Belief is not a choice

Last week I shared in the Skepticule Facebook group an article from Unbelievable? about an atheist woman who had become a theist (specifically a Christian, since Unbelievable? is a branch of Premier, which is a Christian organisation). My objection to the article was mainly that it was entirely based on the erroneous idea that belief is a choice. There followed this exchange (my comments in black, DWM's in blue):

David Ward Miller
Belief is not a choice?
Disbelief is not a choice?
Atheists who belief and Christians who disbelieve are not making a choice?
Is this a reference to no free will?
Please clarify, thx.
• 3 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller Can you choose to believe that two plus two equals five? Can you choose to believe the Moon is made of cream cheese? If you claim to believe something is true, or to believe that some specific thing exists, you are basing your belief on your experience related to that thing. I cannot look at a red tomato and choose to believe that it is, in fact, a purple pineapple.
 
Free will — or its lack — doesn't come into this. As an atheist I don't have a choice whether I believe in any deity. My disbelief in God is based on my epistemology — on how I can know things are true or not true. I don't claim that there are no gods, only that I have so far found no reason to believe that there are any. If I came across a reason that was sufficiently convincing, I would have no choice but to believe.
 
Some people may have a 'gut feeling' that something is true — others may be justifiably skeptical of the gut's reliability. When describing what and how they believe, some people resort to extensive use of metaphor (the article linked in the OP is an example of this). Metaphors are fine, until those using them mistake the metaphors for reality. The map is not the territory.
• 2 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
That was a lot of words to say you made the choice to believe there is no evidence for God. The highly intelligent atheist (at least equal to your intelligence) took a deep dive in the evidence and came to be a theist.
• 2 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller May I suggest you re-read my comment?
 
I did not make a choice to believe there is no evidence for God. I haven't stated there's no evidence for God. What I stated was: "I don't claim that there are no gods, only that I have so far found no reason to believe that there are any." I didn't choose to find no reason to believe. Indeed I stated that if I found convincing evidence I would have no choice but to believe. The fact that this former atheist (in the article) apparently found some evidence to believe is of very little use to me, since that evidence either wasn't presented, or wasn't evidence.
 
Clearly you think that belief is a choice. I don't, and as requested I've attempted to clarify why.
• 2 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Thx for responding.
//Indeed I stated that if I found convincing evidence I would have no choice but to believe. The fact that this former atheist (in the article) apparently found some evidence to believe is of very little use to me, since that evidence either wasn't presented, or wasn't evidence.//
 
I think you make my point. You would make a choice if the evidence was compelling to you. It is not. For her it is compelling so she choose to believe. You have “chosen” to reject that evidence as is not compelling to you. You made a choice to not accept that evidence while she did. 
 
—You believe the evidence supports naturalism world view without any deity. A choice. 

—She believes the evidence supports a theistic world view, changing her mind from atheism. A choice. 
—Other Christian’s look at the evidence and deconstruct believe there is insufficient reason to believe in any deity so believe the universe has no Creator or Designer deity. A choice.
 
Beliefs are a choice.
• 2 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
I think we are differing on our understanding of the word 'belief', and it may only be a matter of degree. My understanding is that a belief is the acceptance or acknowledgement that a statement is true, i.e. that it aligns with reality, with how things actually are, rather than aligning solely with, for example, speculation or hypothesis. Incidentally such a belief might be true, but if it's a belief not based on evidence it is therefore not justified, and therefore cannot be counted as knowledge.
 
One can choose one's standards of evidence, in the sense of deciding that certain criteria have to be satisfied in order to accept that something is true or is likely to be true, but that's a choice of standards, not a choice of belief. Belief comes automatically once those criteria are satisfied. If they are not satisfied, then for me no amount of 'choosing' will result in belief. This is why I say that I don't believe in the existence of any gods. Not because I actively believe that there are no gods, but because my criteria have yet to be satisfied.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Perhaps it’s a difference in semantics. 
 
You now say your standards for compelling evidence are better than hers—no god(s).

She says her standards are better than yours—God. 

Both choices.
 
By your definition of belief you attempt to avoid it and those who disagree with you do believe. 
 
It seems you do actively believe there is no deity. You even passionately fight for that belief. I respect that too. But you made a choice in your “belief” there is no deity. 
 
What you believe in—your world view—excludes any deity. That belief of what you deem as true is a personal choice in my opinion. Her world view includes God and is a choice as she changed her opinion. 
 
