And yet oddly, all the early scientists were believing Christians, and there are religious people all over the world today who don't think there's a contradiction between their religious belief and their science. — gurugeorge

Notice that Newton is not known for his contributions to alchemy/religion, and in fact, if Newon did not invent things such as Calculus, and other scientific stuff, he would likely have not been well known today. (This indicates that science doesn't care about what scientists chose to believe in)


http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Newton would probably be an atheist today, given today's statistics as seen in the capture above. (For example, Edward Witten who is alive is an atheist today and Edward is seen as someone similar to Newton in intellect.)

Yes, I know some scientists that believe in pseudoscience stuff, and one thing is clear, whenever they make scientific progress, they adhere to science, where beliefs don't matter, as long as they follow evidence.

This means that when you mention of theist scientists that express their feelings about the supposed non-contradiction of science and religion, this mention is irrelevant, because science doesn't care about beliefs.

Here's the anthropologist David Eller on tribal religions;

"Every religion does, of course, contain ideas of and about nonhuman and superhuman agencies in the universe; however, not all of these agencies are equally “agentive,” that is, not all equally have “personalities” or “minds” or “wills.” This is another reason why Tylor’s venerable definition is insufficient: not all religions have supernatural beings."

"...gods are not always particularly good or moral, nor do they always take an interest in human affairs."

I think you're clutching at straws trying to make a set of extremely disparate religious beliefs fit a model which conveniently explains the widespread adoption of monotheism in rational terms. An impartial overview of religious variety through geography and history simply doesn't support this.

In the face of imperfect information and limited processing power, the feeble human mind must often rely on a mixture of logic, experience, and intuition to arrive at a practical solution. The intuition component can be described as "belief", can't it?

yes, but...
Belief is also accepting as true regardless of the facts.
Whilst 'belief' is a marker for such a huge range of meanings it makes sense to use alternatives for "accepting as true regardless". This is a thing I like to called knowledge.

Whilst 'belief' is a marker for such a huge range of meanings it makes sense to use alternatives for "accepting as true regardless"

Wouldn't that just be "denial" or "confirmation bias"? Rather than belief, I mean.

And why would you need to believe in empirically observable things, like the body? — uncool

Exactly. Believing empirical observations is a belief.

This makes no sense. Looks like you've ran out of arguments, given the evidence that I've laid out before you :) — uncool

I never said you don't have evidence, but the evidence you mentioned is no proof. Science is not proven.

As charleton says, there is no doubt that religion exists, however, this doesn't suddenly mean that religious doctrine is any evidence. — uncool

I didn't say it did.

Edit: it seems I never answered , nor did I fix or correct the comment that was an answer to, which led to some confusion - sorry, my bad. What I meant in this comment was evidence for the doctrines of religions being correct, not evidence for the existence of religions.

Wouldn't that just be "denial" or "confirmation bias"? Rather than belief, I mean. — x260ad8c12

If by 'that' you mean belief as a wished for, no. It may have nothing whatever to do with bias.

If by 'that' you are talking about knowledge, no. There is a good body of study to nail down knowledge claims, which is distinct from belief.

No, I should have quoted this:

Belief is also accepting as true regardless of the facts.

I was saying you were conflating "belief" with other ideas like denial and confirmation bias.

Exactly. Believing empirical observations is a belief. — BlueBanana

The thing about "empirical observations" is that they remain empirical, regardless of anybody's belief.

I was saying you were conflating "belief" with other ideas like denial and confirmation bias. — x260ad8c12

There is no "conflation" there. (Please take a look at the dictionary and or Wikipedia on belief)

And your point is? Are you trying to claim the empirical observations are also necessarily true?

(Please take a look at the dictionary and or Wikipedia on belief)

Take a look yourself. Belief isn't always "regardless of the facts". It can also be "in light of limited facts". Such as when you need to make a decision given imperfect information, but your tiny brain can't calculate all possible variables and crunch the probabilities, so you act under the belief that something is probably true even though you're acknowledging it may not be.

