On the nature of Belief...

[Lerkfish]

Instead of a bashing thread..here ya go:

What is the nature of belief?

I don't like the term believers/unbelievers in terms of the religious/nonreligious, for BOTH are believers: The religious or Deists believe there is a God(gods) and athiests believe there is not a God(gods).

both are states where a human understands or expects something to be true or not true, according to their own internal criteria. You can believe in something that is provable, such as I am 6'4" tall, or something that is not provable at the moment, such as time travel exists.

But the NATURE of belief is what interests me. WHY do we believe? In a way, we have expectations or hope that something is true/not true. It requires us to place a personal template on the world, and make it conform to that template in order to understand it....as opposed to observing the world and coming to understand it.

We believe the sky will not fall, or else we would cower in bed every morning. We believe that for the most part, drivers will not cross the median and hit us head on...or else we'd never be able to drive. Even the fact that that DOES indeed happen from time to time does not change our belief that this time, it won't. On the other hand, if we became strong in our belief that on THIS day, a truch WAS going to hit us, and believed it as strongly as we believed the opposite on other days, we would elect NOT to drive.

So, what am I getting at? Forgive this crude attempt, but I'm trying to capture a concept and deliver it to you. In a way, part of this concept is that having a belief or belief system is a natural part of being human and interacting with the universe. Even if that belief system is that the universe itself is random, or self-generated randomly and that science will eventually uncover all mysteries...that is STILL a personal template we place on the world around us that allows us to both feel comfortable and to understand things we might not otherwise understand or accept.

We ALL do this. religious and non-religous operate on a belief system of some sort that may or may not accurately predict future events or reality.

I'm reminded of when someone once said to me they didn't "believe" in abortions, and I said "well, they do occur, independent of your belief". I realize they were trying to state an opinion rather than a reality assessment, but it highlights an interesting conclusion:
That if you have a frame of belief, does that affect what you perceive, independent of how it really is?

I'm also reminded of the joke where a therapist is talking to a patient who always cracked his knuckles. "Why do you do that?" he asked. "It keeps the dragons away". "Well, that's silly" said the therapist. "You don't see any dragons, do you?" asserted the patient.

Who is to say that the patient is NOT correct?

Sorry for the ramble, just wanted to start a thread that wasn't a bash for once.

[Warpy]

1. You ran into trouble right off the bat, with

"The religious or Deists believe there is a God(gods) and athiests believe there is not a God(gods)."

Actually, atheists don't believe anything. Atheists have never seen any evidence of a god. There is no belief involved.

I guess believers simply can't comprehend that mindset at all.

[kwassa]

5. Atheists HERE re-define the word "Atheist"

And the atheist here have a very active disbelief in God, which they actively and persistantly speak of.

It is not lack of belief at all, it is active disbelief, which is a belief in and of itself.

[Warpy]

6. Don't tell other people how they think

It's very impolite.

Thank you.

Now reread what I posted. Then think about it for a bit. Even if you can't comprehend it yourself with complete understanding, accept that we do.

[kwassa]

13. I will say whatever I choose, freedom of speech and all that ....

warpy:
"Now reread what I posted. Then think about it for a bit. Even if you can't comprehend it yourself with complete understanding, accept that we do."

Oh, I've understood your position, and the other "atheists" from the first week I posted here. I personally believe that it is an utterly phony stance, in my humble opinion, because it IS a belief system, pure and simple. The "lack of belief" idea is a pose, no more, and no less, that gets you off the hook of having to prove anything at all, of course.

I judge the atheists here by their actions, you included. You are advocating your athiest belief system, which if fine. I only ask you to be honest about it, that's all, and not pretend that is is a "lack of belief" but your strongly-held belief. You wouldn't be so adamant about it otherwise, because if it was only a "lack of belief" you really wouldn't care about the subject.

[Warpy]

14. Thanks for proving my point

[eallen]

24. When you understand the self-deception in what you just wrote...

Then you will understand the nature of religious belief.

You don't like the belief/unbelief distinction, because you refuse to admit that there are those of us who do not believe. Not only do we not believe any religion, the way you believe it, quite likely we don't believe anything in the way you believe it.

[kwassa]

57. I'm sorry you suffer from self-deception. You can recover, you know

eallen:
"quite likely we don't believe anything in the way you believe it."

What makes you think you know one single thing about the way I believe?

[beam me up scottie]

59. Perhaps the same thing that makes THIS person think that they know what

WE believe:

"I personally believe that it is an utterly phony stance, in my humble opinion, because it IS a belief system, pure and simple."

Now who would write a post like that?

[eallen]

61. From what you write. You label a stance "phony" for what is logical...

And that says a world about how you think.

[Zhade]

99. You're an abuser.

"I'm sorry you suffer from self-deception."

This is a classic abuser tactic - assigning the blame to the victim. You're abusive, and you owe the poster an apology.


"What makes you think you know one single thing about the way I believe?"

