I Believe ...

[PureX]

Belief and Faith are the same thing.

No, they really are not. Faith embraces doubt, and acts in accord with it. Belief denies doubt, and acts in spite of it.

 

[MikeF]

No, they really are not. Faith embraces doubt, and acts in accord with it. Belief denies doubt, and acts in spite of it.

In my experience, it seems that when someone declares to have faith in a particular belief, especially in light of information that conflicts or is contradictory to that belief, they deny any doubt, and act accordingly. This seems to be the opposite of what you observe.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe the distinction is between religious belief which is uncompromising, and unqualified belief which includes some minute amount of doubt?

 

[osgart]

Belief is a developed intuition, and certainly not a choice. Beliefs are useful in identifying possibilities and limits to what may be true.

Belief is for hypothesizing. It's also fun for speculation.

I am aware that belief is also a jump of trust in something or someone. Often we operate on justified or unjustified beliefs. The trouble with belief is that it's a poor substitute for knowing. I don't think anyone should operate on beliefs as a position of knowing.

Beliefs can raise valid questions.

I think most religious people operate on logical inference from evidence to the philosophically best interpretation as they see fit. They place faith in those logical inferences as a type of knowing. I feel that there is justified inferences one can make about reality from observation and experience. That's where I put my faith in my religion; upon my logical inferences.

One man's faith in there own logic is another man's garbage; whether that logic is true or not.
I have faith that my logic is correct, and those that officiate their logic in another way are often overlooking, or dismissing religious phenomena without good reason.

So the mystery of existence is not a war on science, instead it is a philosophical battle, and not a matter of science. Science can inform religion, but in limited degrees.

So I accept that there are different ways of knowing and not just science. Belief is not knowing, and faith is the confidence of knowing, not just believing.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

If I say I believe something I am only saying I accept the possibility of something being correct. I'm not letting go of doubt or skepticism.
I'm willing to accept something I believe is completely wrong. Just need some kind of physical support for it being wrong.

Mostly I see things somewhere between impossible and 100% true. However nothing ever getting to either end, although somethings can get very close.

 

[ppp]

And see the limit of both.

The limit of ones ability to evaluate. Yes.

 

[stvdv]

"Proof" is not an objective state of existence. It's a subjective determination. So when you have determined that you have "proof", you are choosing to believe that your determination accurately represents existence. Thus, you "believe in" your "proof". But your proof determination could always be wrong. As anyone's can given the fact that we are not omniscient. So why are you blindly presuming (believing) that your proof is 100% correct? What is the advantage of doing this: of eliminating doubt, to you?

You totally missed my point and misread my reply.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The limit of ones ability to evaluate. Yes.

No, correspondence works different for the objective, inter-subjective and subjective and that relates to evidence.

 

[MikeF]

I think most religious people operate on logical inference from evidence to the philosophically best interpretation as they see fit. They place faith in those logical inferences as a type of knowing. I feel that there is justified inferences one can make about reality from observation and experience. That's where I put my faith in my religion; upon my logical inferences.

Interesting. Since most religious people are first exposed to religion (in any conscious way) is when they become verbal toddlers, are you saying that newly verbal toddlers are exercising their strong capacity for logical inference as they evaluate the religious ideas they are being exposed to? When the child grows up going to Sunday School every week, how is that religious material presented? Are the children taught to question what they are taught and apply logical reasoning to the material? Are the children educated in all types of religious belief (or non-belief) and allowed to reason upon the different options and encouraged to follow where their reasoning takes them?

Can human beings be instilled with a belief, and once such a belief is instilled, it becomes difficult to alter that belief, especially if that belief is woven into emotional well-being strategies?

Once a strong belief is set, are you familiar with the influence of confirmation bias in preserving that strongly held belief? Link

I think for many, religious belief is instilled long before the need is felt to logically justify it.

 

[PureX]

In my experience, it seems that when someone declares to have faith in a particular belief, especially in light of information that conflicts or is contradictory to that belief, they deny any doubt, and act accordingly. This seems to be the opposite of what you observe.

We don't "have faith in a belief". We have faith in an idea, or we believe in that idea. To have faith in an idea is to hope and trust in the validity of that idea knowing that this validity is not certain. To believe in an idea is to presume that idea is valid in deliberate disregard of the possibility that it may not be so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting. Since most religious people are first exposed to religion (in any conscious way) is when they become verbal toddlers, are you saying that newly verbal toddlers are exercising their strong capacity for logical inference as they evaluate the religious ideas they are being exposed to? When the child grows up going to Sunday School every week, how is that religious material presented? Are the children taught to question what they are taught and apply logical reasoning to the material? Are the children educated in all types of religious belief (or non-belief) and allowed to reason upon the different options and encouraged to follow where their reasoning takes them?

