This just isn’t the way the English language works. To say “I don’t believe in gravity” is to say you don’t think there is any such thing as gravity. That’s just… that’s just English. I don’t know what else to say.
In English, what you mean to say is that you believe in gravity based on evidence, and not despite any lack of evidence.
-FrL-
You’re confusing the words “opinion” and “belief.”
Practically anything a human thinks is a belief.
In general, if you think “X”, where X is a proposition, then you believe X is true, and so you believe X.
You can make practically any distinction you like by the simple addition of an adjective. For example, there are faith based beliefs, and there are rational beliefs, and there are nonsensical beliefs, and there are common sense beliefs, and there are occurant beliefs, and there are dispositional beliefs, and there are communal beliefs, and there are firmly held beliefs, and there are tentative beliefs, and there are all other kinds of beliefs besides. Nothing about the correct understanding of the term “belief” blocks any plausible distinction I can think of.
-FrL-
Is Bert in the following dialogue making sense to you guys?
Elvis: Hey Bert, I just ate lunch.
Bert: I don’t believe you.
Elvis: What? Why would you think I’m lying to you?
Bert: Oh it’s not that I think you’re lying. You’re telling the truth. And I know you did just eat lunch.
Elvis: Then what do you mean you “don’t believe” me?
Bert: It’s just that I don’t have to take what you’re telling me on faith. I don’t believe you. I saw you eat lunch with my own two eyes.
Pause
Bert: I know you’re telling the truth. But I don’t believe you. Still, you did eat lunch.
Elvis: :confused
This is dependent on the different meanings and uses of the word belief. Yes adjectives would help.
I didn’t say ‘I don’t believe in gravity’ out of nowhere, as that statement by itself is confusing, especially out of context. In the context I used it in, a discussion about belief, and with the qualifier I added ,‘I accept them based on evidence.’, the statement is clear in it’s meaning.
Your example is confusing because it uses a different meaning of the word belief without context, and without a qualifying statement, until later anyway.
This is just a semantics game. Not all belief is the same.
What you mean is not clear, because it makes no sense to say “I don’t believe in X, rather, I accept it based on evidence.” It doesn’t make sense because to accept something based on evidence is to believe it.
You then went on in that post to say you “have no need for belief” concerning gravity, making things even more confusing. This use of the word “belief” is not in keeping with any standard usage in the English language.
Taking your comment out of context, I could interpret it as though were you speaking out loud, you would have made waving motions while saying “belief” and “believe,” with the intention of indicating to your hearers that by “belief” you meant to indicate only magical or faith-based belief. But that’s taking your comment out of context. In context, your comment can not fairly be interpreted that way. Your interlocutor was not discussing only faith based or magical belief, and you yourself made no comments to indicate that you meant to narrow the discussion in that way. And why would you? Why talk about something your interlocutor is not talking about?
No, interpreting your comment in context, it is clear that you said something that did not make sense. You said you do not believe in gravity, because you accept that it is true–which is nonsense.
By “example” do you mean the Bert/Elvis dialogue? Are you claiming that once the qualifying statement came toward the end, Bert’s position did make sense after all? Because my point was that Bert never made sense in that dialogue, not at any point in it.
As I’ve already amply demonstrated through the use of a plethora of pithy examples, I too think that not all belief is the same. But as to the “semantics game,” I generally want to know that I’m using the language I speak in a way that matches the way the language actually works, so as to minimize conversational confusion.
-FrL-
Tell that to the festival goers who caused the traffic jam.
Has Siva fallen? 900 million Hindus would dispute that.
I disagree. I think that the word ‘belief’, in normal usage, has a religious connotation, and that saying you ‘believe in gravity’ is confusing. This thread is about atheism not being a belief. It should be quite clear that the OP is talking about religious belief, and not about everything a human being thinks. You’re changing the definition of the word under discussion.
You sure about that? How about number 4? My use of the word is more like number 3, but like I said, I don’t like using the word belief that way because of the religious connotation it holds, especially in a thread where the discussion is about religious belief and the lack thereof.
