I Believe ...

[dybmh]

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

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

Well, I don't see the difference between a belief and "our best guess". But other than that, yes, I think that beliefs should be moderated with skepticism. However, if one ignores that skepticism temporaily, then is able to test the implications, doesn't that increase or decrease the confidence in the belief depending on the results of the test? This would make "belief" useful?

 

[PureX]

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

Yes, but a suspension of disbelief is not the same as believing, is it? We don't believe in a Star Wars story. We just allow it to play out uncontested in our minds for the sake of the representation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You automatically believe everything?

I don't believe you!

No, but I have a set of base beliefs, which are not grounded in strong objective logic, reason and evidence. I am a strong skeptic after all.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, but a suspension of disbelief is not the same as believing, is it? We don't believe in a Star Wars story. We just allow it to play out uncontested in our minds for the sake of the representation.

I don't see the difference between suspension of disbelief and believing.

Regarding the movie analogy: Sure, we don't believe in Star Wars. But that's just for entertainment. In order to gain something intellectually, emotionally, or philosophically valuable from the movie, one needs to ignore that it's not real and look for parts that relate to the real world.

 

[MikeF]

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

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

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

I think I am with you here. I feel the word "belief" is going to give people a lot of problems as it can be applied in a variety of ways.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be criticizing static belief.

I like to think of the ideas we hold as being reasoned expectations based on experience. As we continue to experience, these expectations can be adjusted or changed as required in light of new experiences. In this way, the ideas or conclusions we form are not static, rather they become dynamic, which is what I think you are advocating.

I am a strong advocate for our sharing and contrasting our ideas (beliefs) with others. In this way we amplify our ability to gain new experience, no longer restricted to what we experience alone.

We also are quite susceptible to forming erroneous expectations or conclusions from our experiences for a large variety of reasons. Sharing and comparing is the way we provide an intersubjective check or evaluation on the ideas we form.

That is the value of discussing and debating our ideas (beliefs) on a platform such as RF.

 

[sun rise]

What am I gaining from making this choice?

Nothing very much unless the belief is put into action.

actually when you believe and never experience, you're just adding a burden of expectation that probably can't be met;

As Kabir said:

The parrot gabbles “God” like a man but doesn’t know God’s glory. If you don't see, if you don't touch, What's the use of the name?

 

[PureX]

Well, I don't see the difference between a belief and "our best guess".

The difference is that one is a guess: something we deem to be possibly true and willing to test. While the other is a presumed conclusion: something we deem to be true with enough certainty that we no longer are going to doubt (or test) it.

But other than that, yes, I think that beliefs should be moderated with skepticism.

But a "skeptical belief" is a contradiction in terms. One either believes something as true, or one does not. It's illogical to claim that one believes that something is true but then also doubts it's truthfulness.

However, if one ignores that skepticism temporally, then is able to test the implications doesn't that increase or decrease the confidence in the belief depending on the results of the test? This would make "belief" useful?

If one ignores their skepticism, what reason would they have for testing? The reason we test things is because we are skeptical.

 

[dybmh]

The difference is that one is a guess: something we deem to be possibly true and willing to test. While the other is a presumed conclusion: something we deem to be true with enough certainty that we no longer are going to doubt a (or test) it.

OK, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. It's a difference of opinion on the definition of a belief.

If one no longer doubts a belief, doesn't it become knowledge/delusion in the mind of the believer?

But a "skeptical belief" is a contradiction in terms. One either believes something as true, or one does not. It's illogical to claims that one believes that something is true but then also doubts it's truthfulness.

I think a person can do both ( be skeptical and believe ) at the same time.

If one ignores their skepticism, what reason would they have for testing?

They're ignoring the skepticism of their belief in order to test the implications of the belief. The results of the test either increase or decrease confidence in the original belief.

 

[PureX]

I think I am with you here. I feel the word "belief" is going to give people a lot of problems as it can be applied in a variety of ways.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be criticizing static belief.

I like to think of the ideas we hold as being reasoned expectations based on experience. As we continue to experience, these expectations can be adjusted or changed as required in light of new experiences. In this way, the ideas or conclusions we form are not static, rather they become dynamic, which is what I think you are advocating.

I am a strong advocate for our sharing and contrasting our ideas (beliefs) with others. In this way we amplify our ability to gain new experience, no longer restricted to what we experience alone.

We also are quite susceptible to forming erroneous expectations or conclusions from our experiences for a large variety of reasons. Sharing and comparing is the way we provide an intersubjective check or evaluation on the ideas we form.

That is the value of discussing and debating our ideas (beliefs) on a platform such as RF.

I agree with all of this.

I often find myself sort of caught between the "believers" and the "disbelievers" on this site, and end up in contention with them both because I basically don't hold any "beliefs" or "disbeliefs". To me, these are just people's ego talking. Including mine. So I don't concern myself with believing in this or that, or not believing in this or that. And I try not to assert any beliefs because I just don't see them as being pertinent.

I like ideas, and I like exploring the many different ways we humans choose to cognate our experience of being. But I can't pretend to know that any one is more accurate than any other. Some will work better FOR ME, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's more accurate, truthful, or "real". Every value, every truth, and even what is real and what isn't, I find, depends on it's context. And I think our 'beliefs' blind us to that.

 

[F1fan]

There are big difference between:

I believe OJ killed his ex-wife and Goldman.

I believe the Toothfairy exists and exchanges my teeth for money.

Both of these judgments are based on evidence:

The DNA evidence, the glove, the shoe print in the blood of a rare shoe OJ owned, he cut on his hand, his odd behavior, witness accounts, etc.

