Whats The Definition Of "Believe"?

[David Sklansky]

Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

And if you agree with that it means that atheists believe there is no God. Its not just that they have no reason to believe in God. Because as with godboy's red keyboard, if there is in fact no reason to believe in God or the existence of that keyboard, than they are giant underdogs to be true. Even theists would agree with that obvious fact.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it isn't but it explains why much of what you say appears silly when we believe it isn't.

chez

[luckyme]

1) I believe the first card will be above above a 7.
2) I believe the first card will often be above a 7.
3) I believe the first card has a 51% chance of being above a 7.

the fact that I will place an even money bet on 'over' in each of those cases does not mean my belief is the same in each case because it certainly isn't.

"Do you believe you should bet on Over"
all should answer 'yes'.

is not the same question as
"Do you believe the next card will be Over".
Limited to yes-no, the responses should be -
1) yes.
2) no.
3) no.

luckyme

[godBoy]

I believe something that I see as truthful.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think so, although it's true that if I believe something and I am rational then I think it is more likely than not. The reverse doesnt follow though - I am about 60% sure I will buy the house I am currently renting, but I wouldnt say it was sure enough that I believe I will buy it.

Also, people have irrational beliefs (whether we like it or not) and your definition will probably break down there also.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe something that I see as truthful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too... and I disbelief something that contradicts what I see and is therefore untruthful (after enough investigation, of course).

[Subfallen]

Isn't asking about belief in God futility itself until we've decided on a definition of "God?"

IMO just the five participants in the other thread (vhawk, PTB, godBoy, chezLaw, MidGe) would have trouble agreeing on a common definition that captures all the essential qualities of their preferred individual definitions. Not the least because godBoy is a Christian (in some sense.)

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nah. In most situations "believe" is used the same as "think." For example, "I believe people are naturally good" or "I believe I did well on the last exam." This requires much more than the 50% threshold of certainty that "more likely than not" is based on. You don't hear many people say, "I believe I'll win my race with 22 vs AK."

Obviously this varies, but I'd say most people would only use "believe" if they are at least 80% sure of something.

[godBoy]

I'm happy with Dawkins' definition of God.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nah. In most situations "believe" is used the same as "think." For example, "I believe people are naturally good" or "I believe I did well on the last exam." This requires much more than the 50% threshold of certainty that "more likely than not" is based on. You don't hear many people say, "I believe I'll win my race with 22 vs AK."

Obviously this varies, but I'd say most people would only use "believe" if they are at least 80% sure of something.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what do you call people who think there was a 70% chance that Jesus was ressurected?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy with Dawkins' definition of God.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hardly the Christian God. But, you may not be a Christian in the dogmatic sense. /images/graemlins/smile.gif And then we don't have any problems anyways.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nah. In most situations "believe" is used the same as "think." For example, "I believe people are naturally good" or "I believe I did well on the last exam." This requires much more than the 50% threshold of certainty that "more likely than not" is based on. You don't hear many people say, "I believe I'll win my race with 22 vs AK."

Obviously this varies, but I'd say most people would only use "believe" if they are at least 80% sure of something.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what do you call people who think there was a 70% chance that Jesus was ressurected?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. I don't think "believe" and "don't believe" are complementary though, similar to the way that feeling "good" and "not good" today aren't. There probably isn't a good word to describe them since so few exist.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy with Dawkins' definition of God.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey godboy, I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal. I greatly misunderstood your position in my arguments with you. Sorry.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey godboy, I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal. I greatly misunderstood your position in my arguments with you. Sorry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please say it ain't so. The great Godboy, Midge debates have sustained me, entertainment wise, for, well, maybe a year.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you like me to give you God's weight and favorite food also?

[TheEkim]

Belief is a state of conviction. You have to "know" something is true to believe it.
Its a term used to describe certainty and this is why beliefs can be a bad thing, any dogmatic thinking that leads to people refusing to accept alternate viewpoints or consider new information is a negative thing IMO.
It would be nice if people could ascribe to religious theories or philosophy rooted in faith rather then dogmatic sets of belief but I think it will be a long time before we see this type of shift.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you like me to give you God's weight and favorite food also?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea... But I do know that a benevolent, personal and omnipotent god is totally denying or at odds with existence as it is, so it cannot be.

As far as weight is concerned I would expect it to be very lightweight to no weight at all, in every meaning of the word! /images/graemlins/smile.gif As far as favorite food I would not even hazard a guess, could be dependent on its digestive system if he has one! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Siegmund]

I would define believe as "accept as truth," with an implied undertone of "...without proof it actually is the truth."

One can believe there's a 70% chance that Jesus was resurrected, but that's something very different than believing Jesus was resurrected.

Its one of the things the Bayesians do quite well - identifying situations where some degree of belief is required, and forcing you to make some assessment of what your beliefs are before they'll give you odds of anything. Not saying they have all the answers - but I think the idea of a prior sums up the idea of belief well.... operating from there onward as if something were true (perhaps retaining some awareness that it may not be - but usually you have committed to not revisiting that assumption anytime soon.)

