Givens and Doxastic Voluntarism

[_brade]

Doxastic Voluntarism is the view that we have some control over what we believe. As just stated this seems uncontroversial. That broad view can be disambiguated into two narrower views - Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism (IDV) and Direct Doxastic Voluntarism (DDV).

Roughly, on IDV we have indirect control of some of our beliefs by directing our behaviors (e.g. to study a certain topic and evaluate certain evidence). DDV says what you might expect, that we have direct control over at least some of our beliefs.

From reading Letter to a Doubter, does anyone else get the sense that Givens embraces something at least very close to DDV? If Givens does embrace DDV, and we assume it's true, what reason is there for us to voluntarily choose Mormon beliefs over other religious beliefs?

[_Darth J]

Putting on my mfbukowski hat, I am going to say, "Because it works!"

Leaving on my mfbukowski hat, I will not endeavor to address in what way the LDS version of Mormonism "works," nor how it "works" in a way that is superior to other ideologies.

Pictured: mfbukowski hat

[Guest]

Putting on my mfbukowski hat, I am going to say, "Because it works!"

Don't know about DV, but having listened to all 4 hours of him (Givens) on J. Dehlin (well there was part of the 3rd hour that didn't work) all I can say is his whole world view is balanced on the crumbling sandstone ledge of the LGT.

[_sock puppet]

Doxastic Voluntarism is the view that we have some control over what we believe. As just stated this seems uncontroversial. That broad view can be disambiguated into two narrower views - Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism (IDV) and Direct Doxastic Voluntarism (DDV).

Roughly, on IDV we have indirect control of some of our beliefs by directing our behaviors (e.g. to study a certain topic and evaluate certain evidence). DDV says what you might expect, that we have direct control over at least some of our beliefs.

From reading Letter to a Doubter, does anyone else get the sense that Givens embraces something at least very close to DDV? If Givens does embrace DDV, and we assume it's true, what reason is there for us to voluntarily choose Mormon beliefs over other religious beliefs?

DDV is embraced by LDS Inc.

LDS Inc teaches (yes, bcspace, I heard it from the mouth of an apostle the first week of my mission--but go ahead and do your reflexive denial) that you need to stay away from disbelievers, as they are testimony killers. That implies DDV. If a TBM exposes himself to anti-Mormon material, doesn't let it alone, it will lead to disbelief by the TBM too. Thus, we can control what we believe by avoiding anti-Mormon material and disbelievers.

Also, we can immerse ourselves in only reading the scriptures and Talmadge while on a mission. By choosing to limit what we will read and expose ourselves too, including staying away from other religion services and not engaging in Bible bashes, we DDV.

It went so far as that apostle suggesting that we act like we have a testimony even though he said we did not, and eventually on our missions we would actually develop one through having acted like we had one. DDV-behavorialism style.

But of course, defenders insist that there is no brain washing going on with Mormonism.

[Guest]

Doxastic Voluntarism is the view that we have some control over what we believe. As just stated this seems uncontroversial. That broad view can be disambiguated into two narrower views - Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism (IDV) and Direct Doxastic Voluntarism (DDV).

Roughly, on IDV we have indirect control of some of our beliefs by directing our behaviors (e.g. to study a certain topic and evaluate certain evidence). DDV says what you might expect, that we have direct control over at least some of our beliefs.

From reading Letter to a Doubter, does anyone else get the sense that Givens embraces something at least very close to DDV? If Givens does embrace DDV, and we assume it's true, what reason is there for us to voluntarily choose Mormon beliefs over other religious beliefs?

DDV is embraced by LDS Inc.

LDS Inc teaches...that you need to stay away from disbelievers, as they are testimony killers. That implies DDV.

I don't think so. At best that only implies some form of voluntarism.

If a TBM exposes himself to anti-Mormon material, doesn't let it alone, it will lead to disbelief by the TBM too. Thus, we can control what we believe by avoiding anti-Mormon material and disbelievers.

This is a pretty good example of a case of IDV, not DDV.

Also, we can immerse ourselves in only reading the scriptures and Talmadge while on a mission. By choosing to limit what we will read and expose ourselves too, including staying away from other religion services and not engaging in Bible bashes, we DDV.

This is another good example of IDV, not DDV.

It went so far as that apostle suggesting that we act like we have a testimony even though he said we did not, and eventually on our missions we would actually develop one through having acted like we had one.

IDV again.

Here's what an extreme case of DDV would look like. In this very moment you choose to believe that the proposition "Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from ancient gold plates" is true.

Givens doesn't seem to advocate that type of extreme DDV, as far as I can tell. Rather, Givens seems to think that when the available evidence is just so such that the evidence itself doesn't compel one way or another one can choose to have a belief one way or another.

He further attaches some moral significance to the choice, but doesn't really flesh this out. What he seems to want to say is that because religious belief is a choice in this way, then it's morally praiseworthy to believe. If that is what he thinks, then if the evidence is just so, why is the choice to believe any more praiseworthy than a choice not to believe?

[_EAllusion]

Yes, Givens' arguments implicitly require him to accept hard doxastic voluntarism. Which is a highly dubious position, by the way. More specifically, he thinks that when the case for or against something is just close enough, you can choose to believe whatever you want. 1) No you can't. and 2) That's irrational. The proper thing to do is withhold judgement and say "I don't know." not pick a side.

[_EAllusion]

LDS Inc teaches (yes, bcspace, I heard it from the mouth of an apostle the first week of my mission--but go ahead and do your reflexive denial) that you need to stay away from disbelievers, as they are testimony killers. That implies DDV.

No it doesn't. It's pretty uncontroversial that information and social networks you are exposed to can alter your beliefs. It neither confirms nor denies that your beliefs are volitional. Doxastic in-volunteerism just assumes that your cognitive processes aren't chosen. You don't choose to believe there isn't an elephant in your room. It's just a natural consequence of your apprehension of the world. Such a view is perfectly consistent with this.

What you probably are thinking about is the fact that we can control out environment in such a way that it can influence the beliefs we ultimately have. So if I avoid contrary information to a given idea, that makes me more likely to believe that idea. This isn't something involunteerists disagree with. It's apparent. I actually find it wonky that Brade considers that a species of volunteerism.

[_brade]

Yes, Givens' arguments implicitly require him to accept hard doxastic voluntarism. Which is a highly dubious position, by the way. More specifically, he thinks that when the case for or against something is just close enough, you can choose to believe whatever you want. 1) No you can't. and 2) That's irrational. The proper thing to do is withhold judgement and say "I don't know." not pick a side.

My hunch here is that Givens is just sloppy in his use of "faith" and "belief". I'd like to question him on this because I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say that he means something more to do with the way you order your life and not to do with belief states and belief formation.

[_Darth J]

Putting on my mfbukowski hat, I am going to say, "Because it works!"

Don't know about DV, but having listened to all 4 hours of him (Givens) on J. Dehlin (well there was part of the 3rd hour that didn't work) all I can say is his whole world view is balanced on the crumbling sandstone ledge of the LGT.

His letter to an unbeliever thing certainly bears that out.

[_Darth J]

Rather, Givens seems to think that when the available evidence is just so such that the evidence itself doesn't compel one way or another one can choose to have a belief one way or another.

Among the problems in this line of thought is the huge question being begged by Givens (and others) about the claimed evidence for and against being essentially 50/50. The problem becomes much worse when you realize that what Givens claims to be evidence in favor of LDS truth claims would not be interpreted that way by anyone who was not already invested in believing that the Church is true. Givens is not looking at evidence to find the answer to a question. He is looking for evidence to arrive at a foregone conclusion.