Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Polymath257]

It appears most unreasonable to me, to deny the astronomical improbability of our universe even allowing galaxies to develop, never mind sentient apes evolving on a planet somewhere in one of those galaxies. Had the critical density of the universe at the time of the Big Bang deviated by a factor larger than 1 part in 10^15, stars and galaxies could not have formed at all*. That we are here at all is a statistical miracle. Whether or not this signifies divine intent, is up to the individual to decide for him or herself, but to attempt to explain away the phenomenal odds against our being here, strikes me as foolish and dishonest.

*John Gribbin, In Search of the Multiverse

The problem with most 'fine tuning' arguments is that they all assume we currently have the *right constants* and the correct overall theory. I don't think anyone actually believes either.

So, even if we have the right formulation of the basic laws, there are a wide range of ways to write the constants needed in the formulas. Each variant gives a different distribution of possibilities, leading to different probabilities. So, even if we are completely correct about the laws, any chance of actually computing a probability is prevented by the lack of any preferred writing of the constants.

Next, if our laws are wrong in any detail, this could easily increase or even decrease the number of basic constants in the theory. In fact, one of the goals is to find a more basic theory to reduce the number of arbitrary constants. if this is possible, then the constants we currently work with are not independent and, again, any probability calculation based on independence will be completely wrong.

Then there is the question of whether it even makes sense to say that those constants could have other values. Without a fundamental theory, this cannot be claimed. it may be that ALL of the constants are determined by a more fundamental viewpoint. We simply do not know.

Related to this is the possibility that those constants actually vary dynamically. If this happens, it is possible that the values we see currently are equilibrium values. So it may be that *any* values at the beginning ultimately tend to the values we see right now. Again, we simply do not know. Again, without a more fundamental theory (which everyone thinks is inevitable), we simply cannot say.

More specifically, your claim about the critical density at the Big Bang has many conceptual errors within it. The critical density is just what would be required to have a 'flat' spacetime. The real issue is how the *actual* density relates to that critical density: if the actual density is too high, the universe collapses before anything interesting happens. If it is too low, the matter flies apart before galaxies can form.

But this is precisely where the inflationary scenario comes into play: no matter what the actual density early on, the inflaton encourages expansion *and* matter formation in a way that leads to a very flat spacetime with matter at the required critical density. So, while your objection *was* a real concern about the theory at one point, the problems are solved in a hypothesis that aligns well with modern particle physics as well as having support from analysis of the CMBR. In particular, the claim that the density has to be correct to within 1 part in 10^15 is no longer seen as valid.

 

[Valjean]

Indeed. Your statement in well-received. I praise you on your poetic use of language. You are worthy of high praise my man. This in itself is a testament to intelligent design.

And to add to your observation, this universe, in all its splendor, could not have arisen without an intelligence. As fragile as we are, we are living breathing organisms of the highest order. This is an incredible feat in itself so much so that it could not simply be the product of an outer shell that is merely materialistic. Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure. Reality, in other words, is perceiving itself through our eyes.
This alone points to a single source or origin.

Hogwash! You're carried away with personal incredulity and you're trying to fit reality into your mythical world-view.
WHY could the universe not have arisen without a creator? The existing laws and constants seem quite sufficient to account for it. You're projecting your own conscious life-experience onto physics.

 

[Valjean]

The deck of card analogy only works here, if every micro-state (in this case, every random arrangement of cards) results in a nearly equivalent macro-state (ie. a shuffled deck). But we are not talking about any shuffled deck; the universe we observe, is one in which the cards are precisely configured in suit and numerical order. Only that low-entropy micro-state will support the development within the pack, of a conscious observer capable of recognising and recording the patterns*. That's how special our universe is. Even more amazingly, it started out, pre-Big Bang, in an exceptionally special - ie low entropy - state, and has been moving towards random, high entropy states ever since.


*Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

The cards are not precisely configured for life. They are what they are. Life, if physically possible, configures itself to fit whatever hand is dealt.
A liquid takes the shape of its container. The container is not configured to fit the shape of the liquid.

