Is a Belief a Claim?

[McBell]

I saw your post earlier in this thread about "claiming belief." I dismissed it because the phrase carried as much logic to me from a religious/spiritual standpoint as "theorizing hypothesis" would carry from a scientific one.

"Claiming belief" is as much a claim as "theorizing hypothesis" would be a theory.

Claims about your beliefs are still claims.

 

[PureX]

Any burden of proof requires a context.

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, anyone who cares about whether their beliefs are true has a burden of proof for themselves.

And they have all met it, which is why they believe as they do.

If we're trying to convince others of an idea, then we have to clear the bar of what they consider to be a reasonable burden of proof.

How many of us are actually trying to convince anyone else of anything. Especially given that it's nearly impossible regarding a subject so ethereal as 'God'? Or are we just trying to share what we have come to believe, and why? Because I think it's nearly always the latter.

Atheism in and of itself is just what happens when god-claims don't meet their burden:

"Sorry - I don't think your arguments for God cut the mustard. I'll pass, thanks."

Except that no one was ever actually trying to "meet their burden". Nor was anyone obliged to do so.

"Your description of your god isn't coherent enough for me to tell what it's supposed to be, so I don't even have a claim I can evaluate yet. Talk to me again when you've clarified your position."

... so atheism (absent of actual anti-theistic beliefs) really is different, since it isn't a claim.

Where I've seen a lot of friction between several of our Baha'i members (including @Trailblazer ) and others is that they have this weird "proselytizing but you can't call it proselytizing because proselytizing is a sin and we're a non-proselytizing religion" thing going on.

You keep demanding their "evidence" and then you call it proselytizing when they give it to you, because to you it's not evidence, it's proselytizing.

They try to convince others of their beliefs, which definitely gives them a burden of proof. At the same time, they freak out if you call attention to this, because having a burden of proof suggests that they're proselytizing, and they see it as slanderous to be accused of proselytizing... even as they're proselytizing.

It's bizarre and exhausting to be in those conversations.

No different from atheists pretending that they don't believe anything when they very clearly do.

 

[Nimos]

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, anyone who cares about whether their beliefs are true has a burden of proof for themselves.

I completely agree, if you don't care to put your beliefs to the test, then it is irrational and there is no logical reason to believe them.

If we're trying to convince others of an idea, then we have to clear the bar of what they consider to be a reasonable burden of proof.

Agree, if a claim is put forward. If I say to you, "I don't believe gods exist" that is not a claim. But merely an expression of my beliefs. Then you could point out that this seems contradictive to what I just wrote above. But this is where evidence comes into it. So to rephrase it, "I don't think the burden of proof for gods is met and therefore see no reason to believe that they do". This is the same procedure you would have to do with your own beliefs to see if they are rational or not.

They try to convince others of their beliefs, which definitely gives them a burden of proof.

This gives them the burden of proof, but this is on an individual claim base. Them stating that they believe in God, is not the same as saying that they believe that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God and therefore they are justified in believing in God. At best reasoning like this is pointless, because justifying one belief with another doesn't make the first belief more valid, if there is no evidence. And therefore the claim "I believe Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God" becomes a claim for the belief in God. Which have to meet the burden of proof if to be taken seriously.

It's bizarre and exhausting to be in those conversations.

I agree, because as I mentioned in an old post, it quickly becomes a huge mess, because "believe" and "claims" are mixed.

 

[Nimos]

Or are you of the mind that people have beliefs for no reason?

Absolutely not.

I don't think we have any beliefs unless there is a reason. But that reason might be highly fallacious.

For instance, with the cars, I simply chose the one on the right, because it was smaller, but there might be a huge engine in the other one. I simply don't have enough information to justify my belief, so it is merely a guess. (And im not making this up, I know hardly anything about cars )

Why declare your belief at all if you have no intention of discussing it?
ESPECIALLY in a debate forum?

People do this because it is interesting, but that doesn't mean that we all enter a discussion as if we hold the absolute truth. And that our beliefs might not be wrong.