Can human beings be instilled with a belief, and once such a belief is instilled, it becomes difficult to alter that belief, especially if that belief is woven into emotional well-being strategies?

Once a strong belief is set, are you familiar with the influence of confirmation bias in preserving that strongly held belief? Link

I think for many, religious belief is instilled long before the need is felt to logically justify it.

That is so for all culture as such. That has nothing to do with religion.

Imagine being told that there is no God and that is true with evidence. How many do you think would become agonstics?

 

[PureX]

If I say I believe something I am only saying I accept the possibility of something being correct

I disagree. I don't think that's what you're saying. If that is what you were saying, that is what you would have said. But that is not what you said. Instead, you said you "believe", meaning that you believe your presumption of validity is valid.

I'm not letting go of doubt or skepticism.

I think what you are saying when using the term "I believe" is that you are setting aside your doubt/skepticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. I don't think that's what you're saying. If that is what you were saying, that is what you would have said. But that is not what you said. Instead, you said you "believe", meaning that you believe your presumption of validity is valid.
I think what you are saying when using the term "I believe" is that you are setting aside your doubt/skepticism.

Now I get you. But I am slow, but sometimes I get there.

 

[F1fan]

I believe, therefore I could be mistaken.

 

[osgart]

Interesting. Since most religious people are first exposed to religion (in any conscious way) is when they become verbal toddlers, are you saying that newly verbal toddlers are exercising their strong capacity for logical inference as they evaluate the religious ideas they are being exposed to? When the child grows up going to Sunday School every week, how is that religious material presented? Are the children taught to question what they are taught and apply logical reasoning to the material? Are the children educated in all types of religious belief (or non-belief) and allowed to reason upon the different options and encouraged to follow where their reasoning takes them?

Can human beings be instilled with a belief, and once such a belief is instilled, it becomes difficult to alter that belief, especially if that belief is woven into emotional well-being strategies?

Once a strong belief is set, are you familiar with the influence of confirmation bias in preserving that strongly held belief? Link

I think for many, religious belief is instilled long before the need is felt to logically justify it.

I wasn't referring to children. I was referring to true adherents to religious ideas.

I grew up under catholicism and I freely questioned it. I also grew up in a Baptist household and there wasn't much room for free thinking in it.

This is all besides the point. I'm speaking of those that embrace religion and not those forced into it.

 

[dybmh]

To believe in an idea is to presume that idea is valid in deliberate disregard of the possibility that it may not be so.

A small but important detail: To "believe in" is not the same as "belief".

 

[PureX]

I believe, therefore I could be mistaken.

I understand. But that's a misuse of the term 'believe'. It's saying that you believe but you don't really believe. But the term 'believe' doesn't logically or literally include that not really part. And there's no need for all this conflicting and confusing obfuscation, anyway. All you ever needed to say was; "I think" or "I'm inclined to presume" instead of "I believe".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand. But that's a misuse of the term 'believe'. It's saying that you believe but you don't really believe. But the term 'believe' doesn't logically or literally include that not really part. And there's no need for all this conflicting and confusing obfuscation, anyway. All you ever needed to say was; "I think" or "I'm inclined to presume" instead of "I believe".

Yeah, another word I will stop using personally. Thank you.

 

[MikeF]

We don't "have faith in a belief". We have faith in an idea, or we believe in that idea. To have faith in an idea is to hope and trust in the validity of that idea knowing that this validity is not certain. To believe in an idea is to presume that idea is valid in deliberate disregard of the possibility that it may not be so.

To be fair, people use the words faith and belief in a variety of ways. In its common usage, I see belief simply referring to ideas or concepts that are held as true or very likely to be true. The belief that something is true is usually justified in some way.

Where I see the word faith use most often is in regards to religious beliefs. Faith is the overarching justification for holding the religious belief, and faith itself requires no justification; "I believe because I have faith". Invoking faith gives one permission to hold an idea, concept, or doctrine as true in spite of the lack of sufficient evidential support or justification, or in spite of conflicting or contradictory evidence.

One can justify a belief with supporting evidence, or justify a belief by invoking faith, a willful decision to hold something as true irrespective of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand. But that's a misuse of the term 'believe'. It's saying that you believe but you don't really believe. But the term 'believe' doesn't logically or literally include that not really part. And there's no need for all this conflicting and confusing obfuscation, anyway. All you ever needed to say was; "I think" or "I'm inclined to presume" instead of "I believe".

Take 2. And thus I stopped being an atheist.
I don't think I have any use for a theist God in either a positive or negative sense. I can use a version of some deistic God and I have faith in Her.