Are you saying there is no such thing as belief, just acceptance of information to support a position? Seems like that would be a reasonable definition for belief, and this is just a discussion of semantics.

Also, accepting information as true/untrue/otherwise is a choice, isn't it?

Just because a person may not always choose what information they are exposed to, doesn't mean that they don't have a choice to accept/decline/otherwise that information. This might not including childhood, where one doesn't have the mental awareness to be discerning.

You haven't revealed anything profound, merely a weakness of language whereupon a common language construction can be misinterpreted if interpreted syntactically correct.

What the OP implicitly asks is "are beliefs chosen?", not "is belief a choice?" as in "is a cat an animal?"

Was this in response to me? I do believe there is such a thing as belief

It can involve acceptance of information (ie: i believe the information or not). It doesn't have to. One can believe something without information at all.

No. I can analyse the information, evaluate the information, weigh the pros and cons, and then reflect on whether I accept the information as true. I can choose how to go about analysing the info, but I don't believe I can choose whether to accept it or not. Neither can I choose whether I am undecided about the information. I can just keep on digging until I find that I am no longer undecided.

Try it: take any bit of information and try to choose to accept it or not. (I mean really accept or reject it - not treat it as true or false for the sake of an argument.

Again: try it: take every sentence I've written here and try to a) accept it, then reject it. can you just switch on or off which approach you take?

Interesting. My brain hurts. Looking forward to more discussion and brain-muddling thought.

I think others (dietDrThunder and especially Arouet) have expanded on what I was trying to say (and much better). I think as far as choice goes, beliefs are thoroughly distinct from the course taken to reach them.

Why does the evidence have to be either compelling or controlling?

How do you know God didn't structure creation in such a way that your decision to believe or not isn't or shouldn't be based on your creation/evolution opinion/evaluation?

I agree with all of this.

One question:

Do you think that you still do this to a certain extent? The reason I ask is there have been many times where someone suggested a book for you to read, and you told them you're pretty busy but will try to get to it when you can.

Have you read any books suggested to you by atheists on this site?

Please don't take this as me accusing you of not letting opposing idea in, because I'm not. I just get the feeling that there's still a filter there, but instead of only letting in opposing ideas the size of a grain of sand, you now let in opposing ideas the size of a small rock. But the boulders are still filtered.

Is this an unfair assessment, in your opinion?

I think that if we are all honest that we would have to admit that we all do this to an extent. I know that I do. I think that the biggest difference is that I know try to balance what I read (mostly internet not books). We are always going to be drawn to what we find most interesting and we all have only a limited amount of time. I don't read many books at all. So if I am going to be looking for a book to read I am going to want read something that is very interesting. So I prioritize what I am reading. Books are just not likely for me to get to due to the structure of my life. So to some extent to you are forced to filter what you are reading/learning.

Now when it comes to links, I have read just about everything that I have been linked to by people that I respect (OrP links me to things all the time that I always read).

But there is a point where you need to cut it off. For example, my father is always trying to get me to read/watch stuff pro-YEC. I have gotten to the point that I will not take the time. I do not feel that it is a legitimate enough belief either scientifically or biblically to waste any time on. Now I did not come to this conclusion dogmatically or arbitrarily but through research.

So I think that you have to be careful with the "choose your belief" position as I don't think that it is fair to ask anyone to spend all of their time on the opposing position, only that you spend some time before coming to a firm conclusion.

So let is take Jibnija's personal story. For various reasons he has ended up in RGT and SMP. He probably likes poker, probably likes discussing stuff on forums, familiar with the net, wanting to talk about his religion with others and as such he got exposed to athiest views and scientific views about the age of the universe in a way that his father didn't. It is quite an unrelated set of circumstances that led him to be in a position to reject his precious beliefs. His father, on the other hand, ended up with the same starting point of evidence from a very different context: his son sending him the links. It is not at all surprising to me that different reactions come from that. Further, it isn't at all clear that jibs even as the more one mind of the two, it is theoretically possible that jibs would be even more closed minded than his father but got the advantage of context that twoplustwo provides which, if nothing else, can be said that it actively challenges people's beliefs.

