Thanks for that respone, Drake. Lots of good stuff in that post...and I am in agreement with the gist of most of it.

Yeah..."belief/believe" can be used reasonably, logically, and harmlessly in the situations you mentioned...and most people will understand the concept being transmitted.

That is why I mention that I am speaking mostly about the use of the words in the context of comments about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Obviously, the use of the word "believe" in comments like, "I 'believe' (in) God" or "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is substantively different from, "I believe I'll have another beer." We can discuss that...but I am going to hone in on one item of your response...and I'd like to hear your comments on that before moving on to the other items.

You wrote: "People also "believe in other people"; a manner of having confidence in someone."

Yeah...people also have regards and considerations about other people. People have regards and considerations about a host of things that end up being transmitted in discussion as "...believe in.." such as "I 'believe' in democracy"; "I 'believe' in freedom of speech" ; or "I 'believe' in equal pay for women."

Nothing wrong with that at all...in casual conversation. But I suggest (and you may disagree, as many do) that the "believe in" construct should be avoided in more structured discussions...such as ANY Internet discussion forum.

The "I believe in..." communications mentioned above seem to me to be more appropriately made as a variant of, "I prefer a democratic form of government over a totalitarian one"; "I am an advocate of freedom of expression over unnecessarily oppressive censorship"; or "It is my opinion that women should be paid as much as men for comparable work."

The "I believe in..." convention just doesn't do the job in my opinion. "I 'believe' in God" or "I 'believe' in people" or "I 'believe' in myself"...make more sense on a bumper sticker than in a serious conversation.

Is that unreasonable on my part?

Let's hear your thoughts (anyone's thoughts) on that specific...and then we can move on to some of the other stuff.

But in general I think people who say they believe in God, do believe in the existence of God.[/quote]

Yeah...the people who are saying "I believe (in) god" are saying "I blindly guess there is a god"...but they are disguising the fact that they are saying that.

You get what I am saying...even if you do not realize you get it.

When you're happy to allow some words the privilege of being ok to assume both people writing mean the same thing by them...

It beggars belief, that's all. — fdrake

You seem to be saying because I considers a particular word to mean the same thing for me that I suppose what you meant when you used it...that means that I must consider ALL words I use to mean the same that you do when you use them.

THAT, to me, seems strange.

It just doesn't work that way, f. It just doesn't.

Anyway, you seem to be inordinately bothered by my take on this issue...to the point where it has become personal contention.

If that is the case (it may not be)...but if it is, why not just suspend discussion with me on it. In fact, if my pursuit of this theme bothers you so greatly, maybe the best thing would be to suspend all discussions between us.

This is a very important issue to me. I think discussion of it is of benefit to anyone engaging in it. BUT IT IS NOT FOR EVERYONE.

I do not want this to be a personally contentious issue.

What say...should we just cut off communication?

aletheist
1.3k
Charles Peirce was an incredibly intelligent man...but he simply missed the boat on this issue.
— Frank Apisa
I suspect that your view on this is much closer to his than you realize. If a purported belief makes no difference whatsoever in our conduct, then it is not a real belief, just empty words. — aletheist

Perhaps. I have not read Peirce extensively.

But I have done a thorough investigation into the use of the word "believe" (and "belief") and when used in discussions about the REALITY of existence...IT IS A DISGUISE FOR THE WORDS "BLIND GUESS."

The question for me is never "Is it a disguise"...but rather, "Is the disguise being used intentionally...or is it an accident that the person using it is not even aware of?"

When I challenge people on it...they insist they are not making a guess. Usually, they just say things like, "I mean I REALLY, REALLY "believe" it" or "I very firmly "believe" it."

So whether it was accidental at first, people using it the way I am dealing with here...insist that it means something other than a blind guess...when, in fact, it cannot be anything but a blind guess.

(One exception: A statement "There is at least one GOD" could be more than a guess. IF a god exists...it could reveal itself to any individual. If someone suggests a personal revelation rather than a guess...I ask, "How do you know you are not deluding yourself."

