Is belief a choice?

[Mr Walker]

Right, but you're not choosing to believe a certain proposition or not, you're deciding which would be the best choice given the beliefs you already hold.

And that is how people decide their religious preferences /beliefs, or an atheistic belief. Eg people chose a religion which both, makes sense to them, and seems to provide optimal outcomes for them. (whether those outcomes are actually real/valid or not is irrelevant in the choice of belief) Often children follow their parents' beliefs (in anything) because they have seen those beliefs work for their parents.

[Mr Walker]

I like to think of myself as an ethical vegan, although I will sometimes eat meat rather than argue with my wife. I did not choose to believe in the immorality of eating meat. I do choose not to consume meat. We can choose how we react to situations, we cannot arbitrarily choose what to believe. If that were so, then we could choose to believe something that we patently know is false. Some people actually do this. We see it times of disaster where a wife "knows" their husband is alive after the mine cave-in, or "knows" he's alive at sea. There may be some consolation in this kind of belief, but it is generally held to be a "bad thing". It's called self-delusion or wishful-thinking.

How then, if not by choice, did you conclude that eating meat was immoral/unethical? Did something physically force or compell you to take this position?

[Mr Walker]

You are led by the evidence, and you track the truth.

Then you make a logic based choice, but again you are not forced to make this particular choice. It is an informed, logical,(for you) free willed choice.

[Mr Walker]

Ethics refers to actions, either right or wrong. You can believe something, but act in a contrary manner. People do it all the time. So ethics are not beliefs. Ethics are actions based on moral beliefs, where you believe something is either good or bad/evil.

Can you choose moral beliefs? I don't think so, no more than you can choose to believe anything.

Ethics are ONLY value based beliefs. How we act, is not the basis of ethics but what we believe. Yes, humans act against their moral beliefs and ethics for many reasons (eg pressure from their wives) But the ethics remain mental values/beliefs.

The ONLY way to form and hold a moral or ethical position is to construct it. (Or we can borrow existing ones from our society, but we still have to choose to personally hold/accept them) This construction, or adoption, involves free willed choices about underlying core beliefs and values Eg a vegetarian might adopt that belief position, either because of the way they value and see animals in relation to man, OR because of the way they view sustainable living, where meat production is unsustainable for our earth.

[redhen]

How then, if not by choice, did you conclude that eating meat was immoral/unethical? Did something physically force or compell you to take this position?

By examining the logical arguments and seeing that they could not be defeated. This was not a choice but an assent to the conclusion of a logical argument where if you accept the premises, the conclusion must necessarily be true.

[Mr Walker]

It is certainly no "choice" in muslim countries, where BY LAW every child of a muslim is muslim, and where aposticy is punishable by death.

So what is the point of the question in that situation?

This goes to my point about religion, that the only line not to be crossed is the ability to freely choose a religion and freely leave it. Such a situation in some islamic countries is unaccptable in the modern world. (It used to be true for some christian countries in the past.) The only saving grace is that no society can compel a person's inner beliefs and values, only the outward appearance of them. MAny muslims in such countries are muslims in name only.

[Mr Walker]

By examining the logical arguments and seeing that they could not be defeated. This was not a choice but an assent to the conclusion of a logical argument where if you accept the premises, the conclusion must necessarily be true.

That assent is, by definition, a choice. You might also chose to act on emotive or instinctive reasoning. Even the choice to use logical reasoning is a choice. You have ASSENTED to an argument where you CHOSE to accept the premises. Another person might make very different choices based on the same scenario and evidences. (And you are also quite capable of making different choices in the same situation. )Logic cannot compel us, only inform us.

[Frank Merton]

Or, you might choose not to have boiled egg because you are vegan (not saying you are, just as an example of how this can be choice rather than preference.) And the belief that veganism is a 'better' dietary lifestyle is down to choice based on knowledge (or other beliefs).

I would say this "choice" is not really a free choice but one determined by your belief. A better example would be that on some particular day you think, "The hell with it, today I am going to have an egg." What appears to be a whim is really a free choice.

[Mr Walker]

I would say this "choice" is not really a free choice but one determined by your belief. A better example would be that on some particular day you think, "The hell with it, today I am going to have an egg." What appears to be a whim is really a free choice.

