What I find myself increasingly believing is that if there is an ‘objective reality’ we don’t have access to it, even with our various scientific measurements and tools. Though it probably reflect poorly on me on this board, I feel now that the scientific method has embedded in it certain assumptions that I am uncomfortable making. One of the biggest assumptions in scientific reasoning is that our aggregated phenomenological experiences are accurate measures of an objective reality, rather than just being reflections of our sensory inputs. I simply can’t accept that-- except in a provisional way that allows me to live my life on a day-to-day basis. There might be a lot more to this world (if indeed there is a world and we’re not just brains in jars), the knowledge of which might radically alter everything we think we know; perhaps we simply don’t have the right sensory organs to access this information.
How do you figure? You are suggesting that your interpretation of phenomenological experiences are tantamount to the accurate perception of material properties of the external world. You are implicitly stating that your senses won’t lie to you about the world, and that your interpretations are thus objective rather than subjective. How is this not a belief? Your conception that your apprehension of the world is objective hinges on the belief that your senses won’t lie to you.
I beleive that we are a science experiment for some extra terrestrial 6th grade project that he forgot about and is sitting dejected on the back of his desk while he is playing video games.
I believe that the universe exists for my amusement and accommodation, a belief not at all shaken by it’s absence from this poll.
I believe that you are almost correct. Amusement cannot exist without its opposite (annoyance?) so that the universe vibrates harmonically between amusing me and annoying the hell out of me in a beautiful dance that will play out over and over until I shut my eyes for the last time and the it all blinks out of existence.
I’m certainly not doing any such thing; rather, I think I define “belief” very differently from you. AFAICT, a belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
As such, nearly everything you say in your post, even your statement about how it’s perfectly reasonable to reject all belief, is by this definition a belief.
It appears that some individuals on this site have decided that belief = experience. Ergo if you experience something then you have belief.
I call nonsense. Belief is accepting a proposition without proof. Otherwise the word is meaningless.
If I have proof then belief dies.
A belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds an unproven proposition or premise to be true. If a proposition or premise is proven then I cannot believe in it. It simply is.
I don’t BELIEVE water is wet. Water IS wet.
That’s a perfectly understandable way of defining things, Pábitel. Unfortunately it’s different from how most people use the word, and I challenge you to find a dictionary that defines “belief” that way.
Usually belief is defined as simply the act of holding a statement (or a proposition) to be true. I think the problem is with when people like to use the word belief. If something is so obvious as to defy contradiction, we tend to state it without preface. (Water is wet.) If we have doubt about something but have used rational processes to arrive at a conclusion, we say “I think.” (I think Obama will be reelected.) When we’ve studied an issue such that we are absolutely confidant in our position, we say “I know.” (I know life evolved through natural selection.)
When we can’t say any of the above, when we have no knowledge about something, can’t state it as simple fact, and clearly haven’t done any thinking, we fall back on the weakest statement we can make: “I believe.” (I believe God loves me."
All of the examples I gave are beliefs, but we only call something a belief when we can’t call it a fact or a thought or knowledge. Just like we only call a member of Congress in the US “Congressman” if we can’t say “Senator.” ( Or if it’s a woman!)
I thought you had me, Pábitel, I didn’t check any dictionaries before posting my challenge and I knew you might find one. But notice that that definition is specific to believe used intransitively (usually as I believe in…). The poll uses believe transitively (I believe that…) and no such definition appears for that usage. I’ll give you half credit for finding an appropriate definition, even though it was for a different usage.
In any event, your claim that the word can have no meaning other than what you provided is clearly wrong, and I think my explanation for it’s use is more accurate.