If you are just guessing, why declare your guess as a belief and not as a guess?

What is the difference between an unjustified belief and a guess?

Like I said before, this all sounds like wanting to give beliefs a free pass.

No, simply that a distinction has to be made between "belief" and "claim".

If a person says "I don't believe gods exist" do they have the burden of proof in your opinion? compared to a person saying "Gods can't exist", there is a huge difference between these statements.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agree, if a claim is put forward.

A claim is just a belief stated out loud.

If I say to you, "I don't believe gods exist" that is not a claim. But merely an expression of my beliefs.

It's not necessarily either. "I don't believe gods exist" can be an expression of what you don't believe. Depending on the context, it could also be a way of expressing a claim that no gods exist in a way that's consistent with social norms.

To avoid this confusion, I'll sometimes express this idea as "the number of gods I believe in is zero."

Then you could point out that this seems contradictive to what I just wrote above. But this is where evidence comes into it. So to rephrase it, "I don't think the burden of proof for gods is met and therefore see no reason to believe that they do". This is the same procedure you would have to do with your own beliefs to see if they are rational or not.

If I'm getting into an in-depth discussion, I'll sometimes note that there are several different ways to not accept belief in a deity (or anything, really):

1. Not be aware of it. I haven't even heard of most of humanity's gods, so of course I haven't accepted that any of these gods exist. No belief involved yet.

2. Not accept the argument without rejecting it: responding to the argument for God with something like "huh?" or "I don't follow" or "sorry - I don't speak your language". Still no belief involved.

3. Reject the argument: respond to the argument with something like "your reasoning is wrong" or "that's nonsense" or "you haven't met your burden of proof." There's now a meta-belief about the argument for the god, but belief about the god still isn't in the picture.

4. Reject the conclusion: "I know that your argument is wrong because we know (or there's good evidence that) your god doesn't exist." Belief in the existence or non-existence of the god is now involved.

This gives them the burden of proof, but this is on an individual claim base. Them stating that they believe in God, is not the same as saying that they believe that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God and therefore they are justified in believing in God. At best reasoning like this is pointless, because justifying one belief with another doesn't make the first belief more valid, if there is no evidence. And therefore the claim "I believe Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God" becomes a claim for the belief in God. Which have to meet the burden of proof if to be taken seriously.

Right: "Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God" relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, the claim must be false.

I agree, because as I mentioned in an old post, it quickly becomes a huge mess, because "believe" and "claims" are mixed.

No, as I said before, I think it's just because some of our Baha'i members don't like having their actions called out for what they are.

 

[Nimos]

A claim is just a belief stated out loud.

I would disagree.

Do you believe that the multiverse theory is true?

Depending on what you answer, I would be in the right to say that you are making a claim for that belief. And therefore also that you have a burden of proof.

Do you think Im being reasonable?

It's not necessarily either. "I don't believe gods exist" can be an expression of what you don't believe. Depending on the context, it could also be a way of expressing a claim that no gods exist in a way that's consistent with social norms.

To avoid this confusion, I'll sometimes express this idea as "the number of gods I believe in is zero."

No, because a belief only deals with the assumption of what one think/believe to be true. Doesn't say anything about whether that belief is true or not.

It comes in various degrees of certainty depending on the amount of evidence supporting the belief. Which can range from nothing to a lot.

An example could be intelligent life in the Universe, it is not unreasonable to believe that it could be possible. The Universe is huge, there are lots of planets and we have evidence that it at least can appear using ourselves as evidence. Yet, despite this, it is far from certain that other intelligent life exists out there. So even if you believe it to be likely, it is not a claim that other intelligent life exists, it is merely what you find to be the most plausible based on the limited information you have.

The more evidence you can add to support a belief the more rational it is, even if it turns out to be wrong in the end.

If I'm getting into an in-depth discussion, I'll sometimes note that there are several different ways to not accept belief in a deity (or anything, really):

1. Not be aware of it. I haven't even heard of most of humanity's gods, so of course I haven't accepted that any of these gods exist. No belief involved yet.