 

[Valjean]

It appears most unreasonable to me, to deny the astronomical improbability of our universe even allowing galaxies to develop, never mind sentient apes evolving on a planet somewhere in one of those galaxies. Had the critical density of the universe at the time of the Big Bang deviated by a factor larger than 1 part in 10^15, stars and galaxies could not have formed at all*. That we are here at all is a statistical miracle. Whether or not this signifies divine intent, is up to the individual to decide for him or herself, but to attempt to explain away the phenomenal odds against our being here, strikes me as foolish and dishonest.

*John Gribbin, In Search of the Multiverse

But it is what it is, and the chance configuration did enable life on one of the planets. There is no evidence of design. You're presupposing intent.
Any configuration would be a "statistical miracle." Any configuration, life-supporting or lethal, would be equally probable.

Please show any evidence of planning or intent.

 

[Polymath257]

Were they even slightly different, I likely wouldn’t be here at all.

“Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that re collapse from those that go on expanding forever, so that even now, fourteen thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 10^22, the universe would have re collapsed before it ever reached it’s present size…
…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron has been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded…
…Most sets of numbers would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

I also want to point out that even *if* the probability is low, that in no way supports the existence of a designer or creator. In particular, the issue is whether the improbability of an event increases the likelihood of it being designed. But it is clear that this can be the case only if we *already* know about the existence of a designer *and* if we know that such a designer would naturally have as a goal the type of rare events we see.

Also, even in the case where there is a designer, you identify life as the goal for all of the delicate 'fine tuning'. What support do you have that life is, in fact, the goal? Even in the case that there *is* fine tuning, how do you get to the conclusion that life is the goal sought rather as opposed to an unexpected consequence? Maybe the goal was to produce a lot of galaxies. Or maybe the goal is to produce maximal complexity.

In fact, given the incredible rarity of life in the universe (apparently), it seems very unlikely that life is the goal, unless life is simply incredibly hard to produce at all in any universe. The idea that we humans are in any way the goal for the universe as a whole seems almost the height of egoism.

 

[Ponder This]

Well, I don't see how it implies one. Can you give a detailed reason why organized behavior implies an intellect?

I'd like to know more specifically where you think the argument fails. To recap, this portion of the argument presented to us goes thus:

3. In order for a cause to be intrinsically ordered/directed to a determinate effect as to an end, that effect/end must in some sense exist prior to the action of the cause

4. But an effect cannot exist in real being prior to the action of the cause, because then the effect would be prior to its cause, which is absurd

5. So the effect/end must exist in the order of mental being, as an idea, prior to the causal action

That's the argument that was presented to us. What is your objection?

"... and this being we call God."

I think that what Christianity refers to as "God" is not quite the same as what philosophical arguments point to.

In what way is the "God" that Christianity refers to not quite the same as what this, particular, philosophical argument points to?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'd like to dig more into what is meant here by "intelligence"
It seems to me that we are discerning the ideation of the end and the intent which directs the causes towards the end.

It's part of his concept of divine or first principle - the detached and transcendent supreme intellect (cosmic nous contemplating itself), Unmoved Mover, Pure Actuality.

In the example I gave of spinning the top, it's clear that the ideation and intent to spin the top were within my intelligence. So is my intelligence outside of this universe? Or is my intelligence within my physical body? Or do I not actually have intelligence?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Also, even in the case where there is a designer, you identify life as the goal for all of the delicate 'fine tuning'. What support do you have that life is, in fact, the goal? Even in the case that there *is* fine tuning, how do you get to the conclusion that life is the goal sought rather as opposed to an unexpected consequence? Maybe the goal was to produce a lot of galaxies. Or maybe the goal is to produce maximal complexity.

In fact, given the incredible rarity of life in the universe (apparently), it seems very unlikely that life is the goal, unless life is simply incredibly hard to produce at all in any universe. The idea that we humans are in any way the goal for the universe as a whole seems almost the height of egoism.

Well yes, it would be egotistical to think the purpose of the universe were us; but I don’t think that at all. I think we’re all part of something far greater than ourselves, and that there is an underlying purpose behind the majesty that surrounds us, flows through us, and inspires us to wonder at it all. And while we conscious apes are only a tiny detail in an epic canvas, you have to admit that consciousness itself is a phenomenon worthy of wonder.