Interesting answers I get to that.

fdrake
3.3k
Okay, I was a bit abrupt there. Question like that seem to be a stalling or diverting tactic.
— Frank Apisa

What do you mean by "I" and "was" and "question"?

...assume I meant that same thing...
— Frank Apisa

If you can do this, then the OP unasks itself. — fdrake

I do not know what you are talking about...

...and I suspect you do not know what you are talking about either.

fdrake
3.3k
What do you mean by "what?"
— Frank Apisa

What do you mean by "what", "do", "you", "mean", "by" and "what"? — fdrake

See my response above.

fdrake
3.3k
What do you mean by "mean" in the OP question? — fdrake

Okay, I was a bit abrupt there. Question like that seem to be a stalling or diverting tactic.

But let me assume you were not stalling or diverting, and were asking in order to make a comment on it.

So...take a look at your question, "What do you MEAN by "mean" in the OP question?"...

...figure out what you meant by "mean" in your question...

...assume I meant that same thing...

...and make your comment.

fdrake
3.3k
What do you mean by "mean" in the OP question? — fdrake

What do you mean by "what?"

Borraz
18
↪Frank Apisa

"The use of the word "believe" for hunch, or guess, or estimate, or so many other words is fine...except there are times when it makes more sense to use "the other words.""

Okay. Everybody speaks about physics and math. — Borraz

Sorry, Borraz...you lost me here.

A Seagull
326
where the words "believe/belief" rear their ugly heads
— Frank Apisa

Well I find the words belief, believe extremely useful and meaningful.

Your beliefs are what you believe, they are the ideas you hold in your head. — A Seagull

Thank you. See my remarks to Aletheist.

aletheist
1.3k
Obviously I disagree in total with Peirce.
— Frank Apisa
Why do you disagree? — aletheist

Mostly because what he says there is contrived...a sermon that sounds intellectual but misses the mark.

I will confine myself to professed "beliefs" about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...what exists in the REALITY...and what doesn't. (See my comment to Amen up above.)

ANY...and EVERY..."belief" about the REALITY of existence...is a guess. A blind guess at that.

EVERY answer to questions such as: "Is there a God?"; "Are there gods?"; "Are there no gods?"' "Is there an 'afterlife'?"; "Is there nothing after death?"; "Is what we humans call 'the universe' all that exists?"; "Is what we think of as "the physical universe" just an illusion?"; "Are there beings in other dimensions right here on Earth?"...and questions of that sort...

...is a blind guess, but almost every one of them is answered with a variation of, "Well I 'believe' that blah, blah, blah."

The word "believe" in that context is nothing but a disguise for the words "blind guess."

In my estimation, the thesis on the word Peirce offered and which you quoted above...misses that completely. Charles Peirce was an incredibly intelligent man...but he simply missed the boat on this issue.

And why would that be obvious?

My apologies. It would be obvious to anyone who has read the thousands of times I have gone over this. (See the remarks of 180Proof and SophisticCat above.)

My people are Nabalitan (as we say)...from a small village near Caserta. They are getting creamed over there right now. Lots and lots of Italians are finding out that answer of which we speak.

I hope we do not exist after we die. I've had a great life...and still have. But when it ends, I'd just as soon have it end completely. (And that is what I expect!)

charles ferraro
111
↪Frank Apisa

I'm not doing anything, nature does it. I think it's pretty well empirically settled that we will all die at some point, isn't it? — charles ferraro

Absolutely. That is especially obvious to me. I'm 83...and I can have a high school class reunion in my living room...while keeping reasonable social distancing.

But you said, "I assure you, in the most personal way, ultimately, there will be nothing rather than something for each one of us."

The question of whether or not that means "nothing rather than something" remains a mystery.

Right?

The big problem with this discussion..and with almost all the discussions in this forum...is that the participants suppose that humans can know or imagine everything that exists in the ultimate REALITY of what exists.

