Doxastic voluntarism is the philosophical view that people have control over their own beliefs and can choose to believe or disbelieve propositions at will. The term comes from the Greek word “doxa” meaning belief or opinion. Voluntarism refers to the notion that belief formation is an act of the will.
So doxastic voluntarists argue that beliefs are subject to the will in the same way that actions are. Just as we can choose how to act, we can also choose what to believe. This view stands in contrast to doxastic involuntarism, which states that people cannot directly control their beliefs. Involuntarists argue that beliefs are formed automatically based on a person’s experiences and evaluation of evidence.
The doxastic voluntarism vs. involuntarism debate has implications for issues like the ethics of belief, the value of faith, and the possibility of self-deception. It’s also connected to theological questions about the role of the will in belief in God.
Key Points on Doxastic Voluntarism
Here are some key points to understand about the concept of doxastic voluntarism:
– It states that beliefs are under the control of the will and can be adopted or rejected voluntarily. Belief is an act of choice.
– Doxastic voluntarists argue against the notion that belief always follows from perception of evidence. People can believe or disbelieve at will.
– Voluntarism claims that we can choose to believe something we know is false or lack adequate evidence for. Belief does not have to match objective reality.
– Critics of voluntarism argue that we cannot simply make ourselves believe whatever we want. Belief formation relies on involuntary cognitive processes.
– Doxastic voluntarism has implications for religious faith, raising questions about whether faith is an act of will.
– The voluntarist view suggests people can be morally culpable for their beliefs if belief is a choice. Involuntarists disagree.
– Voluntarism creates philosophical problems like whether people can willfully deceive themselves by adopting false beliefs.
– There are moderate forms of voluntarism that argue we have some control over beliefs, but not complete voluntary control.
– The voluntarism vs. involuntarism debate has a long history in Western philosophy, theology, and psychology.
The Bible on Belief and the Will
The Bible does not directly address the philosophical debate between doxastic voluntarism and involuntarism. However, it provides some relevant teachings on the nature of faith, belief, doubt, and the will that inform this issue.
Belief as a Gift and Calling from God
The Bible presents belief in God as a gift and calling rather than just a choice:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)
These verses suggest God enables belief rather than human will alone producing faith. However, other verses exhort people to choose and exercise faith, implying a role for the will.
Doubts About Faith Encouraged to Be Overcome
The Bible often encourages people to overcome doubts and strengthen faith through an act of will, implying some voluntary control:
“Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, ‘I believe; help my unbelief!’” (Mark 9:24)
“Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting.” (James 1:5-6)
These passages suggest belief requires determination of the will even in the face of uncertainty. But the role of God in granting faith is also affirmed.
Human Responsibility for Unbelief
In some cases, the Bible assigns moral responsibility to people for their unbelief, implying it could be overcome through the will:
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18)
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness… so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)
“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10)
Yet Scripture also teaches that spiritual blindness prevents some from believing, which could limit or undermine the will’s responsibility.
Evidence Should Produce Belief
The Bible often presents evidence and testimony as means God uses to instill faith in people, rather than belief being formed directly by the will:
“Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30-31)
“These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” (1 Peter 1:7)
The biblical model generally relies on knowledge of God and Christ through evidence to produce faith. This suggests human will alone cannot generate belief apart from revelation.
Truth and Objectivity Essential for Belief and Faith
The Bible connects genuine faith to objectively true knowledge rather than subjective human will:
“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)
These passages warn of false beliefs and emphasize truth, suggesting human will alone cannot determine reality or manufacture faith separate from facts.
Summary of Biblical Perspective
In summary, the Bible does suggest a role for human will and responsibility in belief formation. But it does not clearly endorse complete doxastic voluntarism. Faith is portrayed as emerging from God’s initiative and spiritual enlightenment combined with human willingness to receive truth. Sin can hinder belief, implying limitations on the will’s power. While doubts and unbelief are rebuked at times, forced belief without conviction is also not the biblical model. Overall, the complexity of biblical teaching suggests a moderate role for the will in regulating belief that avoids extremes of pure voluntarism or involuntarism.
Christian Thinkers on Doxastic Voluntarism
Throughout church history, Christian theologians and philosophers have engaged extensively with the debate between doxastic voluntarism and involuntarism, offering important insights on the nature of belief and will.
Early Church Fathers – Faith as Voluntary Assent
Many early church fathers emphasized the importance of the will in exercising faith. For example, Justin Martyr argued that human responsibility requires voluntary assent to truth. Clement of Alexandria taught that faith is “voluntary assent given to what is unseen.” And Tertullian claimed Christians “believe of our own free will.”
However, they also acknowledged faith as a gift of divine grace, suggesting moderate rather than extreme voluntarism. Augustine spoke of God “turning the will” to freely believe.
Medieval Period – Modified Voluntarism
During the medieval period, thinkers like Anselm argued that the will guides the intellect to conclusions but cannot compel belief against reason. Thomas Aquinas taught that the intellect presents knowledge to the will, which then directs belief. But the will has limited power over full mental assent. Duns Scotus and William of Ockham advanced a moderately voluntarist view of belief formation, while acknowledging restrictions on directly choosing beliefs.
Reformation – Belief as Duty vs. Invincible Ignorance
During the Reformation, Luther argued that humans have a moral duty through their will to believe the word of God, yet sin creates opposition to faith in the natural will. Calvin emphasized God’s sovereign will in granting belief. Reformed scholastics like Voetius and Wollebius saw belief as a voluntary act, while Roman Catholic scholastics emphasized invincible ignorance that restricts voluntary belief.