If he is capable of deciding, on a whim, to have an egg, then all previous decisons are also free willed.(Or he could not/would not be able to change his mind)

Belief is a factor in making choices, but it is not a compelling /forceful one, which physically prevents us from making other choices. If he was physically incapable of having anything other than oatmeal every day for breakfast; because he could not mentally consider/form any other choice, or because his body refused to take in any other food, or his hand refused to obey a command to life a boiled egg to his lips, then he would not have a free willed choice.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Almagest]

@ MW: At risk of this thread of going around in circles, I'd simply add that I don't think those conscious decisions about what to have for breakfast are made in the conscious mind. The article I posted a couple of pages ago demonstrated that the brain makes the decision before conscious deliberations have begun. I think other than that the debate is just a matter of semantics, whether the mind is one entity or many, whether it can be described as free or not, etcetera.

In regards to belief, sometimes it can be hard to relinquish belief in face of reason. I was a pretty hardcore Green when I was a lot younger (those teenage years in fact, where you're always sure you're right), and I grappled with nuclear power for a long while. It wasn't until I wrote an essay on the topic that I found the reasons for nuclear power in Australia were too convincing to reject. Eventually the conscious deliberations of my mind overpowered my subconscious feelings on the matter and my belief was forced to change. I am still open to evidence from both sides, but since it was a belief that I arrived at through reason, I have to accept that I might be in error. I didn't consciously choose to be pro-nuclear, but it wasn't unconscious either, it was a third way between my reason and my feelings. I have made the choice not to advocate strongly for nuclear power because I see that too many people are emotional about the issue. Fukushima was certainly a nail in the coffin for my side, but if people acted on thoughts alone it wouldn't be - they'd recognize that coal plants put out way more radioactive material than a nuclear reactor, and that the deaths from Three Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima don't even add up to one years worth of deaths from coal mining accidents.

[Frank Merton]

@ MW: At risk of this thread of going around in circles, I'd simply add that I don't think those conscious decisions about what to have for breakfast are made in the conscious mind. The article I posted a couple of pages ago demonstrated that the brain makes the decision before conscious deliberations have begun. I think other than that the debate is just a matter of semantics, whether the mind is one entity or many, whether it can be described as free or not, etcetera.

In regards to belief, sometimes it can be hard to relinquish belief in face of reason. I was a pretty hardcore Green when I was a lot younger (those teenage years in fact, where you're always sure you're right), and I grappled with nuclear power for a long while. It wasn't until I wrote an essay on the topic that I found the reasons for nuclear power in Australia were too convincing to reject. Eventually the conscious deliberations of my mind overpowered my subconscious feelings on the matter and my belief was forced to change. I am still open to evidence from both sides, but since it was a belief that I arrived at through reason, I have to accept that I might be in error. I didn't consciously choose to be pro-nuclear, but it wasn't unconscious either, it was a third way between my reason and my feelings. I have made the choice not to advocate strongly for nuclear power because I see that too many people are emotional about the issue. Fukushima was certainly a nail in the coffin for my side, but if people acted on thoughts alone it wouldn't be - they'd recognize that coal plants put out way more radioactive material than a nuclear reactor, and that the deaths from Three Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima don't even add up to one years worth of deaths from coal mining accidents.

The subconscious makes these decisions for us acting like staff, but we can override it consciously if we act before the decision is carried out. One can do the equivalent of leave standing orders that all decisions of a certain type are to be referred upstairs is one really wants to be bothered by all those trivial decisions. A lot depends on how good at being mindful one has become.

[Zaphod222]

This goes to my point about religion, that the only line not to be crossed is the ability to freely choose a religion and freely leave it. Such a situation in some islamic countries is unaccptable in the modern world.

Make that ALL islamic countries, and add also those Western countries where they have allowed muslim communities to establish their own sharia-ruled subcultures. There are plenty of reports of harassment including death threats against apostates in countries like the UK, France, and yes Australia.

The Middle Ages are closer to your doorstep than you think, and are getting closer with every boatload of "asylum seekers".

[Almagest]

The subconscious makes these decisions for us acting like staff, but we can override it consciously if we act before the decision is carried out. One can do the equivalent of leave standing orders that all decisions of a certain type are to be referred upstairs is one really wants to be bothered by all those trivial decisions. A lot depends on how good at being mindful one has become.

My thoughts exactly. Mindfulness increases the power and frequency of overriding our subconscious drives.

Make that ALL islamic countries, and add also those Western countries where they have allowed muslim communities to establish their own sharia-ruled subcultures. There are plenty of reports of harassment including death threats against apostates in countries like the UK, France, and yes Australia.

The Middle Ages are closer to your doorstep than you think, and are getting closer with every boatload of "asylum seekers".

