Do you "Believe In" ...

[PureX]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. I do believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

 

[Left Coast]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. Do I believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly quite pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

Generally by "believe in" I think people mean, "to be convinced x is true or real." Like if I say "I believe in astrology," obviously that doesn't mean I think astrology is a concept that other people endorse. It means I think astrology accurately predicts things about the world or people's personalities, etc.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

What is your solution to this issue, my friend? How should these vague questions be specified, in your opinion?

 

[Spirit of Light]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. Do I believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly quite pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

I believe in that you are a bit confused right now

 

[Polymath257]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. Do I believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

Well, usually when you ask if something exists, you are excluding fictional literature. So, if unicorns only exist in such literature, then they *don't* exist in the relevant sense.

So, no, they do NOT exist 'as depicted'. They exist *only* as fictional constructs and not as real parts of the real world.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly quite pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

I suspect this is partly to do with your metaphysics which identifies everything as an idea. But that ignores the exact distinction being discussed: do unicorns exist as a biological species on Earth? or are they merely figments of our imaginations?

 

[Father Heathen]

 

[bobhikes]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. I do believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly quite pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

I think of belief as the starting point. You are not going to get started until you believe. What's more important is how you proceed once you have that belief. Are you going to always believe or are you going to know.

 

[PureX]

Generally by "believe in" I think people mean, "to be convinced x is true or real." Like if I say "I believe in astrology," obviously that doesn't mean I think astrology is a concept that other people endorse. It means I think astrology accurately predicts things about the world or people's personalities, etc.

Yet that still tells us nothing. Of course astrology "accurately predicts things about the world or people's personalities". That's a given simply by the fact that people have engaged in it for centuries, and they wouldn't have done so if it were completely dysfunctional. So that even if you clarified your question in this way, I'd still be scratching my head trying to figure out why anyone would even ask the question, unless they were trying to ask something else, but poorly.

I'm not trying to be difficult, here, but I think a great deal of the unresolved discussion and debate that goes on here on RF is the result of wildly vague and inarticulate questions and responses that then presume themselves to be quite clear.

What does it mean for something to "exist"?

What does it mean to "believe in" it's existence? Or to "believe in" anything? Isn't "believing in" really just about presuming our own opinion of something to be true? And who DOESN'T believe their own opinions to be true? So why ask?

 

[Left Coast]

Yet tat still tells us nothing. Of course astrology "accurately predicts things about the world or people's personalities". That's a given simply by the fact that people have engaged in it for centuries, and they wouldn't have done so if it were completely dysfunctional. So that even if you clarified our question in this way, I'd still be scratching my head trying to figure out why anyone would even ask the question, unless they were trying to ask something else.

This is a bizarre way of reasoning about the issue. People believe in all kinds of stuff that is not accurate, despite their belief that it is. Is your position that no one's beliefs are ever incorrect? If so, that seems to devolve into weird incoherent postmodernism. If not, then it seems pretty obvious that people believe things are true, or believe things exist, that in fact do not.

 

[ratiocinator]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. I do believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly quite pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

I think it's blindingly obvious what is meant in almost all cases. Nobody is ever going to ask if you believe in unicorns because they want to know if you think they exist as characters in literature - it would be very stupid question. To take another example, if somebody asks if you believe in alien abductions, they aren't going to mean either that they exist in literature or whether some people think they have been abducted but whether you actually think aliens are really flying around earth abducting people. It's not rocket science...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would think that, generally, when someone asks "do you believe God exists" - they are referring to a being that could be classified as a "god" (something with some form of power beyond human abilities that dwells somewhere in the ether or thereabouts [you want to talk vague, just try coming up with a neutral definition of "god"]) that is literally out there somewhere, in the universe or somehow "beyond" it - but definitely a REAL thing that has presence in a real world/space. Not one person I have ever encountered asked that question, and when I went to confirm that no, I don't believe that such a thing exists, they then flipped it on me and told me that I was dead wrong, because they meant "god" as a concept, written in some book or thought by some person's brain somewhere. Oh wait... except you. You do that. But you're the only one that I believe I have encountered like this - though I could be missing someone, somewhere who did something similar. And I have honestly had the suspicion (granted, this is only opinion) that you do this because you are actually in a state of intellectual conflict with your theism, though are entirely loathe to admit such for whatever reasons.