The fact that most of us have had experiences of putting teeth under our pillows and finding money the next morning is indisputable. I even tried putting a shark tooth under my pillow once and the TF was not fooled. I know there are deniers, but you can't dispute our experiences.

 

[PureX]

OK, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. It's a difference of opinion on the definition of a belief.

If one no longer doubts a belief, doesn't it become knowledge/delusion in the mind of the believer?

It depends on why they no longer doubt. If they now know via personal experience that "X" is true, then their belief has become a fact, and belief is no longer relevant. However, if they no longer doubt based solely upon their own blindly presumed certainty, then their belief has become their delusion. It may turn out to be correct, or it may not. But it remains a delusion until it becomes a fact one way or another. And I think self-delusion is a dangerous condition that we should avoid whenever possible.

I think a person can do both ( be skeptical and believe ) at the same time.

We are duplicitous beings. Yes. We can hold contradicting positions simultaneously. But that doesn't excuse us answering to the positive force of logic.

They're ignoring the skepticism of their belief in order to test the implications of the belief.

Why do you keep saying this? It is precisely our skepticism that drives us to test our presumptions. AND why we should avoid raising those resumptions to the level of "belief", beforehand.

The results of the test either increase or decrease confidence in the original belief.

You keep calling our skeptical presumptions, "beliefs". But they are just skeptical presumptions. They are possibilities that we have assigned some degree of probability to, but that we need to test to become fact. And I don't see why you keep interjecting 'belief' in to this process. I see no need for belief in any part of it.

 

[PureX]

Nothing very much unless the belief is put into action.

I don't need belief to act. Nor does anyone. So I fail to see how I would gain anything by acting on a belief as opposed to acting on, let's say, a skeptical possibility.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't need belief to act. Nor does anyone. So I fail to see how I would gain anything by acting on a belief as opposed to acting on any other cognitive condition.

You have to unpack that, if you don't mind.

 

[PureX]

You have to unpack that, if you don't mind.

I come to a rickety bridge across a dangerous river. I want to get to the other side of the river.

I don't need to 'believe' the bridge will stand in order for me to act (either cross or not cross the bridge). I can act on the dubious (skeptical) possibility that it will stand. How does 'belief' help me, here? Seems to me that it would just get in the way, and tend to mislead me when I should be focusing on the information at hand, both for and against the bridge standing long enough for me to cross it.

This is why I am saying that I don't see the necessity for believing (or disbelieving) in things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I come to a rickety bridge across a dangerous river. I want to get to the other side of the river.

I don't need to 'believe' the bridge will stand in order for me to act (either cross or not cross the bridge). I can act on the dubious (skeptical) possibility that it will stand. How does 'belief' help me, here? Seems to me that it would just get in the way, and tend to mislead me when I should be focusing on the information at hand, both for and against the bridge standing long enough for me to cross it.

Okay, so that applies to all situations in the everyday world?

 

[Audie]

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

Common knowledge

 

[Audie]

You automatically believe everything?

I don't believe you!

Goes with
" I never lie"
And" I'm not arguing"

 

[Audie]

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

I'm not into deliberate self deception

 

[PureX]

Okay, so that applies to all situations in the everyday world?

Just the ones where we have lack the necessary knowledge ... which is most of 'em.

Keep in mind that I have not mentioned faith, here. We do need faith, to act ... all of us nearly all the time. Obviously. But I don't see that we need belief, at all. In fact, it seems to me that belief mostly just gets in the way by setting us up for a fall (via bias).

 

[dybmh]

It depends on why they no longer doubt. If they now know via personal experience that "X" is true, then their belief has become a fact, and belief is no longer irrelevant. However, if they no longer doubt based solely upon their own blindly presumed certainty, then their belief has become their delusion. It may turn out to be correct, or it may not. But it remains a delusion until it becomes a fact one way or another. And I think self-delusion is a dangerous condition that we should avoid whenever possible.

OK, so we agree that a belief includes some doubt otherwise it is either fact or delusion.

Yes self-delusion is dangerous, but so is a knife. Both can be used as tools when used properly. Self-delusion can be useful if it is temporary and if the implications of the true belief ( aka delusion ) can be tested.

We are duplicitous beings. Yes. We can hold contradicting positions simultaneously. But that doesn't excuse us answering to the positive force of logic.

Have I proposed excusing the answering to positive logic? Maybe I have, but, I'm not even sure what that means.

Why do you keep saying this? It is precisely our skepticism that drives us to test our presumptions. AND why we should avoid raising those resumptions to the level of "belief", beforehand.

If, as was established at the beginning of your reply, a belief without doubt is either fact or delusion, then the differences between presumption and belief are negligable.

You keep calling our skeptical presumptions, "beliefs". But they are just skeptical presumptions. They are possibilities that we have assigned some degree of probability to, but that we need to test to become fact. And I don't see why you keep interjecting 'belief' in to this process. I see no need for belief in any part of it.

We're still squabbling about the definition of belief. Maybe if I approached it this way we could find some common ground:

What if, the skeptical presumption could not be tested for one reason or another? Maybe the technology is not available or does not exist yet. Are you suggesting that the investigation simply halts until the tech becomes available? I'm suggesting that it's possible in some circumstances to skip over the need for testing the presumption, look at the implications where the presumption is true, and then go back and reassess the presumption. The same is true for beliefs.

The reason I keep repeating this same idea is because I haven't seen you address it directly. So far the focus has been on what you think a belief is vs. a skeptical presumption.