All Islamic countries have capital punishment for Apostasy? Including Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia? Indonesia has no tolerance for violent extremists and handed down death penalties for the Bali Bombers. We don't have sharia subcultures in Australia. And we certainly don't have hordes of Muslims trying to invade and subvert the country, why would a terrorist risk failing their mission because their boat sank when they could probably enter the country legitimately on an Emirates flight?

[Zaphod222]

All Islamic countries have capital punishment for Apostasy? Including Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia? Indonesia has no tolerance for violent extremists and handed down death penalties for the Bali Bombers. We don't have sharia subcultures in Australia. And we certainly don't have hordes of Muslims trying to invade and subvert the country, why would a terrorist risk failing their mission because their boat sank when they could probably enter the country legitimately on an Emirates flight?

You are both missing the point and changing the subject.

Lets look at some of your confused comments.

Turkey and Malaysia do not have strict Shariah, but they apply the Sharia rule that it is impossible to leave islam. I.e. if you are Malay, you are born muslim in Malaysia, and even if you insist on leaving, you are still subject to islamic laws, and the police treats you accordingly. That applies also if for example you are a non-muslim woman and marry a muslim Malay. Your children will be muslim, if you want it or not. Inform yourself.

Indonesia is not a "muslim country", it is a muslim-majority country. Totally different thing. The state doctrine in Indonesia is not islam, it is Pancasila. Inform yourself. However, in areas like Aceh, where Shariah is enforced, the apostesy law does apply.

Yes, you do have muslim subcultures in Australia, although you are able to blissfully ignore them if you live in the right area. Enjoy it as long as you can.

And yes, you do have the same massive muslim immigration that other Western countries struggle with. However, you don´t need to obfuscate the issue with terrorism. Terrorism is only a tactic, not a goal in itself.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Zaphod222

[Almagest]

You are both missing the point and changing the subject.

Lets look at some of your confused comments.

Turkey and Malaysia do not have strict Shariah, but they apply the Sharia rule that it is impossible to leave islam. I.e. if you are Malay, you are born muslim in Malaysia, and even if you insist on leaving, you are still subject to islamic laws, and the police treats you accordingly. That applies also if for example you are a non-muslim woman and marry a muslim Malay. Your children will be muslim, if you want it or not. Inform yourself.

Do they behead those who leave the religion? I certainly don't see them in the same category as Iran and Saudi Arabia - or the post Arab Spring republics.

]Indonesia[/b] is not a "muslim country", it is a muslim-majority country. Totally different thing. The state doctrine in Indonesia is not islam, it is Pancasila. Inform yourself. However, in areas like Aceh, where Shariah is enforced, the apostesy law does apply.

It's also a country of about 300 million with a weak central government. I see that you're splitting the hair on what constitutes a muslim country.

Yes, you do have muslim subcultures in Australia, although you are able to blissfully ignore them if you live in the right area. Enjoy it as long as you can.

Sorry, I don't buy the tabloids Islamification nonsense. We don't ignore people who try to push their particular religious ideology on the rest of us, we push right back. Religious freedom is important to people in this country, and I don't see people throwing that out over Islam.

And yes, you do have the same massive muslim immigration that other Western countries struggle with. However, you don´t need to obfuscate the issue with terrorism. Terrorism is only a tactic, not a goal in itself.

Ahh yes, refugees fleeing hell holes are doing it as part of a conspiracy to subvert the West. You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

[Mr Walker]

@ MW: At risk of this thread of going around in circles, I'd simply add that I don't think those conscious decisions about what to have for breakfast are made in the conscious mind. The article I posted a couple of pages ago demonstrated that the brain makes the decision before conscious deliberations have begun. I think other than that the debate is just a matter of semantics, whether the mind is one entity or many, whether it can be described as free or not, etcetera.

In regards to belief, sometimes it can be hard to relinquish belief in face of reason. I was a pretty hardcore Green when I was a lot younger (those teenage years in fact, where you're always sure you're right), and I grappled with nuclear power for a long while. It wasn't until I wrote an essay on the topic that I found the reasons for nuclear power in Australia were too convincing to reject. Eventually the conscious deliberations of my mind overpowered my subconscious feelings on the matter and my belief was forced to change. I am still open to evidence from both sides, but since it was a belief that I arrived at through reason, I have to accept that I might be in error. I didn't consciously choose to be pro-nuclear, but it wasn't unconscious either, it was a third way between my reason and my feelings. I have made the choice not to advocate strongly for nuclear power because I see that too many people are emotional about the issue. Fukushima was certainly a nail in the coffin for my side, but if people acted on thoughts alone it wouldn't be - they'd recognize that coal plants put out way more radioactive material than a nuclear reactor, and that the deaths from Three Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima don't even add up to one years worth of deaths from coal mining accidents.