Choice is the issue here.
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"You now say your standards for compelling evidence are better than hers—no god(s)."
 
I haven't said this. Nor do I know what her standards are — the article doesn't state them.
 
"It seems you do actively believe there is no deity."
 
This is the exact opposite of what I thought I stated — to be clear, I do not actively believe there are no gods. I am merely reserving belief until my evidential criteria are satisfied.
 
As for "passionately fighting" for my belief, I merely stated that belief is not a choice, and in response to your first comment I explained why. And my worldview doesn't actively exclude anything — it's open to anything that meets my standards of evidence for its existence. It's true that I've chosen those standards based on my understanding of their validity, but my belief in the truth-value of anything that is tested against them is dependent on the result of that test, independent of choice.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
So the standards of evidence for what we believe is a choice, not the belief that results from those standards? 
 
What do you believe based upon whatever? 
Are those beliefs not then a choice? 
What does she believe based upon whatever? 
Are those beliefs not then a choice?
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"So the standards of evidence for what we believe is a choice, not the belief that results from those standards?"
 
That's how I see it. If a belief is the result of something else (in this case 'standards of evidence') that same belief can't also be a direct result of choice. Therefore belief itself is not a choice. Which is why I can't choose to believe what the Moon is made of. I can, however, choose to accept certain standards of evidence, and if evidence meeting those standards convincingly suggests that the Moon is not made of cream cheese I have no choice but to believe it.
 
If you're extending the idea of 'choice' to cover absolutely everything we do, then I suppose you could legitimately maintain that belief is a choice, because everything in that scenario is a choice, by definition. But then choice becomes a meaningless concept because it fails to distinguish anything from anything else.
• 1 d
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
So what belief is based on is the choice. That clarifies what you think. 
 
Is is fair to say you believe your standards of evidence are valid and believe her standards are not valid or insufficient. I’m not addressing the specific standards, just the comparison. 
 
So you both can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently based upon your interpretation which is based upon “standards”?
• 1 d
Paul S Jenkins
Author
Admin
David Ward Miller
"So you both can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently based upon your interpretation which is based upon “standards”?"
 
Standards of evidence, yes. But belief itself is not an act of will. I don't choose to believe one way or the other — what I believe is the result of what evidence I accept as valid.
• 23 h
David Ward Miller
Paul S Jenkins
Interesting.
//Belief is not an act of the will//
 
I’m on the road… will ponder this.
• 23 h

Jason Lisle doesn't know everything (and neither do I)

Jason Lisle, presup creationist, has a blog. He recently posted an article espousing the "How do you know?" tactic when dealing with unbelievers. His egregious assertions, I felt, deserved similar treatment:

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 7, 2013 at 6:57 am

The Christian worldview alone makes it possible for us to answer these questions and have genuine knowledge. This is because knowledge stems from the nature of God (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3).

How do you know this?

[Dr. Lisle: God has revealed it in His Word. Did you not read the verses?]

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 19, 2013 at 2:12 pm

How do you know the words are true?

[Dr. Lisle: If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.]

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 21, 2013 at 9:22 am

“If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.”

It’s possible to know things without justification.

[Dr. Lisle: In logic and philosophy, knowledge is actually defined as "true, justified belief." So it is impossible to have knowledge without justification. You can have beliefs without justification, but not knowledge.]

For example, I know that I am thinking (whatever “I” might be defined as), and I’m certain of that — it’s self evident.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that? How do you know that you are the one doing the thinking? If you cannot even define "I" then how can you be certain that "I think?"]

Also, I know that I don’t know everything, and I’m certain of that too.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that you don't know everything? Unless you know everything, how can you be certain that what you think you know is actually true, and therefore "known?" By the way, I agree with your belief that you don't know everything. But I maintain that you can't really know even that without relying upon Christian principles.

This is also self evident (that is, the contrary is impossible).

[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]

In those two examples, my certain knowledge is independent of anything other the existence of the entity referred to as “I”,

[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]

therefore it is false to say that it depends on the truth of particular words of scripture (or anything else, for that matter).

[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]

I didn't see Lisle's final responses immediately, but when I got around to addressing them he had closed off comments on his blogpost. So I didn't get a chance to counter-respond, and his action in arbitrarily guillotining all comments has resolved me not to comment on anything else he writes on his blog.

Nevertheless, the weakness of his final responses needs pointing out.

