Well, in this context I think we could agree that it’s differently used. “I believe my keys are on the table” and “I believe lying is always wrong” are both good English, and readily compehensible, but “believe” means different things in each of them. And in “I believe in God the Father Almighty”, it may mean something else again.
This might be a regional thing and more to do with semantics that concepts, because when I say (especially in response to a question “Where is X?”) “I believe I left it on the table”, I am most definitely not expressing a certainty - if that were so, I would just say “it’s on the table, where I left it”.
But this use of ‘believe’ is not exactly the same sense as when it is used in regard to matters of religious faith. I don’t think they are completely separate senses - they’re on the same continuum, but really your definition of belief (take as fact that which is not proven), I would say is actually instead the definition of faith.
Belief is a broader term, and implies a degree of certainty, but not absolute faith - for example, it occurs in legal cross-examination (well, on TV, anyway) - for example: “Do you believe the accused intended to kill you?”
And prior to the update you had a belief that things were different. That belief was not based on current facts and wasn’t really “chosen” by you. It was a reflexive action that happens constantly.
The “ignorance” part of my example was pointing out that you don’t “choose” what to believe in all cases, and it’s not always based on fact.
Throughout your life you will have an endless number of beliefs that you didn’t consciously choose, they just happen because that’s how our brains operate. And due to this process that is hard wired into our brains, it’s not always current and not always based on facts.
Belief is always a choice. Too bad its one of the few choices we’re legally forced to accept. I blame our ignorant ancestors who just had to have an explanation of why that mammoth gored Thok in the face
Always? I’d like you to explore that a little, please. I came here arguing that belief can sometimes be a choice (with the unwritten implication that it usually isn’t.)
Also…how are we legally forced to accept belief? I don’t see what you mean there. I’m far from legally forced to accept my neighbor’s belief that “abortion is murder.” (I do have to accept his belief that lots and lots of garlic is good for dinnertime cooking. Whew. The odor goes out his windows and in mine!)
I was referring to belief as it relates to religion.
I tried to believe, but I failed.
I remember wanting to love someone, but being unable to do that, too.
Um… You haven’t answered any of my questions. Can you please expand on what you are trying to say? I think that choosing one’s beliefs is possible, but difficult and rare. And I don’t have any idea what you mean by our being legally forced to accept belief.
As Truman Capote said in “Murder By Death,” “Sometimes it doesn’t work…” Heck, it probably only works rarely… I’m only here to say it is actually possible, and that some people have managed it.
Sorry, I thought it would be clear. What I mean is that we’re forced to accept or tolerate chosen beliefs such as religion by not being allowed to discriminate against it. The right wing extremist position that any allowance of tolerance towards people who are atheists or Muslim is an infringement on their right, but the ironic thing is that they got it completely backwards: we have to accept Christianity as an accepted part of our lives because we can’t do things like ban them or fire Christians. We are forced to be around them without a legal recourse to get rid of them. I liken it to spitting, which is also a chose behavior. If we can tell people to not spit in public places and punish people for doing so, we should be able to do the same with a chosen behavior such as belief in a religion
Uh, this will probably lead to a predictable expression of shock so before you do that, let me add:
-
I don’t think religion should be a protected class
-
I don’t think atheism is a religion, I consider it the default belief
-
I think its ok to force people to behave atheistically in public and punish them if they don’t
-
No, I don’t think that infringes on anyone’s freedom any more than I consider punishing spitters to be an infringement
-
I do think you should be able to believe anything you want, but not behave any way you want nor use public funds/government to force it on others. As I said, atheism is the default position, just like not spitting is the default position. If you want to spit wherever you want/practice religion however and wherever you want, then you have to justify it
-
Yes, I know this is unrealistic given the vast majority of people believe in some kind of deity. Yes, I do think they are ALL idiots in some major way, like a brain surgeon who thinks the earth is flat would still be an idiot in some way
-
The reason why I’m hostile towards religion is because its a system of lies and corruption that preys on the weak and factually holds humanity back from progress and increases suffering
-
No, I don’t think Communist countries harm people due to atheism. Their atheism is irrelevant to their political philosophy
-
No, I don’t think banning religion would fix all the world’s ills nor do I believe that atheists are incapable of harming people. Just like I don’t believe banning spitting would make the ground clean, its just a good idea not to do it
-
And last, I do think the world will be a better place if we rid ourselves of religion and yes, I know that’s probably not going to happen but we should still try
Oh! Okay, cool. I didn’t get that, and needed a more explicit statement. Put that way, I wholly agree. We are legally obliged to accept the fact that other people have weird beliefs…and this is (mostly) a good thing. I support the right of my neighbor to be a Mormon…and hope that he will support my right to be an atheist.