We are the dominant carbon based life-form on this rock circling a fairly routine star in a galaxy of 200 - 300 billion stars...in a part of a universe that contains hundreds of billions of other galaxies. We almost certainly are no big deal.

If most of our arguments were made with the conditional "it may be that...X"...some of the discussions could be deemed reasonable. (I personally consider most to be interesting, even entertaining, despite the unreasonable element created by our human chauvinism.)

We do not have answers here...we have speculations...often accompanied by speculations about the solidity of arguments for and against proposed speculations.

charles ferraro
110
↪TheMadFool

I assure you, in the most personal way, ultimately, there will be nothing rather than something for each one of us. — charles ferraro

I doubt you can do that. I doubt anyone can.

SophistiCat
1.1k
Not this stupid shit again — SophistiCat

What "stupid shit" is that?

aletheist
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
As usual, I will offer something from Charles Sanders Peirce, in this case his somewhat famous definition of a belief as a habit of conduct.
And what, then, is belief? It is the demi-cadence which closes a musical phrase in the symphony of our intellectual life. We have seen that it has just three properties: First, it is something that we are aware of; second, it appeases the irritation of doubt; and, third, it involves the establishment in our nature of a rule of action, or, say for short, a habit ... The essence of belief is the establishment of a habit; and different beliefs are distinguished by the different modes of action to which they give rise. If beliefs do not differ in this respect, if they appease the same doubt by producing the same rule of action, then no mere differences in the manner of consciousness of them can make them different beliefs, any more than playing a tune in different keys is playing different tunes.
— Peirce, 1878
As the old saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words"; what I truly believe is more reliably discerned from what I do than from what I say. — aletheist

Obviously I disagree in total with Peirce.

I do agree with the sentiment being conveyed with, "Actions speak louder than words."

3017amen
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Frank!

I think you could parse Belief a couple ways.

1. Belief could be defined as induction v. deduction. Having a belief in something infers something. It infers that a something exists. That, as apposed to a purely objective and/or universal truth, like mathematics, which exists in a deductive manner.

2. A Belief could comprise the following infamous Kantian judgement: all events must have a cause. The statement itself, if true, is something that would be beyond pure reason; both empirically and a priori/mathematical/deductively.

You probably already knew that! — 3017amen

I suspect that "believe" is the most misused word in the English language...and insofar as I can influence people NOT to use it, I will make the attempt.

Not going all that well!

Most of the time it doesn't matter. The "believe" in "I 'believe' the Giants will win"...is harmless. Who gives a hoot if "believe" or "estimate" is used. Same thing for "I 'believe' I'll have a piece of cake with my coffee"; or "I 'believe' The Godfather was a better movie than The Godfather II.

The alternative words do not substantially change the information being communicated...nor would the alternative words make the comment any closer to true.

But when discussing things like, "Do any gods exist?" or "Do no gods exist?"...the matter is not so inconsequential.

tim wood
4k
Probably would be better to take that question over to the other thread, Tim.
— Frank Apisa

And why would that be, Frank? — tim wood

Because that is where that is being discussed, Tim.

People get hunches based on their reasoning. If it becomes clearer the more I mull over it, I say I believe. I tend to say "I believe" for everything I currently think (there's the replacement work) because I am open to being wrong about everything — Gregory

Thank you, Gregory. I also get hunches...and that kind of thing.

The use of the word "believe" for hunch, or guess, or estimate, or so many other words is fine...except there are times when it makes more sense to use "the other words."

tim wood
4k
Why is activity even better than passivity in any system?
— Gregory

Are you confusing actual with action? — tim wood

Probably would be better to take that question over to the other thread, Tim.

considering this an online forum, i have no basis to argue with you right now. If you have never met a decent religionist in the flesh, then i have no argument at this point. — christian2017

I've been an agnostic for over 60 years now...and I have known MANY people who are religious who are decent, reasonable, intelligent people...some of whom go out of their way to help with the needs of their fellow human.

