 |
| 
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/1/2002 9:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | If a person believes that a door is green because it actually is can they “will” to believe that it is not green thereby actually believing that is it red?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/1/2002 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If a person believes that a door is green because it actually is can they “will” to believe that it is not green thereby actually believing that is it red?
I'm hearing this: Can we know the truth and sebsequently believe otherwise?
Absolutley. I don't think we exchange beliefs overnight, but over time I think this happens; we deceive ourselves into believing a lie.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 09/01/2002 5:10:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/1/2002 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Charles Sanders Peirce says the following in his essay “Deduction, Induction, Hypothesis”
Peirce
Some persons fancy that bias and counter-bias are favorable to the extraction of truth – that hot and partisan debate is the way to investigate. This is the theory of our atrocious legal procedure. But logic puts its heel upon this suggestion. It irrefragably demonstrates that knowledge can only be furthered by the real desire for it, and that the methods of obstinacy, of authority, and every mode of trying to reach a foregone conclusion, are absolutely of no value. These things are proved. The reader is at liberty to think so or not as long as the proof is not set forth, or as long as he refrains from examining it. Just so, he can preserve, if he likes, his freedom of opinion in regard to the propositions of geometry; only, in that case, if he takes a fancy to read Euclid, he will do well to skip whatever he finds with A, B, C, etc., for, if he reads attentively that disagreeable matter, the freedom of his opinion about geometry may unhappily be lost forever.
Iconoclast
I hear him saying that when we “see” something for ourselves that is “logical” to us – that conforms with the logic apparatus that is our brain – then our opinion of it is settled and we believe it. He says here, however, that in order to really allow the “logic” apparatus of our brain to fully function we need to earnestly be seeking the truth, we need to be open to the truth.
Peirce also says that to “believe” something means to act on it. If we do not act on a belief then we do not really believe it.
To “see” a door as being green implies that we are open to seeing it as being green and thus we believe it is green. To believe it is green by definition means that we act accordingly.
To me your question then boils down to: Can we truly believe something and CHOOSE to act in opposition to that belief?
My answer is that free will entails that we CAN act in opposition to our beliefs to some degree. AND that if we consistently act against a belief long enough (and it “works” for us to some extent) it will undermine and therefore change our belief.
It would be really hard to act against our belief in gravity without such serious consequences that our mind would either not let us change the belief or we would no longer be in a position to act at all.
On the other hand I would argue that if we acted against the belief that our spouse loves us that it would “work” for us to the extent that our spouses behavior would start to confirm this dis-belief.
How would one act against their belief that the door is green? Could one do this in such a way that it “worked” for them?
thanks,
Iconoclast
P.S. If a person put on glasses that make everything appear upside down, after about 3 weeks the brain changes such that the person sees everything right-side up. And then if the person takes the glasses off, they see everything upside down again. And after 3 weeks…
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/1/2002 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | |
If a person believes that a door is green because it actually is can they “will” to believe that it is not green thereby actually believing that is it red?
Doc: Good word from Pierce Icon. Pierce elsewhere distinguishes between "true" doubt and "false" doubt. He detested the "false" doubt of philosophers who TRIED to call into question things that everybody KNOWS are true (e.g. other person's exist). If a person TRULY doubted the door was green, they COULD genuinely change their belief about it being green. But they couldn't just WILL it IF they were ACTUALLY convinced it was green.
Think about it. Someone approaches you and says "I'll pay you a million dollars to believe I am an elephant." (and suppose they have the neurological equipment to prove whether your telling the truth or not). You COULD NOT DO IT, not genuinely.
This is why I really don't think it too helpful to tell people they'll go to hell UNLESS THEY BELIEVE (now fill in the blank)...
Doc
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/1/2002 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Good point Doc. I agree that we can’t simply will to change a belief that we truly hold. A change in belief must come about through action that disconfirms the belief – thereby creating “true” doubt – which then drives action (thought) toward a new belief.
This reminds me of trying to change our emotions. We cannot change our emotions directly through a simple act of will – telling ourselves to feel happy. We CAN change our emotions through action (including thought – “re-framing”, or what have you).
