Belief

In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts. However, "belief" does not require active introspection

and circumspection. For example, we never ponder whether or not

the sun will rise. We simply assume the sun will rise. Since "belief"

is an important aspect of mundane life, according to Eric Schwitzgebel

in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a related question asks: "how a

physical

organism can have beliefs?"^[3]

Knowledge and epistemology[edit]

Epistemology is concerned with delineating the boundary between

justified belief and opinion,^[4] and involved generally with a theoretical

philosophical study of knowledge. The primary problem in epistemology

is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge.

In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, where the

epistemology of Socrates (Platon) most clearly departs from that of

the sophists, who at the time of Plato seem to have defined knowledge

as what is here expressed as "justified true belief". The tendency to

translate from belief (here: doxa - common opinion) to knowledge

(here: episteme), which Plato (e.g. Socrates of the dialogue) utterly

dismisses, results from failing to distinguish a dispositive belief

(gr. 'doxa', not 'pistis') from knowledge (episteme) when the opinion is

regarded true (here: orthé), in terms of right, and juristically so

(according to the premises of the dialogue), which was the task of the

rhetors to prove. Plato dismisses this possibility of an affirmative relation

between belief (i.e. opinion) and knowledge even when the one who opines

grounds his belief on the rule, and is able to add justification (gr. logos:

reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance)

to it [3].^[5] It is important to keep in mind that the sort of belief in the

context of Theaetetus is not derived from the theological concept of belief,

which is pistis, but doxa, which in theological terms refers to acceptance

in the form of praise and glory.^{[citation needed]}

Strangely, or not, Plato has been credited for the "justified true belief"

theory of knowledge, even though Plato in the Theaetetus (dialogue)

elegantly dismisses it, and even posits this argument of Socrates as a

cause for his death penalty . Among American epistemologists, Gettier (1963)^[6] and Goldman (1967),^[7] have

questioned the "justified true belief" definition, and challenged the

"sophists" of their time.

As a psychological phenomenon[edit]

Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally

treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation

and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. Philosophers

have tended to be more abstract in their analysis, and much of the work

examining the viability of the belief concept stems from philosophical analysis.

The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object

of belief (the proposition). So, like other propositional attitudes,

belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of

which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind, whose foundations

and relation to brain states are still controversial.

Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (that are actively thought about)

and dispositional beliefs (that may be ascribed to someone who has not

thought about the issue). For example, if asked "do you believe tigers wear

pink pajamas?" a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact

they may never have thought about this situation before.^[8]

This has important implications for understanding the neuropsychology

and neuroscience of belief. If the concept of belief is incoherent, then any

attempt to find the underlying neural processes that support it will fail.

Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker has outlined four main contemporary

approaches to belief in her controversial book Saving Belief:^[9]

Our common-sense understanding of belief is correct - Sometimes
called the "mental sentence theory," in this conception, beliefs exist
as coherent entities, and the way we talk about them in everyday life
is a valid basis for scientific endeavour. Jerry Fodor is one of the principal
defenders of this point of view.
Our common-sense understanding of belief may not be entirely correct,
but it is close enough to make some useful predictions - This view argues
that we will eventually reject the idea of belief as we know it now, but that
there may be a correlation between what we take to be a belief when
someone says "I believe that snow is white" and how a future theory of
psychology will explain this behaviour. Most notably, philosopher Stephen
Stich has argued for this particular understanding of belief.
Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong and will be
completely superseded by a radically different theory that will have no
use for the concept of belief as we know it - Known as eliminativism,
this view (most notably proposed by Paul and Patricia Churchland)
argues that the concept of belief is like obsolete theories of times
past such as the four humours theory of medicine, or the
phlogiston theory of combustion. In these cases science hasn't
provided us with a more detailed account of these theories, but
completely rejected them as valid scientific concepts to be replaced
by entirely different accounts. The Churchlands argue that our
common-sense concept of belief is similar in that as we discover
more about neuroscience and the brain, the inevitable conclusion
will be to reject the belief hypothesis in its entirety.
Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however,
treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is
often a successful strategy - The major proponents of this view,
Daniel Dennett and Lynne Rudder Baker, are both eliminativists in that
they hold that beliefs are not a scientifically valid concept, but they
don't go as far as rejecting the
concept of belief as a predictive device. Dennett gives the example
of playing a computer at chess. While few people would agree that
the computer held beliefs, treating the computer as if it did
(e.g. that the computer believes that taking the opposition's queen
will give it a considerable advantage) is likely to be a successful and
predictive strategy. In this understanding of belief, named by Dennett
the intentional stance, belief-based explanations of mind and behaviour
are at a different level of explanation and are not reducible to those
based on fundamental neuroscience, although both may be
explanatory at their own level.

