An appeal for accurate naming of expectations, or: Is belief truly belief?

[LuisDantas]

A recent exchange led me to revisit an ancient realization: while it is customary to talk of "believers" in some creeds, belief proper is often optional and very circunstantial.

It seems to me that in practice what we see (most often and most emphatically in the Abrahamics) is rarely an expectation of belief proper, but rather of a certain attitude of reverence or at least quiet respect towards those beliefs.

In a sense that is necessary; those doctrines tend to be proselitistic in nature and to hold expectations that non-believers can or will be convinced at some point. In practical terms, they adopt belief itself as a goal, even as a virtue to be cherished and praised.

I am not sympathetic to that stance, particularly when the beliefs are directed towards the idea of the existence of some variety of the Abrahamic-styled gods, which I see as anathema to religiosity itself.

But beyond that, I just don't think that it is healthy to deliberately nurture a duty of delusion and obfuscation inside a group that aims to have some form of religious brotherhood. That attitude creates quite a lot of anxiety and mistrust in order to protect the perception of shared beliefs. That stress isn't otherwise necessary and IMO isn't even helpful for any proper religious purposes.

If you disagree, would you like to elaborate on how or why? Does your experience clash with mine in some way that you would want to express here?

Thanks in advance.

 

[PureX]

A recent exchange led me to revisit an ancient realization: while it is customary to talk of "believers" in some creeds, belief proper is often optional and very circunstantial.

It seems to me that in practice what we see (most often and most emphatically in the Abrahamics) is rarely an expectation of belief proper, but rather of a certain attitude of reverence or at least quiet respect towards those beliefs.

In a sense that is necessary; those doctrines tend to be proselitistic in nature and to hold expectations that non-believers can or will be convinced at some point. In practical terms, they adopt belief itself as a goal, even as a virtue to be cherished and praised.

I am not sympathetic to that stance, particularly when the beliefs are directed towards the idea of the existence of some variety of the Abrahamic-styled gods, which I see as anathema to religiosity itself.

But beyond that, I just don't think that it is healthy to deliberately nurture a duty of delusion and obfuscation inside a group that aims to have some form of religious brotherhood. That attitude creates quite a lot of anxiety and mistrust in order to protect the perception of shared beliefs. That stress isn't otherwise necessary and IMO isn't even helpful for any proper religious purposes.

If you disagree, would you like to elaborate on how or why? Does your experience clash with mine in some way that you would want to express here?

Thanks in advance.

Excellent post. And I strongly agree with your characterization and observations regarding religious "belief". In fact, I would take it even a step further and assert that "belief" is basically just an act of self-centered hubris that stands as an impediment to faith; which is supposed to be the goal of religiosity, whether it's evangelical or otherwise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Excellent post. And I strongly agree with your characterization and observations regarding religious "belief". In fact, I would take it even a step further and assert that "belief" is basically just an act of self-centered hubris that stands as an impediment to faith; which is supposed to be the goal of religiosity, whether it's evangelical or otherwise.

Belief amd faith are synonyms.

Belief:
be·lief
noun

1. 1.
   an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
   "his belief in the value of hard work"
2. 2.
   trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
   "I've still got belief in myself"
   
   Similar: faith

Faith:

noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   
   Similar: belief

 

[LuisDantas]

Belief and faith are synonyms.

Under certain circunstances they may indeed be.

In pratice, and most of all in religious practice... not so much.

This dictionary definition that you bring up illustrates the confusion, but does not make it any less real.

 

[PureX]

Under certain circunstances they may indeed be.

In pratice, and most of all in religious practice... not so much.

This dictionary definition that you bring up illustrates the confusion, but does not make it any less real.

Yes, and is why appealing to the dictionary to support one's reasoning is very often ineffective. Since dictionaries do not record our reasoning, but only our word usage and misusage.

 

[Koldo]

A recent exchange led me to revisit an ancient realization: while it is customary to talk of "believers" in some creeds, belief proper is often optional and very circunstantial.

It seems to me that in practice what we see (most often and most emphatically in the Abrahamics) is rarely an expectation of belief proper, but rather of a certain attitude of reverence or at least quiet respect towards those beliefs.

In a sense that is necessary; those doctrines tend to be proselitistic in nature and to hold expectations that non-believers can or will be convinced at some point. In practical terms, they adopt belief itself as a goal, even as a virtue to be cherished and praised.

I am wondering what sort of experience you have had that made you reach this conclusion.

 

[Orbit]

The emphasis on belief over practice is particular to American Protestants.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am wondering what sort of experience you have had that made you reach this conclusion.