Totally with you so far. However…
Hm… I don’t think I agree with the metaphor, because spitting produces an actual physical blot on the sidewalk, carries disease, etc. Laws against spitting are very different from laws against believing…or even laws against public statements of belief.
I can cope with a law, for instance, that says we can’t open the centerfold of a Playboy magazine in a public park. But if someone proposes a law that says I can’t read the magazine in my own home, that’s going much too far.
(And I have no sympathy for stupid people who try to prevent people from reading Playboy at all in a public place. Most of the pages do not portray nudity, and many are obviously text-only!)
I do…but that’s a minor point.
Agreed.
Cannot agree. People must be free to pray, proselytize, witness, kneel, whirl, even burn incense, in public (within the obvious limits. A small thurible censor is one thing; a great big roaring bonfire is another!)
I’ll disagree.
Totally agree re the public funds part. No public funds should ever be used to promote religion. But as to public religious behavior, I don’t agree: that should be protected as widely as possible. Obvious limits apply. There’s a case of a street-preacher who got in trouble for pointing to specific individual women and crying out, “Whores!” Can’t do that; slander laws are a limitation to freedom of speech.
The religious people who hold an austere and academic faith – “God is the spirit of universal love” – aren’t necessarily idiots, because the claim is beyond any conceivable disproof. I have quite a lot of respect for entirely abstract religious faith. It’s only when it trespasses against the concrete that I get fussy. If you say, “Thursday is God’s sacred day,” I can only shrug and not much care. If, though, you go on to try to get laws passed against anyone wearing shoes on Thursdays, because it is an affront to God, well, that’s crossing the line and must be opposed.
Largely agree, but I do think room can be made for the more remote and abstract varieties of religion, which, while they may be total wastes of time, aren’t actually harmful. It’s a little like people who waste time collecting stamps, or listening to Old Time Radio shows. Sure, they could be doing something more productive, but, really, it doesn’t bug me at all.
(I often use “Golf” as an example here, but I’m seriously opposed to golf because it wastes large areas of land and consumes far too much water. Public money should not be spent on golf courses. But I don’t push this as an agenda item: it would be a waste of my time!)
Agreed. Their problems came from their single-party rigidity, not from their atheism.
Agree. I can’t support a ban on religion, because I fear it would open the door to the banning of other ideas and values, some of which I may hold!
I’ll compromise by joining you in fighting against the worst excesses of religious intolerance. We can certainly have common cause against those who wish to mandate prayer in school. I might break away from our alliance at a later time, but, very definitely, we have no shortage of enemies in common. I will join you in fighting against Fred Phelps, for instance, but might stand aside from a battle against someone much more moderate.
Thank you for your expansions! I honestly didn’t get what you meant, and now I think I do. I hope my disagreement is taken as no more than pro forma.
I think that trivializes the internal biological processes in our brain that most are not immediately aware of and typically can’t control consciously.
1 - Information can get fed in and become part of your world view
2 - Countering that later with reason can be a process that requires much energy
For example: I was raised as a Catholic (church, religious education, etc.) from an early age and due to that I believed in God. As a young teenager a neighbor planted the idea that God may not exist. First reaction was shock, then over time as I pondered it I realized logically that he could be right, but there was some other portion of the brain that wasn’t comfortable just abandoning the idea. It took a long time to get past the ideas that were just fed into me from an early age and come to a conclusion based on reason/choice.
RaftPeople made me think of people who have ego-dystonic obsessions, like the ones of OCD. It’s pretty hard to imagine that someone makes the choice to believe the house is on fire, they’re a danger to their babies, they’re gonna kill someone, or that they are grossly deformed. Especially when these beliefs are associated with so much fear and anxiety.
An old friend of mine once said, “If you can believe something, you can un-believe it.” The context was a life-long belief in God, and whether such an “ingrained” belief can ever be changed. I believe that it can, but rarely.
I think we can control it consciously, or at least if we can’t help but believe, we can consciously behave opposed to that belief.
And Trinopus…wow, thanks. I was all set to get into a huge religious argument, most people may believe some of what I believe but consider me off the rails once they get to the “religion should not be protected” part. You honestly surprised me by your response, thanks. It was quite level-headed and most importantly, you understood what I was trying to say instead of throw out names like facist or something.
I’ll reply to some of the things we disagree below, just to further clarify.
I should have said right at the beginning (but you understood that point later on too!) that I’m not for criminalizing internal belief, but religion has a lot of components to it, part of which is a manifestation of belief as physical behavior. So in that sense, I do consider the public spitter and the preacher on the corner of the street to be similar. If we can tell someone not to spit in public (and allow private establishments to ban it), but let him believe in the correctness of spitting, then I think we definitely can tell someone not to preach in public, and make that behavior illegal, but still allow him free reign to do it in his home or in his mind.
