When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I’m talking about God?
–Shepherd Book, Serenity
In order to express an idea one must be able to communicate it, define it.So when the word belief is misused and confused in a conversation it can make things very difficult. Unfortunately words have multiple meanings depending on context, usage, and other factors. So when the word belief is misused and confused in a conversation it can h. Regardless of whether it is an apologist playing rhetorical tricks or an atheist trying to make an empirical point.
So how should we define belief? Well, I think the best general definition is the epistemic. Wikipedia defines belief as “the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true“. Similar definitions can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as well as the American Heritage and Webster’s dictionaries. So that when I say, “I believe the earth is round” I am saying that “I hold the proposition ‘the earth is round’ to be true“. A bit ungainly when you replace the word with the definition but that’s the part of the role of words, to express concepts with at least some degree of efficiency.
This definition seems best when we’re discussing the philosophical issues of truth and rationality. However some might question whether this is the preferred definition for everyday conversation. I think it works well even there. If you substitute the definition for the word in most sentences where belief is used I think you would agree. For example if someone were to say, “I believe I’ve seen that movie” they would be communicating, “I hold the proposition ‘I’ve seen this movie’ to be true“. Seems intuitive enough, yes? There are always exceptions to this of course and I’m not positing this as the only conceivable definition.
Unfortunately the word belief is often equivocated or misused when discussing knowledge and truth. One of the most common equivocations is the religious apologetic that seeks to put the secular meaning of belief and the religious meaning on the same ground. So you might hear an apologist say, “You believe in evolution the same way I believe in Jesus Christ“. This could be true if all we are discussing is belief in the truth of a proposition but what almost invariably follows from this is an equivocation between simple belief and religious faith.
Almost as common is a grating misuse by some atheists. A popular rhetorical tool when debating creationists is to say “I don’t believe in evolution, it’s just a fact“. If we use the definition I supplied above then one asks how can you recognize evolution as a fact and not believe in it? Almost like Moore’s paradox. This is an instance of buying into the apologists game and using the word belief to mean faith. Of course you believe in evolution and believe in gravity. To accept them as true propositions is to believe them, by definition. The word belief does not speak to the validity or source of those beliefs, it is a general descriptor. A belief in the loch ness monster might be arrived at through unreliable testimony or fallacious argument. While the belief in evolution could be based on presented evidence and reasoned conclusions. Belief is not a synonym for faith, it does not mean acceptance without evidence. In the words of the philosopher Thomas Reid, “Belief admits of all degrees, from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance.”
I have met those who say that they don’t believe anything but simply either know something or not. The problem with this isn’t just that to accept something as true is to believe by definition, it also creates a great deal of confusion. To even be able to say whether we know something or not requires us to examine our beliefs. My knowledge of, say, the location of my car is a belief (acceptance of the truth of a proposition or I believe my car is in the driveway), however it is a belief that is both true and justified through strong evidence and reasoning. Beliefs are necessary components when discussing knowledge. Most atheists I have met who scorn the word belief are scorning poorly derived beliefs. Simply trying to encourage better beliefs that are based on strong evidence and critical thinking. They understand that how we examine the world is important and that our opinions on truth have effects on our actions. Yet by trying to shun the concept of belief or make it into a synonym for faith they are robbing themselves of the tools for better examination. They are handicapping themselves in discussing knowledge and proper reason. By discussing belief we are discussing the justification and reasons for that belief. We are discussing the truth value of that belief. And we are also examining the effects that the belief will have on action. To discuss all the factors that form our opinions on truth is to discuss belief. It is not an empty concept or one that can be easily replaced.
Belief is not a synonym for faith, though faith is a type of belief. Just as all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. There is simply no need to treat the word belief as we would faith. Faith has it’s own distinct meaning and the word conveys it well. Belief has it’s own distinct meanings and to try and redefine it is counterproductive. And to forget this is to not only confuse the discussion of belief but to confuse the discussion of truth and knowledge.
{ 11 } Comments
This would be good for both atheists and religious people to read and understand. You clearly explain the different mistaken uses by both sides. This is another one of those "just a theory" type of verbal abuses that distracts from any real discussion.
What's especially distracting, and this is only one case of such a scenario, is when two opponents start a discussion with two entirely different meanings of the same word. So that no matter how meticulous they are there is going to be some equivocation or at least enough confusion to make sorting out what is and is not equivocation a chore.
Excellent posting! You are dead on with the distinctions of belief versus faith. The distinction is the warrant of the belief, or whether it is well supported with evidence. The problem with "belief" when it comes to religion, i.e. faith, is the warrant. Religious belief is based on raw and unsubstantiated acceptance of a proposition. Empirical evidence is often seen as the enemy of faith, but the cornerstone of humanism. I "believe" in evolution because it is a proposition that is best supported by evidence among its rivals. Faith, however, is described in the Bible as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Evidence you can't see, don't have and can't explain is faith, whether you "believe" it or not.
I love that quote from Book. Always wanted to know more about his background.
I don't usually like to quote fictional characters for my blog posts but it's just a perfect line.