Strategic approaches make a distinction between rules, norms and

beliefs as follows: (1) Rules. Explicit regulative processes such as

policies, laws, inspection routines, or incentives. Rules function as a

coercive regulator of behavior and are dependent upon the imposing

entity’s ability to enforce them. (2) Norms. Regulative mechanisms

accepted by the social collective. Norms are enforced by normative

mechanisms within the organization and are not strictly dependent

upon law or regulation. (3) Beliefs. The collective perception of

fundamental truths governing behavior. The adherence to accepted

and shared beliefs by members of a social system will likely persist

and be difficult to change over time. Strong beliefs about determinant

factors (i.e., security, survival, or honor) are likely to cause a social

entity or group to accept rules and norms.^[10]

Epistemological belief compared to religious belief

Historically belief-in belonged in the realm of religious thought, belief-that

instead belonged to epistemological considerations.^[11]

Belief-in[edit]

To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believing-that."

There are at least these types of belief-in:^[12]

Commendatory / Faith - we may make an expression of 'faith' in
respect of some performance by an agent X, when without prejudice
to the truth value of the factual outcome or even confidence in X
otherwise, we expect that specific performance. In particular
self-confidence or faith in one's self is this kind of belief.
Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity
or phenomenon in a general way with the implied need to justify
its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real,
or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "
many children believe in Santa Claus" or "I believe in a deity" are
typical examples.^[13] The linguistic form is distinct from the assertion
of the truth of a proposition since verification is either considered
impossible/irrelevant or a counterfactual situation is assumed.

Belief-that[edit]

Economical belief[edit]

Economic beliefs are beliefs which are reasonably and necessarily

contrary to the tenet of rational choice or instrumental rationality.^[14]

Studies of the Austrian tradition of the economic thought, in the context

of analysis of the influence and subsequent degree of change resulting

from existing economic knowledge and belief, has contributed the

most to the subsequent holistic collective analysis.^[15]

Delusion[edit]

Insofar as the truth of belief is expressed in sentential and propositional

form we are using the sense of belief-that rather than belief-in. Delusion

arises when the truth value of the form is clearly nil.^[16]^[17]^[18]

Delusions are defined as beliefs in psychiatric diagnostic criteria^[19]

(for example in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

Psychiatrist and historian G.E. Berrioshas challenged the view that delusions

are genuine beliefs and instead labels them as "empty speech acts,"

where affected persons are motivated to express false or bizarre belief

statements due to an underlying psychological disturbance. However,

the majority of mental health professionals and researchers treat delusions as if they were genuine beliefs.

In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass the White Queen says,

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before

breakfast." This is often quoted in mockery of the common ability of people

to entertain beliefs contrary to fact.

Formation[edit]

Psychologists study belief formation and the relationship

between beliefs and actions. Three models of belief formation and

change have been proposed:

The conditional inference process[edit]

When people are asked to estimate the likelihood that a

statement is true, they search their memory for information

that has implications for the validity of this statement. Once

this information has been identified, they estimate a) the likelihood

that the statement would be true if the information were true, and b)

the likelihood that the statement would be true if the information

were false. If their estimates for these two probabilities differ,

people average them, weighting each by the likelihood that the

information is true and false (respectively). Thus, information

bears directly on beliefs of another, related statement.^[20]

Linear models of belief formation[edit]

Unlike the previous model, this one takes into consideration the possibility

of multiple factors influencing belief formation. Using regression procedures,

this model predicts belief formation on the basis of several different pieces

of information, with weights assigned to each piece on the basis of their

relative importance.^[20]