[Dr. Lisle: In logic and philosophy, knowledge is actually defined as "true, justified belief." So it is impossible to have knowledge without justification. You can have beliefs without justification, but not knowledge.]

Despite Lisle's comment, it is possible to have knowledge without justification. Here's the definition of axiom: "A self-evident or universally recognized truth." If it's self-evident, I don't need justification, or evidence, to support it.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that? How do you know that you are the one doing the thinking? If you cannot even define "I" then how can you be certain that "I think?"]

I didn't claim that I was was the one doing the thinking. I merely claimed that an entity designated by "I" was thinking. It doesn't matter who or what that entity is — it is irrefutably thinking.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that you don't know everything? Unless you know everything, how can you be certain that what you think you know is actually true, and therefore "known?" By the way, I agree with your belief that you don't know everything. But I maintain that you can't really know even that without relying upon Christian principles.]

Lisle is asking me how I know that I don't know everything. Really? He's suggesting that I could be mistaken about not being omniscient? If I were mistaken about not being omniscient, that would mean I was, in fact, omniscient. But how can an omniscient being be mistaken? I don't think Lisle has thought this through. It appears that he's claiming there is only absolute certainty about everything — omniscience — or no certainty about anything. But I have shown that it is indeed possible to be absolutely certain of something, and I gave a couple of examples. His assertion that knowledge is only possible by relying on Christian principles is just that — an assertion, and he has not shown how he can know that his source for that claim is true.

[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]

I did not make that assertion. I asserted that it is self-evident that I am not omniscient. I made no assertion about the impossibility of omniscience.

[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]

(1) Lisle isn't following the argument. I do have certain knowledge that I am not omniscient — see above. (2) There is an entity that is thinking, else the assertion could not have been made (how is something asserted, if not by an entity of some kind?), and if an entity is thinking, it clearly exists — see Descartes.

[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]

Lisle quotes scripture without giving any justification for its truth value, and then just repeats what he said before as if he didn't read the argument. As for "Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge" — I just have.

What do we know?

Actually, not much.

How do we know that we are not brains in vats? That we aren't software simulations in an advanced super-computer? That the entire universe of which we think we are a part wasn't created intact (complete with all our memories) last Thursday?

We don't. We can make a basic Cartesian assumption that "thinking" of some sort is going on somewhere, by the fact that we use thinking to make that assumption. But apart from that, we really don't know.

This is a scary thought. (But it is, at least, a thought.)

So where do we go from here? If we can't know anything, what's the basis of doing anything? Why go on, in the face of such uncertainty?

We have senses that seem to show us the world in a generally consistent way, so in the absence of certainty we can proceed in what appears to be a pragmatic manner. In the absence of certainty we can construct a worldview based on probability. We can live a life of induction, but we must first assume that induction works. Our senses may subsequently tell us that such an assumption appears to be consistent with reality as we perceive it. And so we build. Of such pragmatism is civilisation wrought — in sweat, in toil, in reasoned argument, in compassion. It is, we find, worth striving for.

For some people this isn't enough. They're unhappy with such uncertainty, and demand to be told in no uncertain terms, how things really are.

Such people will search for certainty, and believe they find it in religious scripture. They will seize upon the sacred text that purports to reveal in no uncertain terms the secrets of the universe. They will base their lives upon it, proclaiming its inerrancy. It must be inerrant — it's the truth they've been seeking, and if someone is so crass or unwise to question the inerrancy of scripture they'll explain, at tortuous length, why it contains not a single contradiction, and how it grounds their very existence.

But they're wrong. They're no better off than the rest of us — in fact they're worse off, having deluded themselves into thinking they are certain, in a world where certainty is impossible.

Absolute knowledge of God's existence

Would it not be possible for an omnipotent God to implant into someone's mind the certain knowledge that he exists?

If that were possible, and if it has happened, then there is - or was - at least one person who at some point in time has known with absolute certainty that God exists. I'm not talking about faith here; by absolute certainty I mean certainty of God's existence, plus the additional certainty that such knowledge is true. This is knowledge that doesn't require proof, or even evidence. It just is.

Would such knowledge qualify as "properly basic belief"? If so, and you come across someone who claims as much, and additionally claims to possess such knowledge, then there's absolutely no point in engaging them in debate about the truth or otherwise of their belief, because they know what they know, and rational argument will be futile. This person knows that God exists, and nothing will shake that knowledge because it is true knowledge.

To anyone else, however, such "knowledge" - whether true knowledge or not - is indistinguishable from delusion.