I wonder whether he really believed, or whether it just suited him to claim that he won. — Janus

Even Trump believed his own lies.

Do you know that or do you merely believe it?

Do you know that or do you merely believe it? — Janus

I have been watching the hearings. Today his top team testified that Trump's claim was totally bogus.
But Trump already planned a coup if he lost. So the lie is in service of his power. Like a salesman, what really are you selling?

Like a salesman, what really are you selling? — Jackson

:up: Right, salesmen don't invariably believe in their products.

You picked that one part to respond to?
Of course you can pick without doubting or believing. I have never asserted that you can't. I might do that on a roulette wheel.

But a scientist is not going to choose that way. They are going to believe that this line of research is more likely than that one. They go to casinos and let the roulette wheel decide. If you ask them, most will say that they are not certain that line of research X is better than the one they did not choose, but they believe it will be.

Doubting would hardly be a motivation to act as if something was true. Believing but having doubts could still be enough motivation to act like it was true. Not doubting, not believing X is true, having, it would seem, no opinion at all, would make it sort of like the mood of tossing stones for the feel of throwing.

I can't see a positive reason to make belief mean certainty. And it doesn't reflect usage. People can be certain about their beliefs, but that is a subset.

If you wish to discuss Kenny, have a read and get back to me. — Banno

I don't. I gave you a heads up that you misunderstood it, the portion you quoted, that is.

If you wish to discuss Kenny, have a read and get back to me.
— Banno

I don't. I gave you a heads up that you misunderstood it, the portion you quoted, that is. — Tate

Here's an oddity. You don't wish to discus it, but you post on it, and in that post claim I have misunderstood it.

Presumably, since you do not wish to post on it, you will not explain that supposed misunderstanding...

So your post amounts to nothing.

It's worthwhile to understand faith since it's an aspect of human creativity and potential. I encourage you to look again.

I encourage you to look again. — Tate

No, you don't. That would requirer far more than you seem to be willing to provide.

Explain where I misunderstand Kenny. Mere accusation is a nothing.

"Faith, then, resembles knowledge in being irrevocable, but differs from it in being a commitment in the absence of adequate evidence" Faith is unwarranted belief. — Banno

You pointed to this to show that Kenny believes that faith overpowers negative evidence.

This quote obviously doesn't say that. It is therefore your interpretation that's wrong, not Kenny.

You pointed to this to show that Kenny believes that faith overpowers negative evidence. — Tate

"Overpowers"?

Consider this:

It is too much to say that faith requires no justification: many religious people offer arguments not just for belief in God but for their particular creed. What is true is that the kinds of arguments they offer cannot be claimed to have anything like the degree of warrant that would justify the irrevocable commitment of faith.
It is true that faith brooks no argument, not in the sense that the faithful are unwilling to offer responses to criticisms, but that no argument will make a true believer give up his faith, and this is something he is resolved on in advance of hearing any argument — Kenny

I agree with Kenny here, and maintain that "The epitome of faith is unshaken belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary" is a summary of his conclusion.

I also agree that nevertheless, rational religious belief is possible. This contra Dawkins.

It is important for human beings to strike the right balance in belief. One can err by believing too much or believing too little. The person who believes too much suffers from the vice of credulity; the person who believes too little is guilty of excessive incredulity or scepticism. If you believe too much your mind will be cluttered with many falsehoods; if you believe too little you will be deprived of much valuable information. Let us call the virtue which stands in the middle between scepticism and credulity the virtue of rationality. — Kenny

It is true that faith brooks no argument, not in the sense that the faithful are unwilling to offer responses to criticisms, but that no argument will make a true believer give up his faith, and this is something he is resolved on in advance of hearing any argument — Kenny

This paragraph is wrong. As conceptions of the earth and sky changed, conceptions of divinity changed. If Kenny were right, this couldn't have happened, and it clearly did.

So you have moved on from claiming i misunderstood Kenny to claiming that Kenny is wrong.

