I Believe ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Are you aware that there are several versions of science. at least 2 versions of evidence and 5 versions of truth? Or have you been cultural indoctrinated to believe there are only one of each. The same goes for the word real. There are 2 versions. And sort of 3 for existence.

 

[MikeF]

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

I think what you mean to say is that it isn't only a religious phenomenon, not that it has nothing to do with religion, for it clearly does.

I agree with you whole-heartedly that children are socialized and indoctrinated in more than just religion. It would include all the norms, values, and taboos of the society as a whole. And as with religion, no child is asked to use logical reasoning to asses whether burping at the dinner table is bad or good, or whether only females should wear dresses.

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

Not sure of what you are asking. Who is being told there is no god (or gods depending on their religion, right?) with supporting evidence, adults who currently believe in a god/s?

 

[Wildswanderer]

But we can "stand for" whatever we think is good and right without having to believe that we can't possibly be bad, or wrong.

I can't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Not sure of what you are asking. Who is being told there is no god (or gods depending on their religion, right?) with supporting evidence, adults who currently believe in a god/s?

Imagine being being brought in a culture when the cultural belief is that is a fact that there are no Gods. How many do you think becomes agnostics?

 

[Sheldon]

Have you ever played the game minesweeper. In order to win the game you guess which squares have a mine in it, then use process of elimination to find all the mines.

Belief is like that. It allows a person to assume something is true, then move on to the implications of this belief and test if they are true. If they are, then, unless my logic is faulty, a person can be increasingly confident in their belief.

That's what's gained. It allows a person to skip over proof to move on to the next link in the chain.

Not much to disagree with there.

 

[Sheldon]

I only believe if I have proof

I don't believe you, since you have not proved your claim.

 

[MikeF]

Imagine being being brought in a culture when the cultural belief is that is a fact that there are no Gods. How many do you think becomes agnostics?

If there are no god concepts in the culture, then I would expect none to be agnostic in terms of gods. There may be some who are agnostic to whatever that culture believes in terms of origins of cosmos, life, and purpose. If there are no discrepancies or conflicts between the cultures origin explanations and observational evidence and experience, not sure why one might doubt.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't need belief to act. Nor does anyone.

Do you believe that? Would you have been minded to type that if you did not?

Beliefs are essential for us to function. Yet beliefs are not equally or objectively valid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If there are no god concepts in the culture, then I would expect none to be agnostic in terms of gods. There may be some who are agnostic to whatever that culture believes in terms of origins of cosmos, life, and purpose. If there are no discrepancies or conflicts between the cultures origin explanations and observational evidence and experience, not sure why one might doubt.

But there are no evidence for what the universe is in itself, so unless a culture is in effect skeptical of metaphysics, there is a conflicted between what is believed and the limits of evidence.
That is not the only example. I grew up in a culture and is still in one, that has one belief that there is a real world. There is no positive evidence for that.

Are you saying you have evidence for the origins of the cosmos, life and purpose? If you actually have that you would be the first person in recorded history to do that.
You are aware why natural science is based on methodological naturalism, right?

 

[MikeF]

But there are no evidence for what the universe is in itself, so unless a culture is in effect skeptical of metaphysics, there is a conflicted between what is believed and the limits of evidence.

This is irrelevant to the question you asked. It doesn't matter whether their is valid evidence or the veracity of belief. All that matters is what is believed and taught to children. Since there are no believed gods in your hypothetical society, I assumed they believed something about their origins and purpose. Agnostic means to not know, and in our Western culture imbued with religion, to be agnostic means one does not know or cannot determine whether there are gods or not. In your hypothetical godless culture, an agnostic would presumably have to not know about some other cultural concept, as gods are not part of the culture.

That is not the only example. I grew up in a culture and is still in one, that has one belief that there is a real world. There is no positive evidence for that.

I disagree.

Are you saying you have evidence for the origins of the cosmos, life and purpose? If you actually have that you would be the first person in recorded history to do that.
You are aware why natural science is based on methodological naturalism, right?

You seem to have lost track of the fact that we have been discussing a hypothetical culture.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Ok, well maybe I should use the term "I think it is likely", or "I think it is possible instead". As I always leave room for doubt.

 

[F1fan]

We don't "have faith in a belief". We have faith in an idea, or we believe in that idea.

Yet ideas don't do anything, they are abstractions in minds. It is people who USE those ideas to acheive some end where faith, or belief, is invested. You're using sloppy language here, to have faith in an idea silently means any person who uses the idea.

Ideas don't do anything.

Let's note that even if faith is invested in someone using the idea you like can fail, and that is because faith, or belief, is not a good predictor of success or outcomes. Humans are fallible and can fail.

To have faith in an idea is to hope and trust in the validity of that idea knowing that this validity is not certain.

All faith and belief is uncertain. But still, ideas don't do anything. The Bible sitting on a table does nothing. Jim reading the Bible and acting based on what he reads is where you can invest some faith. Of course Jim might end up being a Trump supporter because Jim believes Trump is a Christian.

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

It depends on the idea. If the idea is the Tooth Fairy, is that equal to the idea of OJ's guilt of double murder? No. Ideas are not all equal. Ideas cannot be treated the same. They need to be subjected to scrutiny and questions equally. We see this doesn't happen when believers and non-believers assess ideas of God. Believers do not subject the idea of their God equally to how critical thinkers assess the idea. In these cases the theists tend to violate the fallacy of special pleading.

 

[ppp]

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

No thanks,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No thanks,

Yeah, we are both humans, but we cope differently.

 

[ppp]

Yeah, we are both humans, but we cope differently.

Nothing to do with coping.

 

[stvdv]

I don't believe you, since you have not proved your claim.

Fair enough

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing to do with coping.

You ought to read some books on how all humans cope and are products of narratives about how the world really is. That applies to us all and not just everybody else than you.

 

[MikeF]

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.

Your comments below are what sparked my response:

...

I think most religious people operate on logical inference from evidence to the philosophically best interpretation as they see fit.
...
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.

Does every human being have an equal capacity to exercise logic and reason, and if so, why are beliefs not more uniform?

If every human being does not have equal capacity to exercise logic and reason, how does one evaluate their personal capacity to exercise logic and reason?

Are there other factors that affect or limit ones capacity to exercise logic and reason? If so, how does one identify and evaluate these other factors that are affecting or limiting their personal capacity to exercise logic and reason?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Does every human being have an equal capacity to exercise logic and reason, and if so, why are beliefs not more uniform?

If every human being does not have equal capacity to exercise logic and reason, how does one evaluate their personal capacity to exercise logic and reason?

Are there other factors that affect or limit ones capacity to exercise logic and reason? If so, how does one identify and evaluate these other factors that are affecting or limiting their personal capacity to exercise logic and reason?

All fair and nice. But there is one more factor. Simple example.
Someone with reason and logic: I can give the correct answer to what the world is.
Me: No.

Now if you understand the limits of reason and logic, then you know that the "No" is correct. And that "No" is not limited to religion.

 

[rstrats]

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.

That is correct, people do not have the ability to consciously choose to believe things.