Early Modern Era – Belief and Assent
In the 17th-18th centuries, Rene Descartes argued that the will cannot force belief against perceived evidence. Baruch Spinoza claimed the will is determined in belief by knowledge rather than being free. John Locke distinguished between perception of truth and voluntary assent of the will to believe it. Joseph Butler maintained that belief is indirectly governed by the will since people can voluntarily consider evidence that determines belief.
Contemporary Christian Philosophy – Moderate Views
Contemporary Christian philosophers tend to hold nuanced views that incorporate both voluntarist and involuntarist elements. Alvin Plantinga argues belief involves subconscious events beyond direct control but also personal responsibility in regulating one’s mental life. William Alston contends that while beliefs are formed involuntarily, people can indirectly influence what they believe. Linda Zagzebski asserts that the will motivates and directs the intellect but does not determine its conclusions. In general, moderate and nuanced positions prevail over extreme doxastic voluntarism or involuntarism.
Summary of Christian Perspectives
While differences exist between various thinkers, a common theme emerges that human free will has an indirect and limited, but real role in belief formation, which must be understood in relation to God’s initiative in illumination and revelation. Extreme doxastic voluntarism is viewed as flawed and untenable by most. But Christian philosophy has also cautioned against exaggerating belief as a purely involuntary response beyond any influence of the will. As John Frame summarizes, “Belief in God is a matter of choice, but not mere choice.”
Objections to Doxastic Voluntarism
Critics have raised significant philosophical objections against doxastic voluntarism and the notion that we can simply choose to believe or disbelieve propositions at will.
The Lack of Direct Control Over Belief Objection
Many argue we lack direct control over our beliefs – we cannot just will ourselves to believe or disbelieve something at a moment’s notice. Our beliefs seem formed by unconscious processes responsive to perceptions, reasoning, emotions, and evidence. We cannot easily change beliefs by a direct act of will.
The No Choice About What’s Convincing Objection
We have no direct choice over what we find convincing. Arguments, evidence, and experiences shape beliefs in ways we do not fully control. Our will cannot determine what is convincing to our intellect – this happens involuntarily based on what we encounter.
The Deliberate Self-Deception Objection
Doxastic voluntarism makes deliberate self-deception too easy and common. People could willfully form false beliefs that confirm their desires if beliefs are directly willed. But deliberate self-deception seems difficult, requiring indirect willful exposure to misinformation.
The Epistemic Irresponsibility Objection
Choosing beliefs at will regardless of facts would make people epistemically irresponsible. Voluntarism validates forming beliefs that defy objectively available evidence, undermining responsible pursuit of truth.
The Divine Faith Problem
If religious faith is under direct voluntary control, then skeptics could dispel doubt and believe simply by choosing to do so. But critics argue that genuine religious faith involves affection, commitment, and responses beyond just intellectual assent alone.
The Empirical Evidence Against Voluntarism
Psychology and neuroscience reveal complex subconscious processes of belief formation that occur involuntarily. Areas like the ventral medial prefrontal cortex connected to emotions, desires, and memory shape beliefs apart from conscious will.
Summary of Objections
In summary, critics raise a range of philosophical and empirical problems for doxastic voluntarism. Alternative involuntary models seem needed to account for the nuanced nature of actual human belief formation. Pure voluntarism faces substantial theoretical and scientific challenges.
Defenses of Doxastic Voluntarism
Despite objections, some philosophers continue defending various forms of doxastic voluntarism and arguing that belief remains connected to human volition in important ways.
Direct vs. Indirect Voluntarism
Some voluntarists distinguish between directly and indirectly willed beliefs. While people may not directly will specific beliefs, they indirectly guide belief through selectively exposing themselves to traditions, authorities, evidence, and arguments.
Degrees of Belief Model
Rather than all-or-nothing belief, some voluntarists propose beliefs are partial, gradually strengthened or weakened through voluntary engagement with ideas and evidence. Belief formation has volitional elements but is not completely directed by the will.
Not All Beliefs Are Alike
Voluntarists argue not all beliefs require the same evidential support, allowing will to play a greater role in areas like religious faith, political ideology, or lifestyle values, compared to technical facts or logic which compel assent.
Pragmatic and Moral Reasons Matter
People can voluntarily shape beliefs for pragmatic reasons or moral commitments apart from just evidence. Voluntarists claim non-evidential factors legitimately influence belief formation in practice.
Room for Freedom Amidst Limits
While involuntary factors limit human belief formation, voluntarists maintain there is still scope for freedom and responsibility in regulating thought and choosing what to consider. External forces do not determine beliefs completely.
Summary of Defenses
Modern defenders of doxastic voluntarism propose more nuanced models acknowledging both involuntary and voluntary dimensions interacting in belief formation. They argue limitations do not rule out any role for the will, even if belief is not formed directly by sheer acts of choice. Plausible models leave room for human freedom.
Conclusion on Doxastic Voluntarism
The question of doxastic voluntarism remains much disputed in philosophy. It connects to profound issues of freedom, responsibility, rationality, and religious faith. Extreme positions on either side face challenges. A rigid involuntarism risks undermining meaningful human freedom and responsibility. Yet unqualified voluntarism implausibly overstates willful control and allows departure from objective truth and evidence.
A balanced perspective recognizes the complex factors shaping belief. Neither pure choice nor mechanical determinism adequately describes human cognition. As the Bible and Christian tradition affirm, belief formation involves interaction between God’s initiative, human receptivity to revelation, active pursuit of evidence, and willingness to embrace truth. The will plays an indirect but vital role amidst other influences. Some room remains for doxastic self-regulation and responsibility without embracing naive voluntarism. Discerning the intricacies of this process remains an enduring philosophical and theological task.