I didn’t arrive at that perception through physics, nor through poetry, art, nor even by being touched by the staggering beauty of nature. But I do see the hand of that which some call God, in all those things.

“Who picks a flower on earth, moves the farthest star.”

That quote is from Paul Dirac, as you probably know, but it could as easily be from Percy Shelley, or one of the Upanishads. There are times when science and art speak to an intuitively held knowledge, deep within the human soul.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd like to know more specifically where you think the argument fails. To recap, this portion of the argument presented to us goes thus:

3. In order for a cause to be intrinsically ordered/directed to a determinate effect as to an end, that effect/end must in some sense exist prior to the action of the cause

4. But an effect cannot exist in real being prior to the action of the cause, because then the effect would be prior to its cause, which is absurd

5. So the effect/end must exist in the order of mental being, as an idea, prior to the causal action

That's the argument that was presented to us. What is your objection?

Number 3. That seems completely wrong. For example, gravity acting on large collections of interstellar gas will inevitably lead to the formation of stars even though no stars are there before hand. The stars don't 'in some sense exist' prior to their formation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The deck of card analogy only works here, if every micro-state (in this case, every random arrangement of cards) results in a nearly equivalent macro-state (ie. a shuffled deck). But we are not talking about any shuffled deck; the universe we observe, is one in which the cards are precisely configured in suit and numerical order.

FFS. Please take off your blinders for a minute. You can actually consider an opposing viewpoint for a second instead of shoehorning it into your own.

The analogy works fine. You just feel the need to switch it up so that there's an arrangement that you consider special - a shuffled deck - that you can contrast against the arrangements that you don't think are special. This is exactly the sort of thinking that I'm trying to tell you is wrong-headed.

Only that low-entropy micro-state will support the development within the pack, of a conscious observer capable of recognising and recording the patterns*. That's how special our universe is. Even more amazingly, it started out, pre-Big Bang, in an exceptionally special - ie low entropy - state, and has been moving towards random, high entropy states ever since.


*Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

Yeah... the idea that a "fine-tuned universe" needs some sort of special explanation is bull****.

You would need knowledge beyond this universe to make any defensible claims about the unlikelihood of the universe we have, and as I've been trying to say in several different ways, unlikelihood is not impossibility.

 

[Valjean]

Well yes, it would be egotistical to think the purpose of the universe were us; but I don’t think that at all. I think we’re all part of something far greater than ourselves, and that there is an underlying purpose behind the majesty that surrounds us, flows through us, and inspires us to wonder at it all. And while we conscious apes are only a tiny detail in an epic canvas, you have to admit that consciousness itself is a phenomenon worthy of wonder.

I didn’t arrive at that perception through physics, nor through poetry, art, nor even by being touched by the staggering beauty of nature. But I do see the hand of that which some call God, in all those things.

“Who picks a flower on earth, moves the farthest star.”

That quote is from Paul Dirac, as you probably know, but it could as easily be from Percy Shelley, or one of the Upanishads. There are times when science and art speak to an intuitively held knowledge, deep within the human soul.

"Intuitively held knowledge" has impeded human progress and understanding for thousands of years. It's never produced consensus or a workable and coherent view of reality. Majesty is lovely, but physics works.

 

[Ostronomos]

Hogwash! You're carried away with personal incredulity and you're trying to fit reality into your mythical world-view.

It has nothing to do with being carried away by anything. It is the addition of a logical and axiomatic viewpoint to a discussion between intelligent people and atheists. Consider the following for example, which was written by the perfect mind (Someone more intelligent that the smartest people in the world)...