In context, where we are talking about religious belief, my comment made sense. Only after you redefined the word would it not.
That’s why this is just a semantics game. We are talking about religious belief, and you’re not.
I’m not defining anything, that is what the word means. Use a different word/words and restate your position and it will be more clear and we can move past the semantics and get to the real debate. (I asked Derleth to do the same but no response)
So you think that InterestedObserver was ascribing a religious belief in gravity to Derleth?
I didn’t have that impression at all. Maybe I misread the post, though.
I’d be interested to see what InterestedObserver him/herself would say about what s/he meant.
-FrL-
No, that’s just one meaning of the word. Just like many words in the English language, it can used several ways. Your definition is obviously different from the one the OP used.
:rolleyes: No, of course not. He was using a different meaning of the word as well.
Now wait a minute. InterestedObserver’s post was the one you were responding to. His use of the term sets the context. Yet you said that the context determined the relevant use of the term “belief” was the religious use of the term.
But if you didn’t think that’s what InterestedObserver meant, then it’s absolutely inexplicable that you would, when responding to him, use the term in a way he didn’t mean, and moreover, claim that this was the sense of the term that the “context” determined was appropriate.
Furthermore, I can not make sense of your response to his post except as an attempt to disagree with him about something, but you can not be trying to disagree with him unless you are trying to use the term in the same sense that he was using the term in. And now you’re telling me you knew his sense wasn’t the religious one.
You makea no sense.
-FrL-
Here’s an example that might get us away from religion. Say you’re considering a star where a Jupiter sized planet has been detected. Is there an earth-sized planet there?
One can randomly, and without evidence, believe that there is or is not one. But doesn’t it make sense to say that you have no reason to believe that this system has such a planet, yet you have no reason to believe that it doesn’t. “I don’t know” - a lack of belief either pro or con - seems like a good default position.
I like to use the word “heuristics” to describe things I believe as shortcuts for having to prove them each time, since their behaviour is predictable and reliable. I don’t need to analyze gravity: I just accept that it works consistently. I don’t need to analyze most interpersonal relationships either: the social code makes most interactions simple and I need only change the routine when something new or unexpected happens. I don’t need to verify that John has gone to Los Angeles: Sam said John said he was going there, and Sam has no reason that I know of to lie about it. I don’t need to get verification of the existence of Los Angeles, a city I’ve never been to: I have no reason to doubt its existence.
All of these are based on experience and confidence in the people around me and all of them could be verifiable, if I was willing to obsessively devote a great deal of my time to it.
Would it be fair to say that these heuristics (concepts I believe despite not personally verifying them) are distinct from matters of faith (concepts I might believe though I have no way of personally verifying them)?
If so, could we refrain from using “belief” to describe both of them and considering them equally valid?
Yes.
That certainly sounds reasonable.
Robert Anton Wilson built his entire career around this point. He called himself a radical agnostic because he did not ‘believe’ anything.
As far as I can tell this is a very fine distinction that is relative to a particular philosophical stance that is pretty far outside of the mainstream.
It is incumbent upon the person who does not have the mainstream usage to conform to the mainstream usage.
I hope that Derleth is capable of using the term ‘believe’ in its normative sense without getting all pedantic in everyday conversation, otherwise I fear his dating prospects might be limited.
Either way, are you able to describe your position without using the word belief? I would be interested in the debate but it would be nice to start from common ground.
Bryan Ekers, a heuristic is a rule of thumb or method, it’s process related. I think we need a different word.
Be my guest in suggesting one, though if a practical difference exists between the belief that gravity exists and the act of behaving as if gravity exists is a tenuous one. I’d just like to discourage the rather fatuous argument that a belief in gravity is comparable to belief in God, with no more justification than both ideas use the word “belief”.
Not many people take such arguments seriously, on either side of the debate. Most theists, see belief in God as being fundamentally different from believe in materialistic processes. Sure, plenty of people make those kinds of arguments, but I don’t see them being taken that seriously. It’s kind of idiotic to posit that they are the same kind of belief.