Not exactly a claim to knowledge: that would be "It's raining."In the sense of a guess or hypothesis, I think and I believe are the same. “I think it is raining.” is interchangeable with “I believe it is raining.” In either instance, we go outside and confirm if it is raining or not—they are both a claim of knowledge. — Antony Nickles
Now, why did you change the example? A valid comparison would be of "I think you're mistaken" - where the speaker has some knowledge of the subject, but not enough to be certain the other is wrong - and "I believe you're mistaken." - where the speaker is confident of his own superior knowledge, but too polite to say "You're wrong!".But “I think you are mistaken” is in the sense of a claim to a judgment, while “I believe in God” is an expression of faith or an attitude or a duty. — Antony Nickles
Language is slippery; difficult to handle effectively. I doubt any hard rule can apply to all the words in one language — Vera Mont
Now, why did you change the example? — Vera Mont
If God comes into it, it should be by way an example such as: "I think there is a god" - uncertainty leaning toward belief - "I believe there is a god" - growing conviction - and "I believe in God" - declaration of faith in a particular deity. — Vera Mont
And where did you find such a characterization of language? I believe this is one of those misconstructions through the substitution of similar but not interchangeable words. The words 'slippery', amorphous' and 'ever-changing' do not mean 'irrational'; nor does 'difficult' mean 'unable to be clarified'.The characterization of language as irrational, unable to be clarified, etc. — Antony Nickles
It is subject to imprecise applications and interpretations.That words are sometimes interchangeable; that communication involves difficulty, laziness, manipulation, vagary, and the ultimate possibility that we may reach an impasse on the means of understanding, does not mean that language is relative or imprecise. — Antony Nickles
Not really. In many contexts, they can be used interchangeably without causing any misunderstanding, and people do use them interchangeably, due to custom or manners, even when the same application conveys a somewhat imprecise meaning. Using one in a context where both may apply, and than the other - with the addition of a crucial preposition - does show that they can mean very different things also.[ 'think and 'believe' ] Each has its own separate criteria and contexts in which they apply. — Antony Nickles
Yes, you did.And so here we are mixing up the criteria and context and way in which belief works differently in each sense — Antony Nickles
They're three separate uses - very possibly by three different speakers - in the same context: answering the question: "How do you regard God?"To say “I believe in God” in the sense of an expression is not the conclusion that starts with the other sense of belief as a hypothesis of knowledge (“I think there is a god”). They are two separate uses (senses) with different criteria in different contexts. — Antony Nickles
Nobody's implied that. The statement "I believe in God." is about the speaker's internal conviction of the existence of a particular deity, whereas "I believe God" at suggests either a a personal communication from the deity or a conviction that some text was written by the deity. Neither has anything to do with proof. (Which is pretty much the definition of 'faith'.)nor does that imply that belief as an expression of faith needs to include any proof, — Antony Nickles
Can't report it till you've owned it; can't own it till you claim it. It's very rare for anyone to come in from a downpour, dripping proof all over the carpet say, "I know it's raining since I experienced it."“It’s raining” is not a claim to knowledge; it is a report of knowledge — Antony Nickles
The criteria for proving a hypothesis of knowledge is not the same as an expression of conviction, and the conviction is not a conclusion or substitute for the claim of knowledge. — Antony Nickles
The words 'slippery', amorphous' and 'ever-changing' do not mean 'irrational'; nor does 'difficult' mean 'unable to be clarified'. — Vera Mont
the term "A" has 2 senses. ("B" always has the same sense)
In one sense, A has the same sense as B.
In another sense, A has a different sense as B. — KantDane21
I believe this is one of those misconstructions through the substitution of similar but not interchangeable words. The words 'slippery', amorphous' and 'ever-changing' do not mean 'irrational'; nor does 'difficult' mean 'unable to be clarified'. — Vera Mont
…subject to imprecise applications and interpretations. — Vera Mont
[“I believe in God”, “I think there is a god”]…are …separate uses …in the same context: answering the question: "How do you regard God?" — Vera Mont
you might want to consider if there's a charitable interpretation of the original post that could resolve this apparent inconsistency. - GPT-4 — Pierre-Normand
This should be in the forum’s guidebook. — Antony Nickles
This why humankind invented specialized language for those subjects in which it's important to communicate precisely: mathematics, musical notation, maritime signal flag code. Scientists and engineers also have standardized terminology in spoken languages.But language is the only place in this universe where something might truly be fixed, made absolute. — Fire Ologist
You were drawing out the inference you made of what I said. Your interpretation.I was drawing out the implications — Antony Nickles
What is the ordinary context? People don't normally come up to one another on the street or at a cocktail party and announce: "I think there is a god." or "I believe there is a god." or "I believe in God." (But I have had people come to my door and ask whether I've been saved.) These statements are normally made in a larger context - the discussion of deity and one's relationship to deity. Before every such statement, there is an expressed or implied question. The question doesn't force a response; the statement points back to a requirement for making it.This is forcing two statements into the same requirements by dictating a question; that is not there ordinary contexts. — Antony Nickles
You were drawing out the inference you made of what I said. Your interpretation. — Vera Mont
Before every such statement [“I think there is a god." or "I believe there is a god." or "I believe in God."] there is an expressed or implied question. — Vera Mont
the statement points back to a requirement for making it. — Vera Mont
This makes it sound like it depends on me how language works; as if it depends on you how what you said, says what it does. — Antony Nickles
I don't see where the rationality of language requires you to read an entirely different word from the one that was written. When I write 'your interpretation' and you read 'just your opinion', that is not forced upon you by the structure or function of language; that is a choice.So to suggest that the implications of what you say are just my opinion, is to overlook the rationality of language, again. — Antony Nickles
That's one hell of a big inference about a whole hell of a lot people you know nothing about.Thus why “I do not believe in God” is said by those lost to the particular cause, or hopeless, maybe for anything going the way they hoped someone they trusted would do, but also by those that feel they know everything and have complete control over the world. — Antony Nickles
it is not me making a judgment about people; I am just describing how disclaiming belief works in the world. And I’ll consider a competing claim, but dismissing the entire project as impossible claiming that I’m in no position is to remove any rationality from philosophical discourse. If someone is claiming they don’t believe in God, in a certain sense they are saying there is no mystery in the world and nothing outside of (above) our power. Now, they might not want that to be the implication of it, but those are some of the things which are believed, and so some of the things which are refused in the denial.That's one hell of a big inference about a whole hell of a lot people you know nothing about. — Vera Mont
... the world of believers. That is not how it works in the world of atheists. We don't think of our ourselves or one another asit is not me making a judgment about people; I am just describing how disclaiming belief works in the world. — Antony Nickles
The way words work in the world is pretty much any way people choose to use them. Words are helpless in the hands and mouths and minds of manipulators.lost to the particular cause, or hopeless, maybe for anything going the way they hoped someone they trusted would do, but also by those that feel they know everything and have complete control over the world. — Antony Nickles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.