God in all things

"I" existeth not in nor out but throughout
I am the love that is one in things throughout
I am good and evil none
Look inside me and you will not find me
Look within me and you will not find me
Nor will I be foundeth in you.
I am He who knows only truth
I am the wiseness inbound in all things
I am the love who knowest not in concepts nor words
but in one thing, which become self-stratified to all things.
As words are only concept they have grammar
Reality is isomorphic to a description but what description it takes is
determined by one reality, however syntax creates meaning of that information
discovered to be the fabric of reality, where cognition processes information to
become infocognition

Reality is like America, a freedom to configure itself without constraint.
Anything else by any other name would still be the same, and the freedom and constraint we experience in spirit and in material is found to be a 2-stage process. This 2-stage process is merged into one and that one then configures itself through unbound telesis (a state-recognition syntax).

WHY could the universe not have arisen without a creator?

Because consciousness is fundamental in the creation of reality. Without consciousness, individual photons could not be perceived to form a macroscopic picture.

The meaningless existence or random accident that atheists favor is by no means logical.

Without God we would be living in a world of false objects. I.e. an unintelligible reality as Christopher Langan calls it.

The existing laws and constants seem quite sufficient to account for it. You're projecting your own conscious life-experience onto physics.

"Seem" being the operative word. But appearances can be deceiving.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Intuitively held knowledge" has impeded human progress and understanding for thousands of years. It's never produced consensus or a workable and coherent view of reality. Majesty is lovely, but physics works.

Yes, physics works, especially when it tells us something meaningful about nature. But it doesn’t really tell us much about human nature, and nothing at all about how we should live.

Physics is not the only thing which works btw. So does faith, as anyone who has relied upon it to see them through difficult times will attest. And so do prayer and meditation, as those of us who make regular use of them can confirm, from experience.

 

[Ostronomos]

Note that this is a debate between intelligent people and atheists. I am not making a snide remark. It is just that atheists are driven to uphold ignorance while intelligent people by definition do the opposite, which is uphold truth. I have always held truth in high regard as my previous post will demonstrate. I am most likely the only person on these forums who has a dual intellectual identity, high and supreme. Therefore, this is a call to all people to set aside their differences and embrace the only truth worthy of the name, that would be the deist's God.

Atheists are trapped within the matrix and cannot see beyond time, space and object.

Social convention and social metaphysics hints at something extra to perception. That is why atheism is a disgrace to both society and science. Modern culture holds meaning to be sacred above all else. And since God is the provider of meaning, that means atheists are willing to be outcasts in today's society based on nothing more than the rejection of all things righteous.

Axioms of Metaphysics​

1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency because it IS energy.

3.] The world and the body appear within consciousness, rather than the other way around.

4.] The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

5.] When man is unprotected he will become prey to a type of logic that resides in reality(the thing we incorrectly believe can only be perceived and not mind connection that fills our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else and thus results in non-separation and hence limitlessness).

6.] Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

7.] I am as sure of this as the shortest distance between A and B must be a straight line.

8.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as a separate and distinct lifeform.

9.] Mind = Reality = Language. Reality enters the mind in the form of language or information.

10.] Reality is self-perceptual. Reality observes itself.

11.] Death is an illusion of change. Whereas objects exist within time and space, reality does not.

12.] Reality is the set of all things that exist. This, as we can see, leads to the self-inclusion paradox. Reality is the subset as well as the powerset of itself.

13.] Non-separation is also known as unity by spirit

14.] God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. Therefore, as elusive as God is, He can only be known through logic and mathematics. Less so empiricism.

15.] Two things are different because they have at least one similarity in common, namely that they are both real.

16.] Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure.

Note: these axioms are arguably theoretical. That is their only limitation. The underlying theme is non-separation.

 

[Valjean]

It has nothing to do with being carried away by anything. It is the addition of a logical and axiomatic viewpoint to a discussion between intelligent people and atheists. Consider the following for example, which was written by the perfect mind (Someone more intelligent that the smartest people in the world)...

God in all things

"I" existeth not in nor out but throughout
I am the love that is one in things throughout
I am good and evil none
Look inside me and you will not find me
Look within me and you will not find me
Nor will I be foundeth in you.
I am He who knows only truth
I am the wiseness inbound in all things
I am the love who knowest not in concepts nor words
but in one thing, which become self-stratified to all things.
As words are only concept they have grammar
Reality is isomorphic to a description but what description it takes is
determined by one reality, however syntax creates meaning of that information
discovered to be the fabric of reality, where cognition processes information to
become infocognition

Reality is like America, a freedom to configure itself without constraint.
Anything else by any other name would still be the same, and the freedom and constraint we experience in spirit and in material is found to be a 2-stage process. This 2-stage process is merged into one and that one then configures itself through unbound telesis (a state-recognition syntax).