Just as we have things we consider violations of the community obscenity codes, and that government can fine or imprison those who distribute porn to children, or show porn on TV, or in public, I think we can and should do the same for religion. It wouldn’t even take all that much effort really to think about religion as obscene and ban it in all the same places we ban porn. People can still do what they want in their bedrooms, but if you’re fucking in the front yard a cop can arrest you. That’s what I prefer, do all your preaching in your house with consenting adults, but not in public or you’ll be arrested. Its dangerous, stupid, harmful behavior
Why would those things be ok but we can ban spitting, watching porn, or giving out porn on the streets? Imagine that instead of bibles, people are giving out naked pictures. Would we allow that? Rather, would we say matter-of-factly that we cannot regulate this behavior at all?
I think, and the lawyers on the board can correct me if I’m wrong, but slander encompasses more than simply name calling. If someone called someone else a cocksucker to their face, does the other person have a good chance of winning a slander case?
However, this brings up an interesting point. Why do you think someone can’t call women whores like that on the street? What if he said cocksuckers? Or shitheads? Would that be ok? Is all name-calling equal?
How about a ban on religious behavior in public, to be regulated as strictly as any ordinance against obscenity or vulgarity? Hold whatever beliefs you want just as we tell pedophiles they are legality allowed to think they can have sex with children, but as soon as you practice it, you can be arrested
Nudity is a really interesting example, for all sorts of debates about rights. For instance, some people speak of “Natural Law” and “Natural Rights.” Well, what in the hell could be more natural than not wearing clothes? Some people speak of “unfunded mandates,” and the law that we have to wear clothes is one: the law says I have to wear a shirt and pants…and makes me pay for them!
But it’s one of the basic traditions of our civilization. Passing out pictures of naked people will simply get you in trouble. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but there are simply some traditions that are too firmly in place for us to try to fight.
So: in formal objective logic, yeah, we should have the right to hand out pictures of naked people – or actually to be naked in public – but it ain’t gonna happen. You’ve got to choose your battles, and this is one we cannot win.
There are lots and lots and LOTS of complications.
Far from equal. As a legal nicety, there are laws that especially enshrine protections against slandering a woman’s chastity. So, calling a woman a whore can get you in more trouble than if you called her a turd.
Should all offensive name-calling be treated the same? I’d say no. Calling someone a skunk is so generalized that it would be hard to get a jury to convict on it. Calling someone a liar is worse. Calling someone a whore is worse than that.
Nope. Cannot agree with this. Too intrusive. I don’t want to give the government that much power. And, frankly, I don’t care that much. Okay, some people are holding a prayer-meeting in the park. So? How does this harm me? It’s easy enough to ignore.
Only when they start to act in such a fashion as to violate other laws – e.g., shouting so loudly it disturbs the peace, or burning torches in violation of open flames laws, or throwing stones at people they consider to be adulterers, or running out and shoving caps and veils onto people because they believe that it is blasphemy for anyone to be uncovered – do we need to fight back.
As for a group of people wearing ceremonial clothing (a priest and a nun) openly doing Bible Study in the flower-garden of a public park – I think this is something a free society must protect. It does no harm. And I like to celebrate diversity.
This is a well known philosophical problem but I grappled with it myself here on the Dope in this very forum, if I remember correctly.
Let me just put it this way. If I die and find myself before God and he is about to send me to hell for not believing in him, I would say, “God, why did you give me intellect and reason and not enough evidence to believe in you? It’s not like I had anything against the idea of believing in you. In fact, as a kid growing up, I did. But as I grew older, I saw less and less reason to believe in your existence, through no fault of my own. I didn’t angrily reject you in a moment of unthinking passion. I truly had no control over what happened. My beliefs are a part of who I am and I cannot directly control them. I could no more force myself to believe in you than I could force myself to run a mile in 20 seconds or to force myself to not be allergic to strawberries. If you really wanted people to believe in you then why not give us more reason?”
You are assuming he’d care or spend any more time listening to what you want/think when you’re dead than when you were alive.
QuickSilver: obviously. If God turns out to be a nasty crashing Zeus-like figure, full of pride and fury, then he’d vaporize drewtwo99 before he could utter the first two words of that (very nice) speech.
No argument. Any argument against your point here would end up being more of an argument about free will, than about belief and choice. If someone says “I choose to believe …” I take their word for it. There are things I’d say that about myself. (I choose to believe it’s worthwhile being ethical.)
My point was simply that there are many cases where choice is not an option. In most cases, I believe whatever arguments and facts convince me. Admittedly, the bar is lower when it accords with other of my beliefs, and especially when it’s in my self-interest (though I try to guard against that!)
Beside the point, but while this is true, it’s sadly true. On an ethical ladder, I’d put an honest whore a ring or three above a liar. But we’re all liars and only some of us are whores, so … the whores lose out.
Oh no, vaporizing is far too god for the likes of him. Eternal torment is so much more appropriate.