2. Not accept the argument without rejecting it: responding to the argument for God with something like "huh?" or "I don't follow" or "sorry - I don't speak your language". Still no belief involved.

3. Reject the argument: respond to the argument with something like "your reasoning is wrong" or "that's nonsense" or "you haven't met your burden of proof." There's now a meta-belief about the argument for the god, but belief about the god still isn't in the picture.

4. Reject the conclusion: "I know that your argument is wrong because we know (or there's good evidence that) your god doesn't exist." Belief in the existence or non-existence of the god is now involved.

How you choose to answer or approach it, I think is irrelevant. When talking about beliefs there are 2(3) options.

1. You do believe / agree
2. You don't believe. / don't agree
(3. You don't know. (Could make an argument that this is redundant.)

It doesn't matter which belief I present you with, it could be:

"I believe there is life on Pluto, do you agree?"

Ultimately it doesn't matter how you reject or approach my belief. In the end, it will be one of those two options, you either agree or you don't. The important thing here, is that you are not evaluating a claim, simply whether you agree with my belief or not.

It is first after this step that we get into the claims.

"So you might ask me, why I believe that?" To which I will start adding things that I think support my belief. These are the claims that require a burden of proof.

"Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God" relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, the claim must be false.

Yes, It depends on how they initialize the argument.

So they could start by saying that "I believe in God" or "I believe Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God", and as you say, it will lead to them having to justify why that is the case, which means that they will have to present a claim that makes their belief rational if they want anyone to take them seriously.

 

[Nimos]

A claim is just a belief stated out loud.

I asked ChatGPT about it, just for fun and this is what it said, do you agree with that?

While the terms "claim" and "belief" are related, they have distinct meanings.

1. Claim:
- A claim is a statement or assertion that something is the case or exists.
- It is often presented as a proposition that can be true or false.
- Claims can be supported by evidence or reasons, or they can be mere assertions.

2. Belief:
- Belief refers to a mental attitude or conviction that something is true, even in the absence of proof or evidence.
- It is a state of accepting something as true or real.
- Beliefs can influence our thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors.

In summary, a claim is a statement or proposition, while a belief is a mental acceptance or conviction about the truth of something. Claims can be the basis for beliefs, and beliefs can be formed based on the acceptance of certain claims, but they are not interchangeable terms. Claims are often subject to scrutiny and evaluation, while beliefs are personal convictions that may or may not be influenced by evidence or reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think this is fair.

No, it's not fair, because I did not start this whole thing about beliefs vs. claims.

Is a Belief a Claim?

Inspired by something I read in another thread here, where a member stated they're not making a claim, but expressing a belief, and another member, in the ever so civil and polite demeanor of so many of our debaters here, replied, "a claim." If I tell you that I believe something with no...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Trailblazer]

If Trailblazer did claim this, then that is an individual claim, completely separated from the above.

It is a claim that could be easily supported if I wanted to go back through hundreds of posts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why declare your belief at all if you have no intention of discussing it?
ESPECIALLY in a debate forum?

There is a big difference between declaring and sharing.
Why not share religious beliefs on a religious forum?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I asked ChatGPT about it, just for fun and this is what it said, do you agree with that?

While the terms "claim" and "belief" are related, they have distinct meanings.

1. Claim:
- A claim is a statement or assertion that something is the case or exists.
- It is often presented as a proposition that can be true or false.
- Claims can be supported by evidence or reasons, or they can be mere assertions.

2. Belief:
- Belief refers to a mental attitude or conviction that something is true, even in the absence of proof or evidence.
- It is a state of accepting something as true or real.
- Beliefs can influence our thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors.

In summary, a claim is a statement or proposition, while a belief is a mental acceptance or conviction about the truth of something. Claims can be the basis for beliefs, and beliefs can be formed based on the acceptance of certain claims, but they are not interchangeable terms. Claims are often subject to scrutiny and evaluation, while beliefs are personal convictions that may or may not be influenced by evidence or reasoning.

Seems like the chatbot agrees with me: a belief you keep to yourself isn't a claim, but statements - e.g. beliefs stated out loud - are.

