Interesting to note that faith is belief decoupled from justification. We must ensure maximum degrees of freedom - no package deals, all items sold separately - for life to just to not die (basic survival, keep breathing only) but it comes at a heavy price, a price (suffering and paradoxically death too) life seems more than willing to pay. Some of us are gonna get mowed down in the crossfire. Anyone retreating from the frontline will be shot on the spot! :snicker:

There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. — The Architect

I believe no mans's word, ever. — Ken Edwards

society functions on belief between people.
it would be extremely difficult for society to function with zero belief if not impossible.

first of all nobody would believe into government therefore it must be removed which leads to anarchy.

this is extreme ofc. but if there is zero belief that's extreme.

Note the ought not? This is supposedly a moral position, as can be seen in the OP. Hence such discussions are fraught with over-reaction. — Banno

Unavoidable, I think. As I've said before (only a little tongue in cheek) most epistemological theories are just various attempts to find a 'bigger stick' with with to beat those whose opposition to one's own beliefs is an impediment. The attempt to remove one's stick is understandably resisted.

Despite my sympathy with the human-scale realism of a colloquial definition of 'truth' I can see how even that has it's appeal to the stick-wielders; an accessible truth means that you might well be the one who's got it. There's an undeniable psychological appeal to that. Both Peirce's truth and falsification makes truth unavailable to anyone; the same property which makes it, ironically, pragmatically useless as a term is also the one which makes it psychologically unappealing (it's pretty useless as a 'stick').

I know that is the way things seem to me; there is no belief involved. — Janus

In that case you'll agree with me that it is better not to speak of believing things about which there can be no serious doubt, but of knowing them, and you'll also agree with me that when it comes to things we don't know, there is a distinction between adopting and holding one of the alternatives and declaring it to be the truth, and remaining undecided or provisionally adopting what seems most plausible, and seeing how it pans out. — Janus

As I pointed out in my previous post, there are instances in our actual lives where we have discovered that what we thought we knew was wrong. So it seems to me that there is no knowledge involved, only beliefs.

Faith is unwarranted belief. — Banno

It is not unwarranted for the one who believes. Maybe for an outsider seems like that indeed, but not for the one who has actual faith on something. Though the link you provided didn't open to me by the way.

It's [explicit expression of belief] not required. Not sure why that is relevant. — Banno

It's relevant because shared belief is the heart of the OP and the reason we're discussing this.

It is the case that Bob believed the keys were in his pocket, yet his belief was false. — Banno

Is it a matter of belief or was he simply misremembering their location? If he reached for his pocket in effort to use his keys, does that count as an explicit expression of belief? When a plant bends towards the sun is that an explicit expression of belief that the sun is in a particular location?

I think that my car keys are currently in the car but I'm not sure. I accept and entertain that's where they are provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed.

I have thousands of beliefs. Most of them are intuitional but unfortunately
I can not express any of them to you because this correspondence is purely verbal.

I am interested in your knowing or perhaps feeling that I can't change certain beliefs. Perhaps I can. Try me out. Could you please phrase one or two of them for me to tackle?

Thank you in advance.

The link is to Knowledge, Belief, and Faith by Anthony Kenny; The Royal Institute of Philosophy Annual Lecture 2007, given at the London School of Economics, January 24th, 2007.

Also at JStore

And there is a longer thread on it here.

The epitome of faith is unshaken belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is supposed by some to be a virtue. It isn't.

It's [explicit expression of belief] not required. Not sure why that is relevant.
— Banno

It's relevant because shared belief is the heart of the OP and the reason we're discussing this. — praxis

Why would that follow? Do you suppose that only beliefs that have been made explicit can be shared? But that's not right. Sure, any belief can be made explicit - if not, then it's not a belief, but instead an intuition or an inclination or a "feeling".

It is the case that Bob believed the keys were in his pocket, yet his belief was false.
— Banno

Is it a matter of belief or was he simply misremembering their location? — praxis

You are supposing he misremembered his car as his pocket?