I'm not seeing anything of value in your posts.

So you have moved on from claiming i misunderstood Kenny to claiming that Kenny is wrong. — Banno

He is wrong. I explained why.

Sure. Just pointing out that you have changed your approach form saying I misunderstood Kenny to saying Kenny is wrong.

So to your argument:

As conceptions of the earth and sky changed, conceptions of divinity changed. If Kenny were right, this couldn't have happened, and it clearly did. — Tate

This in opposition to:

It is true that faith brooks no argument, not in the sense that the faithful are unwilling to offer responses to criticisms, but that no argument will make a true believer give up his faith, and this is something he is resolved on in advance of hearing any argument — Kenny

Let's try parsing this. The core of Kenny's point is that no argument will make a true believer give up his faith. Your counter is that as our understanding of the world changes, our concept of divinity changes.

So is your argument that the faith of someone post-Galileo is different in kind to the faith of someone pre- Galileo? That in effect someone learning and accepting, say, the heliocentric world, gives up on one set of beliefs about god and adopts another?

If so, I'd just point out that folk also rejected the heliocentric model because they supposed that it was in conflict with their faith. These are Kenny's true believers.Those who changed their beliefs simple had insufficient faith.

What this shows is that your point does not actually count against Kenny's definition of faith.

So is your argument that the faith of someone post-Galileo is different in kind to the faith of someone pre- Galileo? That in effect someone learning and accepting, say, the heliocentric world, gives up on one set of beliefs about god and adopts another? — Banno

Learning that the sky isn't a rigid dome changed ideas about God, yes. People who had faith that God resides in the sky changed their views based on the evidence.

so, I'd just point out that folk also rejected the heliocentric model because they supposed that it was in conflict with their faith. These are Kenny's true believers — Banno

If these are Kenny's true believers, they are only a subset of people with faith. Therefore he doesn't set out a definition of faith, but rather comments on behaviors associated with certain "true believers."

Those who changed their beliefs simple had insufficient faith. — Banno

No. They had faith. Faith does not mean you reject evidence. That's called being bull-headed.

Those who changed their mind as to god's residence had a belief that he was in the sky, but not faith in his being in the sky.

Those who changed their mind as to god's residence had a belief that he was in the sky, but not faith in his being in the sky. — Banno

Begging the question.

No, providing a definition.

Kenny is setting out useful distinctions between belief and faith. Your denying them does not make them disappear. Kenny justifies the distinction on various logical, historical and etymological grounds. If you wish to show that these grounds are misguided, you must address them.

But that would requirer your addressing the article.

Kenny is setting out useful distinctions between belief and faith. Your denying them does not make them disappear — Banno

You recognized yourself that he's commenting on the behavior of a few.

Your conclusion that this few, which we identified as "true believers" are the only ones equipped with faith leads to the absurd picture of people whose worldview hasn't changed in 2000 years.

I ask you to stop being bullheaded.

It's evident you still haven't understood. I am not the one being bullheaded.

Cheers.

Cheers — Banno

Hasta luego.

But a scientist is not going to choose that way. They are going to believe that this line of research is more likely than that one. — Bylaw

Do you know that, or merely believe it? Do you really believe it or is there some doubt?

Just because acting in a particular way worked out fine in the end for Frodo, doesn't mean doing something similar will work out fine for me as well. — baker

How would you know? That's the whole point of making decisions based on ideology. Until you reach the end of your life and look back on the whole thing you can't possibly say what 'worked out' and what didn't because actions have consequences which range over different timescales. Maybe you 'acting like Frodo' didn't yield the short-term result you wanted but brings about a better long-term result than otherwise. Maybe you're not just a selfish git and actually care about the even longer term (after you're dead and gone), maybe that's where the benefits lie... You couldn't possibly know. Hence any assessment of "well, that didn't work out for me" is inherently flawed as evidence for the failure of a particular approach. That's why we need virtues. Guides to behaviour other than "how well did that work out?" ranged over some arbitrary timescale.

