What faith have you chosen?

[Túrin Turambar]

I always find the word 'chosen' in these polls to be kind of odd. It seems to imply that you can brainwash yourself. I didn't choose to lack a belief in God(s) any more than I chose to believe in Newton's laws of motion or that socialism is not a good way of organising an economy.

[Primula Baggins]

I know a number of people who do not believe in a God who would certainly agree, L_M. They see it as recognizing reality, not making a choice.

However, I also know some believers who most definitely chose the paths they're on, some after decades of seeking. In conversation my friends tend to say, not that they have discovered "the truth," but rather that their truth has found them. Not a process of brainwashing; more of finding and recognizing their home.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For whatever it is worth, the language of the question was chosen by someone who himself asserts that he does not believe in a higher power. Nonetheless, I do tend to agree with your observation, LM. For myself, I never chose to believe in a higher power. Indeed, my beliefs have come to me, if not against my will, certainly not through my own will. If that makes any sense (which it probably does not).

[Túrin Turambar]

However, I also know some believers who most definitely chose the paths they're on, some after decades of seeking.

Yes, but that implies finding rather than choosing.

I cannot choose to believe that London is in Egypt, no matter how beneficial it would be for me (unless, as I point out above, I could brainwash myself). By the same token, I cannot simply choose to believe in God, nor do I possibly see how someone else could choose to no longer believe in God (if they did, then I would argue their belief must have been very weak as to be a conscious self-delusion).

Can you, for example, choose to actually believe in the Hindu Gods and tenets of the Hindu faith right now?

ETA: What Voronwë said.

[Primula Baggins]

I choose to try to follow the teachings of my own faith, as opposed to some other.

Thinking of one friend in particular (in RL), it's not that she chose to believe in a higher power; she could not avoid it, despite ther fact that her parents were unswerving atheists who showed nothing but contempt for religion (rather unusual in the Midwest in the 1950s) and dismissed any questions she ever asked on the subject. For various reasons she didn't find any meaningful connection with that higher power until she was almost fifty and first encountered Sufism.

I would agree that people in general don't choose to believe or not believe; but if they believe, they can certainly choose the path they follow. In fact many Christian denominations practice confirmation, a process of educating teenagers about the church, at the end of which the student can choose, or choose not, to be confirmed and become an adult member of the church.

[yovargas]

Yeah, I never liked the wording much either, but didn't like the alternatives I came up with either. It's hard to be universal in matters of faith.

[Frelga]

I would agree that people in general don't choose to believe or not believe; but if they believe, they can certainly choose the path they follow. In fact many Christian denominations practice confirmation, a process of educating teenagers about the church, at the end of which the student can choose, or choose not, to be confirmed and become an adult member of the church.

IAWP

I didn't choose to believe in God, and in fact I'm still working out the details. But I did choose where and how to worship. I did choose a Reform Congregation when I could have joined a Conservative one, for instance, and every day I am making a choice on how my actions are aligned with my beliefs.

[Túrin Turambar]

In fact many Christian denominations practice confirmation, a process of educating teenagers about the church, at the end of which the student can choose, or choose not, to be confirmed and become an adult member of the church.

True, but the choice is to be a member of the church. Presumably, people choose confirmation if the teachings of the church match their beliefs.

[Cerin]

I cannot choose to believe that London is in Egypt, no matter how beneficial it would be for me (unless, as I point out above, I could brainwash myself).

This is a matter of fact that can be verified. I agree that we can't make ourselves believe things we know to be false.

By the same token, I cannot simply choose to believe in God,

I believe people can and do choose to believe in God. It is in the nature of an inner response. For example, if someone looked around them at the beauties of the natural world and was moved within by a sense of wonder, they might then choose to believe that the natural world speaks of the loving hand of a creator. It is a choice, to entertain or reject the validity of an idea.

nor do I possibly see how someone else could choose to no longer believe in God <snip>.

Again, I disagree. People do come to reject ideas they formerly embraced -- such as, for example, the concept of a loving creator. These are choices, just as we choose how we will act in response to other situations and influences.

Can you, for example, choose to actually believe in the Hindu Gods and tenets of the Hindu faith right now?

If I wanted to, I could. If I considered them and they seemed right to me, then I would choose to believe. That choice is the beginning of a process. We start by entertaining the rightness of an idea, and our faith grows as we act on that choice to believe (by, for example, beginning to follow the tenets of a religion). Belief is action.

For example, suppose I researched the idea of hypnosis as a treatment for some condition. I could choose either to reject or entertain the possibility. If I chose to be hypnotized, that would mean I was entertaining the possibility of hypnosis as a valid avenue of treatment. If it was a positive experience, that might reinforce my faith in the effectiveness of hypnosis and it might be said that I believed in hypnosis as a means of treatment. If it was a negative experience, I might choose to reject the validity of hypnosis as a treatment after having first entertained it. If the evidence did not seem persuasive or if the contraindications seemed persuasive, I might reject it at the outset.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin, I'm really surprised! Let me ask you this. Could you honestly assert that you (you personally, not some general you) could choose not to believe in God?

(I hope this question isn't offensive to you. I ask because I genuinely interested.)

[Cerin]

Certainly I could have chosen not to believe in God, when it was first a matter of choice whether to reject or entertain the notion that God exists. We make these choices all the time, when we encounter ideas.

At this point, I could choose to reject the notion of God if I encountered information or experiences that seemed to credibly refute the notion that God exists (as, for example, yov related that he decided God didn't exist in the way he had supposed after a certain experience, if I remember his story correctly).

