Do you "Believe In" ...

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Infinity is, at least, related to actual, real-world conditions we experience all the time. That being the passage of "time." Or, perhaps more accurately, our observance of, and attempt to put a measured rate to the continuum of change we are presented with in our reality. Or, going the numeric route, we can witness in doing a division of something like 1/3, by hand, that the series of threes resulting after the decimal point will literally never see an end. The idea of "god" however, does not have such a real-world corollary. It is foreign in nearly every way from anything we experience here on Earth, and that is usually a purposeful distinction. Claimed to be a profound separation of "god" from the mundane, the truth is more likely that it makes a nice, easy excuse as to why god is simply never around.

To the ultimate point that, instead of comparing God to a concept with at least some actual, "ideal presence" in our reality, you should compare God to something that doesn't have such presence. Like time travel into the past, for example. We can't even know that such is possible - and we have no real-world correlation to work from. Sure, the perceived "passage of time" is something we hold as an abstract idea, however actual TRAVEL through that medium to a point within the continuum of change surrounding us that already occurred is no better than fantasy at the moment. Imagination at work. This is a perfect item to hold analogous to "God." And until we somehow evidence to ourselves that time travel is possible - IT REMAINS THE STUFF OF STORIES. See how that works?

 

[Erebus]

HA! That was my point.

So many of the discussion 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 discussion 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 conversation failing, badly, in terms of actual information being exchanged because we continue to use these wildly inarticulate phrases like "believe in" and "evidence" and "mere imagination" and so on.

Yep, RF is definitely well-suited to misunderstandings given the subject matter that frequently gets discussed. I've seen plenty of arguments wherein both sides accuse the other of making no damn sense! It usually boils down to the fact that they've both interpreted the subject of debate differently.

I think that this is generally good practice when talking about certain topics here:

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

Best to make sure everybody is on the same page before a thread devolves into hair pulling.

 

[PureX]

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

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.

But this is not a place, nor a subject, where "common usage" applies. This is a place where we need to be as clear as we can be about what exactly we mean to ask, or to say in response.

The goal is the distinction between fictional and real.

See, this is an example of how lack of clarity leads to biased misunderstanding. The distinction you're reaching for is not between fiction and reality. It's between fiction and factuality. BOTH are part of REALITY. And fiction very often includes a lot of factuality even though it is ultimately factually untrue. And even though fiction is ultimately factually untrue, it is very often a better and more clear depiction of the truth than the facts are.

Can you see now why clarity is so important when discussing these areas of human ideation and cognition?

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

Ideas do not "represent" anything. They are our cognitive response to our experience of existing as a human being. Some of these ideas 'function' for us as we continue to engage with existence, and some of them don't. But all the ideas we have, exist, and all of them are 'real'. Even though some of them are functional within that context, and some are not. And we need to understand this before we can even begin to assess the idea of God, and whether or not it functions within the context our experience of human existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

No. The term "alien abduction" even has a dictionary definition: alien abduction "The alleged abduction of a person by an extraterrestrial being."

 

[PureX]

Yep, RF is definitely well-suited to misunderstandings given the subject matter that frequently gets discussed. I've seen plenty of arguments wherein both sides accuse the other of making no damn sense! It usually boils down to the fact that they've both interpreted the subject of debate differently.

I think that this is generally good practice when talking about certain topics here:



Best to make sure everybody is on the same page before a thread devolves into hair pulling.

We often forget, I think, that in many instances this is simply not possible.

I have a way of understanding my experience of being that I sometimes find others incapable of comprehending. No matter how clearly I try to articulate it, they're just not going to be able to understand it. But I figured that at least I tried. That's really all we can do for each other ... is try to share how we experience and understand being a human being, and then let others take or leave whatever they feel has value to them.

 

[PureX]

No. The term "alien abduction" even has a dictionary definition: alien abduction "The alleged abduction of a person by an extraterrestrial being."

Dictionaries only record our common and often foolish and inarticulate use of language. They do not 'correct' it. Dictionaries are a very poor source for clarity or logical justification.

 

[ratiocinator]

Dictionaries only record our common and often foolish and inarticulate use of language.

Common usage is the whole point. If I were to use "alien abduction" to refer to citizens of a foreign country, then that would be foolish, especially in the context of the question "do you believe in alien abductions?"

If we tried to make natural language entirely unambiguous all the time we'd never communicate much at all. The fact is that you knew exactly what I meant and chose to misinterpret it for your own bizarre reasons. Most of the time it's blindingly obvious what people mean by "do you believe in X" questions.

 

[sun rise]

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.

There are two things that come to mind.