Because consciousness is fundamental in the creation of reality. Without consciousness, individual photons could not be perceived to form a macroscopic picture.

The meaningless existence or random accident that atheists favor is by no means logical.

Without God we would be living in a world of false objects. I.e. an unintelligible reality as Christopher Langan calls it.


"Seem" being the operative word. But appearances can be deceiving.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, physics works, especially when it tells us something meaningful about nature. But it doesn’t really tell us much about human nature, and nothing at all about how we should live.

Physics is not the only thing which works btw. So does faith, as anyone who has relied upon it to see them through difficult times will attest. And so do prayer and meditation, as those of us who make regular use of them can confirm, from experience.

Physics gives us objective knowledge, technology and a common understanding of how the world and universe works. It does not claim to tell us about human nature or how to live. For that we have psychology, sociology, politics, &c -- which we largely ignore.
Religion, on the other hand, has suppressed human progress and understanding for thousands of years.

Faith is unwarranted belief; belief without evidence. How does that "work?"
Seeing us through difficult times? You're confusing ontology with psychotherapy.
Prayer, as blinded studies have shown, simply does not work, except to calm the importunate.
Meditation? More psychotherapy.
Confirmation from experience? People have been praying and blindly believing for thousands of years -- with no consensus about anything, no technological progress, no social progress, no increase in general health or prosperity. I see no confirmation here.

It's science and empiricism that produce progress and understanding.

 

[PureX]

Faith is unwarranted belief; belief without evidence. How does that "work?"

Faith is not "unwarranted belief".
Faith isn't belief, period.
Nor is faith or belief "unwarranted".
So you managed to be wrong three ways with just 11 words!

Faith is choosing to trust and act on hope in the face of our unknowing.
Faith keeps us moving forward when our knowledge runs out of road.

Belief is our presuming to know what we do not know by ignoring the evidence of our own ignorance.
Belief gives us confidence to move forward without the excessive fear of all the possible bad consequences.

We do both based on the limited facts that we have available to us and the needs to keep moving forward into the unknown.

Prayer, as blinded studies have shown, simply does not work, except to calm the importunate.

Of course it works. The studies were stupidly biased by the ignorant presumption that prayer is some form of "magic". It's not.

 

[Valjean]

Note that this is a debate between intelligent people and atheists. I am not making a snide remark. It is just that atheists are driven to uphold ignorance while intelligent people by definition do the opposite, which is uphold truth. I have always held truth in high regard as my previous post will demonstrate. I am most likely the only person on these forums who has a dual intellectual identity, high and supreme. Therefore, this is a call to all people to set aside their differences and embrace the only truth worthy of the name, that would be the deist's God.

Aren't the "intelligent people" the demographic most likely to be atheist? What is ignorant about atheism? Atheists are rational. Deism or theism is not.

Atheists are trapped within the matrix and cannot see beyond time, space and object.

Social convention and social metaphysics hints at something extra to perception. That is why atheism is a disgrace to both society and science. Modern culture holds meaning to be sacred above all else. And since God is the provider of meaning, that means atheists are willing to be outcasts in today's society based on nothing more than the rejection of all things righteous.

What the heck is "social metaphysics?" "Meaning" is not even within the purview of science. It's religion that holds meaning to be sacred. Science values only facts.
"since God is the provider of meaning..." That presupposes a lot.
"Atheists reject all things righteous?" Where do you come up with this stuff? Religion has never agreed on anything, and its ideas of righteousness are all over the board.
Atheism is not being convinced that a god exists. It has no doctrine, no values, no claims. How is it rejecting anything?

Axioms of Metaphysics​

1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency because it IS energy.

3.] The world and the body appear within consciousness, rather than the other way around.