I was raised in Brazilian culture - which treats Christianity almost as an ethnic trait, to be presumed and hardly ever questioned - while being an atheist and even I had a hard time realizing that my lack of belief it was supposed to matter.

Much later, I became interested in Taoism, then Buddhism. It was fairly self-evident by then that whatever constructive religion could happen to be would not possibly rely on god-beliefs.

Sometime in the early 2000s I finally realized that one of the chief religious duties is having a mind of our own, to make the doctrine ours, care for it, shape it and take responsibility for it. In short, I learned of Dharma and found it good.

 

[LuisDantas]

The emphasis on belief over practice is particular to American Protestants.

If only.

 

[icehorse]

But beyond that, I just don't think that it is healthy to deliberately nurture a duty of delusion and obfuscation inside a group that aims to have some form of religious brotherhood. That attitude creates quite a lot of anxiety and mistrust in order to protect the perception of shared beliefs. That stress isn't otherwise necessary and IMO isn't even helpful for any proper religious purposes.

I think if we're honest, we ALL have some beliefs. I'm a secular humanist and I believe we (humans), can solve our own problems. To be honest, these days it's hard for me to maintain that belief. But I AM happy to admit it's a belief of mine. AND, I'm happy to admit that I hold onto that belief somewhat dogmatically. I'm also happy to admit that I think we should all be concerned about any form of dogmatism, so as I reflect on my somewhat dogmatic belief in humanity, I'm also aware and suspicious of my own dogmatism.

In other words, I think we'd all be better off if we were open and honest about what we believe and where we're being dogmatic. (And I'd hope we can all cultivate a strong suspicion of dogma!)

==

I think a powerful way to think about beliefs is to bring VALUES into the discussion. Ultimately, I believe (ha!), that being open and honest and explicit about values is more useful than talking about beliefs. On RF we can find countless examples of "believers" who are implicitly using their unspoken values while trying to defend some dogmatic aspect of their religion. The "oh, you're reading that bit of my scripture wrong" phenomenon.

I believe (ha, again!), that if we could shift our conversations away from having "beliefs" being central to having "values" be central, we'd find an abundance of shared experience and thinking.

So I always want to ask: What are those Islamic values? What are those Christian values? What are those family values Mr. politician?

 

[Secret Chief]

So I always want to ask: What are those Islamic values? What are those Christian values? What are those family values Mr. politician?

Courtesy of our populist rw government in the uk, we now have "British values" being promulgated in British schools. There's no such thing of course, until someone makes a list up and claims them as British. Are you a German? Do you show respect for the opinions of others? You do? Did you know that's a British value that you've taken on board?

Bonus authoritarian tidbit: the government has proscribed schools from using resources from organisations wanting to end capitalism. Safeguarding free market enterprise by utilising cancel culture? Don't mention "socialism" or "trades unions" if you work in a school or you could be out of a job.

 

[shunyadragon]

Excellent post. And I strongly agree with your characterization and observations regarding religious "belief". In fact, I would take it even a step further and assert that "belief" is basically just an act of self-centered hubris that stands as an impediment to faith; which is supposed to be the goal of religiosity, whether it's evangelical or otherwise.

I disagree with your description of what constitutes 'belief.' I take a simpler neutral approach to belief, which is subjective knowledge based to some extent on anecdotal evidence without an objective basis, Beliefs can range from theological to a philosophical basis or a mix. More on beliefs to follow . . .

I generally take a Universalist approach, which I introduced in a previous thread. This approach is not directly related to the Unitarian Universalist, but may share attributes of UU.. The Universalist approach looks at philosophy and theology as basically approaching the subjective knowledge as simply knowledge as it is believed in the diversity of fallible human existence since humans were first human. This approach does not reflect what I believe or not believe. Much of this knowledge has value whether religious or philosophical applications in human expression in things like the arts.

Moreto fo;;ow . . .

 

[MonkeyFire]

Belief is a triage of trust, hope, and happiness. Trust can either be asserted at in the appropriate situation, or in a perfect world you would trust everyone in your environment and not have to worry. With hope you can’t stop or you die, with happiness it can take breaks, but literal pain is the worst thing you will ever experience.

 

[PureX]

I disagree with your description of what constitutes 'belief.' I take a simpler neutral approach to belief, which is subjective knowledge based to some extent on anecdotal evidence without an objective basis, Beliefs can range from theological to a philosophical basis or a mix. More on beliefs to follow . . .

