Believin' "IN" it idn't gonna git it!

[Willamena]

"I believe in the Eiffel Tower".

"I disbelieve in the Eiffel Tower".

See how nonsensical that is? What matters to others is your assertion, bot your believing in it.

Okay. But belief is more naturally expressed in talking about the things we believe in (making assertions) rather than talking about ourselves ("I believe this..." or "I assert that..."). We don't generally go around pointing out what types of expression we are making in conversation, or the value of the classification of our sentence; we just do it. We would assert that the Eiffel Tower exists, or not, based on our beliefs, and hence that expession is a belief.

 

[PureX]

I sense real frustration and possible anger expressed in the OP. All I can say is we cannot control the behavior of others. We all do not have the same background and experiences. We have to take each other as we are. It is my understanding that DIR's are set up so that people can express their belief without judgement. In the general areas, however, are we not sharing our views with others to have them considered and evaluated?

I think you should not get too caught up in word choice, and focus on context and intent. Ask for clarification if needed, but don't get upset if someone cannot adequately express themselves in the way you feel they should. Give us imperfect humans a little slack.

I am neither frustrated nor angry. I am simply posting from the point of view that the reason we come here is essentially to learn about ourselves, and to learn about each other, by discussing the ideas and issue that are important or significant to is. And to do this successfully, we will need to be able to articulate our perspectives clearly and honestly. But that can't happen if we don't understand our own positions, clearly or honestly. So I am offering up an instance where I see this lack of clarity of thought and speech occurring regularly among us, regarding the distinctions between concepts like what we believe, what we can know, and what we choose to presume is so even though we cannot know it to be so. All of which are getting muddled and conflated behind the vague pronouncement of 'belief'.

 

[PureX]

I suppose. Though this flies in the face of a lot of arguments brought to bear by a lot of theists, who like to claim that everything is a belief in order to put any fanciful idea that they desire to hold on par with all the actual knowledge and useful information we've accumulated as human beings since the dawning of our species. I've been mostly forced to concede the point that everything I espouse myself to in an intellectual/philosophical capacity ultimately has its roots in belief on a fair number of occasions. Enough to know that calling it, instead, an "assertion" isn't going to be effectual in changing anyone's mind - nor slow down their attempts to deconstruct the entire universe and all we know about it in order to (not sure why they feel this works in their favor, but here we are) insert "God" everywhere we look.

I feel sad for a lot of religious theists who have been wrongly taught from the day they were born til the day they die that faith = belief. And this is yet another reason I would admonish us all to forgo pronouncements of 'belief'. And to instead really try to articulate what we mean by it.

For example, I am a theist by faith (my choice), not by my belief, not by my knowledge, and not by my affiliation with or practice of any religious or theological system. I do not "believe in" God. I don't even know what that means. I do not "know God", because as a limited human, I find that to be impossible. I don't even know if God 'exists', or what that would even mean. How could I even tell that God exists?

On the other hand, in my profound ignorance, the possibility of God's existence remains viable. And through that possibility I can explore the idea, and evaluate it for myself. I can invent a God that might exist, and choose to live according to my hope that my invented God does exist, even though I can't know this to be so. But no one will even know any of this about me, nor I about themselves or anyone else if we keep insisting on shoving all these variations in our understanding and intent down to one binary possibility: "believe" or "don't believe"? What a waste of human imagination, and sophistication, and insight and creativity!

 

[PureX]

We would assert that the Eiffel Tower exists, or not, based on our beliefs, and hence that expession is a belief.

Actually, we would not assert it based on our "belief in it". We would assert it based on our evidence, and reasoning. What we're "believing in" is not the Eiffel Tower's existence. It's our own ability to have determined correctly that it does exist.

See, this is why being as articulate as we can be, matters.

When someone tells me they "believe in God", I know this is not exactly accurate. What they "believe in" is their own determination that God exists as they imagine God to exist. And that doesn't apply to anyone but them. Certainly not to me.

 

[MikeF]

I am neither frustrated nor angry. I am simply posting from the point of view that the reason we come here is essentially to learn about ourselves, and to learn about each other, by discussing the ideas and issue that are important or significant to is. And to do this successfully, we will need to be able to articulate our perspectives clearly and honestly. But that can't happen if we don't understand our own positions, clearly or honestly. So I am offering up an instance where I see this lack of clarity of thought and speech occurring regularly among us, regarding the distinctions between concepts like what we believe, what we can know, and what we choose to presume is so even though we cannot know it to be so. All of which are getting muddled and conflated behind the vague pronouncement of 'belief'.