4.] The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

5.] When man is unprotected he will become prey to a type of logic that resides in reality(the thing we incorrectly believe can only be perceived and not mind connection that fills our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else and thus results in non-separation and hence limitlessness).

6.] Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

7.] I am as sure of this as the shortest distance between A and B must be a straight line.

8.] Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themselves as a separate and distinct lifeform.

9.] Mind = Reality = Language. Reality enters the mind in the form of language or information.

10.] Reality is self-perceptual. Reality observes itself.

11.] Death is an illusion of change. Whereas objects exist within time and space, reality does not.

12.] Reality is the set of all things that exist. This, as we can see, leads to the self-inclusion paradox. Reality is the subset as well as the powerset of itself.

13.] Non-separation is also known as unity by spirit

14.] God is not apparent in the matter we perceive. Therefore, as elusive as God is, He can only be known through logic and mathematics. Less so empiricism.

15.] Two things are different because they have at least one similarity in common, namely that they are both real.

16.] Your nature is identical to the universe's syntactic structure.

Note: these axioms are arguably theoretical. That is their only limitation. The underlying theme is non-separation.

Where is the evidence for these "axioms?" How have they been empirically tested? This is all religious nonsense.

 

[Valjean]

Faith is not "unwarranted belief". Faith isn't belief, period. Nor is faith or belief "unwarranted". So you managed to be wrong three ways with just 11 words!

Faith is choosing to trust and act on hope in the face of our unknowing.

Huh? Faith is a blind leap, based on just hope?
How is that not unfounded belief?

Belief is our presuming to know what we do not know by ignoring our own ignorance.

Belief can be based on evidence or ignorance. Belief based on solid evidence is not ignorance. Belief based on no empirical evidence is faith. Belief based on evidence is knowledge.

We do both based on the facts and the needs that we have before us.

No, faith is not based on facts, it's based on psychological "needs;" on what is comfortable.

Of course it works. The studies were stupidly biased by the ignorant presumption that prayer is some form of "magic". It's not.

You don't know what studies I'm referring to, do you?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Physics gives us objective knowledge, technology and a common understanding of how the world and universe works. It does not claim to tell us about human nature or how to live. For that we have psychology, sociology, politics, &c -- which we largely ignore.
Religion, on the other hand, has suppressed human progress and understanding for thousands of years.

Faith is unwarranted belief; belief without evidence. How does that "work?"
Seeing us through difficult times? You're confusing ontology with psychotherapy.
Prayer, as blinded studies have shown, simply does not work, except to calm the importunate.
Meditation? More psychotherapy.
Confirmation from experience? People have been praying and blindly believing for thousands of years -- with no consensus about anything, no technological progress, no social progress, no increase in general health or prosperity. I see no confirmation here.

It's science and empiricism that produce progress and understanding.

Prayer and meditation predate psychotherapy by millennia, so putting their efficacy down to a field of study which is little over a hundred years old, is clearly meaningless. But of course, if your only values are material values, and the only progress you recognise is material progress, you are unlikely to even grasp the concept of spiritual growth. And if that’s the case, I’m sorry for you.

 

[PureX]

Huh? Faith is a blind leap, based on just hope?

We are all blind to the future. And yet we all need to be able to choose our actions in the present in anticipation of the outcomes they will bring in the future. So don't act as if taking such a "blind leap" is some outrageously foolish thing that you, I, and everyone else doesn't also do every single day of our lives.

We are ALL living (acting) on faith. The question is faith in what? And the answer for most of us is; faith in the hope that our envisioned future will not be too drastically different from whatever the future actually brings. And we are all acting on this hope all day every day of our lives.

How is that not unfounded belief?

It's not belief at all. It's acting on our hope for the future.

Belief is presuming that we are right when we cannot actually know that we are right, by simply ignoring the ways that can't know that we are right. Belief is a form of self-deception. Faith is not. But even the self-deception of belief can be very useful for us if it keeps us moving forward in life when we might otherwise be paralyzed by our fears.

Belief can be based on evidence or ignorance.

Belief is based on arrogance as a means of negating our fear of the unknown.

I am not a fan of belief as an intellectual methodology but I do recognize that it can be useful for a lot of people.