something ... wouldn't I know that I believe it because I "made" myself?  How, or why, would I forget doing that to myself?  So - would my rational mind not take that into consideration?  Would my belief still be strong, knowing that I had myself played a role in arbitrarily altering it?  Or would I have to forget my conscious decision before the belief becomes "cemented"?

This is my philosophical objection to the problem.  But - I will certainly admit that I could be wrong.

Do you have any relevant personal experience on the matter?  Have you ever been able to "make" yourself believe something?

Quote from: "Jeremiah"Let's believe for a moment that your eyes have a dysfunction and this is known to you.
Say that you eyes sometimes see yellow as yellow and sometime yellow as red. Also let's consider this dysfunctional color shift is unpredictable and sporadic. How would you react every time you saw yellow or red? What would you believe you're looking at?

A simple question with a simple answer: I would believe that I don't know what I'm looking at.  I would believe that what I'm looking at either appeared yellow, or appeared red, but knowing that I have this dysfunction I would believe that just because the object in question appeared a certain color it might have been the other.  How much mystery is there to this?  If somebody asked me, "well, out with it, was that car yellow or red?".  I would answer "I can't be sure: it appeared red to me, but because of my eye dysfunction it could have been yellow because sometimes I see yellow as red".  I would not have a belief as to what color it actually was, other than I would probably believe that it must have been either red or yellow, and not blue, green, or some other color.

This isn't that hard for me to imagine: I have slight color blindness in the blue spectrum: blue, purple, green, they start to appear very similar to me.  Take the non-grey background color of this forum: I can't tell if that's purple or blue.  If I had to guess I'd go with purple.  So what do I believe?  I believe I don't know because I can't tell.

If I was a witness at a murder trial, and I saw man in a "problem color" shirt, and the defense attorney asked me "Can you be sure that you saw a man in a light green shirt, and not a light blue shirt?"  I would say "No - I can't be sure".  If he said "Could it have been a red shirt?"  I would say "No - I'm sure it was not red".

Quote from: "Jeremiah"If my reasoning mind believes life has no meaning but yet my emotional mind believes life has meaning.
Which one should I believe as true?

Obviously I cannot answer this question for you.  But here's where I would start:
1) How does the word "meaning" function in the context of "life" "having it".  What does it mean to say "life has meaning"?
2) Why does your rational mind reject this?
3) Why does your emotional mind accept it?
4) Which makes more sense?

Ummm, I think there was a slight communication problem in some previous posts.

Jeremiah, I don't think SteveS called your beliefs abstract, he called the piece you posted an abstract, as in a summary of a text, essay, or scientific article.

SteveS please don't take offence to my mannerism; it is just due to my lack of social skills.

Jeremiah - no worries, no offense taken.  I was afraid I had offended you with my disagreement - I was certainly not dismissing your ideas casually or without consideration.  I just don't entirely agree is all.

SabineMaia is correct, my original use of the word abstract is how she describes.  Although, in all fairness, I do feel the discussion and the topic is abstract in that we don't have any concrete data to consider - just ideas - abstract ideas about human thought.  Still an interesting thing to think about, though.

Thanks for the engaging conversation!

It seems like it is a very old debate, mainly because it ties into free will. But I'll share whatever I dig up but it looks like I'll have to do a bunch more reading.

http://www.whatisitliketobeablog.com/?p=50 (http://www.whatisitliketobeablog.com/?p=50)

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/staff/ ... ersion.pdf (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/staff/documents/EpistemicDeontologyFinalVersion.pdf)