↪charleton
No, I should have quoted this:
Belief is also accepting as true regardless of the facts.
I was saying you were conflating "belief" with other ideas like denial and confirmation bias. — x260ad8c12

No.
There is no confusion.
What I said was de facto correct; 'belief is used for taking as true regardless of evidence'.

e.g. I believe I am Napoleon, can be true de re simply because a person says it.

Were they to say "I know I am Napoleon", then you can challenge that claim.

What I said was de facto correct; 'belief is used for taking as true regardless of evidence'. — charleton

You have the implication wrong way around. Taking something as true regardless of evidence is belief, but not necessarily vice versa.

De facto, de facto, de facto. I'm not pretending its a definition. I am simply insisting it is a fact. As any fool can see, by the context.
Cars take petrol is true, even though cars take diesel is true.

As I said above "yes, but...
Belief is also accepting as true regardless of the facts."
FFS

That's correct, the example isn't. What's relevant is whether the belief is correct, not whether the person has it.

What's relevant is whether the belief is correct, not whether the person has it. — BlueBanana

I think the religious types would disagree.
And that is another reason why the abolition of belief is a good idea.

Take a look yourself. Belief isn't always "regardless of the facts". It can also be "in light of limited facts". Such as when you need to make a decision given imperfect information, but your tiny brain can't calculate all possible variables and crunch the probabilities, so you act under the belief that something is probably true even though you're acknowledging it may not be. — x260ad8c12

There is something that has enabled us to make progress without having access to all possible evidence.

That thing is called the scientific method, where you don't need omniscience.

We must note here that unlike the scientific method which generally promotes that we pay attention to evidence, belief permits that people can ignore evidence most of the time.

Do you now see how science contrasts belief?

Do you now see that that belief (which permits evidence ignorance most of the time) opposes scientific thinking (which does not permit evidence ignorance most of the time)?

@uncool
First of all, science doesn't "contrast" belief. Science is quality control. That's all. Belief =/= religion. Belief =/= faith. Belief =/= dogma. Belief == belief. If you believe a scientific model is correct, then you have a belief. And chances are, you'll be proven wrong in the future as more evidence is discovered. If you accept the fact that you don't actually know anything and you can always be proven wrong given more evidence, then your current mental model of the universe is a "belief".

First of all, science doesn't "contrast" belief. Science is quality control. That's all. Belief =/= religion. Belief =/= faith. Belief =/= dogma. Belief == belief. If you believe a scientific model is correct, then you have a belief. And chances are, you'll be proven wrong in the future as more evidence is discovered. If you accept the fact that you don't actually know anything and you can always be proven wrong given more evidence, then your current mental model of the universe is a "belief". — x260ad8c12

You don't need omniscience to avoid belief, you simply adopt scientific thinking, which is contrary to belief by definition. (Scientific thinking has promoted that humans are permitted to make mistakes, and continuously correct those mistakes, whereas belief tends to facilitate that old mistakes are reinforced)

Science doesn't require belief to be valid. (If science required belief, anybody could be successful all the time, just by believing in their equations or work no matter how far removed their work was from evidence, without putting in actual effort to follow evidence)

Belief permits that people mostly avoid evidence, contrary to scientific thinking which generally promotes that people be keen on evidence. (This will remain so regardless of your feelings)

Please look on Wikipedia or definitions of belief, before expressing your belief about what you feel belief means.

