Belief

[POI]

This thread is not to discuss many of the specifics about Christianity. Instead, it is to discuss one seemingly required element for salvation, which is belief. Sure, one can believe that the Bible god exists and still reject that believed upon god (and/or) be rejected by that god. But a fundamental and necessary element looks to be belief in this Bible god.

And sure, I guess a case could also be made that belief is NOT required too. This topic has already been examined here (viewtopic.php?t=39327). for anyone who cares to push back here -- (in that belief is not necessary or required).

And some others may argue that all humans secretly believe and that fundamental belief is already had by all.

All this aside, there exists a Christian populous who thinks that not all believe, and that the Bible god gives us free will to choose. Hence....

...For all intents and purposes, and to address the Christian folks who are under the impression that belief is a minimum requirement for salvation, I have a topic to propose.

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

[bjs1]

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

Belief is a choice.

We don’t make massive shifts all of a sudden, but we can (and consistently do) make small streps in one direction or another. Each small step leads to another small step, and eventually we have made a significant change.

To take one of countless examples, are people good and sometimes do bad things, or are people bad and sometimes do good things? I can choose which one of those I believe. If I focus on the good accomplishments and love of humanity, then I will grow to see people as mostly good and trustworthy. If I focus on the cruelty and violence people commit, I will grow to see people and evil and dangerous on the whole.

Similarly, I can choose to not believe in God. I can intentionally avoid spiritual matters such as prayer, Bible study, corperate worship, meditation and the like. If I make those choices my belief in God will steadily erode.

I can choose to believe in God. I can attend a worship service and pray and serve in His name. If I do these things, surrounding myself with like-minded people, then faith in God will grow.

In both cases (believing or lacking belief) it starts with my choice and then grows slowly.

As far as I can tell, people almost always end up believing what they choose to believe.

[POI]

For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

Belief is a choice.

Presented evidence, which convinces a person, is what propels a belief. I'm not saying the evidence has to be any good, but it has to convince that person. Case/point, a mother can tell their child that god exists, and the child might then believe. In this case, the evidence is the mother, whom the child trusts, which is telling the child. The mother's authority is evidence enough to convince the child. I'll address your responses below and then sum it up, since you really do not like to vet out things too much after your initial response.

We don’t make massive shifts all of a sudden, but we can (and consistently do) make small streps in one direction or another. Each small step leads to another small step, and eventually we have made a significant change.

Evidence, which convinces someone, is what drives a belief. Belief is not a choice. I'll give you an example. 'Hey bjs1, your wife is cheating on you.' You either believe me, or you don't. You may think there exists some shading gray area(s) here, but you either ultimately think she is or isn't. The one who says "they are not sure" is in denial, as the conclusion is binary, in that she is or is not cheating.

On the other hand, you may just call me crazy and truly do not believe she is cheating.

Here's the follow up bjs1...

You come home from work and find your wife in bed with another man. You pull them apart and tell the guy to get out of your house. The wife is crying and asks you to forgive her, etc...

Is it now possible to still choose to believe she did not cheat on you? See below for more....

To take one of countless examples, are people good and sometimes do bad things, or are people bad and sometimes do good things? I can choose which one of those I believe. If I focus on the good accomplishments of and love humanity, then I will grow to see people as mostly good and trustworthy. If I focus on the cruelty and violence people commit, I will grow to see people and evil and dangerous on the whole.

In your worldview. all are sinners and deserve hell. Which is why you need Jesus's grace. The question becomes, is believing in Jesus a choice? I say it is not a choice. If someone held a gun to my head and told me to truly believe that a Jesus exists, who is there to save me, I could not, under any circumstance, will or choose to belief in him, even based upon a highly coerced proposition. Nor could I choose to believe in him, even if offered all the (money/wealth/health/other) in the world. Just like you cannot choose to really believe in the Tooth Fairy by choice (under the same set of circumstances). Your belief is evidence based, which convinces you, and is not by choice.

Similarly, I can choose to not believe in God. I can intentionally avoid spiritual matters such as prayer, Bible study, corperate worship, meditation and the like. If I make those choices my belief in God will steadily erode.

Please take note to what you stated above in bold.

Yes, you can choose to address new evidence or instead handwave it away. This is because we know belief itself is not a choice. Case/point, getting back to the infidelity example. I tell you "your wife is cheating on you." You don't believe me or maybe you do not want to address it. I tell you I have evidence to prove it. You may choose to address it or not. This is because you know that if you do address it, you may then have no choice but to then believe she is cheating on you. At which point, you could not there (after) choose to believe she is still faithful.