The first is the source of the belief; the question of why I have the belief. I believe in quantum mechanics because I trust the scientists who researched and theorized about it and some of the products we're starting to see. I believe @Revoltingest is at heart a pretty decent guy in spite of the crusty and snarky personality he chooses to exhibit here because every so often he writes something that belies his assumed persona. And so forth.

The second is depth of belief. Does someone belief change or influence their words and especially their deeds. Or is it a superficial belief? In the typical sentence, does someone "walk the talk" or not. Even on RF, there's an opportunity to try to match one's words to one's beliefs. Of course we're not perfect and slip up, but is someone trying or not?

 

[Polymath257]

But this is not a place, nor a subject, where "common usage" applies. This is a place where we need to be as clear as we can be about what exactly we mean to ask, or to say in response.

I see your point, but you seem to be seeing ambiguity where most people see none.

See, this is an example of how lack of clarity leads to biased misunderstanding. The distinction you're reaching for is not between fiction and reality. It's between fiction and factuality. BOTH are part of REALITY. And fiction very often includes a lot of factuality even though it is ultimately factually untrue. And even though fiction is ultimately factually untrue, it is very often a better and more clear depiction of the truth than the facts are.

Yes, it *is* between fiction and reality. It is a part of reality that those ideas exist. But the objects to which those ideas refer do not exist.

Can you see now why clarity is so important when discussing these areas of human ideation and cognition?
Ideas do not "represent" anything.

Of course they do. I have an idea of a dog. It represents an actual dog, in this case. The idea I have of the dog is about a dog that exists. On the other hand, I could also have an idea of a dog where that dog does NOT exist. The *idea* of the dog exists, but not the dog (because I just made it up).

It seems to me that you are obfuscating some of these things. There is a different between the idea of a dog and a dog. The idea can be real while the dog might not be.

They are our cognitive response to our experience of existing as a human being. Some of these ideas 'function' for us as we continue to engage with existence, and some of them don't. But all the ideas we have, exist, and all of them are 'real'. Even though some of them are functional within that context, and some are not. And we need to understand this before we can even begin to assess the idea of God, and whether or not it functions within the context our experience of human existence.

And, some of these ideas reflect reality and others do not. For example, I might imagine there is a purple elephant in my room. That doesn't mean there is a purple elephant in my room.

The question when it comes to God is whether it is just an idea or whether there is something factual about it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Agreed. I'll try and split my answers a little here, since I think there isn't a single 'slam-dunk' response to what you're suggesting. I think it's somewhat contextual.
1. If I was talking to someone who knocked at my door wearing a suit and holding a small leaflet, and they said 'Do you believe in God?' I think it's fairly clear that they're not asking me about whether I am familiar with myths, allegory or the existence of God concepts generally. They are most likely asking me if I believe in the existence of a God outside of human thought. Indeed, I could probably guess that they're talking about a monotheistic God.
2. If I was talking to @Quintessence (sorry to drag you into this!) and we were discussing whether either of us 'believe' in God, it's quite the different scenario. If I told Quintessence I don't 'believe' in the Sun, I'd probably just get called an idiot. I don't worship the Sun, but I certainly 'believe' in the Sun.

Ultimately I think it's about applying context as best we are able, which is essentially always the case with communication. So I think we should be more technical and fulsome in our communication on Religious Forums for a couple of reasons;
a) We are probably...or at least potentially...having more in depth conversations about diverse beliefs here than in our daily lives.
b) We're on the internet, so our words need to not only convey our core message, but are also responsible for tone and context in ways that they are not in our daily lives, where there are other non-verbal and verbal cues available to us.

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.

So again, it's contextual. If my kids ask me whether unicorns exist (and they have asked quite similar questions to this regularly) I would drag them to my various books both fantastical and anthropological and have a discussion about it. One of my daughters in particular would find that pretty interesting, and ask about a thousand questions. The other (my eldest) would snort, and say 'That means fairies are real, but good luck catching one.' Both responses are valid, what is different is their expectation around what 'believe' means.

You could say the same thing with other words. 'Real' for example.

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.

There has been variances in how they're described over time. Popular culture being what it is, some depictions 'won' the propaganda war, and have become more widely accepted as what a unicorn is.
Pliny the Elder described it as horse-like with a single horn, but with the feet of an elephant and the tail of a boar, for example.

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.

The same is true of almost all umbrella terms (eg. theist) and a lot of how we communicate. I work in software, and some of the people I work with are outstandingly accurate in their communication. By that, I mean they are careful to couch their verbal communication in ways that convey absolutely accuracy to the best of their ability.

I commonly have to ride 'shotgun' with those guys, since they have a lot of difficulty speaking to 'normal' folk. I'm generalising here, as I'm sure you understand, but their mode of communication is too technical, and lacks the narrative that many people need to provide context and relatability.
So who's right? Is the more technically accurate communicator right? They certainly believe they are in my experiences. But what is the point of the communication? What is the end result of various methods of communication, and how do we judge the 'best' method.

