Can We Live Without Beliefs?

[xristos181]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.
Can you not believe in religion,in ethics, not even to yourself?
So can we make decisions without calling it truth just by calling it an opinion or theory living in uncertainty.
Can a human function this way or is it too much to handle?
If people chose subconsciously by some instinct of self preservation to believe in their first rationalization just cause it makes them feel better with purpose then what about people who call themselves unbelievers(not just about god) are they above self preservation instincts?
Can you function with "rationality" and skepticism?
Are all our opinions biased and limited so probably all wrong(does that make them wrong)?.

[Stoppelmann]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.
Can you not believe in religion,in ethics, not even to yourself?
So can we make decisions without calling it truth just by calling it an opinion or theory living in uncertainty.
Can a human function this way or is it too much to handle?
If people chose subconsciously by some instinct of self preservation to believe in their first rationalization just cause it makes them feel better with purpose then what about people who call themselves unbelievers(not just about god) are they above self preservation instincts?
Can you function with "rationality" and skepticism?
Are all our opinions biased and limited so probably all wrong(does that make them wrong)?.

There is no doubt that we have more beliefs that we would generally acknowledge, and the rational has its undisputable place, but doesn’t rule alone. Mark Vernon mentions the fact that there is not only emotional intelligence, but also aspects of our perceptive abilities that have been neglected in recent times:

There is a type of understanding called spiritual intelligence which this book is about. It is a kind of intelligence to do with humble awareness rather than slick analysis and, when someone has it, you will think they are inspiring more than clever. It is a wonderful capacity, and a source of delight, comprehension and purpose. It is also basic to being human. But my fear is that it has become so overlooked and sidelined in the modern world that people are inclined to be sniffy about it and deny that it exists altogether.
Vernon, Mark, (2022-12-08T22:58:59.000). Spiritual Intelligence in Seven Steps. John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The inclination to “be sniffy” about spirituality is based on a general unacceptance of the psychological complexities of human beings, and an adherence to a materialist worldview, wherein everything is just a result of physicality, rather than seeing the inexplicable “in-betweenness” at work, and especially visible in beliefs. Our use of analogy and metaphor is often an aspect of beliefs, which arise through experiences that evade the rational analysis of science but are very real for people.

Cleverness, as it is commonly understood, tends to dispute beliefs, whereas inspirational people will embellish them to provide meaning and purpose.

[Pattern-chaser]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.
Can you not believe in religion,in ethics, not even to yourself?
So can we make decisions without calling it truth just by calling it an opinion or theory living in uncertainty.
Can a human function this way or is it too much to handle?
If people chose subconsciously by some instinct of self preservation to believe in their first rationalization just cause it makes them feel better with purpose then what about people who call themselves unbelievers(not just about god) are they above self preservation instincts?
Can you function with "rationality" and skepticism?
Are all our opinions biased and limited so probably all wrong(does that make them wrong)?.

This is an interesting, if controversial, subject. There are philosophers who don't wish to hear the sort of things you are saying. I find them refreshing! There is a subset of philosophers who tend toward Analytic Philosophy — science-based philosophy, we might say? — and they focus on certainty, proof, and concrete, repeatable, verifiable ideas. So they don't want to hear what you are saying.

But yours is the pragmatic and accepting view, IMO. In our real lives, there is much uncertainty, more than many would care to admit. Correspondingly, there is less knowledge, and much more belief, than some are happy to discuss.

I believe that we can live with our eyes open, embracing and accepting uncertainty wherever we find it, and the belief(s) — as opposed to knowledge and 'knowing' — that stem from it. Rationality and scepticism have their place too, of course. Uncertainty does not leave us free to believe just anything. Belief is not uncritical, or without doubt.