So yes bjs1, we can choose to protect an existing belief, because we know belief itself is NOT a choice.

I can choose to believe in God.

No, you can't. Just like you or I cannot actually choose to believe in Santa Claus.

I can attend a worship service and pray and serve in His name. If I do these things, surrounding myself with like-minded people, then faith in God will grow.

Sure, I can choose to expose myself to more 'evidence'. And maybe that 'evidence' may convince me. I already explained above, in that we can choose to address offered 'evidence' or even choose to explore new evidence ourselves. However, the conclusion/belief, to that presented evidence is not a choice, in that such 'evidence' either convinces you, or it doesn't.

Then there's dishonest people like Lee Stoebel, who states they weren't a believer, but then explored the evidence. These people are not genuine, but are instead finding 'evidence(s)' and 'argument(s)' to reinforce an existing belief.

As far as I can tell, people almost always end up believing what they choose to believe.

Using one example above, you cannot choose to belief your wife is faithful.

Using another example above, you cannot choose to believe in Santa Claus.

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #2]

Are you saying in effect that
Belief = conviction in the absence of conclusive evidence, or at least in the presence of some residual uncertainty.
Knowledge / fact = conviction based on overwhelming or conclusive evidence.

Do you think that the steps of belief (as a dynamic) will eventually lead the believer into knowledge and then that knowledge into wisdom?

Or do you think that belief is the only thing necessary?

[1213]

...
For debate: Isn't the Bible god aware that true belief is not a choice?

Is there any good reason to think belief is not always a choice?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Your claim is that true belief is not a choice. Let’s analyze your offered support for that claim.

Presented evidence, which convinces a person, is what propels a belief. I'm not saying the evidence has to be any good, but it has to convince that person. Case/point, a mother can tell their child that god exists, and the child might then believe. In this case, the evidence is the mother, whom the child trusts, which is telling the child. The mother's authority is evidence enough to convince the child.

This is just stating belief is propelled by something other than choice, but no actual support to think the statement is true. Your example is just a narrative following that statement, not actual support.

Evidence, which convinces someone, is what drives a belief. Belief is not a choice. I'll give you an example. 'Hey bjs1, your wife is cheating on you.' You either believe me, or you don't. You may think there exists some shading gray area(s) here, but you either ultimately think she is or isn't. The one who says "they are not sure" is in denial, as the conclusion is binary, in that she is or is not cheating.

Still just stating and providing a narrative that assumes that statement is true with no actual support.

Here's the follow up bjs1...

You come home from work and find your wife in bed with another man. You pull them apart and tell the guy to get out of your house. The wife is crying and asks you to forgive her, etc...

Is it now possible to still choose to believe she did not cheat on you? See below for more....

If someone held a gun to my head and told me to truly believe that a Jesus exists, who is there to save me, I could not, under any circumstance, will or choose to belief in him, even based upon a highly coerced proposition. Nor could I choose to believe in him, even if offered all the (money/wealth/health/other) in the world. Just like you cannot choose to really believe in the Tooth Fairy by choice (under the same set of circumstances).

Just because some beliefs may not be chosen, that doesn’t mean no beliefs are chosen.

Your belief is evidence based, which convinces you, and is not by choice.

This assumes that evidence can’t play a role in choice. Why do you think that?

Yes, you can choose to address new evidence or instead handwave it away. This is because we know belief itself is not a choice. Case/point, getting back to the infidelity example. I tell you "your wife is cheating on you." You don't believe me or maybe you do not want to address it. I tell you I have evidence to prove it. You may choose to address it or not. This is because you know that if you do address it, you may then have no choice but to then believe she is cheating on you. At which point, you could not there (after) choose to believe she is still faithful.

So yes bjs1, we can choose to protect an existing belief, because we know belief itself is NOT a choice.

Why do you think this proves your case? You admit one can choose to believe something that isn’t based on evidence, which directly contradicts what you’ve been saying about evidence driving belief. Saying one can choose their belief because they know belief is not a choice is a logical contradiction.

Sure, I can choose to expose myself to more 'evidence'. And maybe that 'evidence' may convince me. I already explained above, in that we can choose to address offered 'evidence' or even choose to explore new evidence ourselves. However, the conclusion/belief, to that presented evidence is not a choice, in that such 'evidence' either convinces you, or it doesn't.

