This arose in the 'atheism and science' thread and it deserves some discussion. But since that thread is already approaching 500 posts and has twenty topics going all at once, I decided to start a new thread over here.


I have struggled with this same thing. Just do a "scientific experiment" in which you choose to believe (I suggest believing Catholicism, since over many years of such experiments this is what I have found yields results).

How does one "choose to believe" something? Is that even possible?

And having done so, can an individual believe and not believe in the same thing at the same time? Put another way, is it possible for deep and true religious faith and inner skeptical reservations to coexist?


Then observe the results.

Why? In order to determine... what? The individual already believes, since they've already made the leap of faith back at the beginning. So the procedure appears to be circular, designed to provide some kind of subjective verification of the truth of things that the individual already believes to be true.


It has often been said that one cannot understand faith until one has faith. Just try it.

That makes it sound awfully easy. I don't know, maybe there are people out there who can simply will themselves to believe things.

But if such an inner movement really is possible, wouldn't it be possible to perform it with any idea whatsoever? So how does the leap of faith differ from madness?

A writer who favored and even idealized taking the leap of faith but felt the insanity of it very strongly was Soren Kierkegaard. He discusses this stuff passionately in his book 'Fear and Trembling'.

I think it is perfectly normal to be in a state of belief and disbelief at the same time.

I think it is perfectly normal to be in a state of belief and disbelief at the same time.

About the same thing?

Belief does seem to have different weights. We are extremely certain about some things. Other things seem pretty likely, but not certain. Other ideas that we talk about are speculative and little more than shots in the dark.

In those latter cases, I guess that we could say that we both believe and don't believe, though I would prefer to say that we don't believe but are entertaining the possibility. Speculative scientific hypotheses might belong in that class.

But is it possible to have religious faith that way?

I'm an agnostic, but I accept that there's some very small possibility that Christianity is true. The same possibility exists for just about every religious path or philosophical speculation out there, I guess.

But that kind of token acknowledgement of a remote possibility doesn't seem to be what people are talking about when they talk about 'faith'. Something more robust seems to be required. Some kind of inner cognitive commitment seems to be implied.

About the same thing?

But is it possible to have religious faith that way?


Yes. Faith is very personal. How can we tell if a person has 'faith', or is simply suffering from a bad case of presumption or even foolishness? :shrug:

How does one "choose to believe" something? Is that even possible?

In his "The will to believe", William James would say yes.
It's worth reading, if you haven't done so already. He addresses numerous predictable counterarguments.


I will experiment with the possibility though that the notion of "choosing a path" is actually an attempt to retroactively justify what one is doing/has done.

For all practical intents and purposes, people generally do not choose a path as a whole at once (other than in cases of divine intervention, durress, mental illness or cultist pressure), but make relatively small day-to-day choices which eventually add up to "choosing a path" - or not.



But if such an inner movement really is possible, wouldn't it be possible to perform it with any idea whatsoever? So how does the leap of faith differ from madness?

In the afore-mentioned essay, James worked out some criteria for that.




A writer who favored and even idealized taking the leap of faith but felt the insanity of it very strongly was Soren Kierkegaard. He discusses this stuff passionately in his book 'Fear and Trembling'.

I'd be careful about Kierkegaard, given that he wrote some of his texts in character (including Fear and trembling), not as himself. So his work needs to be taken with that caveat.

In those latter cases, I guess that we could say that we both believe and don't believe, though I would prefer to say that we don't believe but are entertaining the possibility. Speculative scientific hypotheses might belong in that class.

But is it possible to have religious faith that way?

I don't think so.



But that kind of token acknowledgement of a remote possibility doesn't seem to be what people are talking about when they talk about 'faith'. Something more robust seems to be required. Some kind of inner cognitive commitment seems to be implied.

Agreed. It appears that religious faith is primarily about being faithful, loyal, devoted, committed (the etymological meaning of "to believe" is 'to hold dear'); in this sense the issue of knowing the objective truth doesn't enter the scene.

I think this is an experiment that is worth doing. It's the same way many people come to faith and also why others reject it. But if the faith is absolute, then the mind must necessarily reject challenges to that faith. The faith must be tentative. In other words, this is not the same faith that Christianity preaches.

The benefit of having emotional security might be why some people have faith, plus that they would go on forever in an afterlife. This is really a trade-off between freedom and having strings attached, but they are happy with it. Martin Gardner felt like this.

Some Protestant groups might hold that faith is something that must be lept into, but that is not a Catholic position. For a Catholic, Faith is rational. It is logical.

