I Believe ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

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).

Okay, you call it faith. I call it belief. And please don't turn it into the correct way to thinking for all humans. I get you close enough, so I can understand you.

 

[dybmh]

Common knowledge

The OP asked a question. Paraphrasing "What's useful about belief?" I tried to provide an example. Your movie analogy fits well too.

 

[ppp]

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.

I don't buy that you are making a choice to believe X. Believing is just being convinced. We don't become convinced via an act of volition. Not unless you are talking about the willing suspension of disbelief that we engage in with entertainment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't buy that you are making a choice to believe X. Believing is just being convinced. We don't become convinced via an act of volition. Not unless you are talking about the willing suspension of disbelief that we engage in with entertainment.

In cognitive therapy you start out with the belief that other thoughts will work over time, but at the start you have to believe in that, even though it doesn't make sense.

 

[ppp]

In cognitive therapy you start out with the belief that other thoughts will work over time, but at the start you have to believe in that, even though it doesn't make sense.

Nah

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nah

I need more than nah.

 

[PureX]

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

I don't agree. I think that when we decide to "believe in" "X", we are deciding to set aside our doubts about the validity if "X". Otherwise, there is no reason to assert our belief. The fact that we humans are duplicitous and dishonest with ourselves in our thinking doesn't erase the logic required for you and I to have this discussion. Someone could assert that the term "belief" refers to the color yellow. And it will be true that at least one person believes this to be so. But that doesn't enable the discussion. If you claim "I believe" doesn't mean I believe, to you, but means "I only sort of believe, but not really", then our discussion become a lot more difficult.

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

Self-delusion is dangerous because it's blinding. But that blindness may not cause us harm, today, in this moment. It may even advantage us, today, in this moment. But I think we can agree that it would be a bad idea to willingly blind ourselves just because it might advantage us, we think, in this moment.

This is how it is with bias. It blinds us to all the other possibilities when we decide that this possibility must be the only solution. And that's what I think belief is ... a self-imposed bias. A choice to set aside our doubt, and our skepticism, and the possibility that what we believe to be true may not be true. And that something else, is true, instead. It's a form of blindness. And it may harm us, or help us, depending on the belief and the circumstances, but either way we won't see it coming, and that's why it's dangerous.

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.

Facts come after. It's not "either/or". Facts eliminate the issue. The difference between a skeptical presumption and blind belief is the blindness. You're trying to say that belief IS skeptical presumption. But skeptical presumption is skeptical presumption, and leaves no reason or need for belief.

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?

It would seem that's out of our hands. It would also seem that there would be no reason whatever to "believe" something based on no information. So again, I see no reason for belief. (Keep in mind this does not exclude the possibilities of faith. But that's a different discussion.

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.

I suspect you are confusing belief with faith, here. That's a very common area of confusion.

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.

Skeptical presumptions open the door to faith as a course of action and a way of exploring the possibilities. Belief closes those doors based on it's dismissal of skepticism. It's only belief that I am rejecting as being mostly useless. Not faith or skepticism.

 

[PureX]

I'm not into deliberate self deception

A lot of humans are. The thing is they almost never realize that they are. Which should give us all pause for thought.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

I'm sure we've discussed this before, but this is not what I, or pretty much anyone I know in offline life mean when we say we believe things. What I mean when I say I believe something is that I'm convinced it's true. It's not a choice, it's an automatic mental process that occurs when I see something, or receive information, that convinces me a thing is so. It doesn't mean I'm absolutely certain and have no doubts whatsoever. It simply means I'm more convinced than not that (fill in the blank).

Some people of a fundamentalist variety may use belief as a substitute for skepticism and may insist that they are 100% certain of their beliefs and maintain no doubts about them. I'm not one of those folks, generally.

 

[ppp]

I need more than nah.

Like what? You have made it clear that you reject the correspondence model of truth. Which is what I would use in a response.

Also, you provided no support for your statement. Just the bear statement itself. Without more in the proposition, I don't think I need to provide anything more than a simple negative.

 

[PureX]

Okay, you call it faith. I call it belief. And please don't turn it into the correct way to thinking for all humans. I get you close enough, so I can understand you.

The thing is that the difference between faith and belief is CRUCIAL in so many ways. It's the difference between religions that destroy lives and religions that save lives. It's the difference between sanity and insanity for a lot of people. It's the difference between honest self awareness and dishonest self-delusion. And because it's SO important, and yet so subtle a difference, there are a lot of people that will fight tooth and nail to maintain the confusion.

I'm just saying what I see about something I think is important. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

 

[sun rise]

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.

My answer is emotional commitment to trying very hard when it seems like nothing is working.

 

[PureX]

My answer is emotional commitment to trying very hard when it seems like nothing is working.

That does not logically appear to be an advantage.

 

[sun rise]

That does not logically appear to be an advantage.