Information processing models of belief formation

and change[edit]

These models address the fact that the responses people have to

belief-relevant information is unlikely to be predicted from the objective

basis of the information that they can recall at the time their beliefs are

reported. Instead, these responses reflect the number and meaning of

the thoughts that people have about the message at the time that they

encounter it.^[20]

Some influences on people's belief formation include:

Internalization of beliefs during childhood, which can form and shape
our beliefs in different domains. Albert Einstein is often quoted as
having said that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired
by age eighteen." Political beliefs depend most strongly on the political
beliefs most common in the community where we live.^[21] Most individuals
believe the religion they were taught in childhood.^[22]
Charismatic leaders can form and/or modify beliefs (even if those beliefs
fly in the face of all previous beliefs).^[23] Is belief voluntary? Rational
individuals need to reconcile their direct reality with any said belief;
therefore, if belief is not present or possible, it reflects the fact that
contradictions were necessarily overcome using cognitive dissonance.
Advertising can form or change beliefs through repetition, shock, and
association with images of sex, love, beauty, and other strong positive
emotions.^[24] Contrary to intuition, a delay, known as the sleeper effect,
instead of immediate succession may increase an advertisement's ability
to persuade viewer's beliefs if a discounting cue is present.^[25]
Physical trauma, especially to the head, can radically alter a person's beliefs.^[26]

However, even educated people, well aware of the process by which beliefs

form, still strongly cling to their beliefs, and act on those beliefs even against

their own self-interest. In Anna Rowley's book, Leadership Therapy, she states

"You want your beliefs to change. It's proof that you are keeping your eyes

open, living fully, and welcoming everything that the world and people around

you can teach you." This means that peoples' beliefs should evolve as they

gain new experiences.^[27]

Justified true belief[edit]

Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval

during the Enlightenment, 'justified' standing in contrast to 'revealed'.

There have been attempts to trace it back to Plato and his dialogues

.^{[clarification needed]}^[28] The concept of justified true belief states that in

order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe

the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so.

In more formal terms, an agent

S

knows that a proposition

P

is

true if and only if:

$P$ is true
$S$ believes that $P$ is true, and
$S$ is justified in believing that $P$ is true

This theory of knowledge suffered a significant setback with the

discovery of Gettier problems, situations in which the above conditions

were seemingly met but that many philosophers disagree that anything

is known.^[29] Robert Nozick suggested^{[year needed]} a clarification of

"justification" which he believed eliminates the problem: the justification

has to be such that were the justification false, the knowledge would be

false. Bernecker and Dretske (2000) argue that "no epistemologist since

Gettier has seriously and successfully defended the traditional view.".^[30]^:3

On the other hand, Paul Boghossian argues that the Justified True Belief

account is the "standard, widely accepted" definition of knowledge ^[31]

Modification[edit]

An extensive amount of scientific research and philosophical discussion

exists around the modification of beliefs, which is commonly referred

to as belief revision. Generally speaking, the process of belief revision

entails the believer weighing the set of truths and/or evidence, and the

dominance of a set of truths or evidence on an alternative to a held belief

can lead to revision. One process of belief revision is Bayesian updating

and is often referenced for its mathematical basis and conceptual simplicity.

However, such a process may not be representative for individuals

whose beliefs are not easily characterized as probabilistic.

There are several techniques for individuals or groups to change the

beliefs of others; these methods generally fall under the umbrella of

persuasion. Persuasion can take on more specific forms such as

consciousness raising when considered in an activist or political context.

Belief modification may also occur as a result of the experience of outcomes.

Because goals are based, in part on beliefs, the success or failure at a

particular goal may contribute to modification of beliefs that supported

the original goal.

Whether or not belief modification actually occurs is dependent not only

on the extent of truths or evidence for the alternative belief, but also

characteristics outside the specific truths or evidence. This includes,

but is not limited to: the source characteristics of the message, such as

credibility; social pressures; the anticipated consequences of a

modification; or the ability of the individual or group to act on the

modification. Therefore, individuals seeking to achieve belief

modification in themselves or others need to consider all possible

forms of resistance to belief revision.