Anyone (like Pinprick, apparently) who thinks "religious = mostly bad" and "without religion = mostly good" is simply not giving the issue sufficient reflection.

Good, decent, bad, evil, generous, envious, caring, oblivious, moral, depraved, merciful, resentful, kind, malevolent, considerate, compassionate...are traits shared equally by theists, agnostics, and atheists.

It is time we all come to realize that.

Gregory (and Alvin & MU & anyone else who stops here in this thread)...

...would you stop by the thread linked below. I have a question that I do not want to be a distraction from what you are discussing here. If you would comment there, I'd appreciate it.


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7949/what-did-you-mean-by-believe

Okay...not to Eva or to god must be atheist...but to the community:

Best wishes for our friend and fellow poster, gmba. Lets all hope he gets well soon...and is back with us doing what we all enjoy doing!

ASIDE: Until I posted this, I never realize that his acronym, gmba, looks so much like the Italian, Goomba! He is our goomba...and we want him back.

Pinprick
85
Each house of the Congress starts each session with prayers to "Almighty God"
— Frank Apisa

Is this true? If so, that is certainly a violation of the separation of church and state. — Pinprick

Sadly...it IS so!


The Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives is the officer of the United States House of Representatives responsible for beginning each day's proceedings with a prayer. The House cites the first half of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 in the United States Constitution as giving it the authority to elect a Chaplain, "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers".[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

The Chaplain of the United States Senate opens each session of the United States Senate with a prayer, and provides and coordinates religious programs and pastoral care support for Senators, their staffs, and their families.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate

And to make a sad story even sadder:

The House chaplain earns $172,500 a year while his Senate counterpart — currently Seventh-day Adventist minister Barry Black — earns $160,787. Adding staff and office expenses, the annual cost of maintaining these largely ceremonial tips of the hat to Christianity approaches $1 million.

IvoryBlackBishop
276
For what it's worth, I was trying to be a little sardonic to prove a point, maybe I overdid and got too personal, I apologise. — IvoryBlackBishop

No problem.

I was being more than just a bit satirical in posting that clip...which I have posted three or four times in other forums where the content had some application.

I didn't mean to be disruptive...and I apologize in return.

IvoryBlackBishop
274
↪Frank Apisa
Read Ray Dalio, Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinek, or Meditations on Violence by Sgt. Rory Miller for a discussion of "power" that renders this dreck obsolete, just to name one serious author on the subject for people above a 6th grade reading level.

If the show was an actual discussion of power it wouldn't sell, nor would anyone seeking to understand the power in a more serious way be naive and childish enough to think that a trash TV show would just 'give it way for free, because they're nice guys and gals", without any "catch" or something... like Mephisto to Faust...

But hey, some people believe spam emails sent to them by "Nigerian princes" as a well, so I suppose there really are people dumb, ugly, and naive enough to believe a trash TV show is actually a "how-to" guide, lmao — IvoryBlackBishop

I'm giving you a lesson in power, Excellency. I'm not trolling here...I am contributing more to the discussion than you are able to see...apparently.

You are attempting to exert power, but you are not especially good at it. You are ham-fisted...and my guess is you get bludgeoned in most power plays. (I also guess you do not even realize you are getting punked...and if it even occurs to you, you refuse to acknowledge it.)

I am merely counter punching (almost always the better alternative)...and succeeding.

They say "revenge" is a dish best served cold. Well...the exertion of power is best done smoothly and subtly. It's sorta like a golf swing. You do not get distance or direction from a powerhouse swing. The most frequent piece of advice a golf instructor gives, in fact, is: Slow it down. Don't swing so hard. The ball will go further...and straighter.

We'll talk some more. I enjoy your rants about your opinion that the highest rated show ever was such a loser...interesting only to other losers. Must make you feel good to suppose your taste is so superior to the taste of the masses.

christian2017
965
They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
— Christian

Ummm...what does that mean?
— Frank Apisa

It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist. — christian2017

I get it now.

