What is belief?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Just that. What is belief? What does belief mean to you?

Those of us without faith make our decisions based on what science predicts and on probability.

Back are you saying that you believe that people of faith don't make decisions based on what science predicts and on probability? Does it mean that you believe athiests make better life choices?

Those of us without faith make our decisions based on what science predicts and on probability. While remaining aware that it could be possible that my keys could have been moved by undiscovered natural forces or aliens, I will still look in my coat pocket first. It's more a practical position than philosophical and has the enormous advantage that it nearly always works.

You are not without faith then. You don't have faith in God but you have faith in science and probability. You make decisions based on that because you have faith or believe that approach 'nearly always works'. However science is not always based on evidence. What I mean is that scientific theories are not always based on evidence but on what a group of scientific elites think is correct at a given time. Gregor Mendel was ignored and even criticised for years despite providing evidence to substantiate his ideas on heredity. Ignaz Semmelweis was vilified and his work rejected by the medical community despite providing evidence that antiseptic techniques like doctors washing their hands between seeing patients would reduce patient mortality. Not all science is based on proof a lot of times its just we cant think of a better model or explanation so just accept this one.

One more thing what if somebody accepts the big bang theory and the theory of evolution however they are unaware of any of the evidence for either theory. Would it then be classified as a belief? Isnt this the position of most of the general public who would struggle to provide any evidence for any of these ideas but would generally accept them. Don't they then also have faith in science or scientists?

The various meanings of belief do often cause confusion. If you do set aside all those meaning 'I think' or "I am of the opinion that" what are you left with? Surely just the way religion uses it where there is no reason to think something is true, but someone does anyway.

People usually do have a reason why they believe something to be true - because it is their cultural norm, because of an experience etc. What they may not have is verifiable evidence, so their reasons are unlikely to convince you, but that is not the same as having no reason.

One more thing what if somebody accepts the big bang theory and the theory of evolution however they are unaware of any of the evidence for either theory. Would it then be classified as a belief?

Yes. The point about the scientific method is that theories developed by scientists are corroborated by their peers. Especially when it comes to the the biggest or most fundamental theories of the universe. The peers would love to prove some of these wrong. If you could demonstrate that the speed of light was not the cosmic speed limit, for example, you would be instantly famous.

So 'belief' in science is a bit of a misnomer. Accepting brand new theories when they first arrive (such as the scientists recently who thought they'd broken the light barrier) just because a scientist did an experiment would be a little foolish. But once those experiments are corroborated by the scientific community, even without understanding it all yourself, you can give reasonable certainty to their accuracy. The longer a theory lasts and the more scrutiny it goes through, the more weight you can give it.

So to go back to the original question. If you just guessed at the big bang without any knowledge of any theories or evidence, then you would indeed be going on faith.

Incidentally, if you dropped a laptop in a descending vehicle it probably still wouldn't hit the ceiling because it would be accelerating with you. It would more likely just float in front of you until the vehicle decelerated and you hit the ceiling as well...... :)

interesting stuff!

but does this apply for things such as my simple example where there is a known scientific reason?

off to look up your reference!

I'm not sure it's possible to dismiss other usages of belief (other than as "professing something to be true") as glibly as back does. Just because they don't relate to the particular question he is interested in does not mean that they do not make up part of what it means to say 'I believe' -- which is, because words are complex, more complicated than I think he wants to have us, um, believe.

Take, for example, the construction 'I believe in'. Now, this is used in the creeds of the Christian church. But it is also used in other contexts, such as "I believe in you", where it might mean (in context) "I have confidence in you and I have confidence that you will achieve what you are setting out to do". And in fact this is very similar to what Christians (I cannot speak for other religions) actually mean when they say "I believe in God". It is not a statement about God's existence. It is a statement about God's trustworthiness. To say "I believe in God" is to say, "I have confidence in God and I have confidence that he will do what he says he will". "Amen", which ends our prayers, means "this is something that you can rely on" or "this is something you can believe and trust" -- hence Jesus's characteristic phrase "amen I say to you", normally translated as 'truly I say to you".