Please look on Wikipedia or definitions of belief, before expressing your belief about what you feel belief means.

merriam-webster:
- conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. belief in the validity of scientific statements

- a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. her belief in God. a belief in democracy. I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique. contrary to popular belief (Notice it says "trust or confidence", but doesn't say "without evidence or proof")


oxforddictionaries:
- Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something). ‘a belief in democratic politics’

- An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. ‘his belief in extraterrestrial life’ (Notice it says "especially", not "exclusively".)


dictionary.cambridge:
- the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: philosophical beliefs


collinsdictionary:
- If it is your belief that something is the case, it is your strong opinion that it is the case. Scientific models are human interpretations of empirical evidence. Peer review is a process by which other experts examine findings and are either convinced that it is true, or they are not convinced. There will be disagreement and the scientific community is often wrong. Thus, the current scientific model is the "strong opinion" of the majority of the scientific community based on the available evidence. Scientific "facts" are only facts until better facts come along.


wikipedia:
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (Notice it says "with or without", not "without")


Conclusion. Science doesn't replace belief. It is simply a framework for quality control.

belief is used for taking as true regardless of evidence

"Belief is used" for taking as true regardless of evidence. Yes.

"Belief is" taking as true regardless of evidence. No.

We must note here that unlike the scientific method which generally promotes that we pay attention to evidence, belief permits that people can ignore evidence most of the time. — uncool

Cars generally speaking are not purple. My car is purple. Therefore my car is not a car.

[

And that is another reason why the abolition of belief is a good idea. — charleton

No, that is another reason why you think the abolition of belief not supported by evidence is a good idea.

This means that when you mention of theist scientists that express their feelings about the supposed non-contradiction of science and religion, this mention is irrelevant, because science doesn't care about beliefs. — uncool

As I said, science doesn't care about beliefs related to final causes, the kinds of causes with which religion deals, and that's why scientists can keep their religious beliefs separate from their scientific beliefs. But science pretty obviously deals with beliefs - particularly if one thinks of knowledge as JTB, or of epistemology in Bayesian terms.

Again, we're going around in circles now, I don't think either of us is going to budge.

"...gods are not always particularly good or moral, nor do they always take an interest in human affairs." — Pseudonym

Not sure why you think those quotes are particularly relevant to what we're talking about. My contention is simply that people aren't stupid and have usually come up with the idea of some kind of Absolute/Creator entity (even if they've had all sorts of gods, spirits, etc., some of which may indeed be mad, bad and dangerous to know). It's not rocket science, it's a rational response to the fact of there being anything at all (though of course that doesn't mean it's correct).

I think you're clutching at straws trying to make a set of extremely disparate religious beliefs fit a model which conveniently explains the widespread adoption of monotheism in rational terms. — Pseudonym

The point is that "Monotheism" is itself a rather dubious category and Henotheism (which always has the sense of an ultimate God above gods, which any god can "stand in" for) is the norm, throughout most cultures in the world, throughout history.

"Monotheism" is just a particularly pushy and exclusive form of tribal Henotheism, so it's not actually any sort of intellectual advance. In fact it's more of a tribalistic regression that's caused no end of trouble historically. It makes for a tighter "social glue" at the cost of causing tremendous problems for other cultures with other religions.

Not sure why you think those quotes are particularly relevant to what we're talking about. My contention is simply that people aren't stupid and have usually come up with the idea of some kind of Absolute/Creator entity (even if they've had all sorts of gods, spirits, etc., some of which may indeed be mad, bad and dangerous to know). It's not rocket science, it's a rational response to the fact of there being anything at all (though of course that doesn't mean it's correct). — gurugeorge

The quotes are intended to show that the properties of 'god' and 'gods' have changed over time, not with intellectual progress, but with culture. Meaning that people do not 'rationally' arrive at 'god', they just copy what everyone else is doing and saying.

There's two significant premises which it seems we may not share, but I think are essential to any debate about belief ;

1. Belief is a proposition of some sort, it is either something one states to be the case, or something one acts as if it were the case.

2. A belief (partly just as a logical consequence of 1.) has to be in something specific enough to make statements about, or act in response to.