Oh irony, thy name is kwassa. I'll turn the question back on you, and point out that unless you agree this applies to you in regards to atheists like me who have never attacked you (with the word 'think' replacing 'belief') then you are a hypocrite.

[trotsky]

30. Maybe the reason we "care about the subject"...

is that like most human beings, we don't like being told what we think or believe by someone who does not think or believe like us.

[kwassa]

58. Having watched you for awhile ...

I don't think that is your issue.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Speaking of issues,

what exactly is yours?

[trotsky]

45. Christians HERE re-define the word "Christian" all the time.

After all, you claim that Falwell et al aren't "real" Christians.

Pot. Kettle.

[H2O Man]

66. That's not "redefining"

That's one definition. Redefining would be making up a new definition.

[Zhade]

100. I'll speak to this lie.

You're lying, or you're incredibly ignorant.

Please show me the last time I actively denied any god's existence, rather than pointing out that I've seen no convincing evidence that will allow me to believe in any.

Save your time - you won't find me saying that. Your broad-brush attack is a lie.

[Tux]

35. OK

I guess believers simply can't comprehend that mindset at all.

Yet, believing in God is another mindset. As a Deist, I believe in God yet you don't belive in God. However, an atheist belief is there is no God. Still a belief.

[Warpy]

38. Thanks for proving my point

Really.

[H2O Man]

65. Atheism defined:

"the doctrine that there is no deity." - Webster's

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Merriam-Webster's online

"2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&y=0

Did the 2(a) definition no appear in your Webster's?

[beam me up scottie]

70. : )

nt

[H2O Man]

73. Sure it did

The two are consistent.

[_TJ_]

97. Two different things

Many atheists DO believe something - they believe there is
no god. I happen to be one of them.

What you are specifically describing is an *agnostic*. They
have no beliefs regarding god.

[pscot]

2. Atheists believe god is "not proven"

Believers believe despite the absence of any proof. If they went around maundering about Zeus or Belshazar they would be laughed out of town. Hard to see how Yaweh is any different.

[Tux]

37. There is the truth

No evidence for either side thus they both have a belief in god one way or another.

[Lerkfish]

39. but, I'm not trying to say one belief or the other is correct..I'm

hoping to examine the nature of belief itself, regardless of how it falls for each individual person.

[Tux]

51. I didn't say either one is correct

Just that both seen evidence they could get and made a decision whether theist, atheist, and agnostic. All are valid for that person. Outside of organized religion, it is up to the individual. We're assuming a person has little to no influence from religious organizations that want to alter a person's perception too.

[trotsky]

3. Eh, it's still disrespectful.

Why can't you just accept what atheists say about themselves? It's not that I "believe" there is no god, it's that I have yet to see any evidence FOR god(s).

Why do you insist on labeling others and telling them what they really think?

[bowens43]

4. 'athiests believe there is not a God(gods)'

No need to read further....

[Lerkfish]

10. If I am incorrect, simply correct that portion and then comment.

easy, see?

[Maple]

7. Does anyone here 'believe' in unicorns?

Do you spend a lot of time thinking about whether you should or not?

Do you debate their existence at length with other people?

Do you jump on other people for their belief/disbelief in unicorns?

Do you think that because we can't 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of unicorns, we should act like they do exist just in case?

Or do you just ignore the whole thing, and get on with your life?

Well for atheists, God and unicorns are on the same level.

The only time it becomes an issue for us, is if someone insists that we must all believe in unicorns, and live accordingly.

[Tux]

40. WTF?!

Who here is telling you to believe in anything? You can believe that your car was made by a purple space monkey for all I care. We're pointing out the flawed logic of atheists not having a belief in God which is the same as having a belief. Even if don't believe that your car was made by purple space monkeys (with outsourcing these days, who knows?) but your disbelief is still a belief that purple space monkeys didn't make your car.

[trotsky]

43. Is "bald" a hair color?

Is "health" a type of disease?

Then why do you consider "no belief" to be a type of belief?

[Lerkfish]

46. actually, more to the point, I wanted to discuss the nature of belief, not

decide which belief is correct.
I honestly wanted to start a thread that didn't devolve into a flamewar, but instead
started an interesting philosophical discussion about belief itself, rather than what a particular belief is.
I think if you look farther down the thread, there are people responding in that spirit, and there is an interesting discussion afoot.

I'm not directing this at the poster I'm repsonding to, but I'm saying to the thread in general that my intent is to discuss the nature of belief itself. If anyone wants to invalidate the beliefs of others, or whatever, please start a different thread. Thanks.

[trotsky]

47. Oh, you *didn't* want to start a flamewar?

So that must be why you went to such great lengths to avoid using any phrases that have been the very subject of many wars... :sarcasm:

[Lerkfish]

48. No, I didn't.

If you will read posts in this thread, you will see that discussion of the original post, the nature of belief, was my intent.

I'm really very sad that some people seem to have missed that.

[trotsky]

50. Well, it seems a bit naive to think that you could use a sensitive phrase

and not expect people to again protest its use.