You're a snob then only reading people you "respect".

I'd read Tozer on human reason's inability to reason it's way to God.

And I'd think twice about surrendering my own reasoning faculty to any other person whether I respect them or not. That's how you fall under the influence of the traditions of men.

it isn't closed minded to accept some form of filtering mechanism for what information one consumes. We don't have time to process everything, and using links from people you respect is a pretty great way to filter out the bad and keep the good. One could spend weeks going over 9/11 conspiritard links for instance...or one can say that this isn't a fruitful endeavor after some time.

No we don't have time to process everything but belief could be like poker.

Everyone has his own style.

You can be a copy or you can be an original.

It is not always closed minded to filter, but filtering your input is exactly what can make you closed minded. It has to do with the nature and intent of your filtering. If you are motivated to have a belief for personal benefit and choose only to consider sources that reinforce that belief so as to overcome your contrary impulses, you have chosen your belief. Trying to say you didn't is a rationalization, probably to cover your lingering concerns that you may actually be responsible for the outcome. Dodging responsibility for one's life and choices seems to be important to some people. If you are fully confident in your stance, you would simply accept it as a choice and be done with it.

Maybe that was sloppy wording, but I did not mean that I only read people that I respect, but that I only read the links posted by people I respect. I respect OrP so I know that if he is linking to something it is worth a read.

Your father may be God's original.

I'd give him equal time even if you don't agree with everything.

When you say you accord a non-believer more respect than a believer that concerns me. Because you have everything to lose.

Read this whole page but especially the bottom commentaries.
http://bible.cc/colossians/2-8.htm

Science is a construction of men like philosophy. It's useful. It doesn't mean science is all knowing.

I don't accept free will, so I assume the question proceeds on a stipulation of free will generally existing.

Probably the first thing to do is distinguish between belief and acceptance (I've seen the distinction drawn by people better qualified than me; I'm not just making stuff up here). Belief is the mental state of considering a proposition to be true. Acceptance is a behaviour pattern consistent with a belief.

The next distinction to draw is between direct and indirect choice - and this has been covered earlier ITT so I'll make it as quick as I can. The direct choice of a belief would imply that I could simply 'flick a switch' and instantly hold a belief that the total number of coins in my pocket is even. The indirect choice of a belief would imply that while I may hold a belief about the number of coins in my pocket, I can choose to investigate the issue. If I believe the number of coins in my pocket is even, but on emptying my pocket and counting them I find it is odd, then supposedly I would have chosen to (indirectly) alter my belief.

Few people argue for direct choice of beliefs. In my experience on this forum, it's typically theists who do so, and typically they end up arguing for direct choice of acceptance rather than of belief - I've seen Pletho and (I believe) Hardball47 do this, and I think it's essentially what Doggg is doing also.

Many more people argue for indirect choice; as far as I can see this is tame's position. It is certainly true (assuming free will generally) that one can choose freely to investigate this or that line of argumentation or evidence in favour of a given proposition. But to say that in doing so we have 'chosen' the precise outcome is not justifiable, IMO. If we put various other mental experiences, generally accepted as non-voluntary, through the same process we find what seem to me like absurdities.

If a theist chooses to read an argument against atheism and as a result his belief-state is changed, we would then say that he has 'indirectly chosen' to alter his belief. But if someone chooses to read a novel and likes it, would we say the reader 'indirectly chose' to enjoy the book? Since we can imagine that the reader might not have enjoyed the book, would we say he had 'indirectly chosen' not to have enjoyed it, had that been the case? As I see it, the choice is direct, but it is a choice to allow one or the other to happen - either to enjoy or not enjoy the novel, or to be convinced or not convinced by the argument.

Then there is the converse example - people who firmly refuse to contemplate anything that might alter their belief about something. As far as I'm concerned, much the same reasoning applies. They are choosing not to allow themselves either to be convinced or not convinced by arguments or evidences.

I can choose to flip a coin, but the entire practice of doing so is centred on the fact that I cannot choose which side will land up. I don't think I've done a terribly good job of explaining it, but that is why the indirect choice model seems incoherent to me.

