Is belief a choice?

[didyoumythme]

There are a lot of interesting thoughts here. I expected to see a lot of "it depends", so I purposefully left only the two choices to make you pick a side.

It is hard to define belief, because it is such an abstract concept, but to consider in the Mormon context as I see it, I do not think belief is choice. We are ultimately slaves to our rational minds, so if we come across convincing evidence of something, we cannot choose to disbelieve it. We can't will ourselves to believe in santa again, or to believe that trees are made of licorice.

I think what many of you who say belief is a choice are describing is what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief". You think you ought to believe something, so you tell yourself you believe it. Read this random snippet from the interwebs about it -

"As Daniel Dennett observes, where it is difficult to believe a thing, it is often much easier to believe that you ought to believe it. What does it mean to believe that the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is both perfectly blue and perfectly green? The statement is confusing; it's not even clear what it would mean to believe it - what exactly would be believed, if you believed. You can much more easily believe that it is proper, that it is good and virtuous and beneficial, to believe that the Ultimate Cosmic Sky is both perfectly blue and perfectly green. Dennett calls this "belief in belief".

[didyoumythme]

I say belief is not a choice.

Belief is more of an emotion than a rational thought, and people don't get to choose their emotions. We can choose to put ourselves in situations where an emotion is more likely, e.g. choose to watch a sad movie, choose to be with people where we are usually happy, etc. Similarly we can choose to put ourselves in situations to sustain or challenge our beliefs. The LDS church constantly pushes members to participate in public and private activities that sustain belief in the LDS church. Read scriptures (especially the LDS specific ones), pray, attend church, Sabbath observance, choose friends who help you stay within the LDS mold, mission, tithing, etc... There is also a push against things that might challenge belief, like the push against intellectualism, feminism, and LGBTQ+.

A common and interesting situation in this model is where someone doesn't consciously know what their beliefs are, or what might challenge them. There are a lot of people who don't put in much time or effort in defining their beliefs, and don't know consciously what challenges them. Their beliefs are emotion and they go by emotion to protect them. My DW responds to my disaffection with all sorts of emotion and little argument. She does not want to get into the definition of what she believes or why. This provides a protective bubble around core beliefs. But it can also be dangerous to the belief because cracks can get in without realizing it. I thought that humility meant accepting reality, which was something that ended up working against my beliefs. Having leaders that do the dangerous thinking for you and guide you to avoid pitfalls without requiring you to grapple with them is a good way to avoid this.

That's not to say that someone who doesn't really know what their beliefs are doesn't have some conscious portion to their beliefs. People create a conscious and at least semi-rational framework for their beliefs, but the framework is a child of the beliefs, not the other way around. That framework may be accurate in some ways, but it doesn't have to be. This creature is a TBM, or any dogmatic person. The more the conscious framework is developed the more apologetic. A big problem with that is if the framework has holes and the person is intellectually honest with themselves then it collapses. It is safer for an unlikely belief to have a less developed framework. This is why the church fears intellectualism. Also, if the framework is proven wrong then the belief is in danger. This is why the white-washing of church history is so dangerous for the LDS church, and why church meetings focus so much on the primary answers and so little on history or developing a catechism.

My faith crisis developed as what I saw everyday didn't match up with my conscious framework of belief. My shelf broke in an instant when I finally internalized that they didn't match up. Now I try to let my beliefs be borne from reality, rather than my reality be borne from my beliefs. And I am far more open to the idea that my beliefs and framework could be wrong.

I love all of this and have had many similar thoughts. I have never been a very emotional person, so maybe this is why it all fell apart when I tried to make sense of everything. Mormonism makes specific claims about reality, and when reality does not match up to those claims, I cannot accept it.

[wtfluff]

There are a lot of interesting thoughts here. I expected to see a lot of "it depends", so I purposefully left only the two choices to make you pick a side.

I'm pretty sure there are some fence-sitters out there who didn't vote because, you know, neither hot not cold, black nor white, blah blah blah...

[Jeffret]

It is hard to define belief, because it is such an abstract concept, but to consider in the Mormon context as I see it, I do not think belief is choice. We are ultimately slaves to our rational minds, so if we come across convincing evidence of something, we cannot choose to disbelieve it. We can't will ourselves to believe in santa again, or to believe that trees are made of licorice.

I have a very hard time believing this. If you had said that we are ultimately slaves to our irrational minds, then I could have believed it. I see very little evidence, though, that humans are primarily driven by the rational mind. Just look at politics. Or religion. Or love. Or pretty much anything.