 

[Trailblazer]

Seems like the chatbot agrees with me: a belief you keep to yourself isn't a claim, but statements - e.g. beliefs stated out loud - are.

Sharing a belief is not claiming a belief.
A belief is not a claim unless a person claims it is true.

Here are some claims:

Actually God created Adam and Eve and told them the truth.
That was the beginning of the truth for people.
Evolution is just a false religion, repackaged paganism.

The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

Who? They have nothing. Hinduism is falsified just be reincarnation being a verifiable lie and all the other gods are bizarre, have no following a no book. I can't argue with that but I also feel the same about your religion.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[SalixIncendium]

Seems like the chatbot agrees with me: a belief you keep to yourself isn't a claim, but statements - e.g. beliefs stated out loud - are.

You're on a religious forum. Discussing beliefs is kind of expected here. Doing so does not render them claims.

 

[Quintessence]

Why declare your belief at all if you have no intention of discussing it?
ESPECIALLY in a debate forum?

Plenty of possible reasons:

• This is a discussion forum and the entire point of it is to share information with each other using the forum as a medium of communication. Those who don't see the point of a web forum aren't likely to be using it at all.
• Part of this forum's mission involves learning about the diversity of world religions and cultures. Staying silent about our religious and cultural practices doesn't exactly facilitate learning about this diversity.
• Humans in general are social animals and like sharing things with each other. Sometimes to educate, sometimes to learn, sometimes just to connect and bond with each other.
• Representation is important. Simply being there to present culturally diverse perspectives gives you and your people a voice at the table and a spot in the room. So you are not forgotten, overlooked, or ignored.
• Articulating ourselves often helps us figure ourselves out and also to become more effective communicators. Sharing ideas with others refines them for our own benefit and those of others.
• And so on...

 

[Nimos]

Seems like the chatbot agrees with me: a belief you keep to yourself isn't a claim, but statements - e.g. beliefs stated out loud - are.

I don't think we disagree that they are not connected.

Equally to beliefs at least having to be somewhat convincing to the person that believes them. Even in a case such as "I believe I will win the lottery", it might not be a very convincing belief, but I don't think one could deny that at least there is a degree of it.

But I think where we probably look at it differently is regarding claims.

To me, as mentioned in other posts, claims is a statement that draws on the idea of knowing something, whether true or not.

And I honestly think that "I believe I will win the lottery" illustrates the difference well. If I knew I would win the lottery, it would make the belief invalid or redundant. I would simply present it as a factual claim. And eventually, once the numbers were drawn and I won, you would accept that my claim at least was true, even if you just thought I was extremely lucky. Obviously, if I kept winning the lottery week after week, regardless of whether you decided which lottery it was or I did, you might start to agree, that I wasn't simply making claims but that it was a fact that I would win the lottery whenever I chose to play.

But as long as I don't know that I will win and the odds are against me, I would have to rely on a belief that I might win. Does that make sense?

 

[Heyo]

I've had this discussion several times before.
The way I see it, beliefs and claims are the exact same thing expressed differently.

Why did you preface that with "The way I see it"? Are you stating a belief that you don't want to prove if challenged?
If not it would have been superfluous.

So one can't make a claim without implying belief in it.
Likewise, one can't express a belief without stating what it is that is that is being believed. Which is a claim.

Nope. The practical implication is that one can build on a claim while a belief doesn't have any consequences, either in the need to convince other or the ability to deduce from it.

Why would claims not have a burden of proof when they are preceded by the words "I believe..."?
Meeting that burden remains the standard for rational justification for accepting a claim, right?
For yourself, for others, etc. This, it seems to me, is true wheter one tries to convince someone else or not.

A misconception that some atheists seem to have. I don't.
We have freedom of religion/belief in most of the western world. Everybody has a right to be wrong. The practical implication is that the believer can't make any claims for privileges on the basis of their belief. For that they'd need facts that have to be proven/supported. That's why for me a debate is over once a believer has retreated from a claim to a belief. They aren't dangerous any more.