I generally take a Universalist approach, which I introduced in a previous thread. This approach is not directly related to the Unitarian Universalist, but may share attributes of UU.. The Universalist approach looks at philosophy and theology as basically approaching the subjective knowledge as simply knowledge as it is believed in the diversity of fallible human existence since humans were first human. This approach does not reflect what I believe or not believe. Much of this knowledge has value whether religious or philosophical applications in human expression in things like the arts.

Moreto fo;;ow . . .

To trust in the idea that "X" is true does not require an absence of doubt. It's just a choice made in the face of our skepticism. To believe that "X" is true is to have rejected that doubt. Belief is therefor an internal declaration of the rejection of doubt. And it is this rejection of doubt that makes belief antithetical to faith, which is a decision (action) taken in the face of doubt. Without that doubt, there is no need for faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

To trust in the idea that "X" is true does not require an absence of doubt. It's just a choice made in the face of our skepticism. To believe that "X" is true is to have rejected that doubt. Belief is therefor an internal declaration of the rejection of doubt. And it is this rejection of doubt that makes belief antithetical to faith, which is a decision (action) taken in the face of doubt. Without that doubt, there is no need for faith.

I disagree to believe in something subjective removes the issue of doubt. Your view is mechanistically to extreme to consider grades of 'belief,' doubt and skepticism.

 

[PureX]

I disagree to believe in something subjective removes the issue of doubt. Your view is mechanistically to extreme to consider grades of 'belief,' doubt and skepticism.

There are no "grades of belief". One either believes or one does not. To say "I believe" is to proclaim one's rejection of doubt.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think if we're honest, we ALL have some beliefs.

We all have beliefs. But few outside (mainly Abrahamic) religious movements (using a very broad and inclusive definition here) expect others to protect their beliefs from the reality of facts to the point of creating political movements and even hate groups to enforce that expectation.

Is there even a constructive reason - no, scratch that, any excuse - to accept that attitude from such groups?

 

[icehorse]

We all have beliefs. But few outside (mainly Abrahamic) religious movements (using a very broad and inclusive definition here) expect others to protect their beliefs from the reality of facts to the point of creating political movements and even hate groups to enforce that expectation.

Is there even a constructive reason - no, scratch that, any excuse - to accept that attitude from such groups?

I totally agree about the (I think dysfunctional), protection of beliefs. I'm just trying out the idea that if I can share with an Abrahamist the idea that I have beliefs and values as well - being the heathen I am - it might be a way to find some common ground.

 

[Wildswanderer]

A recent exchange led me to revisit an ancient realization: while it is customary to talk of "believers" in some creeds, belief proper is often optional and very circunstantial.

It seems to me that in practice what we see (most often and most emphatically in the Abrahamics) is rarely an expectation of belief proper, but rather of a certain attitude of reverence or at least quiet respect towards those beliefs.

In a sense that is necessary; those doctrines tend to be proselitistic in nature and to hold expectations that non-believers can or will be convinced at some point. In practical terms, they adopt belief itself as a goal, even as a virtue to be cherished and praised.

I am not sympathetic to that stance, particularly when the beliefs are directed towards the idea of the existence of some variety of the Abrahamic-styled gods, which I see as anathema to religiosity itself.

But beyond that, I just don't think that it is healthy to deliberately nurture a duty of delusion and obfuscation inside a group that aims to have some form of religious brotherhood. That attitude creates quite a lot of anxiety and mistrust in order to protect the perception of shared beliefs. That stress isn't otherwise necessary and IMO isn't even helpful for any proper religious purposes.

If you disagree, would you like to elaborate on how or why? Does your experience clash with mine in some way that you would want to express here?

Thanks in advance.

So basically what you're saying is that believers don't actually believe?
And where do you come up with that absurd conclusion?
In Christianity, belief that Jesus is God's son and literally died and rose from the dead is not " "optional."
Without that, you're not a believer, you are a fake.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are no "grades of belief". One either believes or one does not. To say "I believe" is to proclaim one's rejection of doubt.

This is a contradictory subjective statement of what is 'belief' based on the claim that you know what belief means to everyone else and that there beliefs is rejection of any 'doubt' that their belief is absolutely true concerning the nature of their belief. It is a statement of belief itself stating that there is no 'doubt' concerning your belief which is a problem.

Over the years I have what I call mini-satori or realizations that some call enlightenment until I arrived at the conclusion that: 'Everything I could subjectively believe is most likely wrong in one way or another.' This in part arises from the Buddhist teaching of nothing is necessary and everything is impermanent.