Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Corinthian]

I want to talk a little about the nature of belief itself. I don't think that belief is ever a choice.

I don't just mean religious belief, I mean any belief that you hold. The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. The belief that if you toss a ball into the air, it will come back down. These beliefs are all based on evidence. Belief is the result of a non-conscious evaluation of the available evidence. If you believe in a concept, it's because you've been convinced that the available evidence is compelling.

But there was never a conscious choice. To suggest that there was a choice, is to suggest that you could choose to believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow, or that you could choose to believe that a ball tossed into the air will continue its upward trajectory until it enters Earth's atmosphere and is burned up.

[jimwalton]

In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. I define faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You’ve sat in chairs hundreds of times, but can you be absolutely sure it will hold you this time? No, you can never be absolutely sure. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That’s belief, and it was a conscious choice.

Almost all of life works this way (though not the rising of the sun, or gravity), because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith. Because 10,000 times you’ve turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn’t open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.

We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. That's all knowledge. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.

My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.

The sun rising, and the tossed ball falling are issues of the laws of physics. But sitting in a chair, starting the car, turning a door know, our even driving to the store(is it still there?) are beliefs that are conscious choices I make because the evidence is compelling. It's no different with my belief in God.

Talk to me more if you want to. This subject goes further and deeper. I'm just scratching the surface and opening the subject with this reply.

[Corinthian]

> "Great comment. The belief is still a choice, though on a different level.

On what different level? How is it a choice on any level?

Is it possible to choose to believe that the sky is purple when it is not?

> "I can choose not to believe, and not act (I don't buy it, the chair won't hold, I ain't sittin'.) I can choose to believe and act (assume it will hold me and sit in it)."

No. You evaluate the evidence and you come to a conclusion. Suppose the evidence is that the chair's manufacturer is not reputable, the chair's Amazon.com page has very poor reviews, and the chair itself just looks downright unstable. This evidence might lead you to the conclusion that the chair is not safe to sit in. That conclusion may lead you to choose not to sit in the chair.

Or, the evidence might all be positive indicators. Maybe the chair appears sturdy and has positive reviews. This evidence might lead you to make another conclusion.

Or the evidence may be conflicting and, as you said, lead you to a conclusion that is not very strong either way. You think the chair might support you but you're really not sure.

The point is, whatever conclusion you reach, you cannot choose to alter your conclusion on a whim. If your conclusion is evidence-based, the only thing that can alter your conclusion is new evidence.

[jimwalton]

> On what different level? How is it a choice on any level?

As I examine the evidence, ANY evidence, my beliefs are being formed based on my perceptions and my evaluation of my perceptions, even before I take any action. Because I am forming my beliefs based on sensory stimuli, I am choosing what to believe about the chair.

> Is it possible to choose to believe that the sky is purple when it is not?

People do, but I don't think it's valid. People choose to believe I'm stupid for what I think and say, but their belief doesn't make it so. They choose to believe things, some based on evidence, and some based on prejudice ("All Christians are stupid"). People can choose to believe against evidence and against reality. Some people choose to believe there are Martians. Some choose to believe that there never was a Holocaust. These beliefs are unfounded, and are ultimately false. Beliefs grounded in accurate evidence, however, are ultimately true.

As for the rest of what you said, I agree with it. I look at chairs on Amazon and arrive at conclusions (beliefs) that I think are both justified and justifiable. The beliefs are based in evidence that leads me to make those assumptions. I agree that I don't alter my conclusions on a whim, but based in the evidence. My perception of the evidence is what I base my conclusions on, and those perceptions are what I choose to believe about the object. "It looks strong. It seems well-built. It appears to be a reputable company and a reputable product, based on the reviews. In my opinion, the positive reviews outweigh the negative reviews. I'm gonna buy it, believing that it will be a good decision."

[Corinthian]

> I asked, "Is it possible to choose to believe that the sky is purple when it is not?" You responded, "People do, but I don't think it's valid"

I'm not asking about people, I'm asking about you specifically. Is it possible for you to look up at a blue sky, discard the evidence that your eyes are giving you, and simply choose to believe that it is purple?

[jimwalton]

I was having a conversation with another individual several years back, who was claiming that truth is relative, and we get to choose what is true. I asked her, "Suppose you drive to the local grocery store. It says 'Wegmans' in huge letters across the front. All of the workers inside have 'Wegmans' on their shirts, and they get their paychecks from the Wegmans corporation, and the products on the shelves say Wegmans on them. But you believe you're in Jewel. Are you in Jewel?"

She said "yes." But I countered that every evidence was that you were in Wegmans. How could she say she was in Jewel? She answered, "Because I get to determine my own truth and what I choose to believe." She was dead serious.

To me it sounds absurd, and I told her so, but it didn't get us anywhere in the conversation. In her mind, with truth being totally relative, she could "look up at a blue sky, discard the evidence that [her] eyes are giving [her], and simply choose to believe that it purple."

Me? No. I don't believe in the relativity of truth, and so it's not possible to look up at a blue sky, discard the evidence, and choose to believe it's purple. But again, early in the discussion I made a distinction between things that are known (sunrise, blue skies) and what is believed (chairs, keys in cars, door knobs, etc.)

[Corinthian]

> "I don't believe in the relativity of truth, and so it's not possible to look up at a blue sky, discard the evidence, and choose to believe it's purple."

Good. So how can I choose to start believing in Christianity when I haven't been convinced by the evidence?

> "But again, early in the discussion I made a distinction between things that are known (sunrise, blue skies) and what is believed (chairs, keys in cars, door knobs, etc.)

The only difference between the two is the level of certainty. Belief and knowledge are both based on evidence. Correct? If you know the sky is blue, it's because you have looked at the sky and seen the evidence for yourself.If you sincerely believe that the chair will support your weight, then this is also a belief grounded in evidence—the chair appears sturdy, has good reviews, etc.

You can acknowledge that your belief is not knowledge, or that you're not 100% certain that the chair will hold your weight. Perhaps the chair's sturdy appearance could be misleading, perhaps the good reviews were planted by the company that sells the chair. But acknowledging that there's a small chance that you could be wrong about the chair, does not sway your confidence in the chair's ability to hold your weight. Because the evidence has not changed. How is it possible to choose to alter your belief in the chair's reliability if your opinion of the evidence has not changed?

Also, previously, you said: "As I examine the evidence, ANY evidence, my beliefs are being formed based on my perceptions and my evaluation of my perceptions, even before I take any action. Because I am forming my beliefs based on sensory stimuli, I am choosing what to believe about the chair."

You form your belief that the sky is blue based on sensory stimuli. It is an evaluation of your perceptions. If this is the watered down version of the word "choice" that you are using, then how does it not also apply to the belief, or knowledge, as you say, that the sky is blue and not purple?

[jimwalton]

I would say that you can't choose to start believing in Christianity until you have been convinced by the evidence. Christian faith (as I think and have explained is no different than other choices based in beliefs grounded in evidence) is necessarily evidentiary.

> How is it possible to choose to alter your belief in the chair's reliability if your opinion of the evidence has not changed?

It's not. My belief would only change if something in the chain of evidence has changed. If I evaluate the chair to be sturdy enough to sit in, and I start to sit, but suddenly I hear a crack or feel structure giving way beneath me, my belief in the possible reliability of the chair will now be altered, because the evidence leads me to believe something potentially different about the reliability of the chair. At this point I can choose to continue to put my weight on it, still believing it will be OK, or I can choose to scramble for balance and try to stand again, based on my lightning-fast cat-like reflexes responding to a flow of evidence to my senses.