This is a very important point, and goes back to my first post. I don't want to let atheists, who have a particular interest in the idea that belief in God is all about whether he exists and how we could know this, entirely dictate the meanings of the words we use to talk about our faith.

Of course, we could also ask, with Cher "do you believe in live after love?", but that's a whole other thing.

Just to clarify, when I said belief, I meant:
Beliefs about self,
Beliefs about others,
Beliefs about the world and
The belief that others have in you.

It is not a statement about God's existence. It is a statement about God's trustworthiness.

I have two problems with that statement. Firstly, not everyone is referring to trustworthiness, many are actually referring to existence. Secondly, you cannot belive in someone's trustworthiness without them first existing to be trusted, or at least believing them to exist. So actually the fundamental issue here is one of existence.

But actually the whole issue of language is what got us in this mess in the first place. Many words have many meanings. Even translating between two modern languages on a topic well understood by the translator and between cultures also well understood by the translator, you can still come across misunderstandings when the translation is read. Sometimes because the wrong word has been used, sometimes because a turn of phrase has no real equivalent in the second language, sometimes because cultural differences mean that the same phrase has a different meaning. So to expect a text which was written by numerous authors and translated many times, sometimes from ancient language and often by translators with a vested interest in the text, to come out in English two millennia later with any kind of accuracy is foolish. Even if it WAS the 'truth' in the first place.

It's true there are ontological assumptions involved in the statement 'I trust God'. But there are ontological assumptions involved in the statement 'I'm taking my dog for a walk in the park'. However, we don't have to operate at the ontological level all the time -- it would be boring and we'd never get anything done.

So, to return to my point, there are different ways of using the noun belief or verb believe, and I am pointing to one that I think is particularly important in Christianity. Dione, I think, is interested in other contexts. Some of them, but by no means all, relate to the question of whether something exists.

Yes, of course, language is endlessly, fascinatingly generative of meanings, and certain texts, in this case the Bible (although you might extend this to any kind of literary text as well) have a special richness in their language that comes from the density of allusion, imagery, metaphor and so on, that makes them particularly generative of a multiplicity of meanings. Does this mean they can't be true? Not at all although you might have to have a rather more sophisticated idea of what truth is than simply 'a statement of fact susceptible to empirical evidence'. But that leads us off down a different road one we've been down many times -- and away from the question in the OP.

Many words have many meanings. Even translating between two modern languages on a topic well understood by the translator and between cultures also well understood by the translator, you can still come across misunderstandings when the translation is read. Sometimes because the wrong word has been used, sometimes because a turn of phrase has no real equivalent in the second language, sometimes because cultural differences mean that the same phrase has a different meaning. So to expect a text which was written by numerous authors and translated many times, sometimes from ancient language and often by translators with a vested interest in the text, to come out in English two millennia later with any kind of accuracy is foolish.

This is also an advantage, the many layers of meanings and multiple translations.

As our language evolves with the times and across cultures the Bible does too, it is described as the 'living word', it is dynamic and not static. The language in it is not a dead language, like Latin. Not all readings of the Bible involve the mental gymnastics of learning another language along with stepping inside the culture of the time to understand all the symbolism etc. (although some ways of reading the Bible can)

This allows people choice, they can pick the translation which speaks to them the most, which they understand most readily. If people are interested in languages they can learn Greek and Hebrew to get even deeper meanings from the text, if people are interested in numbers there is numeric symbolism they can explore, there is literary symbolism also, for people who are interested in this, if people prefer current language there are translations to reflect this too.

Christians also believe the Holy Spirit can reveal meaning to them from scripture, to help with the layers upon layers of meaning. Understanding it all is more than a life's work.

I started this thread after watching an experiment where two groups of equal ability had to negotiate an obstacle course with a ball, then score.

The first group were constantly told how well they were doing, cheered on and told that they were breaking the record irt the amount of scores they achieved. The second group received minimal encouragement. While they were doing the task, they were definitely made to feel second best.