I should have read that with the "out the" as "out there"...right? I honestly missed that.

Anyway...the reason I asked about the "Do you believe in aliens"...had to do mostly with the use of the convention "believe in"...rather than the "aliens" part. I knew approximately where you were going, but the "believe in" thingy fucks up so many conversations...I though I would explore it with you.

You were kind. I was being a bit abrasive...and you were not plugging in.

I am an advocate for never using the "believe in" construct. The "Do you believe in God" is a particular pain in my ass. It is a world apart from the more specific, "Do you 'believe' it is more likely that at least one god exists...or do you 'believe' it is more likely that none exist?"

Any chance I get to question someone using the convention...I ask it. You used it...so I asked you.

Thanks for going along with it...and thanks for the courtesy.

christian2017
954
↪Frank Apisa

Perhaps you come from a different generation so you aren't familiar with "Do you believe in Aliens?" — christian2017

I may be from a different generation...but I still do not know what you were asking. I am beginning to think you do not know what you were asking either.

They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! — Christian

Ummm...what does that mean?

You asked me the question of why i didn't word it differently of "Do you believe in Aliens?" — christian2017

YES!

I was trying to find out what you were asking.

I actually asked you, "What on Earth does "believe in aliens" mean to you?"

I was (AM) trying to find out what the hell you were asking.

I still do not know.

Which of the three possible questions I offered...were you asking?

IvoryBlackBishop
270
↪Frank Apisa
It does. — IvoryBlackBishop

Jesus H. Christ...you are one weird dude.

If my not being ugly does disqualify me from expressing an opinion...why in hell are you continuing to discuss it with me?

It's a trash show which isn't worth a serious discussion on the subject of power (except maybe to the underclass which I'm sure is and was it's target demographic, kind of like the journalist Robert Greene's silly books, which are allegedly more popular with convicted felons than with anyone actually in serious positions of power anyway, — Bishop

Actually, the discussion of power in Game of Thrones is a LOT more instructive than anything you have offered in your inappropriately ego-driven drivel, Excellency.

Really.

In fact, the statement about power delivered by Cersei to Baelish...had more "reality" to it than the gibberish you are trying to pawn off as intelligent-speak in your OP.

Which is what I was hoping for in this thread, a serious discussion, not having my eyes tainted with the ugliness in question. (I've got to meditate now to wash it out of mind, sigh). — Bishop

No problem. Go meditate. And maybe take a nap. Come back when you are able to play well with others.

Okay...I agree. It is a common cliche.

But you asked me a question...and the question was, "How could i have worded that better?"

I answered that question. Essentially I am saying that a better way would have been NOT to use a cliche...and then I gave you three "BETTER" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking. I still do not know. Which of the three "better" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking...were you actually asking?

Yes...it is a common cliche...but the "cliche" does not actually give an idea of what you actually were asking.

IvoryBlackBishop
269
↪Frank Apisa
Why do people watch Mystery Science Theater 3000?

Me, I found it a good example of the "mass psychology" which trash like Game of Thrones is marketed to, such as how the "negativity bias" which is hardwired into us causes us to disproportionately associate "negativity" with "realism", even when it's as "realistic" as a Jason, Saw or Freddy Krueger Move.

It's a show by ugly people, for ugly people, nothing more, perhaps even less. — IvoryBlackBishop

Okay.

I just hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

I thought it was very well done...above average production. And it told an absorbing story with allegory to events I've witnessed or read about in the real world.

I don't consider myself especially ugly. I hope that doesn't disqualify me from expressing an opinion to you on the series.

IvoryBlackBishop
267
↪Frank Apisa
Game of Thrones is as reliable and realistic source on the subject as a Jason Voorhes film. Didn't even bother to watch.

Having a reading level about the 6th grade, and an IQ above 95, or a society in which ugly people don't exist, would render the show unmarketable except as something to make fun of in "Mystery Science Theater". (Or as a source for even uglier and less realistic rip-offs like "Billions").