 

[PureX]

Well, usually when you ask if something exists, you are excluding fictional literature. So, if unicorns only exist in such literature, then they *don't* exist in the relevant sense.

But that's YOUR bias. So when you "assume" this you're setting yourself and others up for some serious miscommunication. Don't you think? To me, to "exist" means to exist in any way, shape, or form. Icons exist just as surely as the programs, characters, spirits, ideals, and events that they are determined to represent. Even though they are not, themselves, those things. Things that represent other things still exist as things. The number "5" exists, even when it has no form or substance of it's own.

So, no, they do NOT exist 'as depicted'. They exist *only* as fictional constructs and not as real parts of the real world.

Well, 'yes', they do exist. And they are as real as anything else is. That "reality" that you hold in your mind, as "existence", is, itself, A DEPICTION made up of synaptic relationships. Which also exist, and are "real".

I suspect this is partly to do with your metaphysics which identifies everything as an idea. But that ignores the exact distinction being discussed: do unicorns exist as a biological species on Earth? or are they merely figments of our imaginations?

I can answer that first question, but the "merely" and the "figments of imagination" in that second question are indicative of your own irrational bias, which you are then trying to force me to either accept or reject, which has nothing to do with the question of their existing, or NOT existing.

See what I'm getting at?

 

[PureX]

I think it's blindingly obvious what is meant in almost all cases. Nobody is ever going to ask if you believe in unicorns because they want to know if you think they exist as characters in literature - it would be very stupid question.

I agree. Which is why I need for them to be clear about what they ARE asking. Because the way they are asking is so vague that it does not exclude the existential reality of unicorns as ideas, as icons, and as characters in all kinds of literature and traditional stories.

To take another example, if somebody asks if you believe in alien abductions, they aren't going to mean either that they exist in literature or whether some people think they have been abducted but whether you actually think aliens are really flying around earth abducting people. It's not rocket science...

We abduct aliens every day in this country. We in prison and abuse them, and then we deport them.

There are all kinds of "aliens". And when the person asking about them is not specifically articulating which aliens they're referring to, or what kind of "abduction", then massive misunderstandings are likely to result. And that only compounds the confusion created by this bizarre insistence on knowing if we "believe in" it, or not.

Are you beginning to see how absurdly inarticulate and confusing asking someone if they "believe in alien abduction", is?

 

[Erebus]

It's certainly true that belief is multifaceted and that you can't always give an unqualified yes/no answer. I also believe in unicorns as mythical creatures but not as biological creatures that you may stumble upon in a forest.

However, 99% of the time if somebody asks me, "Do you believe in X?" I understand their gist and can probably give a yes/no answer. If pressed, I can then expand on that answer. So if somebody asked me if I believe in unicorns, I would just say no.

The other 1% of the time, it gets a little more complicated. Sometimes a word either has a very loosely defined meaning or it has multiple distinct meanings. I really struggle to give a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you believe in the soul?" since exactly what constitutes a soul is widely open to interpretation. I usually have to ask what exactly they mean by soul as I don't have a concrete definition myself.
Other times, I can give a yes/no answer but only with one or more qualifications. That might be because my understanding of something could be different to somebody else's and I need to make sure we're on the same page. Gods are a classic example there.

Oh also, that 1% of the time is almost always during discussions on RF

 

[Polymath257]

But that's YOUR bias. So when you "assume" this setting yourself and others up for some serious miscommunication. Don't you think?

Actually not since it is the most *common* interpretation of the question.

If anything, your interpretation seems to be very outside of the norm. And that seems to be because your metaphysics is very non-standard.