There is no doubt that we have more beliefs that we would generally acknowledge, and the rational has its undisputable place, but doesn’t rule alone. Mark Vernon mentions the fact that there is not only emotional intelligence, but also aspects of our perceptive abilities that have been neglected in recent times:

There is a type of understanding called spiritual intelligence which this book is about. It is a kind of intelligence to do with humble awareness rather than slick analysis and, when someone has it, you will think they are inspiring more than clever. It is a wonderful capacity, and a source of delight, comprehension and purpose. It is also basic to being human. But my fear is that it has become so overlooked and sidelined in the modern world that people are inclined to be sniffy about it and deny that it exists altogether.
Vernon, Mark, (2022-12-08T22:58:59.000). Spiritual Intelligence in Seven Steps. John Hunt Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The inclination to “be sniffy” about spirituality is based on a general unacceptance of the psychological complexities of human beings, and an adherence to a materialist worldview, wherein everything is just a result of physicality, rather than seeing the inexplicable “in-betweenness” at work, and especially visible in beliefs. Our use of analogy and metaphor is often an aspect of beliefs, which arise through experiences that evade the rational analysis of science but are very real for people.

Cleverness, as it is commonly understood, tends to dispute beliefs, whereas inspirational people will embellish them to provide meaning and purpose.

Nicely put. Nice quote, too.

[Agent Smyth]

First off muchas gracias for the thought-provoking question. From what I can fathom, no, it isn't possible to have no beliefs. That, however, many not be the only interesting question to ask.

[Alan Masterman]

IN what way is this thread NOT an intellectually sloppy rehash of Cartesian Doubt?

[Pattern-chaser]

IN what way is this thread NOT an intellectually sloppy rehash of Cartesian Doubt?

I suppose it is as you describe, but it's more general, and perhaps more applicable to RL? Cartesian doubt is the sort of thing philosophers argue about. But beliefs are something we all have, we all share, and we all recognise as ordinary parts of our everyday lives.

And, to add to that, there are those — philosophers, mainly — who try to deny that they have beliefs. The most far-fetched of them actually claim to have knowledge, so they don't need beliefs. What such people need, IMO, is a bit of philosophy, hopefully leading them toward an understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Only then might they be able to see the shortcomings in such intellectual aspirations.

Finally, I think it's fairly normal for the same topics to come up time and again on philosophy forums. Maybe it's time for this one to reappear?

[Consul]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.

Given the traditional definition of "knowledge" as "justified true belief", knowledge includes belief. Beliefs aren't unproven or unjustified by definition.

"What I know, I believe."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §177)

[psycho]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.
Can you not believe in religion,in ethics, not even to yourself?
So can we make decisions without calling it truth just by calling it an opinion or theory living in uncertainty.
Can a human function this way or is it too much to handle?
If people chose subconsciously by some instinct of self preservation to believe in their first rationalization just cause it makes them feel better with purpose then what about people who call themselves unbelievers(not just about god) are they above self preservation instincts?
Can you function with "rationality" and skepticism?
Are all our opinions biased and limited so probably all wrong(does that make them wrong)?.

My opinion is:

Many people notice a determining difference between belief and knowledge.

That's just a difference of degree. It is not true that any belief can be absolutely justified.

It is a practical matter. A question of resources. It is not necessary to verify every belief. This should only be done when necessary.

Each concept always has a probability less than 100% of corresponding to reality. There is no way of knowing which of our concepts have an absolute correspondence.

We should not accept that something is true but consider that it is probably true that which does not show an obvious contradiction. That's the best we can do.

[xristos181]

IN what way is this thread NOT an intellectually sloppy rehash of Cartesian Doubt?

I didn't know what Cartesian Doubt is(i should read more).My question is uncertainty.If there can be anything as absolute certainty/rationality?
If the concept of belief is just choosing subconsciously the rationalization you find more comfortable to justify the world then is nihilism just a belief?I'm not trying to justify belief. I want to know if you can escape irrationality.
When you give a task to a person and you say you trust him i think you subconsciously calculate his change of success and call it trust.You don't have the processing power to calculate the person or the universe(if that's even possible) so you act on probability,on percentages.
If your actions are based on probability then they can be wrong but you have to act,action is life,decision is life.So if decision is acting on probability then isn't decision a belief?Maybe with calculation and proof the universe doesn't need beliefs but in a lifetime of a person aren't all our actions based on belief?If decisions are just bad math(and life is a decision)they have no absolute purpose you can choose love,hate,virtue,suffering,pleasure,ambition or just end it all and you can't say any of them is right or wrong.

