Consul wrote: ↑
January 6th, 2018, 10:05 am
In the general sense in which "belief" is used in the philosophy of mind and psychology, there is no connotation regarding whether or not a belief is epistemically justified, whether or not the believer has evidence or good reasons for his belief.
So belief doesn't exclude knowledge! Actually, given its traditional definition, knowledge is a kind of belief: justified true belief. And knowledge doesn't exclude belief either! "What I know, I believe."
(L. Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §177) It follows that "belief" is not synonymous with "(blind) faith".
I believe Kant gave a good account of the difference between beliefs and knowledge within a continuum from opinion to belief to knowledge, i.e.
- 1. Opinion = insufficient subjectivity and insufficient objectivity
2. Belief = sufficient subjectivity and insufficient objectivity
3. Knowledge = sufficient subjectivity and sufficient objectivity
Subjectivity = personal conviction of one's confidence in truth of a proposition.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus within a Framework and System, e.g. Science.
Theistic beliefs and dogma are at best 'beliefs' and can never be knowledge because they lack sufficient objectivity like Science.
Even when a theist claim personal experiences of God as real, that is merely a personal conviction, based on personal subjective experiences. Theists may share the same experiences with consensus, thus some degrees of objectivity, but it lacks sufficient objectivity of equivalence to Science, re sound empirical evidence, testability, reproducibility, falsifiability, etc.
I believe theistic beliefs, i.e. God and others ought to be neutralized in the future when effective replacements are available.
But beliefs per se cannot be abolished.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.