Choosing to believe

[_krose]

The poster Kevin Sim has made some interesting comments in the "What do you say to missionaries" thread.

He has been writing about believing because he wants to believe, or choosing to believe because he doesn't want the world to not be guided by a god.

My question is, can you consciously, intentionally choose to believe (or not believe) something? I don't see how to do this. My beliefs are what they are because of many reasons, but I don't consciously choose them. I will come to believe something because the evidence I experience leads me to that belief, but it happens without me deciding to believe or disbelieve. I can pretend, but it's not genuine.

As an example, I once honestly believed that humans began when a god I called Elohim created a man he called Adam in a place they called the Garden of Eden. I believed this because it was the story I was taught since birth.

But then I began to learn a different explanation, one based on the observable evidence in the world. Gradually, the creation beliefs crumbled in the face of this overwhelming evidence, despite a real effort to resist (and even pretend for a while).

At this point I cannot see a way to put aside what I have learned and make myself believe the Adam story, no matter how much I want to, or others want me to. I just don't see how a person can honestly do that.

[Guest]

I think it depends on your personality and how much you know. I couldn't choose to believe now if I wanted to. Perhaps Kevin Sim can.

[_badseed]

It's been hard for me to choose to believe. I just don;t know that I could see the Church the same again. That said it's difficult to tell if I really have no option to choose at all or if my desire to choose to not believe is just that strong.

Honestly, I think it's hard to know our own hearts sometimes.

[_krose]

I think it depends on your personality and how much you know. I couldn't choose to believe now if I wanted to. Perhaps Kevin Sim can.

For me, just wanting to is not enough. I certainly didn't stop believing in Mormonism and other religions because I wanted to. It was quite the opposite. Coming out as a nonbeliever caused some unpleasant family problems.

But at this point it would take something coming along and overturning all the things I know now, because I can't just tell myself I don't know them, and knowing them is fatal to belief.

I suppose part of the problem is an inability, in the face of clear evidence, to radically modify certain details in order to salvage a vital core belief. For example, to hold on to divine creation by twisting it into something unrecognizable and awkward, such as guided evolution; or to squint really hard so that a tapir looks like a horse and an obsidian-lined stick becomes a fine steel sword.

[_thews]

The poster Kevin Sim has made some interesting comments in the "What do you say to missionaries" thread.

He has been writing about believing because he wants to believe, or choosing to believe because he doesn't want the world to not be guided by a god.

My question is, can you consciously, intentionally choose to believe (or not believe) something? I don't see how to do this. My beliefs are what they are because of many reasons, but I don't consciously choose them. I will come to believe something because the evidence I experience leads me to that belief, but it happens without me deciding to believe or disbelieve. I can pretend, but it's not genuine.

What you're describing is rational thought without a fear of consequence for rejecting what you're instructed to believe.

As an example, I once honestly believed that humans began when a god I called Elohim created a man he called Adam in a place they called the Garden of Eden. I believed this because it was the story I was taught since birth.

But then I began to learn a different explanation, one based on the observable evidence in the world. Gradually, the creation beliefs crumbled in the face of this overwhelming evidence, despite a real effort to resist (and even pretend for a while).

At this point I cannot see a way to put aside what I have learned and make myself believe the Adam story, no matter how much I want to, or others want me to. I just don't see how a person can honestly do that.

I understand your logic. While most believe organized religion is an all or nothing proposition, I don't believe it works that way. For example, I'm a Christian that doesn't believe in hell. If you ask me how I rationalize this, I would answer that if any religion were 100% ironclad based on evidence, one would be a fool to reject it, so there can't be a 100% "correct" answer based on the facts (though there can be 100% wrong answers based on the facts). If God only wanted one religion, then there would only be one religion, because what God wants God gets. Logically, God (if God exists) wants many religions. This, if accepted, then begs the question as to why. Since I'm not God, I can only surmise that there are things learned from each religion and God wants it that way, which is why I believe in Jesus Christ as God, but don't believe in certain aspects (like hell), because it doesn't make sense. If the purpose of life is to learn truth and consequence of rejecting truth, then the goal would be attained by having multiple religions.

In a nutshell, one can't choose to believe in something out of wanting it to be true. One can choose to believe in something out of fear of the consequence of rejecting it, which is what Mormonism uses to control, which is what a cult is all about. That being said, while blind acceptance of what one is told to believe doesn't make sense, matter just *appearing* to create the universe out of nothing also doesn't make sense, because *nothing* doesn't exist.

If an Atheist claims to reject belief in God, that's different than claiming to have weighed all evidence and concluded that God does not in fact exist, as it's most logical (based on fact) that God doesn't exist. This fine line between what defines an Agnostic vs. an Atheist is one I find interesting, as I see it more as a statement of how little fear one has in being incorrect in the answer. Logically, the Agnostic's stance is the most understanding of the entire factual base in my opinion, as it includes the origin of matter as a variable that can't be discounted and will never be explained using facts, as *something* cannot come from *nothing*, because *nothing* doesn't exist.

[_Some Schmo]

I think it depends on your personality and how much you know.

I agree with this. It depends on what you value more: truth or comfort.

If you value truth, you'll look for as much evidence as you can find and go where it leads you.

If you value comfort, you'll only acknowledge the evidence you want to see; whatever supports what you want to believe.

[_DarkHelmet]

Santa Claus is a good example. As a kid, I genuinely believed in a literal Santa Claus that lived at the North Pole with elves, traveled on a sleigh pulled by magical reindeer, and delivered toys to all the good children in the world. When I got older and became "learned" I began to doubt the literal Santa Claus story. These doubts were put into my head by older children, who used anti-santa propaganda such as the logistical impossibility of delivering toys to millions of children around the world in one night, and the scientific impossibility of flying reindeer. I became cynical of Santa Claus, and lost all belief as a teenager. I could not consciously force myself to believe Santa was real, no matter how much I wanted to. However, a few years later I became a Santa believer again. I really did want to believe in Santa. There is so much good that comes from him. But I modified my belief. I no longer needed to believe in a literal Santa, but instead I believe in the spirit of Santa. All those things I used to literally believe as a kid I now see as symbolic of the true meaning of the christmas season. So if you really want to believe in something, you can find a way.

[_krose]

In a nutshell, one can't choose to believe in something out of wanting it to be true. One can choose to believe in something out of fear of the consequence of rejecting it, which is what Mormonism uses to control, which is what a cult is all about.

That's interesting. So what you are saying is that this fear operates at a lower, subconscious level to promote clinging to the belief in the face of contrary evidence?

[_brade]

I think it's clearly not true that we can directly choose to sincerely believe that something is or is not the case. I do think we can more directly choose directions of pursuit, and, thereby, we can prime our minds for better or worse reception to certain beliefs.

[_zeezrom]

I would choose to believe in as much Mormonism as possible if I could find participation enriching and meaningful.

I can't believe I just said that. Let me think about it before I seal this in my Book of the Lord.