Again, there is context at play, and I'm not suggesting that there should be highly detailed or nuanced threads here (for example) which delve beyond simplistic concepts of 'belief'. But neither would I be so quick to judge the 'normal' way of communicating as absurdly vague, or pointless. It has a point, else it would not continue. But perhaps it does not allow the type of discussions that make sense for you. That's fair enough.

 

[PureX]

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.

Within it's context, the Earth IS flat. His only became untrue when the context expanded and the flat Earth idea no longer functioned as well as the spherical Earth. And someday in the future, the spherical Earth idea will be surrendered to a better, more contextually functional idea.

You're thinking of "truth" as being a singular and unchanging ideal. But it's not. It's a relative assessment dependent upon functional context.

 

[PureX]

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.

Until we start to discuss the chosen or given conceptual paradigms through which we comprehend our experience of being. Then definitions get very "fluid" and misunderstanding become very easy and sometimes inevitable.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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'm not really sure why you find the question confusing. Yes, there is a difference between believing in the concept of unicorns as depicted in literature and believing that unicorns actually exist, but no one actually asked anyone if they believe in the CONCEPT of unicorns. A concept isn't something that you believe or disbelieve, it's something that you're either familiar with or you're not. So anyone asking if you believe in unicorns is asking if you think the concept of unicorns is something that actually exists.

And your response is perfectly reasonable. You recognize that technically it's POSSIBLE that the concept of unicorns actually exists, however the lack of evidence that they actually DO exist means that you lack any belief that unicorns are actually real.

 

[PureX]

Agreed. I'll try and split my answers a little here, since I think there isn't a single 'slam-dunk' response to what you're suggesting. I think it's somewhat contextual.
1. If I was talking to someone who knocked at my door wearing a suit and holding a small leaflet, and they said 'Do you believe in God?' I think it's fairly clear that they're not asking me about whether I am familiar with myths, allegory or the existence of God concepts generally. They are most likely asking me if I believe in the existence of a God outside of human thought. Indeed, I could probably guess that they're talking about a monotheistic God.
2. If I was talking to @Quintessence (sorry to drag you into this!) and we were discussing whether either of us 'believe' in God, it's quite the different scenario. If I told Quintessence I don't 'believe' in the Sun, I'd probably just get called an idiot. I don't worship the Sun, but I certainly 'believe' in the Sun.

Ultimately I think it's about applying context as best we are able, which is essentially always the case with communication. So I think we should be more technical and fulsome in our communication on Religious Forums for a couple of reasons;
a) We are probably...or at least potentially...having more in depth conversations about diverse beliefs here than in our daily lives.
b) We're on the internet, so our words need to not only convey our core message, but are also responsible for tone and context in ways that they are not in our daily lives, where there are other non-verbal and verbal cues available to us.



So again, it's contextual. If my kids ask me whether unicorns exist (and they have asked quite similar questions to this regularly) I would drag them to my various books both fantastical and anthropological and have a discussion about it. One of my daughters in particular would find that pretty interesting, and ask about a thousand questions. The other (my eldest) would snort, and say 'That means fairies are real, but good luck catching one.' Both responses are valid, what is different is their expectation around what 'believe' means.

You could say the same thing with other words. 'Real' for example.



There has been variances in how they're described over time. Popular culture being what it is, some depictions 'won' the propaganda war, and have become more widely accepted as what a unicorn is.
Pliny the Elder described it as horse-like with a single horn, but with the feet of an elephant and the tail of a boar, for example.



The same is true of almost all umbrella terms (eg. theist) and a lot of how we communicate. I work in software, and some of the people I work with are outstandingly accurate in their communication. By that, I mean they are careful to couch their verbal communication in ways that convey absolutely accuracy to the best of their ability.

I commonly have to ride 'shotgun' with those guys, since they have a lot of difficulty speaking to 'normal' folk. I'm generalising here, as I'm sure you understand, but their mode of communication is too technical, and lacks the narrative that many people need to provide context and relatability.
So who's right? Is the more technically accurate communicator right? They certainly believe they are in my experiences. But what is the point of the communication? What is the end result of various methods of communication, and how do we judge the 'best' method.

Again, there is context at play, and I'm not suggesting that there should be highly detailed or nuanced threads here (for example) which delve beyond simplistic concepts of 'belief'. But neither would I be so quick to judge the 'normal' way of communicating as absurdly vague, or pointless. It has a point, else it would not continue. But perhaps it does not allow the type of discussions that make sense for you. That's fair enough.

