Voluntarist vs Involuntarist

[caustic 0_0]

The excerpt at the end of this post was found on about.com ((http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefchoice.htm))
I had thought about this idea before, but never knew the terms associated with it - voluntarist and involuntarist. It's rather interesting.

"According to Terence Penelhum, there are two general schools of thought when it comes to how beliefs originate: voluntarist and involuntarist. The voluntarists take the position that belief is a matter of will: we have control over what we believe much in the way we have control over our actions.

Theists often seem to be voluntarists and Christians in particular commonly argue the voluntarist position. Some of history's most prolific theologians like Thomas Aquinas and Soren Kierkegaard have written that believing � or at least believing religious dogma � is a free act of will. This isn't surprising, because only if we bear some responsibility for our beliefs can disbelief be considered a sin punishable by sending nonbelievers to hell. Nonbelievers encounter this perspective when evangelists exhort others to just believe and to choose Jesus, reminding us that our atheism is a sin and a path to damnation.

Involuntarists, on the other hand, argue that we cannot really choose to just believe anything. According to them, a belief is not an action and thus cannot be attained by command. For example, everyone realizes that even after a person has concluded beyond any doubt what they must do, that doesn't mean that they will automatically do it. Beyond their conclusion is the fact that extra steps must be taken to actually make the action happen."  

[caustic 0_0]

Personally, I lean more towards involuntarist. If you can actively choose, then is it what you truly believe?  

[aufheben]

I don't believe in free will, but belief (or not) is an act of agency, one way or the other.  

[Foetus In Fetu]

I'm an involuntarist. The idea that one can control what they believe, effectively controlling a feeling, I reject. People can profess to believe something and can practise a religion associated with that belief but that doesn't mean that they actually have the feeling of belief.

For instance, if I don't trust my brother with money I can say I do and pretend I do and lend him some but I can't shake the nagging feeling that he's going to blow it on something stupid.  

[Dathu]

Foetus In Fetu

I'm an involuntarist. The idea that one can control what they believe, effectively controlling a feeling, I reject. People can profess to believe something and can practise a religion associated with that belief but that doesn't mean that they actually have the feeling of belief.

For instance, if I don't trust my brother with money I can say I do and pretend I do and lend him some but I can't shake the nagging feeling that he's going to blow it on something stupid.

blaugh Good point.  

[aufheben]

Foetus In Fetu

I'm an involuntarist. The idea that one can control what they believe, effectively controlling a feeling, I reject. People can profess to believe something and can practise a religion associated with that belief but that doesn't mean that they actually have the feeling of belief.

For instance, if I don't trust my brother with money I can say I do and pretend I do and lend him some but I can't shake the nagging feeling that he's going to blow it on something stupid.

That does nothing to prove that people cannot control what they believe.  

[Yisp]

Involuntarist, me.
Free Will doesn't fit into my world-view.

But it's really hard to actually be an involuntarist, I have to convince myself every morning when the alarm clock goes off....^^

And concerning the books I read, the stuff I know....every time I take a stroll through general ED thread, I can only tell myself: You are one lucky b*****d. ^__^  

[Foetus In Fetu]

aufheben

That does nothing to prove that people cannot control what they believe.

I was demonstrating that saying you believe something and actually believing it are two different things.

In my personal experience, beliefs and feelings are involuntary. That, and what you feel is a result of which chemicals are flying around your brain and how they interact with it; the release of them could be, and usually is, stimulated by something but they are still what causes the actual feeling. Controlling your feelings is a matter of controlling the release of these chemicals and the way they interact with your brain, which is difficult, if not impossible.

Since I believe that beliefs are feelings or occur at least in response to feelings (feelings of numinosity, for example) I don't believe you can choose what you do and do not believe, I don't see how you could.  

[aufheben]

Foetus In Fetu

aufheben

That does nothing to prove that people cannot control what they believe.

I was demonstrating that saying you believe something and actually believing it are two different things.

Very true.

Foetus In Fetu

In my personal experience, beliefs and feelings are involuntary. That, and what you feel is a result of which chemicals are flying around your brain and how they interact with it; the release of them could be, and usually is, stimulated by something but they are still what causes the actual feeling. Controlling your feelings is a matter of controlling the release of these chemicals and the way they interact with your brain, which is difficult, if not impossible.

Since I believe that beliefs are feelings or occur at least in response to feelings (feelings of numinosity, for example) I don't believe you can choose what you do and do not believe, I don't see how you could.

