Whats The Definition Of "Believe"?

[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