Honestly, it really does seem like you, Kwassa, and a few others delight in calling atheism a belief mainly because atheists don't like it.

What if you called African-Americans "darkies" because, well, their skin is dark, and some African-Americans said to you, "I'd rather you not use that term," would you continue to use it?

[Lerkfish]

52. see post #10.

which I posted early on in the thread. Someone objected and I said make a correction and then comment. No correction was made by that poster.

I apologize if I offended you by wanting to discuss the nature of belief. It certainly was not my intent.

Do you have a suggestion for a different term I could use? I agree that semantically people like yourself are fixating on the word "belief" narrowly defining it in religious terms, while I'm trying to use it as a general term.

I suppose I am naive because I did not think the word "belief' was on the same level of offense as "darkie". But I learn something every day.

[trotsky]

54. When used as a "general term," belief almost becomes meaningless.

I believe I'll have the ham and Swiss on rye.

I believe it's April 13th.

I believe my ass itches.

It seems pretty clear to me (and obviously many others) that when some people call atheism a "belief", they intend to equate it with religious belief, which many atheists have asked them not to do. But they persist anyway, which I can only interpret as a petty, immature way to try and insult someone.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Damn Trotsky

I admire your energy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. I think a lot of people

Are conflating "belief" with "faith".

*Of course* my atheism is a belief - I *believe* that there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being. It's not a faith, or a religious belief, which it's often claimed to be, but it is a belief.

Don't be discouraged - as you say, "belief" and "darkie" are not on the same level (or indeed remotely similar). I think it's quite an interesting question, because while the answer is easy a lot of people get it wrong for interesting reasons.

[wtbymark]

8. belief is naturally human

it also serves as part of the subjective filter that we view reality with. everybody's perception of reality is subjective and unique to that person experience. Belief 'systems' are built upon this filter to make sense of the subjective reality we perceive. Being that anything subjective is not objective, all of our views and belies are wrong. They do not perfectly, accurately convey to us the truth of reality. So it is the objective of a human to come as close as 'humanly' possible to the truth of reality. DesCart gave us the first step. We have to stip (or simply not believe)any and all of the reality we percieve to 'know', and start with one pretense which we can say we know to be true;
'Cogito ergo sum' = "I think, therefor, I am". From there, we would take any and all information through logic and science (which is a form of logic) to ascertain as close as we can, the truth of reality. Now having said all that, we can never know the truth of reality, our perception will always be subjective.

[salib]

11. Interesting. How is reality something objective that we

view with a filter? You are still proceeding from the assumption of an objective reality. Yet, the "I think, therefore I am" tautology give no more than "I am", as it is always in the frame of some "reality" that is "out there." I.e., the fundamentals of scientific thought and the scientific method. You might equivalently say that reality is only that which can be reproducibly measured.

Sorry, I kinda get into these philosophical arguments.

(edited)

[Lerkfish]

17. Dont apologize! I love philosophical arguments!

tis why I started this thread.

They exercise the brain.

[housewolf]

29. Our "rose-colored" glasses

It seems to me that we all see "reality" through our own set of "glasses" - be they rose-colored, clear or any other color - actually a set of filters composed of our individual beliefs - particularly in regards to beliefs about those things that are unprovable.

[Lerkfish]

12. thank you for responding to the philosophical nature of the thread...

that was my main intent: to explore the nature of belief itself...in all forms, not just religious.

[Tux]

42. Thank you

From Buddha to Descarte, people have taught that no 2 people can perceive the universe the same way. And I do believe that all religions (even my UU Deism) is wrong. The only firm belief that people should have is that humans can and need to live in peace with each other.

Of course, I could be wrong on the last sentence.

[salib]

9. OK, being an atheist who has not contributed to these rants

I have to disagree with many of the responses so far. The word "belief", or perhaps even more so "faith", has long since been co-opted by Christians in Western thought. That is the insult, I BELIEVE. I believe and have faith in my wife and her actions. That belief does not have any requirement for constant "if it is not measurable or provable it does not exist" kind of argument. I still have that belief.

My lack of belief in a God, an after-life, and other silliness, is a belief, not proof. Not, only, based on reality, but based upon my belief that It is silly t make up a huge, and to me preposterous, story about something that we cannot measure and prove. But it is still belief.

Please, fellow atheists, do not cede the concepts of faith and belief to the "believers" and "faithful." It does all of us an injustice.

[Lerkfish]

16. thanks for your thoughtful reply...

I'm more concerned about the human act of believing...in anything. Though I start in religion, I think it applies on a simply human level.

In some ways, a belief can be constructive (my example of how believing that not every car on the road is going to kill you allows you to function and drive to work). Or, it can be destructive (like a paranoid schizophrenic who believes everything is a threat, including those trying to help him). both would be beliefs, but both act in radically different ways to influence behaviour and function.

[salib]

22. Do not forget that there are also relative strengths of belief,

various sources, relative likelihood, and relative inconsistencies with what is "reproducibly measurable." From this perspective, all of the after-life, "religious", deist, etc., stories I have heard of consistently are basically highly improbable, convoluted, and contrived when faced with scientific measurement (in the silly cases where these beliefs supposedly predict something that can be so measured). When I see a belief system like that, I move on.