It appears that the motivating power of emotion is something you are not familiar with.

 

[dybmh]

I think that when we decide to "believe in" "X", we are deciding to set aside our doubts about the validity if "X".

This, to me, is the definition of delusion.

Otherwise, there is no reason to assert our belief.

Asserting a belief is a mistake, a fallacy, isn't it?

If you claim "I believe" doesn't mean I believe, to you, but means "I only sort of believe, but not really", then our discussion become a lot more difficult.

Yes. that's the difficulty I'm having. It could be restated this way from my point of view.

If you claim "I believe" doesn't mean I believe, to you, but means "I know", then our discussion become a lot more difficult. The difference between "I know" and "I believe" is the inclusion of doubt. Maybe it's a miniscule amount of doubt, but it's enough to compel the speaker to say "I believe" rather than "I know".

Self-delusion is dangerous because it's blinding. But that blindness may not cause us harm, today, in this moment. It may even advantage us, today, in this moment. But I think we can agree that it would be a bad idea to willingly blind ourselves just because it might advantage us, we think, in this moment.

Yes, I agree, but that doesn't mean it's not useful in certain situations. Maybe another example is helpful. Maxwell's demon. I don't understand the physics behind it, but, basically Maxwell made an observation he couldn't explain. In order to continue with the math, he modeled the phenomenon as occuring with the assistance of a demon. He probably didn't believe in real demons, but, he allowed himself to use the concept as if it was real in order to complete the theory. And that theory was proven correct later and the phenomenon was attributed to quantum mechanics.

Maxwell's demon - Wikipedia

And that's what I think belief is ... a self-imposed bias. A choice to set aside our doubt, and our skepticism, and the possibility that what we believe to be true may not be true. And that something else, is true, instead. It's a form of blindness. And it may harm us, or help us, depending on the belief and the circumstances, but either way we won't see it coming, and that's why it's dangerous.

This sounds like delusion to me. The danger can be mitigated if a person trains themself to use the delusion temporarily. If a person is stuck in their "blindness", that's bad. If a person is simply closing their eyes briefly, not so bad. Kind of like sneezing while driving.

The difference between a skeptical presumption and blind belief is the blindness. You're trying to say that belief IS skeptical presumption. But skeptical presumption is skeptical presumption, and leaves no reason or need for belief.

The best I can do without more details is to differentiate belief from skeptical presumption by comparing the amount of doubt included. A belief has very little doubt, skeptical presumption has more. Belief without any doubt is a delusion.

It would seem that's out of our hands.

The investigation can continue if one skips over the need for testing and proof, and assumes/believes the most likely outcome will occur. Then the original belief can be revisited when there is more data.

It would also seem that there would be no reason whatever to "believe" something based on no information.

Believing based on no information is a guess, not a belief. A belief has reason for confidence, but not complete confidence.

So again, I see no reason for belief.

So far 3 examples have been given:

• Minesweeper
• Gaining real world insight from a fictious story, like a movie or a book
• Maxwell's demon

Can you show me how belief is not involved in a positive way for each of these examples. I only need one to disprove the claim that "belief has no purpose, is not useful". ( yes, minesweeper starts with a guess, but as the game progresses choices are made based on belief )

I suspect you are confusing belief with faith, here. That's a very common area of confusion.

Yes, I may be confusing those two. I'm stuggling right now to define faith in different terms other than another form of belief. maybe faith is belief's put into action, where as belief is purely in the mind? I see you explained this a little more in your replies to others. I'll definitely read those.

Skeptical presumptions open the door to faith as a course of action and a way of exploring the possibilities.

I agree, but I would go one step further. Faith is belief put into action. You can't have faith without belief.

Belief closes those doors based on it's dismissal of skepticism.

But it's not a complete dismissal, otherwise ... delusion.

 

[gnomon]

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.

Some people believe in things because they had no choice in the matter.

 

[fantome profane]

Why don't you/we just say, "I presume "X", then? Or "I suppose "X"? Or, "I'm going with "X" at the moment"? What is the point of asserting belief if one remains skeptical (unbelieving)? That doesn't make sense to me.

Fair question. I suppose it is just semantics, a way of speaking.

I doubt everything to some level, but that is not to say I have the same level of doubt for everything. There are things in which I have very little doubt, things in which I have some doubt, things in which I have considerable doubt, and things I doubt in the extreme. I might say (respectively) I believe X, I think X, I do think think X or I believe X is not true.

I don’t think I am alone in the way I use the word “belief” and I think people generally understand what I mean. Although I realize others use the word differently, You can usually tell by context.

 

[fantome profane]

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

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.

 

[Audie]

A lot of humans are. The thing is they almost never realize that they are. Which should give us all pause for thought.

Don't know they are doing things on purpose.

But you do know.

Right

 

[Audie]