Belief a CHOICE?

A number of folks on these boards are saying or at least implying that they can consciously CHOOSE to believe things. If you are one of them perhaps one of you can help me. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?
Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron." So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

I think the leprechaun thing is a bad example. That is more asking people to force a belief, even if they don't really believe it. I don't mean to be offensive on this but a much better example is the bible. If you look at the bible from a critical thinking stand point...it is a story about an invisible man in the sky that hasn't spoken to anybody in thousands of years. And this invisible man 2000 years ago impregnated a girl with himself, she then gave birth to him. Then he later died so that your sins would be forgiven...by him. And yet you believe in the bible right? Maybe you believe because the bible tells you to believe, maybe you believe because you feel it in your heart. Some people choose to rely on their critical thinking.

Other good examples include evolution, or dinosaurs. Evolution is a theory, a strong scientific theory, but still just a theory. And there are people choose to believe in it or not believe in it. Dinosaurs, despite the countless artifacts of evidence, are still disputed by many Christians, because they choose to believe they did not exist.

Your critique hinges on the false assumption that "choice" indicates something instantaneous, or something done without reason or forethought. Obviously folks aren't going to just believe in leprechauns because you ask them to; there's no good reason for doing so. The main point people are trying to make when they refer to choice in reference to their beliefs is that belief involves free will. We are not forced to believe. It involves a conscious act of the will.

I never chose to believe. I feel as though my belief has been forced upon me. All creation around me pointed upward.

I think that is how belief begins. Perhaps for some it does resemble what we would call a choice, but the way we see things has to be changed in some way (physically or metaphysically) before we can consciously say we believe them.

Saul_Durian,

re: "I think the leprechaun thing is a bad example.

If beliefs can be obtained by simply CHOOSING to have them, then any example is legitimate.
　


re: "That is more asking people to force a belief, even if they don't really believe it."

That’s a contradictory statement.
　


re: "And yet you believe in the bible right?"

Any beliefs that I have regarding scripture were not obtained by my consciously CHOOSING to have them. As I said in the OP, I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I possess.
　


re: " Dinosaurs, despite the countless artifacts of evidence, are still disputed by many Christians, because they choose to believe they did not exist."

How do you know that they consciously CHOSE those beliefs?

I think rstrats is on to something here, but I'm just not sure of where you're going with this. I'm afraid we're about to go down Psychology Alley.

NickInCali,
　
re: "Your critique hinges on the false assumption that ‘choice’ indicates something instantaneous..."
　
It has to be instantaneous. You can’t believe that something doesn’t exist AND at the same time believe that the same something does exist. There has to be an instant when the one state of mind changes to the other.
　
　
　
re: "...folks aren't going to just believe in leprechauns because you ask them to..."

I don’t know why not. If they can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, they can simply just go ahead and do it.
　
　

re: "...there's no good reason for doing so."

Their reason for doing so is to demonstrate - in realtime - an ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe things so that I can at least see that it can be done. That is the reason that I started this topic.

He calls his children they know his voice they choose to follow or not

Everything we do is according to the foreknowledge of God - therefore, we cannot truly change history (the one already made by God) - therefore, we do not have any true "free will" choice.

　
Yes, but I say leprechaun is a bad example, because not many people actually believe in them. That would be like asking you to believe elephants can transform into cars. It is not an easy thing to grasp, or validate. People know it isn't true. I can't choose to believe something I know is bogus.


　
I know, that was the point.


You read the bible, went to church whatever. At one point you must have chosen that the scripture is the truth. You choose to believe the scripture every time someone speaks against it. You chose to accept Christ.



They must have chose what to believe, humans are not pre-programmed with a belief structure. Brain-washed, maybe, but not pre-programmed.



But I think I know what you are trying to say. You believe in the scripture and Christianity because you don't see any other truthful alternative.

Yea this one always gets me, and is one of the biggest reasons I question religion. If God knows everything and has a plan that cannot be deviated from...then what is the point of offering salvation? It is already ordained what the outcome to all things will be.