Faith, in this context, means holding something as certain because of the authority of the One Who has revealed it. One certainly must engage the will and open themselves to the truth, but that is also truth of conplex philosophical proofs. Philosophy means the love of wisdom, and one who does not honestly seek truth can find ways of obscuring his vision and never finding it. For one that does seek the truth, it is available for him; not through some irrational leap of belief, but truth a logical acceptance of the truths of the Faith as revealed by God. The Church has never asked anyone to act irrationally, or accept something without proof.

Some Protestant groups might hold that faith is something that must be lept into, but that is not a Catholic position. For a Catholic, Faith is rational. It is logical.
Claiming it is rational is not the same as it being rational.


Faith, in this context, means holding something as certain because of the authority of the One Who has revealed it.
The usual word for that is gullible.


The Church has never asked anyone to act irrationally, or accept something without proof.
Of course they have: their only "proof" is their word. :rolleyes:

In his "The will to believe", William James would say yes.

From my personal experience, I would say "No".

You can coose to pretend to believe something. You might be so good at pretending, that you end up fooling even yourself.

Worth mentioning that the only leap of faith a Muslim takes is that there is only one God. And the Qu'ran says religion is perfect, man corrupts it. As such, children have a perfect understanding of God- it comes naturally.

From my personal experience, I would say "No".

Did you read James' essay?

You already believe in things by will, as he describes the process.

How does one "choose to believe" something? Is that even possible?

If we never choose to believe anything all beliefs are beyond our control.
If all beliefs are beyond our control why should we value any beliefs?

If we never choose to believe anything all beliefs are beyond our control.
If all beliefs are beyond our control why should we value any beliefs?
Can you choose to believe that you can fly? Peter Pan says all you have to do is believe... Can you do it?

If we never choose to believe anything all beliefs are beyond our control.
If all beliefs are beyond our control why should we value any beliefs

Can you choose to believe that you can fly? Peter Pan says all you have to do is believe... Can you do it??
You have omitted the context...

You have omitted the context...
The "context" is that no matter how hard you try, I'm going to bet that you cannot choose to "believe" that you can fly.

No one can chose to believe in anything. You either have enough supporting evidence to convince you that something is correct and/or legitimate or you don't. Beliefs are not the result of conscious choices that we make. We don't decide to believe in something. Our beliefs are systematically beat into us by evidence. We simply form conclusions based upon the best available evidence at our disposal.

No one can chose to believe in anything. You either have enough supporting evidence to convince you that something is correct and/or legitimate or you don't. Beliefs are not the result of conscious choices that we make. We don't decide to believe in something. Our beliefs are systematically beat into us by evidence. We simply form conclusions based upon the best available evidence at our disposal.

I think you got something there sparky. I think of it as a lack of free will . I would add that our social environments beat it into us too. If you grow up Muslim you are more likely to think like your peers by the social pressures that surround your daily lives . Same for what ever religion you grow up with. I don't know if people really realize how much religion plays in the rhetoric of the language of there own country . You can't hardly talk with out a connection to past conveyance of information by the words of the culture you are immersed in. Forced by culture of your surroundings . The beliefs find you and spew from your mouth by being part of the community . Or you can be a lone wolf and blow the shit out of em wid de uzzie. That don't make very many friends though

The "context" is that no matter how hard you try, I'm going to bet that you cannot choose to "believe" that you can fly.
Your objection is substantially true. No-one "chooses" their beliefs. What we do choose, however, is how to deal with our beliefs, especially if they leave open room for doubts and objections (as things of Faith do). You can choose to think about something or not; to study a subject more deeply or not.

Sometimes merely thinking about what we are doing, trying to find out our own implicit premises, changes our whole outlook.

All of these things can have an impact on our beliefs. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that most people who drop away from the Faith do it not because of a powerful case made by a competing world-view (atheism, agnosticism, another religion), but from a mere lack of knowledge about their own Faith, which thus becomes very weak and unable to withstand even the slightest objections. Not that most people actually think in terms of arguments and objections; their mind keeps absorbing all kinds of different and often contradictory beliefs and values until one day they realize their last vestiges of Faith no longer square with their basic outlook on life.

The "context" is that no matter how hard you try, I'm going to bet that you cannot choose to "believe" that you can fly.
You're a poet and you don't know it! Or perhaps you do... :)

I have flown about twenty times - without having to sprout wings. ;)

But seriously, do you rule out miracles on principle? If so, Hamlet's words are appropriate:

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy...."

BTW your context was: "Peter Pan says all you have to do is believe.." Can you enlighten us further?