[J. Stew]

belief = a thought that provides meaning or something to get transrationally 'mean' about.

for example, i believe in the freedom that comes from transcending the mind so if someone told me i had to think in a certain way that doesn't coincide with natural creativity i would get mean about it because this freedom is mean-ing-full to me and is also just what is, coincidence? i don't think so.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

And if you agree with that it means that atheists believe there is no God. Its not just that they have no reason to believe in God. Because as with godboy's red keyboard, if there is in fact no reason to believe in God or the existence of that keyboard, than they are giant underdogs to be true. Even theists would agree with that obvious fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is an easy question. I read the Wikipedia entry for Belief as well as an online Philosophy Encyclopedia entry for Belief. They talked about it as being a psychological state whereby a conviction in the truth of a proposition is held. They talked about it as an Attitude toward a proposition. There is evidently controversy over whether the psychological state is arrived at the same way by everybody so as to cast doubt on whether neuroscience can hope to identify it. Nowhere was the concept of probability or probability estimates mentioned in relationship to it.

So I reread the Wikipedia entry for Baysian Probability where I remember it being mentioned. It looks like Baysian Probablists define their concept of probability by way of Belief. They define their probability as a "degree of conviction" or "degree of partial belief". So this is something peculiar to the Baysians. And I think it's important to note the direction of the definition. It's not the other way around. Belief is not defined according to Baysian Probability. And I did not see Philosophers of Belief using Baysian Probability to define Belief.

I think if Sklansky tried to program a Robot to express Belief about the truth of propositions according to probability estimates he would end up with a Robot making some very un-human like statements of belief. What threshold would he use as a cutoff? 80%? 90%? So the Robot would say, "I believe the next roll of the dice will not be boxcars". I don't think humans say that. A human would say, "I believe the odds against boxcars are 11-1".

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Baysian probability statements are even meaningful for all propositions. I'm especially dubious about their application to Spiritual Propositions where no objective evidence nor objective outcome in this world is possible. Sklansky and his followers cavalierly apply them to such propositions, but I have yet to see any theoretical foundation on which to do so. At best I see them as vacant of meaningful content and at worst I see them as highly misleading when applied to such Spiritual Propositions.

So all things considered, I think Belief is a Psychological or possibly Spiritual State arrived at by way of a complex of information, possibly including taking someone's word for it, and/or subjective or spiritual experience, which crosses some kind of personal threshhold, or enters some kind of personal qualifying aura, whereby a conviction is formed about the truth of a proposition.

Edit: However, this is open to revision.

PairTheBoard

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive verb
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>

Yes, one definition of believe fits your assertion. However, in the context of religion, "I believe" is usually stronger than "I suppose", since total faith is required for true belief in God according to standard interpretation. So, 1a or 1b is the usual definition here. The rest is just semantical nitpicking.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only addresses one of many definitions and connotations of "belief". In many cases, one can believe in something that does not admit of a truth test at all. "I believe in the inalienable dignity of human beings." This addresses an attitude towards the human and public policies that impact human life. It is the assertion of a principle, not of a truth. When one says: "I believe in God." I think we are in such an attitudinal realm more often than we are in a truth realm. For these reasons, talking about over/unders is at best irrelevant.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats The Definition Of "Believe"?
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I do not think that is how it is usually used.
It seems to usually be used to indicate that you have made a largely subconscious decision to treat the thing you believe as a working hypothesis for purposes of decision-making.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you agree with that it means that atheists believe there is no God. Its not just that they have no reason to believe in God. Because as with godboy's red keyboard, if there is in fact no reason to believe in God or the existence of that keyboard, than they are giant underdogs to be true. Even theists would agree with that obvious fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I say I don’t believe in a god, I am saying that I will never give the possibility of God existing any weight for the proposes of practical decision-making. I am not making a probabilistic statement.

[speedfreek]

Do facts require belief?

Is belief the conclusion of a search for truth? If you do not know something for sure, you search for a solution until you find what you believe is the true solution using the available data.

If there isn't enough available data for you to be able to confirm that your solution is correct, you can only believe that it is correct.

But once it is confirmed as correct and becomes fact, belief is no longer required. Then you know.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


But once it is confirmed as correct and becomes fact, belief is no longer required. Then you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

To know something you have to believe it.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty straightforward. Philosophers treat belief as a propositional attitude, i.e., as an attitude we take toward a proposition when we think the proposition is true. So, to say that I believe p for some proposition p is just to say that I think p is true.

[speedfreek]

Is that all philosophers? Or is it merely one side of a philosophical debate?

[ QUOTE ]
To know something you have to believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one view. The other is that once you know something, belief is no longer required because belief is a choice you make, dependent on your assessment of the variables involved. When dealing with a proven fact, there are no variables and thus no assessment is required, so belief becomes redundant.