I think that my car keys are currently in the car but I'm not sure. I accept and entertain that's where they are provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed. — praxis

You are doing no more here than substitution "think" for "belief" in order to defer the rejection of a better grammar. The fact remains that we use belief in our characterisations of our behaviour. That you can construct locutions that talk about our beliefs without making use of the word "belief" has no bearing here.

Whatever criticism you are trying to make remains unclear.

Here's the take-home from all this, in relation to @Ken Edwards' OP.

We fail when we believe too much, for then we believe things that are not true. We fail when we believe too little, for then we may miss what may be important.

There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism.

As I pointed out in my previous post, there are instances in our actual lives where we have discovered that what we thought we knew was wrong. So it seems to me that there is no knowledge involved, only beliefs. — Harry Hindu

The kinds of things I have listed as knowledge cannot be seriously doubted, let alone discovered to have been wrong.

We fail when we believe too much, for then we believe things that are not true. We fail when we believe too little, for then we may miss what may be important.

There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism. — Banno

We fail when we believe too much, for then we believe things that are not true. We fail when we believe too little, for then we may miss what may be important.

There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism. — Banno

For me the proper attitude is to be mindful of as much as possible so as not to miss anything important, and to provisionally accept, not to believe, anything which is could be subject to reasonable doubt, but which is commonly held to be the case. The latter includes much of science obviously. So, for example I provisionally accept tectonic plate theory, which means that I acknowledge that it might turn out to be false, but I certainly don't believe it is true.

I have thousands of beliefs. Most of them are intuitional but unfortunately
I can not express any of them to you because this correspondence is purely verbal.

I am interested in your knowing or perhaps feeling that I can't change certain beliefs. Perhaps I can. Try me out. Could you please phrase one or two of them for me to tackle?

Thank you in advance. — Ken Edwards

I'm not sure what you are asking, Ken. I don't know what you count as your "intuitional beleifs" so I can't test you on any of them. I don't think I have said that beliefs cannot be changed; I think they can. One might be a believer in Christianity, for example, and then later become an atheist.

What I have said cannot be changed is what we know, for examples that humans usually have two legs and two arms, are roughly bilaterally symmetrical, that Paris is presently the capital of France, that there are oceans on Earth, and mountains, and deserts, and many kinds of animals and plants.I am saying it is better not to speak of 'believing' in such cases, but of knowing, and reserve 'believing' for religions and ideologies, for things which can reasonably be doubted and about which, in consequence, there may be much disagreement in the community.

There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism. — Banno

Indeed, and I think Janus described it most succinctly.

Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed. — Janus

That's just wordplay - the belief you have when you don't have a belief. All it says is that anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons.

Meh.

And it is not the same as "There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism".

So, for example I provisionally accept tectonic plate theory, which means that I acknowledge that it might turn out to be false, but I certainly don't believe it is true. — Janus

A belief is something you take to be true. So you provisional believe tectonic plate theory. Again, so what. All you are doing is not using the word "belief" when setting out your beliefs.


As if a provisional belief were not a belief.

That's just wordplay - All it says is that anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons. — Banno

That means that we are forced to hold all reasonable unknowns to be true. That we are forced to feel confident in them. That doesn't make sense.

If you told me that you're wearing a green shirt I would certainly accept and entertain your claim. There would be nothing unreasonable about it. I would not hold it to be true, however. If someone asked I'd probably say something like, "Banno said he's wearing a green shirt."

Meh.

And it is not the same as "There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism". — Banno

Were is this ballance then?

overwhelming evidence to the contrary — Banno

The thing is that they don't consider them as "evidence". They don't recognize them as such, despite for an outsider seem like evidence indeed.
They will always find a way to overcome these evidence as not to shake their own faith. Even a silly way would be enough for them.

These evidence probably were already there from the very beginning, even when they started to form their beliefs that they should have faith on "whatever". So doesn't really matter to them.

This is supposed by some to be a virtue. It isn't. — Banno

Usually these "some" are those who actually ask for people's faith.

The thing is that they don't consider them as "evidence". — dimosthenis9

And are they right? What do you think?

I think you should read the article before critiquing it.