 

[Valjean]

There is a big difference between declaring and sharing.
Why not share religious beliefs on a religious forum?

Because merely declaring your belief is pointless and boring.

 

[Heyo]

I would disagree.

Do you believe that the multiverse theory is true?

Depending on what you answer, I would be in the right to say that you are making a claim for that belief. And therefore also that you have a burden of proof.

Do you think Im being reasonable?


No, because a belief only deals with the assumption of what one think/believe to be true. Doesn't say anything about whether that belief is true or not.

It comes in various degrees of certainty depending on the amount of evidence supporting the belief. Which can range from nothing to a lot.

An example could be intelligent life in the Universe, it is not unreasonable to believe that it could be possible. The Universe is huge, there are lots of planets and we have evidence that it at least can appear using ourselves as evidence. Yet, despite this, it is far from certain that other intelligent life exists out there. So even if you believe it to be likely, it is not a claim that other intelligent life exists, it is merely what you find to be the most plausible based on the limited information you have.

The more evidence you can add to support a belief the more rational it is, even if it turns out to be wrong in the end.


How you choose to answer or approach it, I think is irrelevant. When talking about beliefs there are 2(3) options.

1. You do believe / agree
2. You don't believe. / don't agree
(3. You don't know. (Could make an argument that this is redundant.)

It doesn't matter which belief I present you with, it could be:

"I believe there is life on Pluto, do you agree?"

Ultimately it doesn't matter how you reject or approach my belief. In the end, it will be one of those two options, you either agree or you don't. The important thing here, is that you are not evaluating a claim, simply whether you agree with my belief or not.

It is first after this step that we get into the claims.

"So you might ask me, why I believe that?" To which I will start adding things that I think support my belief. These are the claims that require a burden of proof.


Yes, It depends on how they initialize the argument.

So they could start by saying that "I believe in God" or "I believe Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God", and as you say, it will lead to them having to justify why that is the case, which means that they will have to present a claim that makes their belief rational if they want anyone to take them seriously.

That's the difference between a discussion and a debate. A discussion is:
"I believe there is a god." -
"I don't."
End of discussion. Let's go drink a beer.
The moment either one starts bringing evidence/arguments to support their belief, the debate starts.

 

[Valjean]

Plenty of possible reasons:
This is a discussion forum and the entire point of it is to share information with each other using the forum as a medium of communication. Those who don't see the point of a web forum aren't likely to be using it at all.

But a mere declaration is not a discussion. It may 'share information', but if no discussion of hows or why's ensues, the declaration s vapid and meaningless.

Part of this forum's mission involves learning about the diversity of world religions and cultures. Staying silent about our religious and cultural practices doesn't exactly facilitate learning about this diversity.

I agree, but just declaring one's religion or favorite food shares nothing meaningful or interesting. It doesn't teach or facilitate anything. It doesn't explain the reasons for the belief/preference, nor does it defend the belief.

Humans in general are social animals and like sharing things with each other. Sometimes to educate, sometimes to learn, sometimes just to connect and bond with each other.

A simple declaration does not educate. Nothing is learned but an individual preference. As for bonding, it may promote bonding among people with the same belief, but it alienates those with other beliefs.

Representation is important. Simply being there to present culturally diverse perspectives gives you and your people a voice at the table and a spot in the room. So you are not forgotten, overlooked, or ignored.

But no perspective is being discussed or explained. The voice at the table is merely stating an individual preference.
Are we here just to avoid being forgotten or ignored? Wouldn't that make simple declarative posts the online equivalent of going outside and waving your arms and shouting?

Articulating ourselves often helps us figure ourselves out and also to become more effective communicators. Sharing ideas with others refines them for our own benefit and those of others.

But ideas are not being shared; the 'communication' is effecting nothing. No ideas are being refined.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're on a religious forum. Discussing beliefs is kind of expected here. Doing so does not render them claims.

Of course it does.

They aren't necessarily claims that the person has to explain or justify to anyone, but stating a belief implies 1) stating the claim and 2) describing the speaker's position on it.