Believing vs thinking

[Audie]

You injected a bit more than just the belief held up against another belief in your question. You added the weight of one of them already having been accepted and a measurable risk hinging on whether or not it is even true. When we're evaluating the two propositions, stand-alone, without such high-stakes already in play, then yes, they are equally unfalsifiable. I don't have good evidence that literally demonstrates that Godzilla doesn't exist, just as someone attempting to evidence his existence would have poor evidence also. The prudent thing to do in these situations is to simply await further demonstration either way. If such never arrives, then you have taken no action based on potentially false information. And our having zero good evidence of Godzilla's existence literally equates to Godzilla posing no threat to us... so we can safely act and react as if he does not exist... until we can't.

In your scenario, people with very poor evidence already concluded that Godzilla does (or is likely to) exist and spent millions of dollars. And such things, unfortunately, likely are possible with more plausible subject matter. For instance, having poor evidence that "weapons of mass destruction" are located in a particular area, but proceeding with a series of tactical extraction/destruction missions anyway. Obviously the risk is going to be weighed based on the plausibility of the article under consideration, but it is not unheard of that action is taken based on poor evidence/information.

So, in the case of the "weapons of mass destruction" business - which has more weight? The belief that there are WMDs in a given area, or that there are not WMDs present? Wouldn't you have to say that the weight to be attributed depends on the evidence that there is in support of either case? Meaning you have to have at least some compelling evidence either way before one belief-option seems weightier than the other.

Seriously, you figure Godzilla v no Godzilla is a
equal proposition.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Seriously, you figure Godzilla v no Godzilla is a
equal proposition.

Subtracting out any bias you may have toward Godzilla being culturally understood to be a work of fiction, sure.

Please present to me your evidence that Godzilla does not exist. I know I don't have any. All I could point to is the fact that people have written about it and created purportedly fictional works surrounding it that don't appear to have correlation to a creature present in reality. When it boils down to it, isn't that exactly the situation we find ourselves in with regard to "God"? You can say "I believe that God does not exist." - but do you have concrete evidence for that belief other than the type I have already described that we have for the non-existence of Godzilla? What evidence do you think could literally demonstrate that God does not exist? And if you find some, then you can use that same type of evidence to demonstrate that Godzilla doesn't exist.

This is not me advocating for belief in Godzilla by any means. Nor belief in God either. I am advocating for witholding belief in things that are not known to have presence in reality. But claiming that something, indeed, does not exist requires forms of evidence. I'd rather not be on the hook to provide such, and would rather just stick to pointing out that there are zero consequences to not believing in the stated thing since, again, it appears to have no presence in reality.

 

[Audie]

Subtracting out any bias you may have toward Godzilla being culturally understood to be a work of fiction, sure.

Please present to me your evidence that Godzilla does not exist. I know I don't have any. All I could point to is the fact that people have written about it and created fictional works surrounding it that don't appear to have correlation to a creature present in reality. When it boils down to it, isn't that exactly the situation we find ourselves in with regard to "God"? You can say "I believe that God does not exist." - but do you have concrete evidence for that belief other than the type I have already described that we have for the non-existence of Godzilla? What evidence do you think could literally demonstrate that God does not exist? And if you find some, then you can use that same type of evidence to demonstrate that Godzilla doesn't exist.

In George Washington's day they thought
mammoths inhabited the west, and that
there was a vast southern hemisphere
land mass corresponding to Asia.

I won't ask you for evidence that they don't
exist, no more than I would for Hyperborea or
live mammoths in Montana.

You don't have any.

 

[Sheldon]

Subtracting out any bias you may have toward Godzilla being culturally understood to be a work of fiction, sure.

Before one could claim anything about the probability of an extant Godzilla, or anything else come to that, one would need to demonstrate such a being were even possible. Cultural bias has little if anything to do with it, only a dearth of objective evidence that such a creature is possible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

John believes a god does exist.
Bob doesn't think a god does exist.

Neither can be shown. So...
Does what John believes carry more weight than what Bob thinks? Or vise-versa? Why?

And before the normal of "define god", "which god" etc.. Its any god!

Of course one can be shown. I will prove GOD EXISTS to anyone on this forum who can prove the easier one, THEY EXIST. No problem.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course one can be shown. I will prove GOD EXISTS to anyone on this forum who can prove the easier one, THEY EXIST. No problem.

I don't believe you, I don't believe you can demonstrate a shred of objective evidence a deity is even possible, let alone that one exists, the idea you could prove this assertions is too absurdly funny to take seriously. All one need do is look at any global news network to know this is simply false bombastic hyperbole.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Before one could claim anything about the probability of an extant Godzilla, or anything else come to that, one would need to demonstrate such a being were even possible. Cultural bias has little if anything to do with it, only a dearth of objective evidence that such a creature is possible.

