Is belief a choice or a state of being convinced with regard to a particular statement?

Question

When presented a statement or argument x, and relevant background information B(x), what determines whether the listener's assent to the truth of x can be interpreted as a choice vs an induced state due to the listeners implicit inferential commitments?

As an example, if a person who claims to follow a system of inference S that would take S(x, B(x)) to a truth value fails to assign that truth value, are they consciously overriding S or was S never really the underlying inference system to begin with?

In short, is direct doxastic voluntarism true?

Answer 1

Belief isn't a choice. But you can evaluate and apply methods for determining what's true, which can lead you to believing something is true. And you can choose to question something, which can create doubt, and which can ultimately change beliefs if you reevaluate your reasons for believing.

This doesn't allow you to believe whatever you choose though. You probably can't start believing there's an invisible unicorn in your backyard, no matter how much you (responsibly and consistently) doubt and reevaluate, but that would be "working as intended" to avoid unjustified beliefs.

Along those lines, I have, on occasion, heard something along the lines of "your standards of evidence is too high, because none of the available evidence would convince you that this true claim is true". The obvious response is that claim would be an unjustified belief; none of the available evidence would convince me of that conclusion because the available evidence doesn't point to that conclusion (as per my best judgement, which of course isn't perfect). To convince me of the conclusion, someone would need to present a method for determining what's true, that would lead to said conclusion, and convince me that said method should be trusted. Or they would need to point out a flaw in the method I use (apart from not leading to a conclusion which they believe is true... which could equally well indicate a flaw in their method).

Whether someone claims to follow a system of inference doesn't mean they actually follow it. If something isn't consistent with their claimed system of inference for that specific belief, either they're lying or (more likely) they aren't being perfectly rational and may be blinded by bias (no-one is perfectly rational, but we can realise that and try to account for it through skeptical analysis of our beliefs).

---

Given that you tagged this with "free will", I'll just point out that this is a separate (but related) issue. That would be a question of what it even means to "choose" something, whether you can, strictly speaking, "choose" something. Although I suppose one could reframe part of free will as "I believe this action will best satisfy my desires", and then one might say you only do things you believe will best satisfy your desires. Note that this is using "desires" in the broadest possible sense: hedonistic desires, sure, but also desires to help others, desires to be have beliefs that match reality, desires to see justice served, etc.

Answer 2

Your question supposes there is a clear cut distinction between the mental processes in arriving at a choice and those in reasoning towards a belief. I am far from convinced that is true. Practically, there are many cases in which we reason towards a choice. Also, in language we can blur the distinction, as in 'Waiter, I believe I will have the strawberry ice-cream'. However, let's ignore all that and assume there's a clear difference, and that by 'choice' we mean a (seemingly) freely made, on the spot decision with out any kind of run-up.

Failure to adopt the results of one's professed system of reasoning can arise in the following kinds of circumstances:

1. Phobias. I have a fear of heights, and through no amount of logical reasoning can I persuade myself to overcome it.

2. Mistakes. One can make slips in reasoning, which mean you arrive at a conclusion that isn't supported by the system of reasoning you imagined you were following.

3. Incongruities. Sometimes you can apply your system of inference and arrive at a conclusion that appears to contradict some deeply held belief. In such circumstances you cannot hold on to the conclusion and the existing belief, so you need to do more mental work to identify the cause of the conflict and resolve it. I had that sort of experience recently, where I puzzled over a particular thought experiment in which my reasoning led me to a conclusion that I believed must be wrong. I still haven't resolved it!

4. Whim, laziness etc. There are many times in life in which we put on our logical hat and arrive at a conclusion that we disregard, even though we know it to be sound. How many times, for example, does logic tell you that a stitch in time will save nine, but you procrastinate anyway? How many times do we make an impulsive purchase even though logic tells us we can't afford it? Etc etc

Given all that, and the fact that we could probably imagine other categories to add to the list, the answer isn't the clear cut one you supposed when you typed your headline question. There seem to be many ways in which reasoning does or doesn't give rise to beliefs, and beliefs don't always arise from reasoning- most, I suppose, are the result of societal influences, and few can be simply pigeon-holed as a 'choice' in the way we defined the word earlier.

Answer 3

Your second option is correct. Belief is not a "choice" but "a state of being convinced with regard to a particular statement".

There's not much else to say about this.