The terminological debate makes sense to philologists. However, a philosopher who has replaced real problems with grammatical problems, has been lost. Because then, he can only talk about physics or mathematics. Only.
The relationship between a proposition and what it enunciates, is analogous to the relation between the written words and the letters used to write them. Letters have a pragmatic function in the structure of the word, and words have a pragmatic or technical function in the formulation of theories.
Antonio Machado repeated: "Today is always still". However much you define the terms of that proposition, you will not understand the meaning of it. You will only understand mathematics and physics. Your Bible will be the "Tractatus". Amen, bro. I don’t believe to know what philosophy is. But I know what it is not.

[Excuse my bad english]

I do not know what you are talking about... — Frank Apisa

In response to a post containing the following words (@Gregory):

So the system of theology in the Dark Ages (and latter) took Aristotle's idea that God is most actual, and that there is a hierarchy in "creation" where those higher up have more actuality than the lower. This literal deification of action has always puzzled me. First, maybe in thought the highest thing would be an infinite mind. That doesn't mean it must be that way in reality. I tend to believe that everything in creation has the same potency and actuality. How is this related to yin and yang however? Plotinus thought the highest Good to be pure potentiality. There is no clear argument from the Thomist camp to refute this (though they try so hard). Why is activity even better than passivity in any system

System. Theology. God. Actual. Hierarchy. Creation (with scarequotes around it), Actuality used as a comparative. Deification. Infinite. Infinite mind. Reality. Potency. A context in which this is all compared to Yin and Yang in an unspecified way. A reference to Aristotle, Plotinus and Thomism, and an unexplained link between all of this and activity and passivity... With all of that in the mix, all of these abstractions with brief mention of their context, you express the desire to clarify the meaning of the word belief?

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

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.

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?

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." — Frank Apisa

I still think this is a category error. You think that people should not use the word belief for what is in fact their blind guesses. But the words 'belief' and 'believe' are not specific at all about rigor in epistemology. They, in fact, relate to what something thinks is the case, EVEN if they shouldn't.

Unless you are actually saying that when people have poor grounds for believing something, they actually don't believe it.

To me it is clear that people can often have great confidence in their conclusions, even on terrible grounds. These conclusions are their beliefs. Perhaps some are arrived at rigorously and others are arrived at through guesses.

None of that matters in relation to their use of believe.

If, actually, they don't believe in God (and inside they are saying to themselves 'I am merely guessing' well, fine, 'guess' would be a better word. But in general I think people who say they believe in God, do believe in the existence of God.

There are people who believe in evolution for terrible reasons. (and often this is coupled with misunderstandings about things like natural selection, but not always). Most people accrue beliefs due to the subcultures they grow up in, they memorize 'the right answers', and this is not restricted to ontology/metaphysics/religion and so on. This is across the board. Appeal to authority is the root of a huge swathe of beliefs.

If someone says to me 'I believe X'

I do not assume ANYTHING about epistemological rigor.

I do now consider myself informed about what that person considers to be true.

There is only miscommunication when people lie - but of course if they said the guess X is true and they were lying I'd be in same boat.

This whole thing rests on a category error that the word belief or the verb believe carries with it some threshold of epistemological rigor that has been passed. It does not.

We “believe” when there is no definite proof available to us. In religion and philosophy there will always be a matter of belief. Proof (and knowledge in the absolute sense) is only available in the realm of physics, natural science, the physical world of facts.

“I believe it’s wrong to kill random people in the street.” “I know Paris is the capital of France.” Although I’m very convinced that random killing is wrong, it’s appropriate to use “believe” since I can only use rational argument to support my view but never offer anything that would qualify as a final proof. However, in the case of Paris you can go there and check for yourself or look it up in an encyclopedia, if you don’t believe me.

Now, some skeptics (and Trumpists) may retort that you can’t really know anything, even the most basic facts; the encyclopedia may be wrong, or you may be dreaming. Sure, but in order to live an communicate we just have to take the physical world for granted and assume that there are facts and evidence. Knowledge about the observable world is possible, but when we move into the world of ideas – ideologies, values, theories – only belief is possible no matter how reasonable those ideas are.

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.

What say...should we just cut off communication? — Frank Apisa

We could talk about belief I guess.

I think it's got a few meanings:

Belief in a statement: belief in a statement is holding it to be true. This is a largely cognitive act, requiring the higher brain functions that deal with language processing - I think that's justified because it specifically deals with a statement. "A belief" usually means "A belief which is a statement". People have beliefs. "I believe I have pasta in my home"

Belief as an attitude towards a statement; the disposition regarding a believed statement that applies when it is held to be true.

Belief as a disposition to act based off of a learned pattern or habit, characterised by an expectation that things will turn out in a specified way; a rat might believe that if it presses a button, it gets food. A rat however doesn't have the capacity to state "If I press the button I get food", nor does it have brain functions that deal with language processing like we do, so it is unlikely to be just the same as belief in a statement.

