Doxastic voluntarism and involuntarism

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Doxastic voluntarism is the philosophical doctrine according to which people have voluntary control over their beliefs. Philosophers in the debate about doxastic voluntarism distinguish between two kinds of voluntary control. The first is known as direct voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that if a person chooses to perform them, they happen immediately. For instance, a person has direct voluntary control over whether he or she is thinking about his or her favorite song at a given moment. The second is known as indirect voluntary control and refers to acts which are such that although a person lacks direct voluntary control over them, he or she can cause them to happen if he or she chooses to perform some number of other, intermediate actions. For instance, a person untrained in music has indirect voluntary control over whether he or she will play a melody on a violin. Corresponding to this distinction between two kinds of voluntary control, philosophers distinguish between two kinds of doxastic voluntarism. Direct doxastic voluntarism claims that people have direct voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs. Indirect doxastic voluntarism, however, supposes that people have indirect voluntary control over at least some of their beliefs, for example, by doing research and evaluating evidence.

Doxastic involuntarism — the notion that humans are unable to choose what they believe — is the standard epistemic stance in psychological and philosophic literature.

Doxastic Voluntarism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

https://files.turri.org/research/choose_refuse.pdf

https://social-epistemology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/west_cv_doxastic1.pdf

Which of the following ideas do you support?

1. Humans are able to voluntarily choose their beliefs (direct doxastic voluntarism)
2. Humans are unable to voluntarily choose their beliefs, but have unintended control, through voluntary intermediate actions, over some of their beliefs (indirect doxastic voluntarism)
3. Humans are unable to choose what they believe (doxastic involuntarism)

Share your thoughts in the comments.

 

[rstrats]

Number 3. Humans are unable to choose what they believe (doxastic involuntarism)

I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I possess nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate such an ability ever complied with my request.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

That was all Greek to me so I cheated by looking at it from a biblical source:
What is doxastic voluntarism? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

That was all Greek to me so I cheated by looking at it from a biblical source:
What is doxastic voluntarism? | GotQuestions.org

Quote from that article:

Putting these points together, we distinguish between the intellectual “belief” being referred to by doxastic voluntarism and the spiritual “belief” referred to in the Bible. Scripture’s presentation of “belief” implies trust and faithfulness (...)

I don't understand this. How can one trust something one doesn't intellectually believe to be true, and why would one be faithful to it?

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Quote from that article:

I don't understand this. How can one trust something one doesn't intellectually believe to be true, and why would one be faithful to it?

I don't think they are sayting those are separate and independent, but that they are two different things functionally. Intellectual belief surely accompanies faith, but faith does not necessarily accompany intellectual belief. After all, the Bible says devils believes and tremble (James 2:19).

 

[tango]

I suppose a lot would depend on whether the belief in question aligned with life experience, and how significant a belief would be with regard to my daily life.

For example, do I believe that there's a person named Lucian Hodoboc who frequents certain internet forums? Well, someone with that handle started the thread so there's evidence to support the theory. Whether that person is actually called Lucian Hodoboc or chose that name as a nom de plume isn't something I can prove either way from here but, since it makes little difference to my life, I can just as easily choose to believe it's a real name or a pen name. Or I can believe it doesn't matter and not take a stance.

On the other hand, believing that I'm the only one who lives in my house would prove tricky since every morning when I wake up my wife is there, which rather breaks the hypothesis. I can't sustain the belief because it flies in the face of the evidence I can see with my own eyes.

Do I believe that the state of California exists? People tell me it does. Some people claim to have visited it, or even to live there. I've never seen it with my own eyes. Should I believe it exists or not, and why?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I suppose a lot would depend on whether the belief in question aligned with life experience, and how significant a belief would be with regard to my daily life.

So what do you do about something so monumentally important as The Christian Gospel, a topic on the believing of which your eternal faith allegedly depends?

Also, what are those for whom this Gospel does not align with their life experience supposed to do?

 

[tango]

So what do you do about something so monumentally important as The Christian Gospel, a topic on the believing of which your eternal faith allegedly depends upon?

You test it thoroughly. But test it objectively and rigorously, not like a lot of people who are clearly looking to find something, anything, that they can point to as "proof" that nothing is true.

Also, what are those for whom this Gospel does not align with their life experience supposed to do?

If it truly doesn't align it's easy to see how they would struggle to accept it. Without specifics of misalignments it's hard to say much more. I know some people see things "not aligning" when the reality is they had unrealistic expectations, maybe they took something out of context and got upset when it didn't apply to them. Other people see "not aligning" in ways we might struggle to explain.

Is there something specific behind this question?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

maybe they took something out of context and got upset when it didn't apply to them.