Though thinking about the "god" proposition - do we accept that there is a "dearth of objective evidence that such a [creature/thing/deity] is possible"? I don't know that I do. And yet, to claim that I believe that no god exists, and therefore adopt a burden of providing evidence for said claim is not something I am apt to do. To the prospect of an existent "Godzilla" - I would simply say as I do for god propositions: "I don't believe that."

 

[Sheldon]

Though thinking about the "god" proposition - do we accept that there is a "dearth of objective evidence that such a [creature/thing/deity] is possible"? I don't know that I do.

I have yet to see any demonstrated, and it's unthinkable if it existed, that theists would keep it to themselves.

And yet, to claim that I believe that no god exists, and therefore adopt a burden of providing evidence for said claim is not something I am apt to do.

I agree, though only in a generic sense of course, as not all concepts of deities are unfalsifiable, and some are easy to falsify. So I am an atheist, as I don't believe in any deity or deities, but also must remain an agnostic where any claims (for deities or otherwise) are unfalsifiable.

To the prospect of an existent "Godzilla" - I would simply say as I do for god propositions: "I don't believe that."

Again I agree, though of course I would not necessarily believe a claim, even were it demonstrated to be possible. However if it cannot even be demonstrated to be possible I'd likely be pretty dubious.

 

[wandering peacefully]

You injected a bit more than just the belief held up against another belief in your question. You added the weight of one of them already having been accepted and a measurable risk hinging on whether or not it is even true. When we're evaluating the two propositions, stand-alone, without such high-stakes already in play, then yes, they are equally unfalsifiable. I don't have good evidence that literally demonstrates that Godzilla doesn't exist, just as someone attempting to evidence his existence would have poor evidence also. The prudent thing to do in these situations is to simply await further demonstration either way. If such never arrives, then you have taken no action based on potentially false information. And our having zero good evidence of Godzilla's existence literally equates to Godzilla posing no threat to us... so we can safely act and react as if he does not exist... until we can't.

In your scenario, people with very poor evidence already concluded that Godzilla does (or is likely to) exist and spent millions of dollars. And such things, unfortunately, likely are possible with more plausible subject matter. For instance, having poor evidence that "weapons of mass destruction" are located in a particular area, but proceeding with a series of tactical extraction/destruction missions anyway. Obviously the risk is going to be weighed based on the plausibility of the article under consideration, but it is not unheard of that action is taken based on poor evidence/information.

So, in the case of the "weapons of mass destruction" business - which has more weight? The belief that there are WMDs in a given area, or that there are not WMDs present? Wouldn't you have to say that the weight to be attributed depends on the evidence that there is in support of either case? Meaning you have to have at least some compelling evidence either way before one belief-option seems weightier than the other.

I think you are very generous with your weights. There is plenty of non evidence for Godzilla (god love him), as well as there was no weight of evidence for weapons of mass destruction.
I believe the weight of non evidence is usually heavier than the weight of poor evidence.

 

[PureX]

I just don't see the logic in "believing" things. Nor do I see any positive value coming from it. All it really is, is the unproven presumption that what appears to be true from our very limited perspective, is true. So why are we making this blind presumption? Why not just let what appears to be true, to us, simply be what appears to be true, to us? With the realization that it could show itself to be false or partly false at any time? And that others can still be right even though their perspective and conclusion differs? It would certainly stop a lot of endless and pointless arguments about what is "really true".

Can someone explain to me what we actually gain by "belief"?

 

[Audie]

I just don't see the logic in "believing" things. Nor do I see any positive value coming from it. All it really is, is the unproven presumption that what appears to be true from our very limited perspective, is true. So why are we making this blind presumption? Why not just let what appears to be true, to us, simply be what appears to be true, to us? With the realization that it could show itself to be false or partly false at any time? And that others can still be right even though their perspective and conclusion differs? It would certainly stop a lot of endless and pointless arguments about what is "really true".

Can someone explain to me what we actually gain by "belief"?

Eze-peeze.
Belief is the same as Faith.
Belief in God, Faith in God.

It is a highest virtue.

 

[PureX]

Eze-peeze.
Belief is the same as Faith.
Belief in God, Faith in God.

It is a highest virtue.

I understand the confusion, but that is exactly wrong. Belief is basically just pretending that "X" is true when we can't or don't know that it's true. While faith is choosing to act on the hope that "X" is true while knowing that it may not turn out to be so. The key difference being that belief denies and rejects skepticism, while faith acknowledges and accepts skepticism while choosing to act on hope.

I understand your confusion regarding this difference because religions and their practitioners are constantly and wrongly conflating the two as if they are one and the same. So much so that even dictionaries will confuse and conflate them. But they ARE different ways of seeing and moving through the world. And their differences are profound in the way they determine human behavior. "Believers" preach because they're trying to erase doubt and skepticism. The "faithful" just life according to their hope and let others do the same. Because they acknowledge the reasonableness of doubt and skepticism.

