How is this definition of "belief"?

@Setanta,

"You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place."

It may not be literally true, but it seems to have the ring of wisdom.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I agree. But many of these people, even though they will not be swayed, will admit that their assertions are pure beliefs.

It is perhaps a good idea to stress that I am not trying to define belief as something worthless. Merely as something unknowable, though after input from some of the people in the thread, I think I might have to modify that to include assertions that are "unknowable at the time". Either way, this is not the same as worthless.

0 Replies

That's OK by me. I've not stated that beliefs are worthless. In fact, they are eminently functional in society.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Something such as the bible stories in a particular case, however. People believe them for what are, essentially, polemical reasons. Because they take their preferred scriptures on faith, no amount of evidence will ever sway them.

It's called confirmation bias. However, knowing it exists and rooting it out of one's own thinking are two different concepts.

0 Replies

If believing is defined as holding something to be true despite a lack of sufficient evidence that it is true, then I would say that it's worthless. Even detrimental. If you have a working hypothesis, then I don't think that qualifies as a belief, because you're keeping open the possibility that it could be wrong. Working hypotheses are useful, yes. But beliefs? Why have them? In what way are they better than tentative working hypotheses?

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

If believing is defined as holding something to be true despite a lack of sufficient evidence that it is true, then I would say that it's worthless. Even detrimental. If you have a working hypothesis, then I don't think that qualifies as a belief, because you're keeping open the possibility that it could be wrong. Working hypotheses are useful, yes. But beliefs? Why have them? In what way are they better than tentative working hypotheses?

It is very simple to reason about the matter quite frankly...first and foremost you start with the wrong question as you should be instead asking why we have them, (beliefs systems) and since we have them, on what manner is it purposeful or functional to have them...I am no expert in the matter but if I had to guess I would bet they result from an evolutionary advantage on which one rather straight away believe then having a working hypothesis to think about...when it comes to survival having quick reflexes and instinctive reactions is paramount...just imagine if when a car or a Lion starts coming at you you decide to question whether you are hallucinating or seeing the actual thing...yes all humans do believing because believing gives us a reacting compelling edge when identifying and avoiding danger...what else could it be ? And how naive was your remark right there...a good example on how a bias against religion ( I am an atheist to) might cloud your judgement.

1 Reply

@FBM,

True and false are not the only criteria we place value in. I don't think we can equate unknowable with worthless.
As Set says, beliefs are functional in society. That is another measure of worth. Something can be unknowable in terms of true and false, and yet have relevance through it's function.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I think you're reading far too much into what I wrote there. One can dodge a lion without engaging any beliefs whatsoever, particularly metaphysical ones. I doubt cave men spent much time on metaphysics, and yet here we are: their descendants.

You're also presuming that my interest in this is the result of my atheism/agnosticism. That is just one example, and an easy one, of how unnecessary beliefs can cause problems. It is not the inspiration for my statements. That inspiration is my investigation of Pyrrhonism and the self-experiment that I'm doing with it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Before we get off on the wrong foot, I didn't claim to know whether or not anything is unknowable. Wink

But if one can function just as well in everyday life without metaphysical beliefs as others function with them, then what's the advantage of having beliefs? As for me, they don't provide even psychological comfort, much less anything practical.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I think you're reading far too much into what I wrote there. One can dodge a lion without engaging any beliefs whatsoever, particularly metaphysical ones. I doubt cave men spent much time on metaphysics, and yet here we are: their descendants.

You're also presuming that my interest in this is the result of my atheism/agnosticism. That is just one example, and an easy one, of how unnecessary beliefs can cause problems. It is not the inspiration for my statements. That inspiration is my investigation of Pyrrhonism and the self-experiment that I'm doing with it.

The pseudo distinction you try to make about having beliefs or metaphysical beliefs is irrelevant not to mention all entirely erroneous...
On the contrary the problem of knowledge and its "undecidability" is what raises metaphysical concerns and the reason why beliefs are a practical need rather then a capricious option of fools...