I agree with all of this. And in the context of religion, there are infantile adults who "believe in" ridiculous idols as if the idols were God Itself (the Bible comes to mind). And there are theologians that have studied and understand the ideals behind even the most elaborate and subtle religious artifice. And there are the many theists in between that cling to various icons, and speak of them as "God" because they don't have the sophisticated language to do otherwise, but nevertheless do understand the difference between the religious conceptual icons, and the great spiritual mystery that they represent and enable access to.

Arguing and debating with the infantile adults and their religious idolatry is a waste of time. Arguing and debating the the theologians can also be a waste of time if we are unable to grasp the subtle intricacies of their informed perspective. And with everyone else, we're going to not only take the time to be as articulate as we can be, but also be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when we don't understands. And be accepting when they don't understand us. After all, truth is relative to our experience, and we are all coming to it with different experiences.

 

[PureX]

Belief is the basis of all knowledge.

Sure, as belief is our presumption of knowing.

But philosophy isn't about what we know, or even can know. It's about what we don't know and possibly cannot know. And how we might deal with it (using logical reasoning). And so is theology (not religion). What we "believe" isn't particularly relevant to philosophy or to it's sub-category, theology. Like science, philosophy doesn't pursue, nor claim any truth. It generates and proposes various viable possible truths for 'peer review'. But instead of physical experiments, it relies on logic and reason to validate or invalidate the proposal. What we "believe" doesn't really enter into it. For that matter what we "believe" doesn't really enter into science, either.

 

[PureX]

Common usage is the whole point. If I were to use "alien abduction" to refer to citizens of a foreign country, then that would be foolish, especially in the context of the question "do you believe in alien abductions?"

If we tried to make natural language entirely unambiguous all the time we'd never communicate much at all. The fact is that you knew exactly what I meant and chose to misinterpret it for your own bizarre reasons. Most of the time it's blindingly obvious what people mean by "do you believe in X" questions.

There are all kinds of "aliens". This song refers to at least three.

 

[PureX]

I'm not really sure why you find the question confusing. Yes, there is a difference between believing in the concept of unicorns as depicted in literature and believing that unicorns actually exist, but no one actually asked anyone if they believe in the CONCEPT of unicorns.

You are assuming that there is a distinct difference that everyone else recognizes and accepts. I don't believe there is a distinct difference that everyone else recognizes and accepts. And this is especially true when we are discussing God (not unicorns), reality, and what it means to 'exist'. As we are, here.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You are assuming that there is a distinct difference that everyone else recognizes and accepts. I don't believe there is a distinct difference that everyone else recognizes and accepts. And this is especially true when we are discussing God (not unicorns), reality, and what it means to 'exist'. As we are, here.

Yes, I do think that there is a distinct difference between accepting an idea as a concept and having a belief that a concept exist in reality that any reasonable person can recognize. Can you provide an example in which two reasonable people would not recognize a difference between being familiar with a concept and having a belief that this concept exists in reality?

And I really don't understand why you see a difference between discussing unicorns or god. In both cases you define what you mean by the concept and decide from there whether or not you have sufficient reason to believe that the concept exists in reality.

 

[Left Coast]

Within it's context, the Earth IS flat. His only became untrue when the context expanded and the flat Earth idea no longer functioned as well as the spherical Earth. And someday in the future, the spherical Earth idea will be surrendered to a better, more contextually functional idea.

You're thinking of "truth" as being a singular and unchanging ideal. But it's not. It's a relative assessment dependent upon functional context.

What I'm actually thinking of is the Law of Non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both a and not-a in the same way at the same time. That's a basic tenet of reason that we can't deny if we want to have any kind of coherent train of thought. So I hope we both agree to it.

So the Earth cannot be both flat and not-flat. Nor does a change in our opinion change the fact of the matter. When you say it "became untrue" that the Earth is flat at some point, you're speaking as though our opinions change how things actually are outside of our heads. And I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. We didn't change the shape of the Earth with our thoughts. What happened was, we gained new information which revealed to us that our prior understanding of reality was incomplete and inaccurate.

And I completely agree that our understanding of reality is basically one that is functional. But the point is that we are ultimately interested (or at least, I am, and I think most others are too) in understanding how things really are as best we can. And that's what people generally mean when they say they "believe in x." They mean that they think x is how things really are.

 

[MNoBody]

a person can entertain a notion or explore an anomaly without committing to it, or endorsing it [becoming a fan]
but things have gotten so that it is difficult to creatively explore topics since someone will pop up and be offended, because they "believe" [have committed to a position] something that is contrary to whatever was stated and many even feel it their"duty" [obligation to then correct the "faulty" belief this person has...when that is a complete mis-take on the situation, given the original person was only entertaining a puzzling topic......
[I refrain from commenting a lot due to this "feature"]