Learning to control your own feelings is one of the most important parts of emotional development. If we didn't, we would be hysterical children all of our lives.  

[Foetus In Fetu]

aufheben

Learning to control your own feelings is one of the most important parts of emotional development. If we didn't, we would be hysterical children all of our lives.

It depends what you mean by "controlling your own feelings".

If you're referring to the ability to, for instance, stop feeling angry instantly then I have serious doubts as to whether that's at all possible. It is possible to control the way you behave in response to that anger and to channel it more productively than you might, but it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control the actual feeling itself.  

[aufheben]

Foetus In Fetu

aufheben

Learning to control your own feelings is one of the most important parts of emotional development. If we didn't, we would be hysterical children all of our lives.

It depends what you mean by "controlling your own feelings".

If you're referring to the ability to, for instance, stop feeling angry instantly then I have serious doubts as to whether that's at all possible. It is possible to control the way you behave in response to that anger and to channel it more productively than you might, but it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control the actual feeling itself.

Yes, I believe we can control our emotions in the way you're doubting. Meditation and psychology both dabble in the field, creating mental tools to allow the practitioner to shape and direct their emotional course regarding various stimuli.  

[Foetus In Fetu]

aufheben

Yes, I believe we can control our emotions in the way you're doubting. Meditation and psychology both dabble in the field, creating mental tools to allow the practitioner to shape and direct their emotional course regarding various stimuli.

Meditation is one thing; complete control over your emotions (that is to say, a psychic ability to control the release of chemicals and the way they interact with the brain) is another. You might be able to change the way you think about a stimulus, making you more angry than sad, for instance, but you cannot change the fact that your awareness and acknowledgement of a stimulus is affecting you emotionally.

If life were so easy that you could learn to switch your emotions on and off at a whim then nobody would ever commit suicide or hurt eachother.  

[aufheben]

Foetus In Fetu

aufheben

Yes, I believe we can control our emotions in the way you're doubting. Meditation and psychology both dabble in the field, creating mental tools to allow the practitioner to shape and direct their emotional course regarding various stimuli.

Meditation is one thing; complete control over your emotions (that is to say, a psychic ability to control the release of chemicals and the way they interact with the brain) is another. You might be able to change the way you think about a stimulus, making you more angry than sad, for instance, but you cannot change the fact that your awareness and acknowledgement of a stimulus is affecting you emotionally.

If life were so easy that you could learn to switch your emotions on and off at a whim then nobody would ever commit suicide or hurt eachother.

Agreed.  

[Dathu]

.caustic.

The excerpt at the end of this post was found on about.com ((atheism.about.com))
I had thought about this idea before, but never knew the terms associated with it - voluntarist and involuntarist. It's rather interesting.

"According to Terence Penelhum, there are two general schools of thought when it comes to how beliefs originate: voluntarist and involuntarist. The voluntarists take the position that belief is a matter of will: we have control over what we believe much in the way we have control over our actions.

Theists often seem to be voluntarists and Christians in particular commonly argue the voluntarist position. Some of history's most prolific theologians like Thomas Aquinas and Soren Kierkegaard have written that believing � or at least believing religious dogma � is a free act of will. This isn't surprising, because only if we bear some responsibility for our beliefs can disbelief be considered a sin punishable by sending nonbelievers to hell. Nonbelievers encounter this perspective when evangelists exhort others to just believe and to choose Jesus, reminding us that our atheism is a sin and a path to damnation.

Involuntarists, on the other hand, argue that we cannot really choose to just believe anything. According to them, a belief is not an action and thus cannot be attained by command. For example, everyone realizes that even after a person has concluded beyond any doubt what they must do, that doesn't mean that they will automatically do it. Beyond their conclusion is the fact that extra steps must be taken to actually make the action happen."

After reading the whole article, I think the author underestimates the power of denial. I really think that a lot religious people choose to ignore evidence that god does not exist. But in the end, my beliefs fall in the gray area of the two ideas. I do believe that people have a choice, but I believe that that choice will remain constant and unchangable without proper motivation. In other words, people are free to change their minds, but the changes are are the results of recieved stimulus not random. I also feel the involuntarist isn't clearly explained. The example of a person knowing what to do, but not doing it sounds more like a choice, right?  

[E_Night]

involuntary because you can do things with out your physical body knowing what your doing