...the point being that beliefs exist because they are useful, and their application to religion comes as a natural development of having beliefs about all sort of things, among them having religious needs...

Regarding the sum of all things, which to my stand is what religion is about without noticing it, the simple idea that there is more beyond the cage of flesh we inhabit, not in heaven with a soul, but through the "soul" (order) right in front of our eyes, the world, is probably a best more encompassing explanation of why religions are so successful and an intrinsic part of our nature!
That innate sense of totality, the awareness of a bigger set then "us" as individuals, unfolds the reasoning that eventually leads up to the idea of a final resting Set, (be it the "World" or "God" is a mere semantic game) naturally from there all sorts of explanatory theory's emerge as means of organizing our conceptual world in an "operating system" from where moral organizing principles can be establish with sufficient authority so that civilization and progress can proceed with optimal efficiency...there's nothing more to it then that !

...curiously enough you guys fight devils creating more devils, and just when you think you are out of it, you end up the living proof you are right in the middle of it... Laughing

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Very good post.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Wow, that's some twisted "logic" you're using there. I couldn't help but notice your naturalistic fallacy and the fact that you didn't respond directly to what I actually wrote. You seem to be clinging to a hardened belief that I'm talking about religious beliefs and/or motivated by the desire to debunk them. I corrected you about that and yet you persist. Odd behavior for someone who's pretending to argue logically. Maybe you're just too lazy to figure out what Pyrrhonism is all about?

1 Reply

@FBM,

I couldn't care less what motivates you the point you made is just dead wrong ! After being explained why we have beliefs you seem to keep insisting in the nonsense and then you came up talking in fallacy's and twisted logic ???
Care to point them out so I can trash you reasoning point by point, or will you just keep insinuating without any substance ?... Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

If you couldn't care less about my motivations, then why did you go to the trouble of speculating (inaccurately) about it?

I would love it if you'd address what I actually said in my initial post logically and point-by-point, rather than trying to drag it off on some tangent and trying to engage me personally and emotionally. Please google "naturalistic fallacy," then re-read your previous reply.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Care to elaborate from where you draw the conclusion I'm falling into the naturalistic fallacy eh ? For twice I asked you and you keep going in circles...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I'm not going in circles. I'm re-pointing it out because you failed to acknowledge it the first time. I don't doubt that beliefs are natural, but so is cancer. I don't know of anything unnatural in the universe, but I know of some things that are unhealthy. Saying that something is good or necessary just because it is natural is the naturalistic fallacy.

Is there any way to avoid or defuse the animosity in this discussion? I really don't want to make this personal. I'm really tired of that sort of discussion. Please? Can we just keep our comments directed at ideas instead of each other? Please?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Saying that something is good or necessary just because it is natural is the naturalistic fallacy.

I didn't say its "good" nor do I well understand what such an abstruse classification as being "good" or "evil" can possibly address or accomplish beyond a very narrow relative contextual frame...I said it has been useful to have beliefs as natural selection has yet to drag extinct those who have them...the explanation is simple and straight forward and goes with the same logic regarding the usefulness of instinct as a pre set for reason and not against it...deciding quickly in matters of life and death has proven advantageous throughout time...the complex elaboration of high reasoning is not a choice when you have to decide what to do in a few seconds, and yet the need for deciding clearly in some situations is mandatory...how does that is not a sufficient enlightening explanation on how and why we do have beliefs beats me nor do I see any connection from where you can draw the conclusion I am falling for the natural fallacy...

...finally the supposed "animosity" my reply has displayed is perhaps a miss perception on your side, as my criticism although addressed to some of what you said intentionally tries to target a vaster audience...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

How is "useful" not "good"?

I didn't say anything about "evil." By using full quotes, you're making it look like that was my word. It wasn't. It was yours and it looks like it could be the beginning of a straw man fallacy.

