There are two primary ways someone can end up with a belief. Some beliefs arise based on the evidence presented. When better, more accurate information comes my way, you alter your beliefs. Other beliefs arise and persist, because those beliefs are "good" (comforting, meaningful, makes sense), and because the alternative beliefs are "bad" ( discomforting, painful, complicated, and/or undermines their sense of purpose). In both cases, belief is a result of perception and experience, not a choice.DancingCarrot wrote: ↑15 Jun 2018, 03:58 I always get squirmy when people talk about “choosing to believe,” or some other willed, conscious process as the explanation for why they are still in the Church while others are gone. We should collectively stop making that attribution error.
On the other hand, "Choosing to believe" requires going against one or the other "reasons for belief" I listed. For example, someone can choose to believe their spouse is faithful, even after being presented with strong evidence of their infidelity, because believing their spouse is unfaithful is much more painful than believing everything is fine. Or the reverse can be true, such as with many of us going through an LDS faith crisis. We recognize that strong evidence goes against some of the fundamental claims of the LDS Church, and choose to believe it is not what we once thought it was, despite the fact that this is a very painful realization.
But when most people say "I choose to believe", it's inline with the first example. It is maintaining a belief that is comforting and feels good, despite strong evidence to the contrary. It is, in essence, rejecting truth. "Alternative Facts", as some people put it. The only time I feel it is noble and courageous to choose to believe, is when we change our beliefs according to new evidence, despite it causing us pain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, those who choose to stay and those who choose to leave, despite their choice being painful, are the only ones making a meaningful choice. Relating this back to the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, they were in a paradisaical state, but one where they had no "meaningful choice". They could still "choose", I'm sure, to walk to one part of the garden or another. They could "choose" which of their animal friends to spend time with. But their choices were largely caused by whatever they happened to be feeling at the moment. "I want to eat an apple", "I want to see Adam", "I want to pet a goat". Their actions were largely caused by the circumstance God placed them in. Hence they were "with God".
But when Eve partook of the fruit, she knew it would bring her pain. Yet she did it in order to "gain knowledge", progress, and become like God (her own God, ultimately). She went from a creature dictated by the will of another, to, in effect, her own creator. In making a choice she knew would cause her pain, she shaped her own self apart from God, and hence became a "self-created" (a god-child, if you'd like). It was the first "meaningful choice" ever made, because she valued truth over comfort.