Nice post Mr All-In Flynn. I think that is what i would think if i was wicked smart.

I agree with all that is said in this post. That being said I still mantain that beliefs are chosen.

So why do I say this when there is some ambiguity present? Because the most important issue is that beliefs are not formed without choice. Thus it becomes more correct to say that they are chosen than to say they are not.

To somehow say that beliefs are not chosen creates a cushion whereupon a believer can rest comfortably knowing he has no choice in the matter. Now...this is not what the opponents of "direct choice" (as you call it) mean...but it is what their statements are going to imply when ignorant people are done with them.

So...why won't I just say "it depends?": We live in a forum where the academic usage of the word "theory" is still being misinterpreted (likely purposefully) by notable posters. I see no reason to create more ambiguity...and since there is definitely choice involved in the formation of belief (given that you aren't prisoner in some horrid psychological experiment), I'll just stick to saying that beliefs are chosen.

Other than that...sure, a person who is determinist can argue that there is no choice...and then he can meet someone who believes in free will and there will be much disagreement and gnashing of teeth, and absolutely nothing of substance as a result. Free will or not....selection puts you on the bus...and if you're a glorified pinball machine or a walking deus ex machina is probably best dealt with as a separate issue....you're still going somewhere.

Yes OrP is very knowledgable and helpful.

But your father's like an old book.

In C.S. Lewis' intro to Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word, Lewis writes:

"There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about "isms" and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.
This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.
Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them."

Rest of the intro here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_0

So, let's say I devised the perfect instrument for measuring beliefs, so you can't fool me that you believe something while in fact you don't. I tell you I'd give you $1 billion if you started believing that Santa Clause exists. How would you go about choosing to believe that?

You're asking him about direct choice, though - tame's arguing for indirect choice.

(I think) tame's position might be better phrased in terms of responsibility than choice; a lifelong smoker does not choose to get cancer, but is undoubtedly responsible in large part for having done so - choices made by that person led to that outcome.

He's answering the question "is belief a choice" with "yes". If it is an indirect choice, then you can't really say that beliefs are a choice (which I addressed in my previous response to him). But even if it's an indirect choice, I am still curious how one would indirectly choose to believe in Santa Clause.

I have only said (to use an analogy) that jumping off cliffs implies choice and thus incurs personal responsibility for the outcome. I haven't said you can choose which way you fall, so your question is somewhat moot.

What is important is that I claim it is wrong to say the landing was not chosen. "Kind of" might be the best answer...but "yes" can be reasonably argued..whereas "no" is always wrong.

To answer the dilemma; That you can propose a (hypothetical) outcome that is not attainable , does not under any circumstance imply lack of choice...it merely means the choices can't lead to that outcome. Lack of wheat bread in the shops doesn't imply that you can't choose bread.

Why did you go to personal responsibility? I don't think this is the topic of this thread. Otherwise, I agree that we have personal responsibility for making the necessary steps in informing ourselves so our beliefs have a higher likelihood of being true.

But in the context of religion, I think the question in this thread is whether you can choose to believe something regardless of what information you have. For example, can you choose to believe that god exists despite all the lack of evidence? No. You will remain an unbeliever, no matter how hard you try to believe.

Believing itself is a very passive process. You can only choose to take actions to investigate an issue. You can keep investigating for the rest of your life, but all this time your beliefs are going to be slaves of what you found as evidence for and against them.

Belief is not a passive process. There is constant activity in your brain...and when there isn't...you're dead.

To use an analogy...belief is more similar to an beehive than a football (which is in itself a poor analogy, because like an physicist can probably tell us...a football is actually also a system of constant interaction).

We make and change beliefs all the time...we make mental schema and we adjust them. That car moved a little faster, let's stop...that pizza was hot, let's wait...we exist in a constant state of interaction within the parts that are us and the world around us...and we use schemas and beliefs to relate to that world, and if we couldn't chose them based on experience...we couldn't live.

Some are merely rooted abit more firmly...like always wearing jeans, it might come to the point it even defines you as a person...but it's still a belief, and it still buzzes around in your mind and you can always choose to challenge it - regardless if you in the end won't change your mind.