Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

[chaz wyman]

Used to be but got into a discussion with a member who was such a James that I wished to express that he was. As such I felt I had to drop the ability to edit his posts as I really wanted to delete the bastards existence from the forum. Conflict of interest.

p.s.
Ah! I might see, my name shows in the welcome from the mods post. I'll request that my post gets removed.

Was this James anyone I know?

[Arising_uk]

Nah! But think of any of the self-proclaimed 'nietzscheans' and 'schopenhaurists' that inhabit the internut add foul abuse, threats of personal violence via PM and a tendency to flame the forum by creating multiple accounts and talking to itself and you get the idea.

Although thanks to your idea of finding a function that vets any first new post this could not happen now. Wish I'd thought of looking for that back then.

[Notvacka]

Hi Notvacka

...I think that you found the heart of this little debate, and it's made of language. Evangelicalhumanist's position would have been more reasonable in my native language, Swedish, since here the word for "belief" and "faith" are one and the same. In English, you can settle for atheism not being strong enough a belief to qualify as a faith. However, I think evangelicalhumanist tries to define "belief" in stronger terms, more akin to "faith". On the other side of the scale you have "opinion" which I would consider a weaker form of "belief". ...

I found this most interesting. So in Swedish how do you refer to what in English is called 'faith' as my understanding is we think it a belief without need for evidence. A total conviction of knowledge, so to speak. Whereas a belief is something that has shades of being knowledge, so to speak. Is it that the religious belief would be described in Swedish as not knowledge as you say knowledge is a belief and can never be assumed to be absolutely true? Sorry if this is unclear but its hard to say without using 'faith'.

I do think it interesting about English that because its an amalgamation of French and Anglo-Saxon that we pretty much have two words for every concept and thing that the originals had only one for. Makes it a pretty confusing but powerful language is my thought.

Yes, language is the most interesting thing. And here in Sweden we get by pretty well with a language containing roughly half the ammount of words compared to English. There is always a way to say what you want, though sometimes you need to use more than one word, when in English one would suffice.

It's also funny how most philosopical debates boil down to arguments about definitions, which are usually not precise in common language. This topic is typical, since the original proposition takes the form of "this is not that" (atheism is not a belief).

Language is how we express our thoughts, and (as Typist is in the habit of pointing out, quite correctly) thought is inherently divisive. The problem we face, is that the dividing lines are often arbitrary. While the line between earth and sky is pretty obvious, in the realm of abstract concepts things get more ambiguous, and people get emotional about their definitions.

Now, as for your question:

So in Swedish how do you refer to what in English is called 'faith' as my understanding is we think it a belief without need for evidence. A total conviction of knowledge, so to speak. Whereas a belief is something that has shades of being knowledge, so to speak.

Language is indeed the most wonderful, frightening thing!

I find that I can't answer your rather straightforward question in any simple manner. And, I must confess, I was not aware of the distinction between "belief" and "faith" you mention regarding evidence, though I believe my grasp of the English language to be quite firm.

First I had to check. TheFreeDictionary offered me these:

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

The Longman Modern English Dictionary, which I usually put my faith in:

Faith: 1. trust/confidence in somebody/something [uncountable] a strong feeling of trust or confidence in someone or something.

Belief: 1. the feeling that something is definitely true or definitely exists.

Well, dictionaries only get you so far.

To me, blief can be based upon any ammount of evidence or none, while faith is a stronger sort of conviction that needs at least some foundation, though not necessarily in the form of evidence. A strong feeling or some sort of internal reasoning (rational or irrational) could be enough.

• A practical example:
  
  I know that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. Though this evidence from experience is not an absolute guarantee that it will hold my wight again, it's enough for me to claim knowledge.)
  
  I know that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed one just like it, and this should be no different. That's enough for me to claim knowledge from experience.)
  
  I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. But I'm cautious and won't claim knowledge until I'm actually on the ladder.)
  
  I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (It looks sturdy enough, and that's good enough for me.)
  