To me, to "exist" means to exist in any way, shape, or form. Icons exist just as surely as the programs, characters, spirits, ideals, and events that they are determined to represent. Even though they are not, themselves, those things. Things that represent other things still exist as things. The number "5" exists, even when it has no form or substance of it's own.

Well, the point is that there is a common usage and that common usage means that 'exists' is much more limited than what you have described.

So, for example, to say that Sherlock Holmes exists because there is literature including that character is *precisely* the opposite of what most people mean if they ask the question 'Does Sherlock Holmes exist?'. Sure, you can say that Sherlock Holmes 'exists' in some books, but that isn't what most people mean when they ask the question.

The goal is the distinction between fictional and real.

Well, 'yes', they do exist. And they are as real as anything else is. That "reality" that you hold in your mind, as "existence", is, itself, A DEPICTION made up of synaptic relationships. Which also exist, and are "real".

Yes, the ideas are real. What the ideas represent is not. Do you see the difference?

I can answer that first question, but the "merely" and the "figments of imagination" in that second question are indicative of your own irrational bias, which you are then trying to force me to either accept or reject, which has nothing to do with the question of their existing, or NOT existing.

Not really. In fact, it is *precisely* what is usually meant when the question of whether something exists is posed.

So, for example, when we asked if Black Holes exist, we were certainly NOT asking if they exist as ideas. The relevant question was if they exist as something other than ideas. And, the point is that they do. On the other hand, unicorns do not (as far as we know).

See what I'm getting at?

Yes, I do. But I disagree with your metaphysics. part of the reason I do so is that there is a relevant distinction between 'being a figment of your imagination' and not being so. And *that* distinction is precisely what is being asked when the question 'does X exist' is posed.

 

[PureX]

I would think that, generally, when someone asks "do you believe God exists" - they are referring to a being that could be classified as a "god" (something with some form of power beyond human abilities that dwells somewhere in the ether or thereabouts [you want to talk vague, just try coming up with a neutral definition of "god"]) that is literally out there somewhere, in the universe or somehow "beyond" it - but definitely a REAL thing that has presence in a real world/space.

The fact that you (we) cannot comprehend omnipresence isn't really that difficult to grasp. Most of us are able to accept it as a viable ideal. It's not dissimilar to infinity, which I suspect you have no problem accepting as a viable ideal, even though you cannot experience it, directly. So you may need to look into your biases as the reason you have such difficulty in accepting the ideal of omnipresence as it relates to theology.

Not one person I have ever encountered asked that question, and when I went to confirm that no, I don't believe that such a thing exists, they then flipped it on me and told me that I was dead wrong, because they meant "god" as a concept, written in some book or thought by some person's brain somewhere. Oh wait... except you. You do that. But you're the only one that I believe I have encountered like this - though I could be missing someone, somewhere who did something similar. And I have honestly had the suspicion (granted, this is only opinion) that you do this because you are actually in a state of intellectual conflict with your theism, though are entirely loathe to admit such for whatever reasons.

There is no "conflict" once we accept that as limited human beings we are going to encounter irreconcilable paradox when we try to comprehend that which is so much greater in scope and complexity than we are capable of exploring.

Again, I refer you to the ideal of infinity. I'm sure you have no trouble grasping and accepting it as a scientific or mathematical ideal, even though you cannot possibly experience it, yourself, so as to verify it's "existence". So why is it so easy for you to accept this particular 'paradoxical' expression of existence, and yet be so determined to remain confused and unable to accept the ideal of omnipresence?

Only you can answer this.

I can accept both of these ideals without having to directly experience them because I understand that existence extends far beyond that which I can comprehend or experience. This does not cause me any particular internal "conflict" because I don't expect or demand that the universe/God/existence/whatever, explain itself to me, in full, before I can acknowledge it.

 

[PureX]

It's certainly true that belief is multifaceted and that you can't always give an unqualified yes/no answer. I also believe in unicorns as mythical creatures but not as biological creatures that you may stumble upon in a forest.