That's just wordplay - All it says is that anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons.
— Banno

That means that we are forced to hold all reasonable unknowns to be true. That we are forced to feel confident in them. That doesn't make sense. — praxis

How does this "force" you to do any such thing?

If you told me that you're wearing a green shirt I would certainly accept and entertain your claim. There would be nothing unreasonable about it. I would not hold it to be true, however. — praxis

Risible. You " accept and entertain" that my claim is true.

Hence you believe the claim, even if only provisionally.

Were is this ballance then? — praxis

Now that is a better question. I hope you do not expect a simple answer.

Hey, folks, it is possible for one to believe something and yet not be certain of it.

That's just wordplay - All it says is that anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons.
— Banno

That means that we are forced to hold all reasonable unknowns to be true. That we are forced to feel confident in them. That doesn't make sense.
— praxis

How does this "force" you to do any such thing? — Banno

Say that I forgot where my keys are. There are many many reasonable places where they could be. According to you, I must have confidence (beleive) that they are in every reasonable place that comes to mind. How does that make sense?

Say that I forgot where my keys are. There are many many reasonable places where they could be. According to you, I must have confidence that they are in every reasonable place that comes to mind. How does that make sense? — praxis

I can't see how this related to anything I have said.

Why would I be committed to such an oddity?

Ah - see

Hey, folks, it is possible for one to believe something and yet not be certain of it. — Banno

There is a difference between being certain and simply believing.

And are they right? What do you think? — Banno

Well I guess it depends from the evidence and from the kind faith that someone has. So each case is different. If for example someone's faith goes against scientific evidence then no he isn't right. It's pure bullshit for me. But what can you do? His desperation to have faith on something overcomes reason and logic. That happens to most people.

it is possible for one to believe something and yet not be certain of it. — Banno

Possible, but is it possible to have also faith on it without being certain? Don't know. Certainty seems to me as a requirement for actual faith.

anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons. — Banno

You're saying that all reasonable unknowns can be believed (accepted as true; feel sure of the truth of) provisionally. If I've forgotten where my keys are, how can I believe that they are in every reasonable place that comes to mind?

You're failing to see the distinction between believing something and merely accepting it for practical purposes because it seems to be the best explanation available. Your loss, shown by your confusion here:

Hey, folks, it is possible for one to believe something and yet not be certain of it. — Banno


There is a difference between being certain and simply believing. — Banno

It is not possible to believe something without feeling certain about it. If you don't feel certain about it, then you doubt it and you're not really believing it, but vacillating.

But what can you do? — dimosthenis9

Do you have to do something?

Well actually not really.

I've set out a grammar that overcomes the issues here. You are simply offering an alternative grammar, one that fails to make the common distinction between belief and certainty.

There is a reason we make the distinction between believing something and being certain of it. It is often useful for us to make that distinction.

Conflating certainty and belief bring about the confusions displayed here.

Here is the distinction as it is commonly made:

• To believe something is to hold that it is true.
• To be certain of something is to hold that it could not be false.

One may believe and yet still think one might be wrong.

To be sure, the defence of my position here is simply that this is a distinction worth making, because it clears up many a philosophical mess.

Have a look at the Kenny article. The first page explains all this quiet succinctly.

To believe something is to hold that it is true.
To be certain of something is to hold that it could not be false — Banno

Holding something to be true just is holding that it could not be false. You are contradicting yourself.

One may believe and yet still think one might be wrong. — Banno

No, one may advocate a view which one acknowledges may be wrong because it seems the most likely to be right; that does not constitute believing it is right, but thinking that it seems more likely to be right.

Your "grammar" is too ambiguous for my taste

We ought go back and relate this to 's OP.

Ken admonishes those who believe, claiming that belief is a confusing notion and that we ought avoid it.

I think he is right in much of what he says, and that it is in agreement with the Kenny article; but that what he says is poorly expressed.

If one replaces "belief" in the OP with "certainty", we get something much clearer. So "Believing Being certain of something can be extremely dangerous and can frequently be described as evil behaviour." - that is much the line taken by Kenny.