I'm glad you are neither frustrated or angry. And many share your goal for clarity in expressing thoughts and ideas. However, we all do not share the exact same culture, primary language, experiences, etc. I think we need to be patient and understanding with each other. I don't think it is that hard to decipher whether a belief statement is being presented as a proposition of fact or what is known, what is a presumption, and what is belief based on religious doctrine alone. At the very least, a few probing questions will make it clear.

I recommend patience and understanding. It is impossible to expect everyone to conform to your expectations of proper dialogue and word usage, so it falls to you to be creative and adaptable to keep the conversation meaningful and constructive.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, we would not assert it based on our "belief in it". We would assert it based on our evidence, and reasoning.

There is no difference. Belief based on evidence and reasoning is the only significant belief.

What we're "believing in" is not the Eiffel Tower's existence. It's our own ability to have determined correctly that it does exist.

That's the same thing that, with an added component of being actually true, equates to knowledge.

See, this is why being as articulate as we can be, matters.

When someone tells me they "believe in God", I know this is not exactly accurate. What they "believe in" is their own determination that God exists as they imagine God to exist. And that doesn't apply to anyone but them. Certainly not to me.

I do agree with this. Terms like "belief," "myth," and "man," lose specificity when their meaning gets diluted by casual, poetic, and metaphoric language. I also believe it is something we can work with; it only takes being aware.

 

[MikeF]

When someone tells me they "believe in God", I know this is not exactly accurate. What they "believe in" is their own determination that God exists as they imagine God to exist. And that doesn't apply to anyone but them. Certainly not to me.

I really like what you've said here. I still think there is value in trying to determine what is real, what merits belief, independent from ourselves, our own needs and wants.

 

[PureX]

There is no difference. Belief based on evidence and reasoning is the only significant belief.

Not always, and not that often. It's surprising how often people believe things in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

I do agree with this. Terms like "belief," "myth," and "man," lose specificity when their meaning gets diluted by casual, poetic, and metaphoric language. I also believe it is something we can work with; it only takes being aware.

Yes. The first step is being aware of how complex and often subtle the process of human cognition, is.

 

[PureX]

I really like what you've said here. I still think there is value in trying to determine what is real, what merits belief, independent from ourselves, our own needs and wants.

I agree. But that value is primarily functional. Not to be confused to "truth". Functionality may be an aspect of truth. But it's not the truth, itself.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, for what seems like several decades, now, I have been struggling to point out to some of you on here that no one cares what any of us "believes in". And that we care even less (if that's possible) about what anyone "disbelieves in". What we actually care about, if we care about what each other has to say at all, is what you are asserting to be true. Whether or not you believe it to be true is of no consequence to us, because the truthfulness of what you are asserting is in no way buoyed up nor undermined by the degree to which you believe or "unbelieve in" it. Such that all we're actually interested in is the assertion, and why you are holding it forth as being true. Because our knowing these may strengthen or weaken or otherwise change or enhance whatever ideas we are holding to be true, ourselves.

I don't know how to say it any clearer that this.

But it's been to no avail. Y'all continue to pointlessly announce to all that you "believe in" this or that, or that you "unbelieve in" it, as if this were supposed to mean something to us. And although it doesn't, I can see that I must surrender to the irrepressible persistence in offering this pointless proclamation. Nothing I say is going to stop you.

However, I still doggedly refuse surrender to the use of the term "in" being added to the use of this term, "believe".

I can grudgingly accept that you assert; "I believe X = X" (even though I still don't care that you believe it, or how strongly you believe it). But I have no idea what you even mean when you proclaim that you "believe in X = X". Or the even crazier variation; that you "believe on X = X". It really is just nonsensical gibberish at this point, and I just cannot in good conscience allow it to pass as any kind of bona fide information transferal.

So, hence forth, be warned.

I remember an episode of ‘Moonlighting’, where Cybill Shepherd asks Bruce Willis, “Don’t you believe me?”
And he replies, “No, but I believe in you.”

 

[Willamena]

Yes. The first step is being aware of how complex and often subtle the process of human cognition, is.

Not subtle, but fragile.

 

[PureX]

I remember an episode of ‘Moonlighting’, where Cybill Shepherd asks Bruce Willis, “Don’t you believe me?”
And he replies, “No, but I believe in you.”

The word "trust" would have more clearly sufficed. Poetic language is only poetic when it makes the idea being conveyed deeper, and clearer. It's not poetic when it just muddies up the discourse.