[Lerkfish]

28. But I could say that your belief influenced your behaviour...

Since you believe that things which are relatively more likely or probable are more worthwhile to pursue, if you see a belief system that is not like yours, which seems more convoluted and contrived, you move on.

Nothing wrong with that. But its a case where a belief about belief systems causes you to discard any that are not consistent with the belief you currently hold...I find that interesting.

Removing religion from that completely, one could believe that all problems have a simple, evident and non-contrived solution. Therefore, if someone were to suggest a solution that was complex, not immediately understandable or manufactured, one might dismiss the solution without examining it. And that might be the best response...human nature might have meant for us to do that, to avoid wasing time going in blind alleys.

Perhaps belief is a way to keep us from being overly distracted from opposing beliefs so that we can act on or expand one belief. (positive conclusion)

Or, perhaps in that example, a complex solution was the BEST solution, but was dismissed and unrealized, so the filtering effect of a belief actually worked against that person by limiting possibilities. (negative conclusion).

[salib]

33. As I said, silly.

[Lerkfish]

36. I'm stating the obvious, but I'm also trying to understand this by

discussing it. My view on this topic can change, and has changed as people bring up interesting facets of it. By rewriting it myself, it helps me to solidify my thoughts, or codify them so they make more sense, at least to me.

[eallen]

25. Faith is a psychological problem.

I view faith much as I view obsessive-compulsive behavior, addiction, or any other psychological problem. I don't "cede" it. I'm just glad I don't have it.

[H2O Man]

67. You are consistent

in your lack of understanding of any of them.

[trotsky]

27. Of course it's not proof.

You don't need to "prove" that something doesn't exist in order to not believe in it.

[Tux]

44. Thank you

Be using the Christian Rights terms, we can use them to equalize the national discussion and not let them dominate it completely.

[housewolf]

15. I'd like to throw into the mix... trust

the issue of trust and the question of how one discerns the very slight differences between belief, trust and opinion when it comes to those concepts that cannot be proven (such as your height).

For instance, to my way of thinking, your example of oncoming traffic staying on their side of the road seems to be more of an issue of trust rather than belief. Certainly one has a belief that that oncoming traffic CAN cross the median and cause harm, that this breach has happened before and could happen to at any moment. It seems more a matter of TRUSTING that it will not happen (trust that the drivers of the oncoming traffic stay aware and hold to the law, are operating under rational faculties, are sane and motivated by their own self-preservation as well as the preservation of others so that they stay on their side of the road).

In that situation there may be a belief in the good will and cooperation of other drivers, but the actual act of getting out and driving down the road requres a trust that those beliefs hold true.

I guess as I see it, one holds a belief in a concept but action in the real world is based on trust in ones beliefs. It's one thing to believe that the sky will not fall and another to get out of bed based on that belief, which requires trust in that belief. It's one thing to believe in time travel and another to trust the belief enough to do it. It's one thing to believe in the basic goodness of other people and another thing to allow someone into your home.

Then the question becomes this:
Does trust in religious beliefs equate to the word "faith"?

[salib]

19. Can trust and belief be separated?

The examples you give are not convincing, and seem more like the difference between naivete and experience. Still in all, people "go out on a limb" and trust people, things, etc. However, I would be hard pressed to not say it is based upon their belief in those people, things, etc.

[Lerkfish]

20. Excellent post! Hadn't thought of that...hmm..Trust, then

is the application of a belief. Because you have a belief that in general people will not kill you most of the time on the road, that allows you to Trust, which is an application of that belief to make a judgement or a committment to that belief. Actually driving in that example would be the action that results from the trust that a belief is true.

excellent! see? already you are making me think.

[salib]

23. I love these kinds of discussions

Makes my day worthwhile.

[housewolf]

41. Yes, you got my point

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Holding a belief is a conceptual matter, taking action in the world related to that belief is based on trust (consciously or unconsciously) in the belief.

So it seems to me that it's the trust in religious beliefs that defines what "faith" is.

[salib]

60. Again, why is religion the only "faith"?

Silly.

[housewolf]

64. Does "faith" always equate to religion?

In my opinion, only because of common usage. I agree with you, as you stated in a previous post, that religion has co-opted use of the word "faith."

It always comes down to semantics, doesn't it? So many of the words we use are close but have very fine distinctions between them.

What, for instance, is the meaning of the word "religion?" "Belief?" "Believe?" "Faith?" "Trust?" "Know?" "Opinion?" "Choose?" "Experience?"

We would get farther in these discussions if we could achieve a common understanding of the words we use.

For instance, you used the word "believe" in an earlier post in several statements where I would not have used the word as I think there are other words that more accurately describe your position ("I believe I will have a ham on rye", "I believe the date is April 13," "I believe my ass itches" (apologies if these quotes are slightly inacurate, my memory might not be 100% correct.) Were I to express these same sentiments, I would say something like "I choose to have a ham & rye," "the calendar tells me that it is April 13" or "I think it is April 13" or "I am certain that it is April 13," etc.)