You say that the fact that natural selection has yet to select against those who have beliefs, and I agree. But this is not evidence as to whether or not it is possible to live well/successfully without beliefs. We have plenty of examples from history and current events in which people fought, killed and died for beliefs, whether they be political or religious or whatever. Those who died seem to have been selected against. How many people who held no beliefs have suffered such a fate? Pyrrho lived to be an old man, as did Sextus Empiricus, if historical accounts are accurate. Furthermore, religiosity seems to be on the decline worldwide, if such reports are accurate. I don't care so much about religiosity itself, but only as it pertains to faulty reasoning and bad ideas.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How is "useful" not "good"?

I didn't say anything about "evil." By using full quotes, you're making it look like that was my word. It wasn't. It was yours and it looks like it could be the beginning of a straw man fallacy.

You say that the fact that natural selection has yet to select against those who have beliefs, and I agree. But this is not evidence as to whether or not it is possible to live well/successfully without beliefs. We have plenty of examples from history and current events in which people fought, killed and died for beliefs, whether they be political or religious or whatever. Those who died seem to have been selected against. How many people who held no beliefs have suffered such a fate? Pyrrho lived to be an old man, as did Sextus Empiricus, if historical accounts are accurate. Furthermore, religiosity seems to be on the decline worldwide, if such reports are accurate. I don't care so much about religiosity itself, but only as it pertains to faulty reasoning and bad ideas.

There you go again with Religion as one of the sources of the problem...its wrong thinking Religion is not the source but an ingrained symptom and more of a consequence of at least 2 different causes if not more, one being instinctive decision making on which certainty is not a choice and believing is useful and the second being a symbolic explanatory system on the workings of a far to complex world, a zipped summarizing theory, a mythology, on which in the case the identification of a final set, a final cause, where responsibility or justification can rest is paramount to keep enduring the hardships of life...people need those things and there is no evidence any of them won't be needed in the future...whether is a Lion in the Savannah or a fast car coming at me instinctive reactive decision making is as useful today as it was 20 thousand years ago...mythology thinking be it concerning the bible creation myths or a urban legend is more alive then ever...

...finally to clarify that to classify something as being useful categorizes as being good while it is or while it lasts or fits a given frame of conditions and thus as not in any sense meaning as being ultimately good or universally good...

PS - My use of quotation marks was not to address your classification but to emphasize the relative meaning of wording as "good" or "evil" portray.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

There you go again with Religion as one of the sources of the problem...its wrong thinking Religion is not the source but an ingrained symptom

Agreed. Religious thinking is just one of a number of symptoms of belief-making.

Quote:

...and more of a consequence of at least 2 different causes if not more, one being instinctive decision making on which certainty is not a choice and believing is useful

You seem to conflate decision-making with believing here. If you equate them, please explain how they are necessarily, innately indistinguishable. Otherwise, please observe the distinction.

Quote:

...and the second being a symbolic explanatory system on the workings of a far to complex world, a zipped summarizing theory, a mythology,

Are these also really synonymous? It seems to me that the habit of glossing over fine distinctions is unskilled.

Quote:

...which in the case the identification of a final set, a final cause, where responsibility or justification can rest is paramount to keep enduring the hardships of life...people need those things and there is no evidence any of them won't be needed in the future...whether is a Lion in the Savannah or a fast car coming at me instinctive reactive decision making is as useful today as it was 20 thousand years ago...mythology thinking be it concerning the bible creation myths or a urban legend is more alive then ever...

Again, you seem to be equating decision-making and mythology. If I see a dangerous thing rushing me, I don't recount my mythological conditioning to decide upon a response. The response is somatic. It doesn't require any beliefs. I would expect natural selection to select against anyone who took the time to reflect upon mythology in such a circumstance.

Quote:

...finally to clarify that to classify something as being useful categorizes as being good while it is or while it lasts or fits a given frame of conditions and thus as not in any sense meaning as being ultimately good or universally good...

I don't recall mentioning anything about "ultimately" or "unconditionally." When you say that something is useful (to the individual, since you mentioned natural selection), do you not mean to imply that it is good because it is useful?

Quote:

PS - My use of quotation marks was not to address your classification but to emphasize the relative meaning of wording as "good" or "evil" portray.

Thanks for clarifying that.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know