What do you believe?

[Belinda]

A theologian, by contrast, may validly believe in God even if he accepts the essential indescribability of the Divine Being.

Invictus.

Doesn't this depend on what you mean by 'believe in'?

Beliefs depend upon abilities to describe what is believed. 'Believe in' in the religious context really means 'trust in' or 'have faith in'. The only theologians who believe without being able to describe are terribly bad philosophers, and I hope they soon will be unemployable.

[Invictus_88]

Hang on, let's not let this discussion spread beyond what it's supposed to apply to.

I was having a stab at Coahtemoc for his bastardisation of faiths, trying to tell us he believes in totally disconnected and contradoctory things based on what was clearly nothing more academically rigorous than a box of Cheerios.

It is stupid beyond words, and -that- is what I was objecting to. He claim to have faith in these contradictions whilst not knowing anything about them.

[Coahtemoc]

In my own terms, I believe in various philosophies similar to those present in:

Common Native American beliefs

Taosim

Buddhism

Confuscianism

Is that better, Invictus? I believe in things similar to those religions, but not the specific religions themselves. -__-

[Belinda]

Coahtemoc I myself like pick-and mix.The alternative is simply horrid.

I have found though that philosophy is hard work.

[pekin]

If you are religious, which one do you practice?

The problem with the opening question of this debate is that it seemingly inviting opinions rather than reasoning.

In philosophy opinions have no value unless they are backed up by reasoning. Therefore I suggest people should kindly show the reason why they believe in [or have faith with or practice] a particular religion. Unless we get this necessary information the real [philosophical] debate can not possibly be proceed.

In the ensuing comments I came across this:

I 'believe' in nothing. I either know, or I do not know.

Akhenaten seems to imply that: the word "belief" is an ambiguous and possibly a redundant one. By expressing this point he is inviting people who prefer to use the word “belief” [faith etc] come up with good reasoning to declare that their belief is a true belief which could than be called “knowledge” or discovered that their belief is a false belief and need to be abandoned.

Thanks
pekin

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I also invite people to come up with good reasoning and evidence to back up what they believe and perhaps enough reasoning and evidence to declare that belief to be knowledge, or let it be discovered that a lack of evidence or reason means the proposition is unbelievable or false.

Insofar as that is what Akhenaten or Pekin meant, then I agree.

Nonetheless, there is a difference between knowledge and belief. A reasonable person can have both beliefs and knowledge, and I cannot imagine how a person could have only knowledge and no beliefs. Namely, when there is some evidence and reasoning to support a proposition but not enough to prove the proposition, then one may believe it but not know it. For example, I was served a sandwich earlier today. Before I tasted it, I strongly believed with ample reasons that it would taste good, but I did not believe strongly enough nor have quite enough evidence to say that I know it would.

I think when we condemn all beliefs as unreasonable we are mistakingly conflating beliefs based on evidence with beliefs based on faith without evidence or good reasoning.

Though a faithful or religious person may actually believe propositions despite an utter lack of evidence or reasoning, I think it is essentially incorrect to say one believes a proposition without pointing out that the belief is faith-based and without evidence. Like a lie by omission, I see it as an incorrect statement by omission. In other words, when someone uses the term belief without clarifying whether or not the belief is based on evidence, I assume it is an evidence-based belief rather than not.

Regardless, there is a difference between knowledge, evidence-based beliefs, and faith-based beliefs that lack evidence. I worry that Akhenaten and Pekin are failing to acknowledge the second in an attempt to discredit the third.

Thanks,
Scott

[df544]

My religion is my response to stimuli. No one religion can take attribution.

For example.

I heard someone on the subway this morning cursing America. I stayed quiet and thought this man has much hatred in his heart. I wonder why? I didn't know the answer and didn't want to inquire thinking that it would not open a civil dialogue.

[What religion was that?]

A female coworker came into my office and pulled out a note with a "heart" traced on it as she referred to some words on it. I raised my arm, turned around and "accidently" brushed my knuckles on her breast as I motioned to point at something.

[What religion was that?]

I donated $1,000 to a charitable organization.

[What religion was that?]


Religions try to take claim on my responses, behaviour, words and actions?

It's just a coincidence.

I am my own religion.