  I believe this ladder will hold my weight. (Perhaps it doesn't look all that sturdy, but I'm brave and don't mind taking chances.)
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed it before, and it held then. That's the foundation of my faith.)
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I have climbed one just like it, and this should be no different. That's the foundation of my faith.)
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (It looks sturdy enough, and that's good enough for me.)
  
  I have faith that this ladder will hold my weight. (I saw in a dream that I climbed it, and in that dream, it held.)

All these are acceptable uses of the words in question, I think. And these examples show that the distinction you mention is far from obvious in the English language. To me, the difference is not so much about the evidence as about the level of conviction:

"I believe it won't rain today" is rather non committal. I might still bring an umbrella, just in case, while "I have faith that it won't rain today" means that I won't bring an umbrella.

Edit: Both "belief" and "faith" translates as "tro" in Swedish. However, in many cases "faith" translates as "tillit", which in turn translates back as "trust" in English. Maybe that's the reason why I interpret "faith" as a belief that you trust, for whatever reason, while I see "knowledge" as a belief that you trust also, but in this case the reason is evidence of some kind.

[chaz wyman]

Nah! But think of any of the self-proclaimed 'nietzscheans' and 'schopenhaurists' that inhabit the internut add foul abuse, threats of personal violence via PM and a tendency to flame the forum by creating multiple accounts and talking to itself and you get the idea.

I can understand misguided Nietscheans being Jameses, but Schop tends to be a bit nicer.

Although thanks to your idea of finding a function that vets any first new post this could not happen now. Wish I'd thought of looking for that back then.

No problem - it seems to be a success.

[Arising_uk]

I can understand misguided Nietscheans being Jameses, but Schop tends to be a bit nicer.

Yeah but I'm not sure I can forgive him for that phrase about truth and ridicule as they always quote it and assume it means them and their bleedin' cobbled-up metaphysic.

[evangelicalhumanist]

You're doing the very thing you're arguing against. You're lumping billions of people you've never met in to one big group, and then positioning yourself above that group. You want to analyze this process in others, but not in yourself.

And every moment that you spend on this board, you are doing what you appear (ironically) to be arguing against. You are, in fact, thinking and philosophizing about not thinking and not philosophizing. And you may, perhaps, notice that it divides you from the rest of us rather well, too.

I'm guessing that you're posting on a largely atheist forum, instead of theist forums, because you don't really want to hear other views, but are instead seeking support from like minded individuals.

You guess wrong. I am an active (in fact, probably the most active except the owner) member of a forum specifically devoted to Interfaith dialogue. I have currently over 6,700 posts there, of my usual length.

I post here because I like to think and philosophize. I recently memorized over two hours of Shakespeare with a little explanatory dialogue intermix'd. It's a one-man show called "The Lunatic, the Lover and the Poet." Do you know why I did that? For no better reason than that I like it, and I wanted to. It was a lot of work, and took some time, but it was my work and my time, so I feel quite entitled to use those as I see fit.

And here? Well, as it happens, the Philosophy of Religion is a quite legitimate and respectable branch of philosophy. And I come here to enjoy discussions on the topic, and I do enjoy, so I will continue. On the other board (the inter faith one), there is very little philosophy, and everything is stated rather as beliefs that one must accept as legitimate -- at least for those who hold them. That, too, can be interesting, but it is not quite the same and philosophical argument.

You do not need to join the discussion, of course, if you are inclined not to enjoy it yourself.

[chaz wyman]

I can understand misguided Nietscheans being Jameses, but Schop tends to be a bit nicer.

Yeah but I'm not sure I can forgive him for that phrase about truth and ridicule as they always quote it and assume it means them and their bleedin' cobbled-up metaphysic.

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to.

Can you expand?

[Typist]

And every moment that you spend on this board, you are doing what you appear (ironically) to be arguing against. You are, in fact, thinking and philosophizing about not thinking and not philosophizing. And you may, perhaps, notice that it divides you from the rest of us rather well, too.