Partial[edit]

Without qualification, "belief" normally implies a lack of doubt, especially

insofar as it is a designation of a life stance. In practical everyday use

however, belief is normally partial and retractable with varying degrees

of certainty.

A copious literature exists in multiple disciplines to accommodate this

reality. In mathematics probability, fuzzy logic, fuzzy set theory, and

other topics are largely directed to this.

Prediction[edit]

Different psychological models have tried to predict people's beliefs and

some of them try to estimate the exact probabilities of beliefs. For example,

Robert Wyer developed a model of subjective probabilities.^[32]^[33] When

people rate the likelihood of a certain statement (e.g., "It will rain tomorrow"),

this rating can be seen as a subjective probability value. The subjective

probability model posits that these subjective probabilities follow the

same rules as objective probabilities. For example, the law of total probability

might be applied to predict a subjective probability value. Wyer found that this

model produces relatively accurate predictions for probabilities of single events

and for changes in these probabilities, but that the probabilities of several beliefs

linked by "and" or "or" do not follow the model as well.^[32]^[33]

Religion[edit]

Religious belief refers to attitudes towards mythological,

supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Religious

belief is distinct from religious practice or religious behaviours

with some believers not practicing religion and some practitioners

not believing religion. Religious beliefs, being derived from ideas that

are exclusive to religion, often relate to the existence, characteristics

and worship of a deity or deities, divine intervention in the universe

and human life, or the deontological explanations for the values and

practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader or group.

In contrast to other belief systems, religious beliefs are usually codified.^[34]

Forms of religious belief[edit]

While it is popularly conceived that religions each have identifiable and

exclusive sets of beliefs or creeds, surveys of religious belief have often

found that the official doctrine and descriptions of the beliefs offered by

religious authorities do not always agree with the privately held beliefs

of those who identify as members of a particular religion.^[35] A broad

classification of the kinds of religious belief is documented below.

Fundamentalism[edit]

First self-applied as a term to the conservative doctrine outlined by

anti-modernist Protestants in the United States of America,^[36]

fundamentalism as a religious belief is associated with a strict

adherence to an interpretation of scriptures that are generally

associated with theologically conservative positions or traditional

understandings of the text and are distrustful of innovative readings,

new revelation, or alternate interpretations. Religious fundamentalism

has been identified in the media as being associated with fanatical

or zealouspolitical movements around the world that have used a strict

adherence to a particular religious doctrine as a means to establish

political identity and enforce societal norms.

Orthodoxy[edit]

First used in the context of Early Christianity, orthodoxy is a religious

belief that closely follows the edicts, apologies, and hermeneutics of a

prevailing religious authority. In the case of Early Christianity, this authority

was the communion of bishops, and is often referred to by the term Magisterium.

The term orthodox was applied almost as an epithet to a group of Jewish

believers who held to pre-Enlightenment understanding of Judaism and

now known as Orthodox Judaism. The Eastern Orthodox Church of Christianity,

as well as the Catholic Church, consider themselves to be the true heir to

the Early Christian belief and practice. The antonym of orthodox is heterodox

and those adhering to orthodoxy often accuse the heterodox of apostasy,

schism, or heresy.

Modernism/reform[edit]

The Renaissance and later the Enlightenment in Europe were associated

with varying degrees of religious tolerance and intolerance towards new

religious ideas. The Philosophestook particular exception to many of the

more fantastical claims of religions and directly challenged religious authority

and the prevailing beliefs associated with the established churches.

In response to the liberalizing political and social movements, some

religious groups attempted to integrate Enlightenment ideals of rationality,

equality, and individual liberty into their belief systems, especially into

the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Reform Judaism and

Liberal Christianity are two examples of such religious associations.

Superstition[edit]

A term signifying derogation that is used by the religious and non-religious

alike, superstition is the deprecated belief in supernatural causation.