At the start of the task both teams did well, bit when team 2 missed a score, their performance suffered. Team 1 also missed scores, but due to the encouragement from the experimenter did not become disheartened.

It got me thinking about what belief is and how it impacts us. Is it like a catalyst or amplifier or even a turbo boost?

Crescent, both teams had self belief, but it was the belief of the experimenter that made the difference to team 1 and I was reminded of a time when I was struggling with coursework. I was frustrated, almost to the point of tears, when DS came to me, gave me a hug and said "you can do it mummy".

His belief in me negated my frustration, cleared the negativity and I went back to my work with renewed vigour.

To believe means to trust in and rely upon, with certainty.

When you sit on a chair you're trusting it will hold your weight once you've appraised it, and have decided it's ok to sit on it because you're safe in the certainty that it will not buckle under you and let you down.

And when you're talking about religion (am guessing this is the case since this post in in the spirituality topic) everyone 'believes' (trusts in and relies upon) something, even to 'believe' (trust in and rely upon) that there is nothing to believe in, is a belief!

That's because you are trusting in your view that there is nothing to believe in and relying upon your evidence for this to be accurate.

Someone else, on the other hand, is trusting that there is actually something (some ONE) to believe in, and they are also relying upon their evidence for this to be accurate.

That's why it's a really good idea to not be afraid to critique and reexamine whatever evidence you are trusting in and relying upon

Contemplates, thank you for your thoughts on this. When I began this thread I was posting here from a Philosophical perspective.

Having read your post and reread others, the majority are posting from the POV of faith in something. What about the impact of other people's faith in you? And talking of faith, while believers believe in god, is there not also the belief that god believes in them?

Yes I realised myself that I had answered a little off-topic (once I had got the time to read all of the other posts!), and not wanting to derail your OP I asked for it to be removed!

ln answer to your first question, if people in RL believe in me it definitely makes a difference. It's an encouragement to me because it is somehow strengthening; it validates a good point in me (say for example if someone believes I can be trusted in and relied upon to care for their pet or deliver a really good party) which while I may not actually need to have, can feel nice to have if you get me. And in the event that I am waive ring about my abilities, someone believing in my potential helps me to see their viewpoint in a hopeful way. But funnily enough would have he potential to affect me only if I respect their viewpoint, because it wouldn't work when someone is being patronising or superficial, or makes stupid judgements about people or situations.

And then your second question about God believing in us? Well that's a bit different actually, there are many accounts in the bible of people wavering in their ability and God coming up behind and giving a gentle shove in the right direction, leading to them overcoming their fears. The biggest difference is that it was God they were believing in to help them through the situation rather than relying on their own strength. Yet they achieved great outcomes and are consequently described as 'giants in faith', to aspire to, as a result.

People like this view their natural good points as God-given 'gifts' and work to 'overcome' obstacles (feeling too insignificant for the task), believing "all things are possible through those that love Him".

However I won't become a triathlon winner just because someone has faith in me or that I aspire to have more trust in God. The truth is I don't want to BE a triathlete and have all the hard work that comes with the training, and am quite content to admire people that do and sponsor their physical achievements instead! So my point is there has to be a spark of desire in there in the first place

Please don't get your post removed Contemplates.

I've messages the poor Mumsnet bosses and now it's up to them. Not sure if they will action the request for removal before they see the request to leave it there after all

By the way, I was thinking about your question as I was going about my business today, and I remember that the career I chose was completely self-belief. It went against everyone else's belief in me (that I couldn't do it), but I knew I had to try. I very quickly excelled and 20 years later look back with satisfaction over a career that really suited me.

So I was really glad I listened to my own inner voice rather than school teachers and family (both believed I was either not the right type of person to cope with the job, or intelligent enough!). But even then, it was more of a matter of having to go to my deathbed knowing I had tried and failed rather than wondering if I would have managed it, instead of a belief that I could do it, because I want sure. All I knew is every bone on my body ached to do it!