The issue is semantics - there are two uses for the word "believe" - one for things that are provable and one for things that are not provable.

The problem with discussions of religion is that people don't differentiate between the two. I tend to use the word "believe" in relation to things that are not provable. You tend to use it as a shortcut for "I have considered x and decided (or chosen) and therefore believe" (consider the optioins of what one could have for lunch and chose one of them = belief?). The problem in communications arise when one uses the word "believe" when they mean "choose" or "opinion," "decided" or "have evidence of."

Gotta go, I'm running late for an apppointment.

[housewolf]

88. Holland - apology

I just realized that the post I was responding to here wasn't yours, rather something that someone else posted. Sorry for the mistake.

[salib]

94. NP

[MADem]

18. Well, atheists aside (believing ones or knowers)

I really am interested in knowing how people feel about the essential question posed: What is the nature of belief?

I'm not much of a believer, so I am probably not the best one to respond, but I am very interested in hearing the answers of others to the question you pose.

I simply cannot buy the concept of a man in the sky, but by the same token this universe is so complex, who knows? We could all be in a giant ant farm on some universe-kid's dressing table! God could be a little kid who isn't cleaning the cage, and that is causing global warming and killing us, like a neglected gerbil! That's kind of sad when you think about it, but hey, what do ants know, either?

All I know is that I don't know.

[Lerkfish]

21. Well, I would say that your belief is that the universe is highly complex.

and full of possibilities that are presently unknown.
That is still believing, I think.

It almost seems as if the act of believing allows us to go beyond that belief, into a realm of conjecture from the jumping off point of that belief.

For example, if you believe the universe is complex, and that our knowledge of it is presently limited, you can then make the next step and conjecture that it could all be like a giant ant farm!

So, does belief ALLOW us to free form beyond our empirical experience and theorize things not presently known?

Is belief a way of unlocking mental potential?

interesting!

[salib]

26. Belief is not openness to new ideas.

Sorry, but I cannot at all agree with: "It almost seems as if the act of believing allows us to go beyond that belief, into a realm of conjecture from the jumping off point of that belief." Mostly, belief is the closing down to other ideas. Taking a stand.

Questioning is the way to unlock mental potential. Of course, one must have a belief to question... But belief is not the "way of unlocking mental potential."

You don't really BELIEVE this, do you?

[Lerkfish]

31. See post #22...wherein I discuss both possibilities: that belief is either

a hindrance or an enabler of mental potential...at least partially.

You ask I really BELIEVE that belief, in and of itself allows us to go beyond that belief into a realm of conjecture...

You posit the valid point that belief CAN close down the mental process...but I would say that depends greatly on what the belief is. If you believe that Blacks are lazy, then yes, that's a closing down of mental processes. If, however, you believe that all people have tremendous potential, even if not immediately apparent...then that would be a belief that opens up mental processes and leads to other things.

[Tux]

49. God bless atheists

Use of reason in religion, science, philosophy, or any human endeavor should be used. We evolved it to solve problems and create/use tools. I see religion as a method to explain things without much reason and exploration. However, I do think that spiritual matters are important but not for everyone.

I agree with Occam's Razor for religion in that the more beliefs a religion has, without evidence, is wrong. It can only make either mental illness or terrorists. While a more liberal use of religion is great, a conservative one can damage a religion or a nation. Just haivng faith without evidence nor reason is silly. Just me.

[MADem]

32. I've always been sold the bill of goods that "belief" is a fixed entity

though. If you change your mind, or question, or doubt, you've "Abandoned The Faith." And of course, to those in the club that is eschewed, that's BAAAAAAD.

One day I may go for the ant farm, the next day I may go for "dust to dust" and still other days, there's the concept of soul or spirit, and where it "goes" when the carcass gives out. Reincarnation? Meow, meow, or woof woof? Or are we reborn as humans in different circumstances, retaining a vestige of what we were before, progressing in each iteration, or going back a few places on the Candyland board of Life because we cheated during the last game?

And belief is complicated by many prophets. Funny how monotheists do not spend an excess of time arguing about the God of Abraham/Ibrahim, instead, they argue about which prophet got the message right and which book is better.

My theory on prophets is this: If one assumes there is a God, why wouldn't he be smart enough to send many prophets, who speak the language and know the customs? If you are running a multinational business, you don't send your farsi language negotiatior to Japan to close the deal--you send the one who can still speak Japanese despite being very drunk (the beeejuneezman like to drink over there!). I always wonder why people are so entrenched in their own dogma that they think God would be so dumb as to not send out a crew that would resonate with the locals.

But at the end of the day, I dunno. And I'd be faking it if I claimed I did!

[Lerkfish]

34. Interesting. I "believe" that a belief is an evolving, changing thing...

else why would there be doubt?
A person can change beliefs based on new evidence or experience, or the same belief can mature from application or experience, or conversely, a belief can be warped or perverted through experience or manipulation.