The choice initially is a response, to either entertain or reject the possibility of something. We make the initial decision based on whether we find the idea credible. Belief builds as we continue to make choices that affirm that first decision to accept something as true.

As I said, I believe we make these kinds of choices all the time.

[Túrin Turambar]

Can you, for example, choose to actually believe in the Hindu Gods and tenets of the Hindu faith right now?

If I wanted to, I could. If I considered them and they seemed right to me, then I would choose to believe.

But that’s the point – you need to have some reason to believe. If you considered them and they didn’t seem right, could you choose to believe them?

Or, look at it this way. I know this is a bit of a contorted analogy, but it’s the only way I can think to argue this point.

Suppose that a mad scientist has managed to develop a perfect lie detector, that works every single time without fail. He then demands that you cease to believe in God or he will kill you. He asks you ‘do you believe in God?’ and subjects you to the test. Could you choose, at that point, to stop believing in order to save your life?

[Primula Baggins]

I couldn't. I think believing or not believing are states of being.

I could pretend, but it would not be real. Even though it would be sensible under the circumstances to shut off my belief, I couldn't, any more than I could stop having green eyes.

A threat is not a reasonable reason to stop believing.

The analogy that comes to mind is, under the same circumstances, could you genuinely stop loving your parent (or child) as a result of the same threat? I think not.

Could you start believing in God as a result of a threat? Again, I think not.

I see Cerin's point that accepting the possibility of belief is a rational choice; but I think the act of belief itself is not. It is emotional, or at the least it isn't rationally based. I realize that this is enough to condemn it, for many people.

[Túrin Turambar]

I wouldn't say 'not rationality based'. We can develop beliefs about things that are quite rational. For example, opposition to racism.

[Primula Baggins]

I guess I wouldn't call something that is rationally based a "belief." I don't "believe" in gravity; it exists and I can prove it. I can measure it, study it.

Similarly in a different way, the neeed to oppose racism seems obvious to me; I don't oppose racism because I believe it's wrong, but because I see no rational justification for it (oh, and because it's immoral, but that's not what we're talking about here).

Although I'm a believer, I would not say that someone should not be an unbeliever if they can't believe; better to be an honest and consistent unbeliever than to pretend. But I would not extend the same principle to racism.

[Túrin Turambar]

Similarly in a different way, the neeed to oppose racism seems obvious to me; I don't oppose racism because I believe it's wrong, but because I see no rational justification for it (oh, and because it's immoral, but that's not what we're talking about here).

But then how isn't it a 'belief', even if it is obvious?

[Cerin]

But that’s the point – you need to have some reason to believe.

Of course you have to have some reason to believe something -- that is the mechanism of belief. We accept or reject ideas for certain reasons. You have reasons why you don't believe in God, and I have reasons why I do. This could change tomorrow for both of us; we could choose, based on new reasons, to accept or reject concepts we have up 'til that point rejected/accepted.

The point is, belief doesn't appear or disappear spontaneously, unrelated to our awareness and thought processes. You won't wake up tomorrow finding to your surprise that you believe in God if there have been no other changes in your experience, awareness or thought processes.

If you considered them and they didn’t seem right, could you choose to believe them?

Of course not, that gives no meaning to the concept, 'believe'. The best you could do would be to pretend you believed.

Belief begins with the choice to either accept or reject an idea -- just the way we choose to accept or reject someone's argument in a messageboard discussion. We choose as an exercise of various mental and emotional capacities whether to entertain or reject the validity of a concept; it is that initial choice that may then lead either to belief in or rejection of that concept (or we may remain disinterested and form no firm conviction either way).

Suppose that a mad scientist has managed to develop a perfect lie detector, that works every single time without fail. He then demands that you cease to believe in God or he will kill you. He asks you ‘do you believe in God?’ and subjects you to the test. Could you choose, at that point, to stop believing in order to save your life?

No, but that doesn't describe the mechanism of belief. Say, rather, that at the point the scientist demands that you cease to believe in God or he will kill you, the demand is accompanied by the offer of a draught of forgetfulness that will selectively wipe away every life experience and piece of knowledge that contributed to your initial choice to entertain the validity of, and then to eventually embrace, the concept of God. You could choose at that point to accept the draught and start with a clean slate on the question of God (which process of response would then begin again the next time the concept was presented to you), or you could choose to retain your belief and the memories and experiences that contributed to it, and die.

We can develop beliefs about things that are quite rational. For example, opposition to racism.

I don't quite follow this. Racism is an attitude, and opposition is an attitude. Neither requires belief, I think, because the existence of different races is a matter of fact, and the existence of prejudice against races is a matter of fact.

Perhaps you mean that you believe that opposition to racism is important, and you believe it is important for you to personally remain actively engaged in fighting racism? If so, then think about the choices involved at each step in the development of that belief. Your belief that it is important to fight racism began and developed with choices -- choices to accept or reject certain concepts as valid. This is the mechanism of belief.

[yovargas]

Racism is an attitude, and opposition is an attitude. Neither requires belief

Racism is the belief that another race is inferior.

[Cerin]

Thanks, yov. I think I'd actually forgotten that some people still believe that, it seems so preposterous.

I believe the rest of my comments to Lord M still apply.

[Trazúviel]

What a variety!

I voted Christian/Protestant, but to be technical, you could call me a Berean or Paulinist. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and I base my doctrinal beliefs on his letters (Romans through Philemon), and the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to make sure what Paul said was in fact true. I also believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and I take it very literally.