Please don't get all bent out of shape because I said you're wrong or confused. And instead consider carefully the differences I pointed out. Because they matter a lot.

 

[Sheldon]

I just don't see the logic in "believing" things. Nor do I see any positive value coming from it. All it really is, is the unproven presumption that what appears to be true from our very limited perspective, is true. So why are we making this blind presumption? Why not just let what appears to be true, to us, simply be what appears to be true, to us? With the realization that it could show itself to be false or partly false at any time? And that others can still be right even though their perspective and conclusion differs? It would certainly stop a lot of endless and pointless arguments about what is "really true".

Can someone explain to me what we actually gain by "belief"?

How is accepting something as true not a belief? Humans form beliefs about the world, or they couldn't function. This doesn't mean all beliefs are equally valid of course.

 

[PureX]

How is accepting something as true not a belief?

When you understand that you don't know if it's true or not. Faith is not accepting that something is true, it's choosing to act on one's hope that it's true. Again, I realize that religions are almost always presenting belief as faith and faith as belief, but we shouldn't be letting them define our terms for us. That's not religion's rightful place.

Humans form beliefs about the world, or they couldn't function.

Humans form opinions about the world, and then choose how to act on them. Belief is our presuming that those opinions are true even though we can never be sure that they are. So I see no need for us to be developing beliefs when we can just take reality as ot appears to us and accept that our opinions about what is true will change as more or different information shows up. I don't see why we need to 'believe in' anything.

 

[Sheldon]

How is accepting something as true not a belief? Humans form beliefs about the world, or they couldn't function. This doesn't mean all beliefs are equally valid of course.

When you understand that you don't know if it's true or not.

That's knowledge, knowledge and belief are not the same. A belief is defined as an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. So again how is accepting that something is true not a belief?

 

[Audie]

I understand the confusion, but that is exactly wrong. Belief is basically just pretending that "X" is true when we can't or don't know that it's true. While faith is choosing to act on the hope that "X" is true while knowing that it may not turn out to be so. The key difference being that belief denies and rejects skepticism, while faith acknowledges and accepts skepticism while choosing to act on hope.

I understand your confusion regarding this difference because religions and their practitioners are constantly and wrongly conflating the two as if they are one and the same. So much so that even dictionaries will confuse and conflate them. But they ARE different ways of seeing and moving through the world. And their differences are profound in the way they determine human behavior. "Believers" preach because they're trying to erase doubt and skepticism. The "faithful" just life according to their hope and let others do the same. Because they acknowledge the reasonableness of doubt and skepticism.

Please don't get all bent out of shape because I said you're wrong or confused. And instead consider carefully the differences I pointed out. Because they matter a lot.

I'm not "wrong". Still less confused about
what can be found in a dictionary.

There may be religionists who get
all semantic about some distinction
between their belief in God and their
faith in same, but few Iikely think to do
"distinguish without difference"*
as you between faith that God will keep
promises, say, and belief that he will.

Of course Belief isn't about logic.
Religious beliefs are emotion based.

It's all sans evidence of it's reality, it's all
make- believe.
That you among others have internalized
this into uttermost conviction is kinda irrelevant.

*Out of church in the real world your dissertation
applies to some extent.

 

[PureX]

I'm not "wrong". Still less confused about
what can be found in a dictionary.

There may be religionists who get
all semantic about some distinction
between their belief in God and their
faith in same, but few Iikely think to do
"distinguish without difference"*
as you between faith that God will keep
promises, say, and belief that he will.

The difference are easy to see, if you're bothering to look. "Belief" requires the rejection of doubt. Faith does not. So every time you encounter a theist that is intent on eliminating or negating any doubt, you have encountered a "believer". They're the ones that just HAVE TO argue with any other view of 'God', and evangelize their own. Meanwhile, all those other theists you encounter that you wouldn't even know were theists unless you asked them, and who are not feeling compelled to make anyone else agree with them theologically, are the faithful. The believers make all the noise, and create all the annoyance, but the faithful outnumber them tenfold, and just mind their own business.

 

[Sheldon]

"Belief" requires the rejection of doubt.

Pretty sure that's not true, why would you think this?

 

[PureX]

Pretty sure that's not true, why would you think this?

Because it's the presumption of correctness (belief). And one cannot logically presume something is correct while also suspecting that it's not. One can hope that something is correct while also understanding that it may not be, though. Which defines the difference between belief and faith.

 

[Sheldon]

Pretty sure that's not true, why would you think this?

Because it's the presumption of correctness (belief). And one cannot logically presume something is correct while also suspecting that it's not. One can hope that something is correct while also understanding that it may not be, though. Which defines the difference between belief and faith.

That still doesn't mean belief requires the rejection of all doubt. Beliefs are not all equally valid.