Those who deny the existence of the supernatural generally attribute all

beliefs associated with it to be superstitious while a typical religious critique

of superstition holds that it either encompasses beliefs in non-existent

supernatural activity or that the supernatural activity is inappropriately

feared or held in improper regard (see idolatry). Occultism, animism,

paganism, and other folk religions were strongly condemned by

Christian Churches as mean forms of superstition, though such

condemnation did not necessarily eliminate the beliefs among the

common people and many such religious beliefs persist to today.

Systemization[edit]

In Buddhism, practice and progress along the spiritual path happens

when one follows the system of Buddhist practice. Any religion which

follows (parts of) the fundamentals of this system has, according to

the teachings of Buddha, good aspects to the extent it accords with this

system. Any religion which goes against (parts of) the fundamentals of

this system, includes bad aspects too. Any religion which does not teach

certain parts of this system, is not because of this a 'bad' religion; it just

lacks those teachings and is to that extent incomplete.

A question by the monk Subhadda to the Buddha:

"O Gotama, there are Samanas (wandering monks) and Brahmanas

(religious leaders) who are leaders of their sects, who are
well-esteemed by many people, such as Purana Kassapa,
Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambala, Pakudha Kaccayana,
Sancaya Belatthaputta and Nigantha Nataputta. Do all of them have knowledge and understanding as they themselves have declared? Or do all of them have no knowledge and understanding?"

The reply by Buddha was:

"Subhadda, in whatever teaching is not found the

Noble Eightfold Path, neither in it is there found a Samana

of the first stage, nor a Samana of the second stage, nor a

Samana of the third stage, nor a Samana of the fourth stage."

As a religious tradition, Hinduism has experienced many attempts

at systemization. In medieval times, Shankara advocated for the

Advaita system of philosophy. In recent times, Tamala Krishna

Gosvami has researched the systemization of Krishna theology

as expounded by Srila Prabhupada. (See Krishnology)

Universalism[edit]

Some believe that religion cannot be separated from other aspects of

life, or believe that certain cultures did not or do not separate their religious

activities from other activities in the same way that some people in

modern Western cultures do.

Some anthropologists^[who?] report cultures in which gods are involved in

every aspect of life - if a cow goes dry, a god has caused this, and must be

propitiated, when the sun rises in the morning, a god has caused this, and

must be thanked. Even in modern Western cultures, many people see

supernatural forces behind every event, as described by Carl Saganin

his book The Demon-Haunted World.

People with this worldview often consider the influence of Western culture

to be inimical. Others with this world view resist the influence of science,

and believe that science, or "so-called science", should be guided by religion.

Still others with this worldview believe that all political decisions and laws

should be guided by religion. This last belief is written into the constitution

of many Islamic nations, and is shared by some fundamentalist Christians.

In addition, beliefs about the supernatural or metaphysical may not presuppose

a difference between any such thing as nature and non-nature, nor between

science and what the most educated people believe. In the view of some

historians^[who?], the pre-Socratic Athenians saw science, political tradition,

culture and religion as not easily distinguishable, but all part of the same body of knowledge and wisdom available to a community.

Approaches to the beliefs of others[edit]

Adherents of particular religions deal with the differing doctrines and practices

espoused by other religions in a variety of ways. All strains of thought appear

in different segments of all major world religions.

Exclusivism[edit]

People with exclusivist beliefs typically explain other religions as either in error,

or as corruptions or counterfeits of the true faith. This approach is a fairly

consistent feature among smaller new religious movements that often rely

on doctrine that claims a unique revelation by the founder or leaders, and

consider it a matter of faith that the religion has a monopoly on truth.

All three major Abrahamic monotheistic religions have passages in their holy

scriptures that attest to the primacy of the scriptural testimony and indeed

monotheism itself is often couched as an innovation characterized specifically

by its explicit rejection of earlier polytheistic faiths.

Some exclusivist faiths incorporate a specific element of proselytization.

This is a strongly held belief in the Christian tradition which follows the

doctrine of the Great Commission, and is less emphasized by the

Islamic faith where the Quranic edict "There shall be no compulsion in

religion" (2:256) is often quoted as a justification for toleration of

alternative beliefs, while the Jewish tradition is one that does not

actively seek out converts.