[Jeffret]

I'm pretty sure there are some fence-sitters out there who didn't vote because, you know, neither hot not cold, black nor white, blah blah blah...

I didn't vote because I really think it's impossible to know with any level of conviction or certainty. We really don't know. But, there are advantages, as we've discussed, to behaving like it is. At least within some parameters.

[moksha]

For instance, could Trump really refrain from being angry if someone placed an obstacle between him and a cheeseburger?

Have some respect. That is chopped wagyu beef, truffles, and fromage on a specially beaded sesame seed bun. Nothing but the best at Mar-a-Lago, and you need very large hands to eat one, believe me.

[Linked]

It is hard to define belief, because it is such an abstract concept, but to consider in the Mormon context as I see it, I do not think belief is choice. We are ultimately slaves to our rational minds, so if we come across convincing evidence of something, we cannot choose to disbelieve it. We can't will ourselves to believe in santa again, or to believe that trees are made of licorice.

I have a very hard time believing this. If you had said that we are ultimately slaves to our irrational minds, then I could have believed it. I see very little evidence, though, that humans are primarily driven by the rational mind. Just look at politics. Or religion. Or love. Or pretty much anything.

Isn't it a little bit of both? We are slaves to our irrational minds, until we let our rational minds make sense of it. Once that happens we are slaves to the conclusions of our rational minds.

[Jeffret]

Isn't it a little bit of both? We are slaves to our irrational minds, until we let our rational minds make sense of it. Once that happens we are slaves to the conclusions of our rational minds.

Certainly it's a mix of both. Though it just seems really odd to describe us a slave to our rational minds. Especially since so many people seem to have never met theirs.

[wtfluff]

... Though it just seems really odd to describe us a slave to our rational minds. Especially since so many people seem to have never met theirs.

[didyoumythme]

Isn't it a little bit of both? We are slaves to our irrational minds, until we let our rational minds make sense of it. Once that happens we are slaves to the conclusions of our rational minds.

Certainly it's a mix of both. Though it just seems really odd to describe us a slave to our rational minds. Especially since so many people seem to have never met theirs.

Maybe it is more accurate to say we are slaves to our perceived rational minds. Emotion certainly plays a big part in our decisions, but we can’t choose to accept a different reality if we have been exposed to convincing evidence to the contrary. Simple thought experiments, like trying to convince yourself that clouds are marshmallows, illustrate the point. You have no choice in the matter.

[alas]

... Though it just seems really odd to describe us a slave to our rational minds. Especially since so many people seem to have never met theirs.

Yes, I would tend to say that more people are slaves to their emotions than are slaves to rational thought.

But I do agree that we cannot really change beliefs that are rational and have evidence. We can really only change beliefs when they are irrational and emotional. In fact that is a premise of the rational emotive therapy I have been talking about. Which is why when we decide to investigate our beliefs in the church there is no going back. You can chose to investigate emotional and irrational beliefs, so challenging religious belief is sometimes pretty easy, as far as Mormonism goes.

But often one hits a lack of good evidence. I cannot prove there is no God, and some people do find things they see as rational proof of God. Others find the lack of evidence as proof of no God----but lack of proof being proof of the negative is an irrational decision. Using "the beauty of the earth" as proof of God is also an irrational decision.

This is the gray area where we can make decisions about what we want to believe. Many of the Fowler stage 5 people are here. They make a choice based on emotion that they want to still believe in God even though there is no proof either way.

[LaMachina]

Not an Anti-mormon video
What do you think? Is this guy "choosing" to believe?

As far as whether we are slaves to certain parts of our brain, I love the analogy described by Jonathan Haidt. Our brains are riders on elephants. Some of us have better trained elephants than others but that elephant is always a risk to run amok.

[LucyHoneychurch]

Maybe it depends on an individual's ability to suspend disbelief, and to compartmentalize out of primal fear. I wanted to believe for a long time, and ignored red flags. It was comforting to believe, and it was the only way I knew how to live. I reached a point where I couldn't believe even though I tried, no matter the social costs. I made a decision to let go and look at the big picture, and there was no going back to belief after that. Not for me. We all have a tipping point where making personal peace with our information (resolving cognitive dissonance) trumps acceptance by others, I think. I honestly don't think people who look behind the curtain and maintain faith have ever fully suspended their disbelief to look at the facts with full objectivity. At least, that is my personal conclusion given my experience, and the anecdotal experiences of those I know.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Maybe it depends on an individual's ability to suspend disbelief, and to compartmentalize out of primal fear.

I really like this explanation.