Go watch "Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday" on repeat for 500 hours straight (or the Jerry Springer Show, for that matter) if you want a slightly more realistic and intellectually stimulating version of the entire GoT series. — IvoryBlackBishop

In his excellent book, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Richard Bach suggested that (paraphrase) if one opens any book to any page, one can find advice that will be of use.

So too with movies, plays, musicals, essays, and the like.

If you found Game of Thrones to be of so little value...why did you watch it so assiduously?

christian2017
944
↪Frank Apisa

"Do you believe in aliens?" is equivalent to "Do you believe in cheese?". If you believe in cheese and or aliens than you either believe that aliens or cheese exist. How could i have worded that better? — christian2017

Well...if you were asking him if he thought that aliens (other sentient beings) exist on other planets, you could have written, "Do you suppose that there are other sentient beings that exist on other planets?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets have visited planet Earth at some point, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets have visited Earth at some point?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved?

As it is, I have no idea of what you were asking...and still don't.

you should reconsider being my friend since we both believe in aliens. — christian2017

What on Earth does "believe in aliens" mean to you?

Is that actually the best wording you could come up with to communicate what you actually mean?

There is no real separation. Each house of the Congress starts each session with prayers to "Almighty God"...and there is not a politician in America who does not end remarks with "And may GOD bless America."

Best explanation of power ever given:

180 Proof
861
Another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect on stunning display ...

Occam's Razor...the kind of drivel that people who cannot truly reason use.
— Frank Apisa
:rofl:

“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.” ~Albert Einstein (1933)

"There never was a sounder logical maxim of scientific procedure than Ockham's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. That is to say; before you try a complicated hypothesis, you should make quite sure that no simplification of it will explain the facts equally well." ~Charles Sanders Peirce (1903) — 180 Proof

Occam's Razor...along with Pascal's Wager...are two of the most absurd attempts at meaningful, philosophical principle.

Nothing Einstein and Peirce said makes that any less true.

If one looks for simple explanations one will eventually find one that fits well enough to be considered adequate.

Apply it to "the movement of the sun, moon, and stars across the heavens" or "cold in winter and hot in summer" and you will amazed at what you can come up with.

Occam's Razor sucks like a black hole...and is probably misapplied more than any other philosophical "principle."

Frank Apisa, 2020

Pfhorrest
1.5k
Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Pfhorrest

No it isn't.
— Frank Apisa

You evidently have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever. "Justified true belief" has been the standard definition of "knowledge" (only recently challenged) for the past 2400 years or so. — Pfhorrest

So...because we disagree...that means I have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever???

And you think YOU have knowledge of philosophy!

If you understood philosophy, Pfhorrest, you would never make such an ignorant comment.

The term "justified true belief" is one of the bullshit philosophical pieces of garbage that are around and will always be around...right up there with Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor...the kind of drivel that people who cannot truly reason use.

They are essentially useless concepts.

[Why do people] ...almost NEVER use "guess" rather than "believe/belief?"
— Frank Apisa

Because we're not guessing. We're inferring. Maybe fallibly. We might be wrong. But we generally think we have reasons to believe the things we do. — Pfhorrest

Well it is obvious you are unwilling to acknowledge guessing when you are guessing and want to hide the fact that you are guessing.

And that is why "justified true belief" is NOT knowledge...because often...you are wrong.

If you are making a statement that "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist"...YOU ARE GUESSING...and the guess is a blind guess. Almost nobody ever making one of those statements ever uses "I guess..."...but instead uses "I believe... ."

What I asserted stands.

If you guess there is nothing (colloquial "nothing") in the drawer...and there is a box of tissues in the drawer...you are wrong.

Not at hand but the Jesuits were implicated as well as a section of the Vatican whose label I have forgotten that are charged with pushing the Vatican's ideology.

They have changed the name of that branch of late but it is still alive and well. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The name of the department you are looking for is Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

Now that you know it...provide the evidence for you absurd claim.