However, 99% of the time if somebody asks me, "Do you believe in X?" I understand their gist and can probably give a yes/no answer. If pressed, I can then expand on that answer. So if somebody asked me if I believe in unicorns, I would just say no.

The other 1% of the time, it gets a little more complicated. Sometimes a word either has a very loosely defined meaning or it has multiple distinct meanings. I really struggle to give a yes/no answer to the question, "Do you believe in the soul?" since exactly what constitutes a soul is widely open to interpretation. I usually have to ask what exactly they mean by soul as I don't have a concrete definition myself.
Other times, I can give a yes/no answer but only with one or more qualifications. That might be because my understanding of something could be different to somebody else's and I need to make sure we're on the same page. Gods are a classic example there.

Oh also, that 1% of the time is almost always during discussions on RF

HA! That was my point.

So many of the discussions here on RF go awry because the ideas that we are trying to discuss cannot be generalized, and quantified, and presumed in the way you described. This is a place where we are discussing that 1%; that magnifies into a far greater category of thought and debate once the door gets opened. And yet I am seeing most of these conversations failing, badly, in terms of actual information being exchanged because we continue to use these wildly inarticulate phrases like "believe in" and "evidence of" and "mere imagination" and so on.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I think there are general understandings of what words mean, though definitions can get confusing at times.

If nothing else, you can always set the terms of definition before discussing a topic. That seems to do wonders in removing ambiguity.

 

[Nakosis]

We see this question being asked of us here on RF all the time. And yet it's still so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. What does it mean to "believe in" something? Do I believe it exists? Exists, how? All kinds of things exist in all kinds of ways. Yet all the variations are being ignored by this question.

I believe unicorns exist as characters in lots of different kinds of literature. Yet I don't believe they exist in the woods near my house. In fact, I don't think they exist as biological life forms anywhere on Earth. Though the Earth is a big place, with a few still unexplored nooks and crannies. So I suppose it's still technically possible. I do believe they exist as depicted, because I've seen some of the depictions, myself. And they all seem to pretty much agree on how they look. But that doesn't mean I've ever actually seen one, to know.

By now I think you can see what I'm getting at. The question of "believing in" or "not believing in" something is absurdly vague. And because it's so absurdly vague, the answers become absurdly quite pointless without some sort of extra explanation; rarely present.

Belief is the basis of all knowledge. I think we allow this to be unmentioned, taken for granted where this basis is understood in practice to be almost universally accepted. Of course one can always continue with methodical reduction and reach that belief. Hopefully a reasonable belief but still a belief that can't be 100% validated.

So if I claim to know something, that means I've validated the truth of it with the understanding that whatever that basic belief it, I think it is reasonable enough that it ought to be universally accepted.

If I say I believe something, parts of it, beyond what I'd expect to be universally accepted, i haven't been able to validate.

As to the scope of that belief, it is up to me or whoever is claiming the belief to define. Fictional, non-fictional or otherwise. For example I can say I know the existence of Santa Claus as a fictional character. Or I know that fictional unicorns exist. I think that makes it pretty clear the scope of what I'm referring to.

I could say I believe in the existence of non-fictional unicorns. Most folks would understand the scope.

If I say I don't have a belief in a god, I take it for granted people understand I'm referring to a non-fictional god. Do I believe that fictional gods exist? Sure.

 

[ratiocinator]

I agree. Which is why I need for them to be clear about what they ARE asking. Because the way they are asking is so vague that it does not exclude the existential reality of unicorns as ideas, as icons, and as characters in all kinds of literature and traditional stories.

Almost all statements in natural language can have different interpretations if you look hard enough, but that doesn't change the fact that most people manage perfectly well understanding each other most of the time.

We abduct aliens every day in this country. We in prison and abuse them, and then we deport them.

So, did you really think that was the sense of the word 'alien' I intended? Did you actually have any doubt at all about what I meant, or are you just playing rather silly word games?