Doc
This is why I really don't think it too helpful to tell people they'll go to hell UNLESS THEY BELIEVE (now fill in the blank)...
Iconoclast
Therefore the importance of showing unconditional love – nothing more powerful than experiential evidence.
Showing unconditional love to another creates “true” doubt. It creates true doubt about whether what they currently believe about God and about themselves is accurate. This doubt then leads to a true (earnest) seeking about what the truth really is. In that sense it is a call to action. The action of seeking God.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
barneebus
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 9/2/2002 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Clearly, anyone can believe something that is not true, either because they choose to do so, or because they are deceived, or lack knowledge, or have a hardened heart.
What of it? Let's all of us pursue the Truth, and pray God that we continually find it.
-Bar
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/2/2002 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
[quote="Iconoclast"]Peirce also says that to “believe” something means to act on it. If we do not act on a belief then we do not really believe it... My answer is that free will entails that we CAN act in opposition to our beliefs to some degree.
This confuses me. How can we act in opposition to our beliefs if that belief is part of our acting? In other words don't we use the information that is contained in our belief to act?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 9/2/2002 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Peirce also says that to “believe” something means to act on it. If we do not act on a belief then we do not really believe it... My answer is that free will entails that we CAN act in opposition to our beliefs to some degree.
This confuses me. How can we act in opposition to our beliefs if that belief is part of our acting? In other words don't we use the information that is contained in our belief to act?
Peirce did not equate belief with action. What he said was that genuine belief will give rise to a disposition to act in accordance with that belief. One who professes to believe something but whose actions show no tendency to conform themselves to that profession is just blowing smoke.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 09/03/2002 3:55:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/2/2002 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Well said Alan. Belief gives rise to a disposition to act. Faith is actually taking the action. We may believe that a rope will hold us which gives rise to a disposition to be willing to climb down it. Actually getting on the rope requires faith.
Believing that a door is green because we see that it is generates a very strong disposition to act as though it is. Willing ourselves to believe it is red would create a stronger disposition to act as though it is red than NOT willing ourselves to believe this but would not of course generate nearly so strong a disposition as our belief that it is green.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 9/3/2002 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
Doc: Good word from Pierce Icon. Pierce elsewhere distinguishes between "true" doubt and "false" doubt. He detested the "false" doubt of philosophers who TRIED to call into question things that everybody KNOWS are true (e.g. other person's exist). If a person TRULY doubted the door was green, they COULD genuinely change their belief about it being green. But they couldn't just WILL it IF they were ACTUALLY convinced it was green.
Think about it. Someone approaches you and says "I'll pay you a million dollars to believe I am an elephant." (and suppose they have the neurological equipment to prove whether your telling the truth or not). You COULD NOT DO IT, not genuinely.
Ok. You KNOW I have to do this, right? 
Let's think about something. It seems very obvious that Paul believed that belief wasn't this sophisticated. He seemed to believe that if someone didn't believe in the Gospel, that either 1) Satan was blinding them, 2) their own sin was blinding them or 3) their indulgence in human philosophies was blinding them. Why didn't Paul understand that IN SOME CASES asking people to believe in Christ is JUST LIKE telling someone who believes a human being is a human being that they HAVE to believe the human is friggin elephant...or they go to eternal punishment! AND THEN blaming it on something WRONG with THEM when those people being preached to CANNOT find it within themselves to believe!!!
Isn't this how some Christians (PRIMARILY CALVINISTS) use Romans 1. Most atheism is because of moral problems? Hey, if people don't believe, it's OBVIOUSLY a moral or spiritual problem. It can never truly be an intellectual or cultural problem...right? Doesn't this suck?
MOREOVER,
If God knows as much about human behavior as we have now found out, would God, being such a good God, REALLY put so much on the line for believing in something as MUCH of a stumbling block as the Resurrection of a Jewish carpenter? Surely, God knows about the nuances of belief. Surely, God knows that SOME peoples cultures would cause them to be opposed to the Gospel MERELY for cultural or intellectual reason, NOT primarily from moral or spiritual ones. So would God really be so exclusivisitic? Sure, he could be...but would he...if God's like YOU think He is? Think about it? Maybe universalism ain't so bad...HA!
 | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|