Exclusivism correlates with conservative, fundamentalist, and

orthodox approaches of many religions while pluralistic and

syncretist approaches either explicitly downplay or reject the

exclusivist tendencies of the religion.

Inclusivism[edit]

People with inclusivist beliefs recognize some truth in all faith systems,

highlighting agreements and minimizing differences. The attitude is

sometimes associated with Interfaith dialogue or the

Christian Ecumenical movement, though in principle such attempts at

pluralism are not necessarily inclusivist and many actors in such

interactions (for example, the Roman Catholic Church) still hold to

exclusivist dogma while participating in inter-religious organizations.

Explicitly inclusivist religions include many that are associated with the

New Age movement as well as modern reinterpretations of Hinduism

and Buddhism. The Bahá'í Faithconsiders it doctrine that there is truth

in all faith systems.

Pluralism[edit]

People with pluralist beliefs make no distinction between faith systems,

viewing each one as valid within a particular culture. Examples include:

Extracts from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (Sikh Holy Scriptures),
"There is only the One Supreme Lord God; there is no other at
all" (Pannaa 45). "By His Power the Vedas and the Puranas exist,
and the Holy Scriptures of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions.
By His Power all deliberations exist." (Pannaa 464). "Some call Him,
'Ram, Ram', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'. Some serve Him as 'Gusain',
others as 'Allaah'. ||1|| He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.
He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us amen." (Pannaa 885).

Syncretism[edit]

People with syncretistic views blend the views of a variety of different

religions or traditional beliefs into a unique fusion which suits their particular

experience and context (seeeclecticism). Unitarian Universalism is an

example of a syncretistic faith.

Adherence[edit]

Typical reasons for adherence to religion include:

Belief in God is seen by some to be necessary for moral behavior.^[37]
Many people consider religious practices to be serene, beautiful,
and conducive to religious experiences, which in turn support
religious beliefs.^[38]
Organized religions promote a sense of community among their followers,
and the moral and cultural common ground of these communities makes
them attractive to people with the same values.^[39] Indeed, while religious
beliefs and practices are usually connected, some individuals with
substantially secular beliefs still participate in religious practices
for cultural reasons.
Each religion asserts that it is a means by which its adherents may
come into closer contact with God, Truth, and Spiritual Power. They all
promise to free adherents from spiritual bondage, and bring them into
spiritual freedom. It naturally follows that a religion which frees its
adherents from deception, sin, and spiritual death will have significant
mental health benefits. Abraham Maslow's research after World War II
showed that Holocaust survivors tended to be those who held strong
religious beliefs (not necessarily temple attendance, etc.), suggesting
it helped people cope in extreme circumstances. Humanistic psychology
went on to investigate how religious or spiritual identity may have correlations
with longer lifespan and better health. The study found that humans may
particularly need religious ideas to serve various emotional needs such as
the need to feel loved, the need to belong to homogeneous groups, the
need for understandable explanations and the need for a guarantee of
ultimate justice. Other factors may involve sense of purpose, sense of identity,
sense of contact with the divine. See also Man's Search for Meaning, by Victor
Frankl, detailing his experience with the importance of religion in surviving the
Holocaust. Critics assert that the very fact that religion was the primary selector
for research subjects may have introduced a bias, and that the fact that all
subjects were holocaust survivors may also have had an effect. According to
Larson et al. (2000), "[m]ore longitudinal research with better multidimensional
measures will help further clarify the roles of these [religious] factors and whether
they are beneficial or harmful."^[40]

Apostasy[edit]

Typical reasons for rejection of religion include:

The fundamental doctrines of some religions are considered by some to be
illogical, contrary to experience, or unsupported by sufficient evidence, and
are rejected for those reasons.^[41] Even some believers may have difficulty
accepting particular religious assertions or doctrines. Some people believe
the body of evidence available to humans to be insufficient to justify certain
religious beliefs. They may thus disagree with religious interpretations of
ethics and human purpose, or various creation myths. This reason has
perhaps been aggravated by the protestations of some fundamentalist Christians.
Some religions include beliefs that certain groups of people are inferior or
sinful and deserve contempt, persecution, or even death, and that
non-believers will be punished for their unbelief in an after-life.^[42]^[43]
Some people may be unable to accept the values that a specific religion
promotes and will therefore not join that religion. They may also be unable
to accept the proposition that those who do not believe will go to hell or be
damned, especially if said nonbelievers are close to the person.
The maintenance of life and the achievement of self-esteem require of a
person the fullest exercise of reason—but morality, people are taught,
rests on and requires faith.^[44]

