I Believe ...

[PureX]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.

Well, I use suspension of judgement sometimes, because that is it works for me as a belief. I have never been able as a skeptic to rid myself of belief in the end.

 

[Fool]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.

actually when you believe and never experience, you're just adding a burden of expectation that probably can't be met; especially something that no one has ever seen anyone else experience either.

even jesus loved a doubting thomas. it's healthy to question what you believe, it helps you find the parts that are healthy and dispose of the parts that aren't.


the unfortunate part of language is the multiple meanings it can convey and then you add on the subjective experiences of each reader/listener and what was said may not be what was conveyed. so then the believer believes they know what was said; when in fact, they may have misunderstood some part

 

[Fool]

Well, I use suspension of judgement sometimes, because that is it works for me as a belief. I have never been able as a skeptic to rid myself of belief in the end.

that is the scientific method. start with a hypothesis and then question/test

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

that is the scientific method. start with a hypothesis and then question/test

Yeah, but I don't only use natural science. In my culture there are 7 variants and natural science is only one of them.

 

[PureX]

Well, I use suspension of judgement sometimes, because that is it works for me as a belief. I have never been able as a skeptic to rid myself of belief in the end.

Why were you unable to rid yourself of belief? All you'd need to do is simply not take it on. After all, skepticism is our natural state, not belief.

 

[fantome profane]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality.

Perhaps you are. When I say I believe (in) "X" I am only saying I find the evidence sufficient to give provisional acceptance until such time as I have reason to change. I always maintain some degree of doubt and a willingness to reassess.

 

[stvdv]

And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.

I only believe if I have proof

 

[dybmh]

I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong?

Have you ever played the game minesweeper. In order to win the game you guess which squares have a mine in it, then use process of elimination to find all the mines.

Belief is like that. It allows a person to assume something is true, then move on to the implications of this belief and test if they are true. If they are, then, unless my logic is faulty, a person can be increasingly confident in their belief.

That's what's gained. It allows a person to skip over proof to move on to the next link in the chain.

 

[Audie]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.

Choosing to believe is just deliberate self deception.

 

[Audie]

Have you ever played the game minesweeper. In order to win the game you guess which squares have a mine in it, then use process of elimination to find all the mines.

Belief is like that. It allows a person to assume something is true, then move on to the implications of this belief and test if they are true. If they are, then, unless my logic is faulty, a person can be increasingly confident in their belief.

That's what's gained. It allows a person to skip over proof to move on to the next link in the chain.

" Willing suspension of disbelief."
Like at a movie.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps you are. When I say I believe (in) "X" I am only saying I find the evidence sufficient to give provisional acceptance until such time as I have reason to change. I always maintain some degree of doubt and a willingness to reassess.

Why don't you/we just say, "I presume "X", then? Or "I suppose "X"? Or, "I'm going with "X" at the moment"? What is the point of asserting belief if one remains skeptical (unbelieving)? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[PureX]

I only believe if I have proof

So your "X" is proof? You, "believe in proof". But couldn't your proof be wrong? Or you be wrong about it? Why not remain cautiously skeptical? Why "believe in" anything?

 

[Sheldon]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.

Humans need to form beliefs about the world they inhabit, or they couldn't function. I don't give much thought to the light switches I throw on, or that traffic in the opposite lane will stay there most of time, or that food will keep me alive, but if I didn't believe any of those things my world would become impossible pretty quickly. yet all those beliefs are based on sound objective evidence and reasoning.

 

[PureX]

Have you ever played the game minesweeper. In order to win the game you guess which squares have a mine in it, then use process of elimination to find all the mines.

Belief is like that. It allows a person to assume something is true, then move on to the implications of this belief and test if they are true. If they are, then, unless my logic is faulty, a person can be increasingly confident in their belief.

That's what's gained. It allows a person to skip over proof to move on to the next link in the chain.

But that's not 'belief', though. That's just a presumption that is being tested. We presume the mine is here, then we presume the mine is there, and so on. But presumption isn't really belief, is it? It's just our best guess. We are still being skeptical, aren't we?

And once the mine blows up, and we now know that it was there, then we don't need to believe in it, either. Because now we know it. So I just can't see the need to believe. Seems to me that we can presume before the fact, and we can know after the fact, without having to believe anything about it before or after.

 

[PureX]

Choosing to believe is just deliberate self deception.

That's what it looks like, to me. In that we are choosing to believe something is true that we don't know to be true. Because if we knew it to be true, we wouldn't need to "believe in" it. Unless "believing in" is the same as knowing. But I don't think these different terms are referring to the same state of mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"" ..
What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong?

You are welcome to your belief.
No gain, no loss. Force of 'no evidence' makes me state it. If you have any, then post about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why were you unable to rid yourself of belief? All you'd need to do is simply not take it on. After all, skepticism is our natural state, bot belief.

We understand that differently.

 

[dybmh]

" Willing suspension of disbelief."
Like at a movie.

Yes, like a movie. Have you ever watched a movie, then contemplated how it relates to the real world, to your own life. The suspension of disbelief allows a person to reinforce their own observations, increasing their confidence in those observations/ideas/beliefs. If, on the other hand, a person throughout the whole movie is reminding themself "none of this is real", it is much more difficult to relate it to their life. In this way, willing suspension of disbelief is useful.

 

[PureX]

We understand that differently.

You automatically believe everything?

I don't believe you!