Yes I've read and seen a number of articles on the "discovery" that we act before intent is formed. However this is physically /biologically impossible hence the results are either being misinterpreted or misunderstood. For example one possibility is that we form an intent but the brain activity may not occur until we begin to act on the intent. (Which makes sense when we look at the work being done on remote brain/thought controlled operation of machinery)

While a great deal of work is being done on neuoroscience and cognition, we do not yet have all the answers. For example, darpa funded research indicates that all humans can "see" a few seconds into their future. Hence the brain is already aware of what is going to happen before it does, but this may not be obvious in our conscious mind. It is possible to access our subconscious minds and to link our conscious and subconscious thoughts deliberately, in many ways. Even if choices are made subconsciously, we retain the abilty to recognise this. We also retain the ability to overide our subconscious, with our conscious mind.

To me, your explanation of how you come at decisions makes perfect sense, but simply illustrates the embedded nature of free willed choice. Using all the abilities of your mind you make a decision/choice. Other choices are available to you but are not as rationally, logically, or emotionally, appealling.

If you did not have free willed choice you would neither be able to form these logical reasons/ arguments, or emotional reasonings in your mind, nor would you be free to act upon them in a variety of ways, even if you could form them.

[Mr Walker]

Make that ALL islamic countries, and add also those Western countries where they have allowed muslim communities to establish their own sharia-ruled subcultures. There are plenty of reports of harassment including death threats against apostates in countries like the UK, France, and yes Australia.

The Middle Ages are closer to your doorstep than you think, and are getting closer with every boatload of "asylum seekers".

I actually have no problem with democratic islamic countries, anymore than i do with democratic christian or buddhist countries. Democracy comes first . The only basic/non negotiable principle is that all adults in a democracy have a choice on how to believe and behave as long, as it does not harm others with different beliefs and behaviours.

Eg if you want to close down all shops on the sabbath, or regulate sports, dress, length of hair, access to education etc. based on religion, then you can only do so with those people who accept your regulation as part of their belief system. You can't impose it on others. And children form a different category, who are protected from harmful practices until they are adults.

As a society we prohibit people going nude in public. If a democratic society wants to have other dress codes, then I see no practical difference as long as they are part of democratic process.

[Mr Walker]

You are both missing the point and changing the subject.

Lets look at some of your confused comments.

Turkey and Malaysia do not have strict Shariah, but they apply the Sharia rule that it is impossible to leave islam. I.e. if you are Malay, you are born muslim in Malaysia, and even if you insist on leaving, you are still subject to islamic laws, and the police treats you accordingly. That applies also if for example you are a non-muslim woman and marry a muslim Malay. Your children will be muslim, if you want it or not. Inform yourself.

Indonesia is not a "muslim country", it is a muslim-majority country. Totally different thing. The state doctrine in Indonesia is not islam, it is Pancasila. Inform yourself. However, in areas like Aceh, where Shariah is enforced, the apostesy law does apply.

Yes, you do have muslim subcultures in Australia, although you are able to blissfully ignore them if you live in the right area. Enjoy it as long as you can.

And yes, you do have the same massive muslim immigration that other Western countries struggle with. However, you don´t need to obfuscate the issue with terrorism. Terrorism is only a tactic, not a goal in itself.

In australia, if a woman WANTS to use islamic dress, she is protected by law, and able to do so anywhere; at work or in public. If she does NOT want to, she is protected by the same law from harrassment or violence.

Of course not everyone obeys the law, but the point is, that the law treats people equally and gives them all equal rights. At present there is a court case which will prevent an islamic school from enforcing an islamic dress code on non islamic teachers. There have already been court cases which establish the right of a student or teacher in govt schools to wear islamic dress. It is about freedom of an individual's rights, balanced with society's expectations.

In australia one of the most basic rights in our constituion is the right to chose to belong to any religion, or to none. No one can prevent an adult from joining or leaving any religion, or obeying the tenets of that religion, except where those tenets might do harm, or overide other specific laws. So a church school (Or any other organisation) could not refuse to employ someone who was aboriginal (Or a woman) just because their religion/beliefs promoted such an act.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Mr Walker