For example, right wing christians who thinks its christian to kill people or wage war. Their belief (to align themselves with Christ) has been warped by leaders who want them to NOW believe a war can be justified for a christian (though how they can logically do this is beyond me).

I don't think belief has to be rigid to be valid (and what is an unvalid belief, anyways? if you have it, its valid for you).

[pscot]

55. I think you're mixing up belief and imagination

I can imagine other universes, myth-illogical beasts and beings and all sorts of wonders beyond the realm of human experience. If I take a little acid or peyote or a bit of magic mushroom I can even visualize these wonders in hideous, living technicolor. That doesn't necessarily mean that I believe in every figment of my imagination. When I read Shakespeare or Dostoievsky I feel as though I'm in contact with some sort of univeral human truths, but I don't believe in the reality of the tales they tell beyond their existence as profound works of the imagination. In my dealings with others and with the larger world I form certain operational beliefs, which I'm constantly measuring and modifying against experience. All my beliefs, and I have many, are tempered by my awareness that for the most part I may be acting on the basis of incomplete information, flawed inferences or wishful thinking. Thus my "beliefs" are subject to a continuous process of checking and cross referencing, adding new information as I become aware of it and deleting false, obsolete or tainted ideas and impressions. In fact, my entire belief system is largely conditional. The only thing I know for sure is that I'm going to die, and after I do I probably won't be heard from again.

[Lerkfish]

74. I think you've misunderstood my point.

I"m not mixing up belief and imagination. I'm saying that belief might be a jumping off place to where we can imagine things not presently in evidence. I'm not saying belief and imagination are the same, though they could be in some instances.
I'm trying to examine the nature of belief...is it something that leads us forward in thinking, or something that hinders our creativity?

I think it could be both. If I believe everyone has potential for good, I can be freed to imagine how to see that in others, so in that way a belief might open up my mind to explore the world around me.
On the other hand, if I believe all people are inherently evil, I might be limited in imagining ways to see that in others.

I think belief, in and of itself, is interesting. It is not instinct, and it is not observation.

[beam me up scottie]

53. " atheists believe there is not a God(gods)."

You obviously did not want atheists to participate in this discussion unless we first accepted your definition of us.

Not happening.

[Lerkfish]

72. And yet, you continue to participate.

yes, I did want everyone to participate, I made no restrictions. If my terminology upsets you, which was not my intent, suggest other terms.

I've explained this before throughout the thread. What I see are a lot of people who keep devolving this worthwhile thread into a flamefest for their own reasons.

IF you will read the thread and find the philosophical portions (which WAS my intent), you might find something worthwhile to comment on, and therefore might be able to come up with more worthwhile comments.

[beam me up scottie]

75. No, I did not participate.

I responded to other posts that I found insulting.
Using inflammatory language invites flame wars.
I do not feel it necessary to define christianity to christians in order to discuss what we have in common.
A small number of du'ers insist on using terms that some atheists find
offensive, even though they are aware of the fact. If you did not mean it as an insult, then perhaps we can discuss this in another thread at another time.

[MADem]

84. I don't think any insult was intended, though

Look at this as an opportunity to impart your knowledge on the subject tp those who don't have your perspective. It aids understanding.

[beam me up scottie]

86. You are right,

we picked it up here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x18279

[Lerkfish]

90. agreed. if you'll note, I also expressed dismay

at insulting remarks or conclusions that one point of view was correct over another point of view.

[eallen]

76. "I don't like the term believers/unbelievers .. for BOTH are believers"

When you begin by rejecting the key difference between the religious and the non-religious, you pretty much close the door to understanding that difference. Many people look for a belief, an ideology, as a "foundation" for their attitudes toward everything else, or at least, most everything important. That includes those who are "religiously" devoted to secular philosophies such as Objectivism or communism, as well as those whose religions are more traditional.

There are others who recognize that this endeavor simply doesn't make sense. You can call us unbelievers or skeptics or rejectors of totalizing narratives. But if you make the mistake of trying to fit us into the some category of believer, you never will understand the difference.

[Lerkfish]

77. well, you have all opened the door on my ignorance.

I was unaware I would offend anyone, now that I know that, I can avoid such language in the future. You're assuming I was trying to keep my mind closed and would refuse to listen, but I HAVE been listening, and all through this thread I have apologized and asked for what term would be more useful.

Thanks for helping me to understand.

Sadly, though, even though I have understood the objection, I would keep asking people to return to the main question of what is the nature of belief. Even if, as an atheist, you do not practice belief, you could still have some very interesting and enlightening comments on the NATURE of it, from your perspective.

[eallen]

82. OK, how's this? Belief is volition where it doesn't belong.

It makes sense to choose your actions, to choose your moral commitments, and to choose your friends and lovers. It doesn't make sense to choose to believe that the world is a certain way, because your choice in the matter neither brings about that belief, nor creates any knowledge.