In any of these cases, we can believe things which are not true, or expect things which do not turn out to happen

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

Depending upon the context, a belief may require evidence, justification or circumstances that otherwise facilitate understanding/explanation.

Evidence: "I believe the weight of a newborn baby is 10kg on average", "Really? Have you weighted them?", "No, I just believe it.".
Justification: "Pi is 4!" (assertion, indicating belief) "Why? That breaks everything" "Look at this proof..."
Otherwise case: "I'm sorry for being a jerk recently, I suppose I believed that everyone and everything's against me since I lost my job" (a belief as an explanation for an action)

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.

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. — Frank Apisa

I don’t think this is accurate. You may be correct that affirming “God exists” is really a guess, but the person actually affirming that statement may not realize that. They may truly believe that the statement “God exists” is undeniably true. Therefore, they are not being deceptive, because they are not willfully trying to disguise anything, they are simply ignorant of the fact that their reasoning is flawed. Also, I’m of the opinion that people use the word belief to express their confidence when compared with “think” or “guess.” I know that I do that at least, but that’s not to say that their confidence isn’t misplaced, it certainly can be. Perhaps what you’re truly getting at is that people shouldn’t be so confident in conclusions drawn from faulty logic?

Pinprick
102
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.
— Frank Apisa

I don’t think this is accurate. You may be correct that affirming “God exists” is really a guess, but the person actually affirming that statement may not realize that. They may truly believe that the statement “God exists” is undeniably true. Therefore, they are not being deceptive, because they are not willfully trying to disguise anything, they are simply ignorant of the fact that their reasoning is flawed. Also, I’m of the opinion that people use the word belief to express their confidence when compared with “think” or “guess.” I know that I do that at least, but that’s not to say that their confidence isn’t misplaced, it certainly can be. Perhaps what you’re truly getting at is that people shouldn’t be so confident in conclusions drawn from faulty logic? — Pinprick

Excellent post, P.

Yeah...I am doing what many who argue issues like this one do...going a bit over the top to stress a point. I doubt very seriously that anyone saying, "I 'believe' (in) God" or "I 'believe' there are no gods" is purposefully attempting to deceive...but the result of using "believe" ends up with that result. They are deceiving not only the people to whom they are making the statement, they are deceiving themselves. (More on that point in a second.)

I am advocating for not using the word that way in these kinds of discussions...or at least of keeping in mind of the effect of using it...which is disguise.

For instance, in this response you wrote, "They may truly believe that the statement “God exists” is undeniably true."

There is that problem in practice. Change the wording and look at that sentence, "They may truly blindly guess that the statement "God exists" is undeniably true."

Of course they do!

They are supposing, estimating, guessing, blindly guessing, insinuating, suggesting, conjecturing...that "God exists"...but they are not using any of those words. (Neither are you, here.)

They are using "believe." They claim it is a "belief."

And then...they argue that we should all RESPECT the "beliefs" of everyone else!

How would that sentiment sound if proposed as, "We ought all to respect the blind guesses of everyone else?"

Would that make sense?

You're still using the reductionism of logic. It sounds like you are trying to "re-define" belief to be something that it isn't, then trying to fit it into some sort of framework ? Belief by its very nature is dual and can be used to describe "a best guess" or to "confirm that which is already in faith". Different people use this word in different contexts depending on their experience.

First lets separate "Faith" from "Belief". Faith does not require belief, and belief cannot exist without faith. They are in a hierarchy - belief is dependant on faith.

1. Faith
1.1. Belief

As said before, "Faith" could be "do have faith" or "don't have faith". Either way, the answer from the Faith question then creates the "Belief" question because without the Faith question, the belief question makes no sense. Who walks up to a strange and asks, "What do you believe?".

The faith question can be answered with reason alone, and doesn't require logic. In fact, logic being so limited, cannot get to the answer because the answer is beyond logic, beyond understanding, but not beyond experiencing. Those who claim to have had a personal revelation, would have had it in experience, being that it could not possibly be captured within a mind or memory (otherwise the mind would be the prison of God) ? Well maybe to some it is.

You see, where you have mixed these two up, you have created an argument that cannot really be reasoned and therefore is illogical. Unless of course, you can offer your reason for trying to redefine "belief" into "best guess" which then takes away the "faith" element of it because "best guess" does not require Faith. A "best guess" is always a logical assumption based on probability (or chance) whereas a belief can be that, but it can also be formulated in response to the answer from the faith question / experience.

If you are directing this to me (cannot really tell, but I suspect you are)...

...you are dead wrong in saying that my comments are illogical.

The only comments that can be made about the issue "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...IS A GUESS. A BLIND GUESS.

Now...if you are saying that you can logically answer that question, "At least one exists" or "None exists"...without it being a blind guess...

...please do it and explain how it was logically done.

(Hint: Don't put too much effort into this, because it CANNOT be done. EVERY answer that asserts one or the other will be a blind guess. The ONLY logical answer is, "I do not know...but if you want me to guess, I am willing to toss a coin.")

It was aimed at anyone interested to read it or care about it, or not.

By your last comment, very well then, we agree.