Exactly. I sincerely agree.

And so, if I can man up and admit that my ideology is in direct conflict with itself...

Can you too?

Just as my ideology will never convince you on anything, neither will your ideology convince anybody of anything either.

If you'd like to rebut this point, please send us the list of all the theists you've converted with your 678 trillion posts on all those boards where you've been posting.

So, we go round and round for a year, and then see the pointlessness of what we're doing, or...

We go round and round for a thousand years, and then see the pointlessness of what we're doing.

[chaz wyman]

And every moment that you spend on this board, you are doing what you appear (ironically) to be arguing against. You are, in fact, thinking and philosophizing about not thinking and not philosophizing. And you may, perhaps, notice that it divides you from the rest of us rather well, too.

Exactly. I sincerely agree.

And so, if I can man up and admit that my ideology is in direct conflict with itself...

Can you too?

Just as my ideology will never convince you on anything, neither will your ideology convince anybody of anything either.

If you'd like to rebut this point, please send us the list of all the theists you've converted with your 678 trillion posts on all those boards where you've been posting.

So, we go round and round for a year, and then see the pointlessness of what we're doing, or...

We go round and round for a thousand years, and then see the pointlessness of what we're doing.

You are ONCE AGIAN, in a state of contradiction. You think there exists a symmetry between what you are claiming to do (aphilosophy), and atheism. But you are not doing aphilosophy. Any moron can say that they are doing the opposite of what they are doing by tagging a "a-" on the front, And you are that moron. You are not DOING aphilosphy in any meaningful sense you are actually discussing philosophy.

I think your problem is that you are one of these idiots that cannot admit that other people might think differently to you , and are not capable of admitting to a mistake. A mistake you made so long ago no one really cares. You need to have the humility to accept other people's own view about themselves.

People like to argue with you because you are easy meat.

[Arising_uk]

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to.

Can you expand?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer

My experience is that this pretty much turns-up in nearly every internut metaphysicians works. Its become an identifier for me.

[Arising_uk]

...
People like to argue with you because you are easy meat.

Are you now not doing what you said he was?

I argue with him as I oppose what he says being said in a philosophy forum.

I also think what he says can resonate with others and as such want him to clarify it so that something useful may come out for those people.

If I wanted 'easy meat' I'd visit all these 'new-age spiritual/religious' sites he talks about but I don't.

[Typist]

I argue with him as I oppose what he says being said in a philosophy forum.

If you'd like to make that case in the aphilosophy thread, we could discuss it there. Not that this thread really has a topic anymore but, anyway...

I also think what he says can resonate with others and as such want him to clarify it so that something useful may come out for those people.

Meditate.

[chaz wyman]

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to.

Can you expand?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer

My experience is that this pretty much turns-up in nearly every internut metaphysicians works. Its become an identifier for me.

Got it.
I think there is much in the statement. Not in a necessary sense but by example. That is, examples of new ideas, that have been accepted, tend to go through this process.
However that does not mean that EVERY crackpot idea that is ridiculous will ever reach the third stage, and deserve the second. Most ideas are ridiculous, and will always remain that way.

[chaz wyman]

...
People like to argue with you because you are easy meat.

Are you now not doing what you said he was?'

Typist ignored me first. Despite that he tends to snipe at me regardless. That means I deserve an occasional snipe back.

I occasionally look at one of his posts, but they are always the same shit. He's like a broken record.



I argue with him as I oppose what he says being said in a philosophy forum.

I also think what he says can resonate with others and as such want him to clarify it so that something useful may come out for those people.

If I wanted 'easy meat' I'd visit all these 'new-age spiritual/religious' sites he talks about but I don't.

Don't you get fed up with saying the same shit to him all the time?

[Typist]

Don't you get fed up with saying the same shit to him all the time?

Apparently not, as he's always begging me to say more crazy shit to him.

He's constantly complaining, not enough crazy shit, not enough crazy shit, not enough crazy shit, not enough crazy shit etc.