All I'm saying about stories is that these guides are not believable simply made up alone, they lack the gravitas that being embedded in a story gives them (particularly a classic story).

In my experience, this doesn't work. — baker

What has failed about it?

To claim that my vote isn't a determination is unfair and downright unAmerican. — praxis

Good job I'm not an American then.

what do we believe when we experiece sensations but don't know what they are? — praxis

Depends what you mean by 'know'. We always make a prediction as to what they are, we're never 100% sure.

What do we believe when we can see two things, like the duck/rabit sketch? — praxis

We 'believe' hundreds of things at the same time, so it depends. I believe I'm looking at the famous duck/rabbit sketch. I believe there's a picture of a rabbit, I also believe there's a picture of a duck.

Sure, I have some doubt. It's a low amount of doubt. I have other beliefs with higher amounts of doubt. For example, I believe that individual scientists are very affected by paradigmatic biases. IOW they rule out things given current scientific models that may well be true or are good lines of research. My 'very affected' is a vague phrase, but I know that my version of 'very affected' is on the extreme end of judgments related to this. IOW other people believe it is less than I do. I am pretty confident, from my experiences with scientists, but it's not a scientific sample and my experiences were not methodical. So, I know that my biases can be affecting that. I am less confident about the level of my judgment than I am about what you asked me about, how confident I was about that. Despite the differing levels of certainty, I consider both beliefs of mine. Lower on the scale of belief...hm. I believe that the current prioritizing of trans issues is consciously being used by some people. IOW I believe some people with significant power are putting a high priority on this issue, in the media, in legislatures, and other places NOT because they support trans rights (as I do) but because they want to divide people and know this issue will divide people. I believe many people prioritize the issue because of genuine values. So, it is not that I think it is only people using the issue. But I do believe that this issue is so high up in appearances in media has to do with a conscious and not good goal. I do believe this. But I am also aware that there are trends in memes and issues and that while I think the prioritization is out of balance I cannot be sure it is caused consciously for negative reasons. Here my confidence in my belief is lower than it is on the other issues. I also have beliefs about people I know, their personalities, goals, abilities, thoughts about me, trustworthiness and so on. These beliefs cover a wide range of certainties. If I call these beliefs, then they have an effect on how I treat these people. (I am sure there are unconscious reactions to these people also that affect my behavior). I talk to my wife, for example, and thus verbalize my beliefs, sometimes openly qualifying my conclusions, sometimes not. These beliefs might, for example, lead to me restricting how open I am. I might err on the side of caution and not be open when my confidence in my mistrust say is fairly low. But still there is a wide range of levels of belief here that go so far as to affect what I say to my wife and also how I behave in the world. But then, these beliefs are not the kind I am going to assert and argue about in a philosophy forum. Sure, I can put out beliefs I have less confidence in this forum, but often I will present ideas and reactions here that I am more certain of. I'm less likely to assert things here that are lower down on the scale, but which I believe.

what do we believe when we experiece sensations but don't know what they are?
— praxis

Depends what you mean by 'know'. We always make a prediction as to what they are, we're never 100% sure. — Isaac

You’ve been saying that predictions are beliefs. If we always make beliefs (predictions), then what do we believe when we can’t recognize, understand, or make any sense of something?

Predictions are rationalized beliefs, when we can't recognize, understand or make any sense of something, that is the matter, but given we can, we can do science - one method of which is to predict, which again, is belief used rationally.

If we always make beliefs (predictions), then what do we believe when we can’t recognize, understand, or make any sense of something? — praxis

I depends on the thing. The feeling you might be inclined to describe as "not understanding something" is rarely as empty of sense as the expression suggests. Did you have a situation in mind where we might literally understand nothing at all of a sensory input, like absolutely draw a blank? I can't think of one.

Well, for instance, I could ask you what I’m holding in my hand. You might well guess that I’m holding a phone. If you did guess that, would you believe it?