Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Nyangor Otieno]

I think believing is a choice. Everything can be faked nowadays, which makes the evidence itself so hard to believe.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think believing is a choice. Everything can be faked nowadays, which makes the evidence itself so hard to believe.

Fact-checking, and the like, is your friend here, I think? The underlying problem is that almost nothing can actually be proven, so the conspiracy theorists are (sadly) right when they claim that evidence counter to their beliefs could've been faked...

[night912]

I think believing is a choice. Everything can be faked nowadays, which makes the evidence itself so hard to believe.

Try to choose to believe (I mean really believe not just say that you believe) today that the moon is made of cheese, then tomorrow choose to believe that it's made of water.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think believing is a choice. Everything can be faked nowadays, which makes the evidence itself so hard to believe.

Try to choose to believe (I mean really believe not just say that you believe) today that the moon is made of cheese, then tomorrow choose to believe that it's made of water.

In fairness, perhaps we could say that believing is a choice, but not a random choice? In many cases there is evidence, but not sufficient for an absolute proof. So if we accept 'on the balance of probabilities', we are "choosing" to believe, but not the "I demand that X is true" sort of choosing.

[popeye1945]

Standard of Belief

First of all, this thread is not about opinions (e.g. the sky is pretty, or this cake tastes good). It is completely logical that opinions differ from person to person.

This thread is about factual statements and the standards we use to determine whether or not to believe them.

How much evidence does it take for you to believe something as opposed to just thinking it is possible? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue" as opposed to "The sky may be blue or not; there is not enough evidence for me to believe one way or the other.")

How much evidence does it take for you to say that you know something? (e.g. "I know the sky is blue," or "I know the sky is not blue.")

How much evidence is required against something for you to not believe it is possible? Do you just have to believe the opposite? (e.g. "I believe the sky is blue, so I think it is not possible that the sky is not blue.")

All it takes to believe and to know is to experience, it takes an added effort to question one's experience and knowledge. To the individual, experience is truth; to the collective, it is agreement of experience, somewhat more reliable than a singular statement. Experience might not always agree with the conditions of the physical world, but it always agrees with the state of biology in doing the experiencing. Experience, feelings, and judgment are humanity's apparent reality. One must keep in mind that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Life and its consciousness are the creators of all meanings.