Not exactly. There could, of course, be a time when you're in intellectual limbo about a topic and aren't sure what to believe. Being convinced of something quite frequently occurs over time as you reason through the pros and cons of the thing. Yes, there will come a time when you positively believe it, but it rarely occurs out of the clear blue sky. And again, it doesn't occur contrary to one's free will.
　
Really? You really have no idea why someone wouldn't just start believing something simply because you ask them to, for no other reason than your own whim?

You're trying to tear down a straw man here. Just because someone COULD hypothetically believe something, doesn't mean they would or should. People believe things for reasons (even if those reasons may ultimately be fallacious or illogical), beyond just waking up one day and deciding to.
　

This is rather arbitrary. Your only reason for suggesting someone should believe in leprechauns is to satisfy your morbid curiosity about how belief works? Sorry, you're gonna have to do better than that. Involving choice or free will in faith doesn't reduce to believing anything for any reason.

This is not exactly true. God's choice to allow history to play out as it has could have been predicated on His foreknowledge of how His creatures would act in given situations. This is referred to in theology as "middle knowledge." I suggest a little reading on Molinism, if you want to study the topic in further depth.

...the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame, 12 for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. 13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.


14 But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! 16 But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ. 18 But I ask, "Did they not hear?" Yes, they did:
Their voice has gone out to all the earth,

and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.

19 But I ask, "Did Israel not understand?" First, Moses said:

I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;

I will make you angry by a nation that lacks understanding.

20 And Isaiah says boldly:

I was found by those who were not looking for Me;

I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me.

21 But to Israel he says: All day long I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and defiant people.

(Romans 10:11-21)



How can they receive salvation if they don't hear the Gospel? But, in fact, everyone knows there is a God. How Christ will exactly judge, I'm not exactly sure. But I know that no one can come to the Father except through Him (John 14:6).



So, should we just sit back and let God do His thing? No - He accomplishes He purposes through us, just as He did with the Israelites before.

I actually have, and I used to embrace the doctrine. Now, I reject it, because it's not Biblical - or at least I cannot see how it is Biblical at all. I understand William Lane Craig hold to the doctrine, but He adds philosophy into it - we "have" to have free will because it wouldn't be "fair" for God to have a set plan for history.



To tell the truth, I would be a bit worried if my God had this "middle knowledge." He's not all sovereign, He's just all knowing.

I'm sorry to inform you of this, but Molinism is purely philosophy and has no scriptural grounding. In fact, when one reads portions of the bible (isaiah 10 for example) we see that such a thing as Molinism couldn't work biblically.

"Sovereignty is God's absolute and exclusive right to exercise authority in the universe (I Chron 29:11-12; I Sam 2:6-8; Psa 50:10-11)."

Is a pretty standard interpretation on what the bible says on God's sovereignty. God isn't just omniscient he is omnipotent.

"Peter 2:21 says of evildoers, "It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them." Jeremiah 42:19-22 also shows that if you are not determined to obey God, you are better off not asking what God’s will is. So in judgment not only is the amount of evil a factor, but also how much truth a one has."

I haven't actually read anything on Molinsim. I have a text of it around here somewhere, I think I only got about 1 or 2 pages in. It might not have any biblical grounding, but is it any good?

See 1 Peter 1 and Romans 8, where election/predestination are said to be based on God's foreknowledge.

And he's absolutely right in holding such a view. This has always been the Achilles heel of Calvinism (or any system that rejects free will). God ceases to be just in any meaningful sense if mans freedom is not acknowledged.


So wait, you deny that God even POSSESSES middle knowledge, at all? In doing so you're basically denying God's omniscience. Middle knowledge is just a subset of Gods knowledge of all things, past, present, and future, as well as all things actual and possible. For an example of middle knowledge in the Bible, see where Jesus chides Bethsaida in the Gospels, by saying that if He had performed the miracles He did for them in Sodom and Gomorrah, those cities WOULD HAVE repented. This is a textbook example of middle knowledge.

Middle knowledge does not threaten Gods sovereignty at all.