PS:I'm not trying to prove spirituality i find the subject ridiculous.I want to know if my rationality is also ridiculous if can aspire to something more than some (pseudo)randomness.Feel free to attack my ideas and be aggressive mercilessly if you've have something to say that's what i'm looking for anyway.

[xristos181]

My opinion is:

Many people notice a determining difference between belief and knowledge.

That's just a difference of degree. It is not true that any belief can be absolutely justified.

It is a practical matter. A question of resources. It is not necessary to verify every belief. This should only be done when necessary.

Each concept always has a probability less than 100% of corresponding to reality. There is no way of knowing which of our concepts have an absolute correspondence.

We should not accept that something is true but consider that it is probably true that which does not show an obvious contradiction. That's the best we can do.

Yea i came to something of a similar conclusion myself and i was looking for something that opposes this thought.

[xristos181]

And, to add to that, there are those — philosophers, mainly — who try to deny that they have beliefs. The most far-fetched of them actually claim to have knowledge, so they don't need beliefs. What such people need, IMO, is a bit of philosophy, hopefully leading them toward an understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Only then might they be able to see the shortcomings in such intellectual aspirations.

Finally, I think it's fairly normal for the same topics to come up time and again on philosophy forums. Maybe it's time for this one to reappear?

My problem is exactly the need of beliefs.Because you need something doesn't make it true or right but understanding that does not prove that you have eliminated beliefs from your thought prosses.Maybe aspiring to destroy believes is impossible.And i think it's normal for the same topics to be presented again since philosophy works by presenting the same question with different theories and facts trying to come to a definitive conclusion no matter how many years have passed since the birth of the question.But i don’t want to act pretentious cartesian doubt as a term is a gap in my knowledge so i surrender to the intellectually sloppy part.

[Samana Johann]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.
Can you not believe in religion,in ethics, not even to yourself?
So can we make decisions without calling it truth just by calling it an opinion or theory living in uncertainty.
Can a human function this way or is it too much to handle?
If people chose subconsciously by some instinct of self preservation to believe in their first rationalization just cause it makes them feel better with purpose then what about people who call themselves unbelievers(not just about god) are they above self preservation instincts?
Can you function with "rationality" and skepticism?
Are all our opinions biased and limited so probably all wrong(does that make them wrong)?.

Good householder's life is all but based on belief, not a single deed without belief at first place. And science is the most speculative believe, common not holding longer as a day, having nothing but harm and destruction as it's effect. Yet the blind still believe either...

[Samana Johann]

A belief is the acceptance that something is true without having proof cause if we have proof we just know it.

Given the traditional definition of "knowledge" as "justified true belief", knowledge includes belief. Beliefs aren't unproven or unjustified by definition.

"What I know, I believe."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §177)

As if knowing would be lasting, a refuge, something worthy to relay at. Everybody believes just as far he can see. Grasped, it's gone again.

[AgentSmith]

Atheism is a belief, so is theism. That there's a rock shaped exactly like Mahatma Gandhi somewhere in Botswana is also a belief. That I might win the jackpot if I buy a lottery is also one. That water is H2O is another ... belief. What links these beliefs to each other in a way that answers the OP's question? Furthermore, beliefs in and of themselves are only part of what it is to be human. What else is there?

[psycho]

As if knowing would be lasting, a refuge, something worthy to relay at. Everybody believes just as far he can see. Grasped, it's gone again.

The fact that most people assume that it is possible to construct concepts that fully correspond to some aspect of reality, objectively, does not mean that such a thing is achievable. That's just a convenient illusion that confuses those who need security. All knowledge is only an approximation, in my opinion. It is impractical to seek refuge in absolute knowledge.