There is no point asking yourself if you believe in proven facts (unless you are searching for signs of insanity!).

[spyderracing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty straightforward. Philosophers treat belief as a propositional attitude, i.e., as an attitude we take toward a proposition when we think the proposition is true. So, to say that I believe p for some proposition p is just to say that I think p is true.

[/ QUOTE ] That's a good explination of belief. I'm hard pressed to find anything to discuss as to the definition of a belief. It's not really a matter of epistemology. It's simply what you think to be true. It is not a prerequisite that what one is believing necessarily must be true. For instance: I believe I and the world around me exists. This is not necessarilly true, but it can't be argued that I (whoever or whatever I may be) don't hold this belief because the fact that I'm stating that I hold this belief is enough to prove that I hold it (given I'm not a liar and telling you this in good faith).

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that all philosophers? Or is it merely one side of a philosophical debate?

[ QUOTE ]
To know something you have to believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one view. The other is that once you know something, belief is no longer required because belief is a choice you make, dependent on your assessment of the variables involved. When dealing with a proven fact, there are no variables and thus no assessment is required, so belief becomes redundant.

There is no point asking yourself if you believe in proven facts (unless you are searching for signs of insanity!).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you see no inconsistency if someone says, "I know p is true, but I don't believe p."

Many beliefs do not seem to be a matter of choice, or perhaps better put, evaluation of evidence. If someone holds up a blue card in front of you under normal conditions and you are looking at it with normal vision, you cannot simply choose to believe that it is green. Certainly paradigmatic cases of perceptual belief like this do not really seem to be a matter of choice.

Also, if there is no belief involved when I "know that p" for some proposition p, then what is the difference between knowledge and certainty?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that all philosophers? Or is it merely one side of a philosophical debate?

[ QUOTE ]
To know something you have to believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one view. The other is that once you know something, belief is no longer required because belief is a choice you make, dependent on your assessment of the variables involved. When dealing with a proven fact, there are no variables and thus no assessment is required, so belief becomes redundant.

There is no point asking yourself if you believe in proven facts (unless you are searching for signs of insanity!).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the way people commonly use the terms you're talking about goes something like this:

Q: Do you believe the Sun will come up tomorrow?
A: Yes, I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow, although I can't really know that.

Next day after the Sun has come up.

Q: Do you believe the Sun Came up this morning?
A: I know the Sun came up this morning. I believe it now even more than I did last night.

Belief is an attitude of conviction about a proposition's truth. With knowledge, the attitude of conviction - the Belief - is confirmed. The person still Believes in the truth of the proposition. Except now he believes it because he knows it.

I suspect you're thinking of a kind of "Faith-Belief" where use of the term Belief implies the Belief is based on Faith. Once knowledge is gained the "Faith-Belief" is not longer "Faith-Belief". That would really be a specialized technical use of the word though. It's not the way people use it in everyday situations.

PairTheBoard

[spyderracing]

There is a definite distinction between belief and knowledge.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a definite distinction between belief and knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

PairTheBoard

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it just that you think it is more likely than not? That certainly is true in non religious connotations.

And if you agree with that it means that atheists believe there is no God.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is incorrect. When you are non-theistic, it means that you have no concept of god. It means you do not recognize the word as a reference to anything.

Now here comes the interesting part: does the theist actually have a concept of god? Ask them and find out. You will find that they do not and that their minds are actually broken to the point that they are convinced of the truth of non-defined things.

[speedfreek]

[ QUOTE ]
So you see no inconsistency if someone says, "I know p is true, but I don't believe p."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I said belief is not required, which is quite different from I do not believe. I see no inconsistency if someone says "I know p is true, so belief in p is not required."

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if there is no belief involved when I "know that p" for some proposition p, then what is the difference between knowledge and certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no difference. Knowledge is certainty. If I know something, I am certain of it. It is only when I don't know something, and am therefore not that certain of that knowledge, that I have to resort to asking myself if I believe something or not.

[ QUOTE ]

Q: Do you believe the Sun will come up tomorrow?
A: Yes, I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow, although I can't really know that.

Next day after the Sun has come up.

Q: Do you believe the Sun Came up this morning?
A: I know the Sun came up this morning. I believe it now even more than I did last night.

[/ QUOTE ]

My version of this would be

Q: Do you believe the Sun will come up tomorrow?
A: Well, I would like to say I know it will come up tomorrow but I suppose I cannot, so I will have to say I believe the Sun will come up.

Q: Do you believe the Sun Came up this morning?
A: I know it did. There is no question. It is a certainty.
Q: Yes, but do you believe the Sun came up?
A: I do not question it, therefore belief is not required. It's a fact.
Q: Come on, you don't know that for sure, maybe the Sun didn't really come up, and this is a film set and that's not sunlight you are really seeing...
A: Do you want to see stars?!

If someone asks me to name something I believe in, I will often say "Love." /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[m_the0ry]

See: epistemology