PyramidHead
Contributor
It is often said that people are free to believe whatever they wish. The implication behind this statement is that people should not face serious repercussions merely for holding a belief. I agree with this implication! It would be a tough world if we could be punished for our thoughts. But there are other senses of "freedom of belief" that I want to examine.
The first is the sense that freedom implies choice. I don't think it's actually possible to CHOOSE what to believe. I cannot make myself believe that my name is Rufus, no matter how hard I try. And if a statement has justification that convinces me, I can't help but believe it. There may be forms of psychological self-deception where someone refuses to believe something, or holds a belief out of some delusional hope. But these are not examples of someone exercising their freedom, they are cases where one's rational faculties are hampered. The ideal scenario of a free choice is one that allows someone full control over their critical thinking apparatus. So, in the sense that freedom implies choice, we are not free to believe whatever we want.
The other sense of freedom I want to dispute is harder to define. I will approach it by an example: even if there is no moral duty to eat healthy food, most people would still say it is better to eat healthy than not. That is, people attach a normative value to eating healthy that, while not morally obligatory, is nonetheless a kind of imperative. I find that people do not attach the same imperative to belief, at least in my experience (the appropriate analogy would be "it is better to have justified beliefs than not"). There seems to be a general sense that beliefs are completely without restriction, to the point where it would be rude to recommend somebody alter their beliefs--although it is not usually considered rude to tell someone to alter their diet, if phrased politely. So, to the extent that having wrong or unsupported beliefs is like eating junky food, I don't think people are free to do so without social reprobation.
So, I think "everybody is free to believe whatever they want" is true in only a very limited sense. It basically means "I won't force you to change your mind." But it doesn't mean you can exert direct control over your worldview on a whim, nor does it mean I won't try to persuade you otherwise. The phrase applies, then, to a state of affairs that would never actually occur in a modern society. I think people should stop saying it, but I can't force them.
The first is the sense that freedom implies choice. I don't think it's actually possible to CHOOSE what to believe. I cannot make myself believe that my name is Rufus, no matter how hard I try. And if a statement has justification that convinces me, I can't help but believe it. There may be forms of psychological self-deception where someone refuses to believe something, or holds a belief out of some delusional hope. But these are not examples of someone exercising their freedom, they are cases where one's rational faculties are hampered. The ideal scenario of a free choice is one that allows someone full control over their critical thinking apparatus. So, in the sense that freedom implies choice, we are not free to believe whatever we want.
The other sense of freedom I want to dispute is harder to define. I will approach it by an example: even if there is no moral duty to eat healthy food, most people would still say it is better to eat healthy than not. That is, people attach a normative value to eating healthy that, while not morally obligatory, is nonetheless a kind of imperative. I find that people do not attach the same imperative to belief, at least in my experience (the appropriate analogy would be "it is better to have justified beliefs than not"). There seems to be a general sense that beliefs are completely without restriction, to the point where it would be rude to recommend somebody alter their beliefs--although it is not usually considered rude to tell someone to alter their diet, if phrased politely. So, to the extent that having wrong or unsupported beliefs is like eating junky food, I don't think people are free to do so without social reprobation.
So, I think "everybody is free to believe whatever they want" is true in only a very limited sense. It basically means "I won't force you to change your mind." But it doesn't mean you can exert direct control over your worldview on a whim, nor does it mean I won't try to persuade you otherwise. The phrase applies, then, to a state of affairs that would never actually occur in a modern society. I think people should stop saying it, but I can't force them.