If the evidence doesn’t convince you one way or the other on a subject, then what is the belief based on?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Your claim is that true belief is not a choice.

Yes.

Just because some beliefs may not be chosen, that doesn’t mean no beliefs are chosen.

What beliefs do you think are chosen?

This assumes that evidence can’t play a role in choice. Why do you think that?

Being convinced is what drives a belief. Being convinced is generally considered a state of mind rather than a conscious choice, as belief arises from being compelled by evidence, experiences, or underlying emotions. While people can choose what they look at or evaluate, they cannot voluntarily choose to believe something they do not find true. I've already given examples to bjs1.

Why do you think this proves your case?

See above.

You admit one can choose to believe something that isn’t based on evidence,

Please re-read my response(s).

Saying one can choose their belief because they know belief is not a choice is a logical contradiction.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we can choose what we do and do not investigate. This is because we know that what we do or do not investigate may or may not change what we believe. However, choosing what evidence/other actually convinces you, is not a choice. And it is what convinces you which is what propels the belief. Again, see what I explained to bjs1.

If the evidence doesn’t convince you one way or the other on a subject, then what is the belief based on?

Still not propelled by choice... I explained above in red, as it may include a cognitive bias and/or an emotional predisposition, which are still not propelled by free choice. Which means your Bible god is punishing (unbelievers and/or disbelievers) for something for which you actually have no choice in selecting.

Being convinced the Bible god is real seems to be a pre-requisite. And I'm not convinced; and it's not by choice.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

If one chooses not to evaluate certain evidence that could change their belief, why is this them not choosing to maintain their current belief? If a flat earther decides to not look at the evidence and arguments against their belief, why is their continuing belief in a flat earth not a choice?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

If one chooses not to evaluate certain evidence that could change their belief, why is this them not choosing to maintain their current belief?

It's not merely about choice, but instead about free choice (uninfluenced by --- being convinced, or imbedded bias, or other). We've got two categories for belief going on here and neither is/are freely chosen:

1) We seem to agree that a belief <itself> is not a choice. Meaning, you cannot will a differing/alternative belief no matter how hard you try. Something new is required, which may convince you otherwise, to change your current mind. Meaning, a belief is not a choice influenced by ones' own power of will, nor by offers of reward, nor by threat. In this regard, belief itself is not a choice. (Which means that in this regard, we have no choice in the matter at all).

2) What you are instead referring to is "belief preservation", which often includes "actively avoiding, ignoring, or discrediting new evidence that contradicts existing beliefs, even when that evidence is credible. This cognitive bias causes people to hold onto beliefs despite evidence proving them wrong, often to avoid cognitive dissonance or to protect their ego." Belief preservation can also include "the psychological tendency to maintain established beliefs, attitudes, or opinions; even when presented with clear, credible, and contradictory evidence that disproves them. This is often called the "backfire effect." This cognitive bias causes individuals to ignore, minimize, or reinterpret evidence that threatens their existing worldview, allowing them to remain steadfast in their original thinking."

And as I expressed in the prior response in red, apprehension to new evidence, felt experiences, or underlying emotions/biases are not freely chosen characteristics And in this case, to handwave new evidence, (to hold to an existing belief), is not really freely chosen either. (Which means that in this particular matter, we do not have free choice).

***************************************************

Option 2) can apply to anyone, (both for believers or unbelievers), to a claim. Especially when it is a core belief, such as in politics and/or religion. The Bible states all know god exists, based upon observed surroundings; which means the Bible writer is accusing unbelievers of not being earnest. Just like I may accuse others of handwaving (points/evidence/other) to maintain their belief(s). Both sides are accusing the other side of avoidance to their own reality. But in reality, both sides might just be 'backfiring', which would not be a free choice.

In this particular case, if the unbeliever does not confess with their mouth that Jesus is X,X,Z, (s)he is apparently condemned. However, if true, the 'backfire effect' is beyond one's free choice anyways. Hence, Jesus would be condemning someone who rejects evidence beyond their own free choice -- (as explained above and also prior).

This is why debate opponents never take the side of their interlocutor. This is also why I already know I'm never going to change the mind of my interlocutor. My responses are instead for the observing passive and open audience to consider.

If a flat earther decides to not look at the evidence and arguments against their belief, why is their continuing belief in a flat earth not a choice?

See above....