So, accepting these two premises, belief in 'god' is not something unchanging (or gradually being refined) as we would expect with something rationally arrived at, because in order to satisfy that theory, 'god' (the thing bring believed in) would have to be so vaguely defined that we could not properly say anyone 'believed' in him, by the definition of belief above.

Meeting the required level of specificity for someone to justifiably say they 'believed' in God, we would have to conclude that the God they believed in was derived not rationally, but by cultural conformity.

To give an example, we have evidence that scientists are discovering new species quite often. It is therefore a reasonable, rational belief that species currently unknown to science probably exist. That does not make it rational to believe in unicorns, or dragons, or jabberwockies. To believe in the actual animal that science has yet to discover is a different proposition to believing that there exists some kind of animal that science has yet to discover.

No religions that I've ever heard of propose merely that 'something' must have created the universe, and then leave it at that. In fact, most scientists think that 'something' created the universe.

Religions specify what that thing is, what it's properties are. Having a religious belief is holding a proposition not just that something created the universe, but that one has knowledge of the properties of that thing.

As I've shown, the properties of that thing have changed radically over time and culture, so religious belief (the belief in the properties of the thing) is culturally defined, and so, for most people, not rationally arrived at.

merriam-webster:
- conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. belief in the validity of scientific statements

- a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. her belief in God. a belief in democracy. I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique. contrary to popular belief (Notice it says "trust or confidence", but doesn't say "without evidence or proof")


oxforddictionaries:
- Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something). ‘a belief in democratic politics’

- An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. ‘his belief in extraterrestrial life’ (Notice it says "especially", not "exclusively".)


dictionary.cambridge:
- the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: philosophical beliefs


collinsdictionary:
- If it is your belief that something is the case, it is your strong opinion that it is the case. Scientific models are human interpretations of empirical evidence. Peer review is a process by which other experts examine findings and are either convinced that it is true, or they are not convinced. There will be disagreement and the scientific community is often wrong. Thus, the current scientific model is the "strong opinion" of the majority of the scientific community based on the available evidence. Scientific "facts" are only facts until better facts come along.


wikipedia:
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. (Notice it says "with or without", not "without")

— x260ad8c12

• Notice the Merriam Webster definition refers to belief especially without proof, i.e. Deity aligned beliefs.
  (Words from Merriam's first definition of belief: "her belief in God" etc)
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
  
• Also, notice that the cambridge dictionary included deity aligned beliefs (i.e. beliefs that especially ignore evidence.. ")
  (Words from Cambridge first definition of belief: "a feeling....His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times." etc)
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
  
• Oxford shows this clearly especially one without proof.
  (Words from oxford: "...especially one without proof")

Notice also that the word belief is not a contronym, so just because one may consider evidence using belief, doesn't remove that one may for the remainder of the time, mostly ignore evidence, as the definitions (especially the primary definitions indicate)

If belief was a contronym, the concept of belief could promote that (i) people generally consider evidence and (ii) people generally ignore evidence. Both definitions would be valid, but this is not the case, belief instead promotes that one may consider evidence barely, then the rest of the time, generally ignore evidence, as belief is not a contronym.

Because contronmys are words where opposite definitions occur under the same word, since belief is not a contronym, rare belief in evidence does not oppose the reality that the large remainder of beliefs need not occur on evidence; i.e. this way you have compatibility of definitions under one instance of belief that both occur on evidence, and non-evidence.

Conclusion. Science doesn't replace belief. It is simply a framework for quality control. — x260ad8c12

As you can see in the definitions you cited, none of them exclude the possibility to mostly ignore evidence; all the definitions you cited included some flavor of belief that permits that evidence is especially ignored.

Science doesn't work this way, science doesn't say consider evidence barely, and otherwise ignore evidence, Science generally promotes that evidence is considered.

And remember, the word belief is not a contronym, so just because one may consider evidence using belief, doesn't remove that one may for the remainder of the time, mostly ignore evidence, as the definitions (especially the primary definitions) indicate.

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/06/12/contronyms/