I love it – Joss Whedon (an atheist) writing lines for a religious character, pointing out the notion that belief isn't purely in th realm of religion.
I was thinking of doing a post on the word "belief," so it's kind of coincidental that I see you have recently touched on that very subject. Yet, I would have said something similar to what with the Jim Walker piece you linked to argued.
If reducing confusion and ambiguity helps better communicate ideas, we should be as clear and precise as possible. As I can't think of a situation where saying "I think X" is inferior to "I believe X" and it's agreed that "I believe X" results in unnecessary sidetracking, I think we should simply use "think" in the place of "believe."
I was thinking of doing a post on the word "belief," so it's kind of coincidental that I see you have recently touched on that very subject. Yet, I would have said something similar to what the Jim Walker piece you linked to argued.
If reducing confusion and ambiguity helps better communicate ideas, we should be as clear and precise as possible. As I can't think of a situation where saying "I think X" is inferior to "I believe X" and it's agreed that "I believe X" results in unnecessary sidetracking, I think we should simply use "think" in the place of "believe."
“There is simply no need to re-engineer the word.”
I’m not advocating re-engineering/redefining, just replacing it. And I’m not saying we need to do it as much as we ought to do it.
“Third, think is incredibly ambiguous. It can mean to deliberate, it can mean guess, conceive, etc.”
‘Deliberate’ and ‘conceive’ may be alternate meanings but I don’t see the great confusion that creates. The situation is less clear with ‘guess.’ However, I would argue that stating “I think evolution is true” connotes guessing less than “I believe in evolution” connotes religious-like faith and supernatural concepts. And even if you don't buy that the connotation is stronger, the confusion with faith is worse than the confusion with guessing because faith establishes a foundation for new strains of faulty logic. "Belief" is so strongly associated with religious faith, that even highly intelligent people (much less rabid dissenters and lazy ‘undecideds’) frequently conflate the two, and then begin to draw faulty conclusions based on the conflation.
In a Safire-esque sense, your defense of belief, on its own, stands. But if the goal is to convey that you think that a particular proposition is true in a public forum, “think” is rhetorically advantageous to “believe."
(As you may have guessed, I have had the opposite experience as the one you noted in the addendum.)
There are several problems I have with that conclusion.
First of all these words have preset meanings. The Walker piece changes the definition of belief. When someone uses a custom definition of the word in a conversation with a person (or persons) that uses a more common usage there is utter chaos.
Think is very ambiguous. It can mean to evaluate, it can mean suppose, expect, recall, intend, etc. One of the definitions of think is believe. It muddles the conversation to take a relatively distinct word-concept and fold it into another word. English is already a very ambiguous on it's own and I would say that clarity requires more distinct words, not less.
Belief is an established word-concept, there is no need to eliminate it. It stands pretty much on it's own, it had far more clarity than "think", and is well understood in both philosophical and everyday situations. There is simply no need to re-engineer the word.
I don't necessarily have a problem with people using think as a synonym for believe, it is defined as such, but I don't see how trying to redefine belief as faith or trying to replace the word belief makes communication any easier.
Addendum:
Also I would say that the word belief does not cause a great deal of sidetracking. I addressed it because I find the sidetracking that does occur annoying. And from my own subjective anecdotal experience the vast majority of times that I've encountered someone with a different definition of belief it has been an atheist.
There was a point I was going to make with that addendum but I've completely forgotten it. So forgive the dead end.
I wasn't tryng to accuse you of redefining the word, sorry for the imprecision. That comment was direct at the "nobeliefs" link that you brought up. However if one were advocating using the word belief to refer only to faith and/or religious belief then I would say they are attempting to redefine it.
Deliberate, conceive, etc implies an ongoing process of evaluation and not a stance on truth value. Again though we are getting into the wackiness of an imprecise language.
Some people, on both sides of the isle, use the word belief incorrectly. They take it to mean faith or religious belief only. I don't think that is a good enough argument for altering one's use of the word. If a large portion of the population and technical circles were to use the word belief to mean faith exclusively then I would think that would be a possible justification for abandoning it in favor of ease of communication. However right now this definition of belief does not seem to be fringe or niche. Not only that but, again, it stands as distinct from think and faith and thus allows for more precision.
I can see how think in some circles would be better to use than believe. However even in those situations I would still call foul on anyone using belief to mean simply faith. While definitions are simply descriptions of usage and usage changes with time I feel that this usage is more specific than simply think and that the usage of belief as synonym for faith as disruptive. That gives me reason to argue against modifications of the definition.
Of course english is an imprecise language. So I respect your disagreement and willingness to recognize that this as a legitimate use of "belief". I don't think there is one true objective answer here short of inventing a new word that has a specific distinct meaning without any of the ambiguity or baggage. Of course shortly after we do people will begin using it in the wrong way or expanding the usage and we'll be back where we started.
{ 1 } Trackback
RT @stateofprotest: Good post from @friar_zero regarding defining and redefining “belief” http://appleofdoubt.com/?p=134