[Lerkfish]

91. interesting....

I can see what your'e saying.
I think though that, just as choosing your friends is ok, choosing a belief or non-belief about the world that works for you is also ok.
In contrast, You seem to be saying that that it doesn't make sense to choose that belief or non-belief. Or, maybe you are saying it makes sense to choose nonbelief but not to choose belief? If the reason is because choosing belief does not create knowledge, I'm confused how choosing nonbelief creates any knowledge? Admittedly, I might be misunderstanding your point.

I'm asking about the nature of the tendency of humans to find or choose a belief or nonbelief to adopt, in the absense of certainty. Even if you think that doesn't make sense, it STILL occurs. I'm interested in that. It almost seems as if the human being NEEDS to frame its perception of the world around it in terms of an existence of a root cause or creator, even though that framing, as you point out, does not change whatever is true.

Many things we do are instinctual, prompted by self-preservation, or rational or logical, based on empirical observation. AND YET, much that we do or think is irrational or illogical, yet seems to fill a need or void, or at least provides an intellectual comfort zone.

Indeed, if there is no God, believing there is will not create one. Or, if there is a God, nonbelief in the deity will not uncreate it. But we seem to need to frame that, one way or another. And obviously, as see today, it affects decisions and movements in our daily life through politics and interrelationships with people. That can be a good or bad thing...
it can be BAD as we see now with the rampant attempt to turn the US into a fascist theocracy. It can be equally bad if hypothetically a nation became fascist AGAINST religion.

It would seem to be important to figure out the nature of belief, and why it can be so dangerous, when it would seem that it shouldn't.

[eallen]

93. Several comments...

(1) It's important to distinguish nonbelief from disbelief. I hesitate to move to formal logic, since I don't know how many here will follow, but I find it the easiest way to express that difference. Let B(x, S) mean that "x believes S". Disbelief then is B(x, ~S). Nonbelief is ~B(x, S). Note that you are in a state of nonbelief (not disbelief!) for all except a very small number of statements. For example, you likely neither believe nor disbelieve Goldbach's conjecture, and quite likely have no idea what it is. But even after Googling it and getting some basic information on it, there still would be no reason for you to believe it or disbelieve it. The distinction between disbelief and nonbelief is basic to epistemic logic, and even to anyone who works in automated inference systems. In the latter, equating nonbelief and disbelief is called the Closed World Assumption. And it makes sense only for fairly simple domains.

(2) You're right, that there is little natural in these kinds of distinctions. It is the result of education. I was mistaken in another post to compare faith to a psychological compulsion; it more is a remnant of childish thought.

(3) Regarding the gods, really, there isn't a need "to frame that, one way or another." I'm perfectly comfortable looking at a wide variety of possibilities in this regard. Maybe this universe is the result of a some sort of experiment or simulation by vastly more intelligent or powerful beings whose reality is the substrate for our own. Or maybe they're not more intelligent. A la the Star Trek holodeck, the beings in a created world might be just as intelligent as their creator. Maybe we are simulations by the humanity of our future, as Tipler suggested. Bostrom provides a probability argument for that. Maybe the physics we discover really is the ground of existence, and there's nothing further behind that. "The universe is a ray in Hilbert space," as one of my physics profs was fond of saying. Maybe the Christians, despite all their illogic and nonsense, nonetheless have the closest handle on Ultimate Truth. I've sometimes thought that would make a good premise for a novel. The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever is precisely that the believer chooses one of these frames and insists that it is the only one to take seriously, not on the basis of proof, or even evidence, but simply from preference, and he wants you to choose likewise. Note that the believer is also a disbeliever in the other alternatives, but not so the nonbeliever. Not only does the Christian have faith in his god in a way that I don't have faith in anything, he also disbelieves in all the alternatives in a way I do not.

(4) These really are two different ways of thinking. Where the believer sees all other frames through the light of the one he has chosen, by which they seem wrong, the nonbeliever recognizes a variety of frames that are still open for most issues, and is able and happy to treat them as objects of thought, rather than as a basis for thought.

(5) You're right, that an authoritarian ideology that is overtly atheist is just as dangerous as a religious fascism. History has proved this with communism, right? As I've tried to express elsewhere, though, it's the nature of ideology not the specific belief in god that a nonbeliever rejects. Objectivists and communists are overtly atheistic, but are just as religious in their faiths as are any Christian or Muslim. Dialectical Materialism, History, Reality, and A-is-A can make for gods that are worshipped in much the same way as the old gods.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. I think your definition of 'disbelief' is fairly restrictive

Merriam-Webster 'disbelieve': "transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief"

Chambers (British dictionary): transitive: to believe to be false: to refuse belief or credit to. intransitive: to have no faith

So I think that in everyday use, people do use 'disbelief' in the same sense as 'nonbelief'. Unless you're sure they are using the formal logic definitions, it's probably better to allow for them to be using the 2 to mean the same thing.