If a text was given by an omnipotent Being, Who desires for all humans to be saved, and the humans had to clearly understand the text and believe in its veracity for them to be saved from eternal torment, then this text would not be designed in such a way as to be possible for it to be taken out of context or misunderstood in any way. It would be axiomatic, formulated in statements that are unable to be interpreted in any other ways than its intrinsic meaning, obvious and unable to leave room for misunderstanding.

 

[rstrats]

If a text was given by an omnipotent Being, Who desires for all humans to be saved, and the humans had to clearly understand the text and believe in its veracity for them to be saved from eternal torment, then this text would not be designed in such a way as to be possible for it to be taken out of context or misunderstood in any way.

But wouldn't a person first have to believe that a supreme being exists?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

But wouldn't a person first have to believe that a supreme being exists?

How do you define "to believe something"? If you define it as "to be convinced of the veracity of an information", then no, a person would not have to believe that a supreme being exists because the text would be designed in such a way as to make disbelief impossible.

 

[tango]

If a text was given by an omnipotent Being, Who desires for all humans to be saved, and the humans had to clearly understand the text and believe in its veracity for them to be saved from eternal torment, then this text would not be designed in such a way as to be possible for it to be taken out of context or misunderstood in any way. It would be axiomatic, formulated in statements that are unable to be interpreted in any other ways than its intrinsic meaning, obvious and unable to leave room for misunderstanding.

It isn't semantically possible to create such a text. Take something as unambiguous as this, taken from the Ten Commandments:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

Doesn't get much clearer than that, right? Try a little semantic gymnastics with it...

"Thou shalt.... commit adultery"

Oops.



If you're not happy with omitting words from the middle of a phrase, consider the context of words spoken to a specific group. At the beginning of the Ten Commandments, God tells the Israelites that he brought them out of their slavery in Egypt. Let's look at those words:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

Now let's read those words from our perspective. God didn't bring me out of Egypt so clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about and I can write off the rest of the book as being nonsensical jibber-jabber, right?

Oops.



In more simplistic terms, if a friend of mine asks me to help him move and I utter the words "Yes, I'd be happy to help you move. I'll come to yours at 9am on Saturday" it's a simple arrangement, it's hard to see how the words could be any clearer. On Saturday morning I show up, help my friend move, and have kept my promise. If you overheard me make that promise, and some months later try to hold me to my "promise" and get upset with me because I didn't show up at your house at 9am on Saturday, is that disappointment my fault for not showing up or your fault for trying to twist my promise into something it was never supposed to be?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It is perfectly possible to create such a text. I genuinely don't understand where you're getting at with the examples you gave.

 

[rstrats]

How do you define "to believe something"? If you define it as "to be convinced of the veracity of an information", then no, a person would not have to believe that a supreme being exists because the text would be designed in such a way as to make disbelief impossible.

re: "How do you define 'to believe something'?"

To be convinced that someone or something does or doesn't exist or that a certain proposition is or isn't true.



re: " If you define it as 'to be convinced of the veracity of an information', then no, a person would not have to believe that a supreme being exists because the text would be designed in such a way as to make disbelief impossible."

OK, so if a person doesn't have a belief, i.e., a conviction that a supreme being exists can you conceive of a text which would make it impossible for a person to remain without a belief in a supreme being?

 

[tango]

It is perfectly possible to create such a text. I genuinely don't understand where you're getting at with the examples you gave.

If it's possible to create such a text go ahead. Give an example.

My point with the examples is that even when something is clear you can rip context away to make it look like it says something else. But feel free to provide a piece of text that's comprehensive enough to mean something and that can't be misquoted, selectively quoted, or taken out of context in ways that make it appear to mean something else.

As things stand there are all sorts of things in the Bible that can be misused, misquoted, misapplied and the like.

Take Job 22:28 in isolation. It looks like we can simply declare something and have it done. But read in context it means anything but that (the kicker is who was speaking the words recorded).

Or take Ephesians 5:18. The bit that says ".... be drunk with wine ..." - if you consider context you'll see that I quoted the exact words from the original text, but ripped them out of the middle of the verse to make it appear to say the exact opposite of what the verse actually says.

But hey, if you can come up with a text that leaves it impossible to misquote, have at it.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

The fact that texts can disingenuously be fragmented and misattributed is irrelevant to the fact that a text can be created so that it can express a clear message that cannot be genuinely misunderstood.

I'm not referring to the people who intentionally twist / misquote Scripture to fit their worldview. I'm referring to the people who genuinely seek the truth, yet, after having read the same Scripture, come to completely different conclusions about what the truth.

People who genuinely want to know the truth should be able to find the same truth in Scripture. I'm pretty sure that there are at least a few people who genuinely seek the truth in most Christian denominations, yet, after years of prayer, they claim to have been told opposing things about certain doctrines by the same Holy Spirit.