No one can chose to believe in anything. You either have enough supporting evidence to convince you that something is correct and/or legitimate or you don't. Beliefs are not the result of conscious choices that we make. We don't decide to believe in something. Our beliefs are systematically beat into us by evidence. We simply form conclusions based upon the best available evidence at our disposal.

You underestimate our power to deceive ourselves.

You underestimate our power to deceive ourselves.

Thank you for suggesting that humans are basically evil and crazy. :rolleyes:

Thank you for suggesting that humans are basically evil and crazy. :rolleyes:

Good morning, Signal. Perhaps this is your wake-up time in England or wherever.

Humans are indeed still basically in their infancy, and ever playing at world building in their imaginations, I guess. If all of history was compressed into a year, it's like we appeared at a minute or so to midnight on Dec 31.

In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that most people who drop away from the Faith do it not because of a powerful case made by a competing world-view (atheism, agnosticism, another religion), but from a mere lack of knowledge about their own Faith, which thus becomes very weak and unable to withstand even the slightest objections. Not that most people actually think in terms of arguments and objections; their mind keeps absorbing all kinds of different and often contradictory beliefs and values until one day they realize their last vestiges of Faith no longer square with their basic outlook on life.
In my case you would be wrong. It was a few years of fairly serious Bible study, introspection and reading many POV in general (aka - soul searching) that made me come to the conclusion that I did not believe the whole YHWH/Jesus story. No anger. No evil priests in the closet. Just honest studying and thinking about it.

This is an excellent summary of faith and reason:

http://www.truthinspire.com/reason-and-faith/

Yes. Faith is very personal. How can we tell if a person has 'faith', or is simply suffering from a bad case of presumption or even foolishness? :shrug:

It is tough . There are only small glimpses of successes in long term projects . People wonder all the time if they are doing the right thing . A lot of it is pure guess work . Self doubt is a cancer. Yet we have to do reality checks and then use them as a barometer of our success. We find that we may have to make some alterations to the plan if we want to reach the objective , or you can drop out like Me , Find a little cabin in the woods, Catch wild fish and cook em on an open fire with a verity of fresh greens on the side. Toast your mate and do the do like a foo

This is an excellent summary of faith and reason:

http://www.truthinspire.com/reason-and-faith/

Faith is consent without inquiry in that faith’s assent is not caused by investigation. Rather, it is produced by God. Commenting on Ephesians 2:8-9, Aquinas contended that “free will is inadequate for the act of faith since the contents of faith are above reason…. That a man should believe, therefore, cannot occur from himself unless God gives it” (Aquinas, Ephesians, 96; unless noted, all citations in this article are from works by Thomas Aquinas). Faith is a gift of God, and no one can believe without it.

Will It Go 'Round In Circles? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un63LEAN22E)

Will It Go 'Round In Circles? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un63LEAN22E)

Did you see that payer below . Dude That was sweet music . Tanx Man we played the shit back in the day didn't we . We be tring to bring back melodic tones . It is hard f---cking work . Adele, Check her out !!

O.K> I got a leap of faith story for you all . I been saving it . Most of you know who Molly Ringwald is " Pretty in Pink " and many other movies , Well I know her . Lost contact with her , but Me first Wife and Daughter still see her on occasions . I knew her as a snot nosed little kid in Sacramento . Her Dad was a piano player that would play at Straw Hat Pizza , SHakey's and what have you for back in the day they would have honky tonk piano plays in pizza joints So Bob he was a regular at a place called Al Capone's Pizza . He would bring his daughter Molly to sing while he was playing the piano . Homeliest little girl you could imagine . WE would tease poor Molly about her plainness and lack of Talent . Goofy little Molly was the take of the day and the music she was singing was more Dixieland in nature ( Jazz Jubilee I think is this week end in Sacramento now that I think about it ) Any way Bob Is blind so he don't know his daughter is well pretty ugly little girl . He would say " MY Daughter will be a star one day. So We would him Bob your bind " She is not that attractive and her natural voice is dull in tone . She could stay in tune very well I have to give her that . So he would not listen and insisted she was going to be a star , so he packed up all the belongings and moved to L. A. That was the last time I saw Molly my self and you what ? I just about shit my Self when I saw her in a movie for the first time . I didn't know it was her at first until My My First Wife called and Asked me if I saw Molly in the Movie . I said Shit I can't believe that shit . Her dads Faith must have had something to do with it . Fuck If I believed She was going to make it big like that I would of never teased her about being a goofy little shit. The point is Bob believed , course he was blind and could not see his daughter as ugly . I guess you could call it bind faith