[eallen]

96. Purely for the argument -- I wasn't trying to foist a preferred meaning.

You're absolutely correct that "nonbelief" and "disbelief" enjoy a range of overlapping meaning. It was not my intent to act as word Nazi, declaring that "from now on, these words should be used thus."

Rather, I was pointing out the important difference between "not believing that something is the case" and "believing that something is not the case." Much of the heat generated by these kinds of arguments stems from a failure to distinguish these two concepts. I pinned the words "nonbelief" and "disbelief" on them, but that was just for the convenience of having some label for the conversation at hand. Feel free to use other labels, or to reuse these.

:hippie:

BTW, there is similar ambiguity over the word "atheist," which has led to attempts to clarify by qualification: "weak" or "negative" atheism vs. "strong" or "positive" atheism. Cutting along other lines, there is the distinction I drew between those who are atheist for ideological reason, much as Christians are theist, as opposed to those who are atheist from a rejection of ideology.

[beam me up scottie]

83. I am more than willing to discuss the definition

of the word belief and how I feel it is not used properly when applied to this atheist, I simply felt that the way the post was worded was inappropriate.

Since you meant no offense, none has been taken.

There have been many threads in the past several days that were meant to offend and as a result, I may have arrived in a pre-offended state.

If your question was meant to be a doorway to meaningful dialog, then perhaps I should go back out and knock again.

[MADem]

85. A "pre-offended state!!!"

Great use of words!

I guess the current administration has a way of doing that to all of us...!

[beam me up scottie]

87. I think I'm going to use that one again.

:evilgrin:
nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. I think a lot of people

are confusing "belief" and "faith".

An atheist has beliefs by definition. If we didn't, then a) we'd be agnostics, and b) we'd be insane and completely incapable of functioning.

What we don't have (or at least, I try my best not to have), and tend to get hot under the collar if people claim we do, is faith - belief on some grounds other than sylogisms from observed evidence.

[trotsky]

71. That says a lot, Donald. Thank you.

What annoys me about hearing "atheism is a belief" is that it's said with the connotation of being a "faith."

I believe that my chair will hold my weight and not collapse. Yep, that's a belief I have.

I believe that the sun will probably rise tomorrow and that the earth will not spontaneously explode. Two more beliefs, by golly!

But of course none of those are religious beliefs or based on religious faith - they are based only on, as you point out, observed evidence.

Great point. Thanks for making the distinction so clearly.

[toddaa]

78. DO OVER!!!

Let's start this thread again but this time not use the words faith, atheist, God, or religion.

A belief is a personal perception of reality. It is not reality. As Neitzsche said, "there are no facts, only interpretations." This doesn't mean that we are all solipsists. No, what it means is that we have limited knowledge of reality and that limitation leads us to develop abstract constructs of what we are perceiving. The problem with some of these abstract constructs we have built in our minds is that we sometimes mistake them for reality. It's a weakness that affects even the greatest minds. Take Plato, for instance.

[Lerkfish]

79. I have no problem with that.

could someone, possibly someone who objected to how I framed this thread, please start the new thread in such a way that it concentrates solely on the nature of belief as a human concept.

thanks.

[toddaa]

80. Instead of belief, let's use the word knowledge

What you really want to discuss is epistemology.

[Lerkfish]

81. hmm..

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

sure, that's close. but that's changing what I wanted to discuss a bit, and telling me what I want to discuss, in this case, is a bit misleading.

[eallen]

89. Sure. Belief is the insistence that a chosen interpretation is fact.

This has political connection. The religious right frequently lambasts those who don't believe in Absolutes, i.e., the privileging of their chosen interpretation as something more than that.

[Lerkfish]

92. Agreed, the religious right tend to think in absolutes, but

the religious left still has belief, but views that the possession of belief is a choice that is not necessarily fact (or put better, cannot necessarily be empirically proven).
Also, as a liberal christian, I can accept the doubt that what I may be may NOT be true or accurate and still think that there are benefits to my belief that makes it worthwhile anyways.
For example, if being a christian makes me strive to be tolerant, compassionate, concerned and caring for others, would that be a bad thing even if I were wrong?
So therefore, I can choose to continue to believe because it encompasses a world view that satisfies what I think is the best potential of humanhood: to love others as myself.

I do not feel threatened by doubt or unbelief because I'm secure in what I believe.
I wonders sometimes if the religious right are secretly insecure in what they believe, so they must forcefully coerce themselves and others to believe the same to make themselves feel better?

[aneerkoinos]

98. Pistics

I haven't seen this fairly obvious point brought up before in this thread, so here goes:

Religious belief (gr. 'pistis'), such as mainstream Christianity, is a special kind of belief because it is not only belief in some entity "out there", but even more importantly belief that believing itself (or belief and good deeds, depending on nomination) will lead to salvation, eternal life in heaven.

Ontological arguments, truth theories and endless nitpicking on semantics, besides boring as hell, are totally secondary to this pistic soteriology, which is so central to mainstream christianity that many or most brought up in this cultural atmosphere, theists and atheists alike, equal (wrongly) pisticism with religion.