Systems[edit]

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any

such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, political, ideological,

or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs

are always part of a belief system, and that tenanted belief systems are

difficult for the tenants to completely revise or reject.^[45]^[46]

Gilbert, sociological perspectives[edit]

A collective belief is referred to when people speak of what 'we' believe

when this is not simply elliptical for what 'we all' believe.

Sociologist Émile Durkheim wrote of collective beliefs and proposed that they,

like all 'social facts', 'inhered in' social groups as opposed to individual persons.

Durkheim's discussion of collective belief, though suggestive, is relatively obscure.

Philosopher Margaret Gilbert has offered a related account in terms of the

joint commitment of a number of persons to accept a certain belief as a body.

According to this account, individuals who together collectively believe

something need not personally believe it themselves. Gilbert's work on

the topic has stimulated a developing literature among philosophers.

One question that has arisen is whether and how philosophical accounts of

belief in general need to be sensitive to the possibility of collective belief.

Glover[edit]

Jonathan Glover believes that he and other philosophers ought to play some

role in starting dialogues between people with deeply held, opposing beliefs,

especially if there is risk of violence. Glover also believes that philosophy

can offer insights about beliefs that would be relevant to such dialogue.

Glover suggests that beliefs have to be considered holistically, and that no belief exists in isolation in the mind of the believer. It always implicates and relates to other beliefs.^[45] Glover provides the example of a patient with an illness who

returns to a doctor, but the doctor says that the prescribed medicine is

not working. At that point, the patient has a great deal of flexibility

in choosing what beliefs to keep or reject: the patient could believe

that the doctor is incompetent, that the doctor's assistants made a mistake,

that the patient's own body is unique in some unexpected way, that

Western medicine is ineffective, or even that Western science is entirely

unable to discover truths about ailments.^[45]

Glover maintains that any person can continue to hold any belief if they

would really like to^[45] (e.g., with help from ad hoc hypotheses).

One belief can be held fixed, and other beliefs will be altered around it.

Glover warns that some beliefs may not be entirely explicitlybelieved

(e.g., some people may not realize they have racist belief systems

adopted from their environment as a child). Glover believes that people

tend to first realize that beliefs can change, and may be contingent on their

upbringing, around age 12 or 15.^[45]

Glover emphasizes that beliefs are difficult to change. He says that

one may

try to rebuild one's beliefs on more secure foundations (axioms), like building

a new house, but warns that this may not be possible. Glover offers the

example of René Descartes, saying about Descartes that "[h]e starts off

with the characteristic beliefs of a 17th-century Frenchman; he then junks

the lot, he rebuilds the system, and somehow it looks a lot like the beliefs

of a 17th-century Frenchman." To Glover, belief systems are not like

houses but are instead like boats. As Glover puts it: "Maybe the whole

thing needs rebuilding, but inevitably at any point you have to keep

enough of it intact to keep floating."^[45]

Glover's final message is that if people talk about their beliefs, they

may find more deep, relevant, philosophical ways in which they disagree

(e.g., less obvious beliefs, or more deeply held beliefs). Glover thinks that

people often manage to find agreements and consensus through philosophy.

He says that at the very least, if people do not convert each other, they

will hold their own beliefs more openmindedly and will be less likely

to go to war over conflicting beliefs.^[45]^[47] the truth with open minded

Law[edit]

The British philosopher Stephen Law has described some belief systems

(including belief in homeopathy, psychic powers, and alien abduction) as

"claptrap" and said that they "draw people in and hold them captive so

they become willing slaves to victory... if you get sucked in, it can be

extremely difficult to think your way clear again".^[48]

Labels

Thursday 26 October 2017

HINDU - கந்தசஷ்டி கவசத்தின் விளக்கம் !

HEALTH - 10 Interesting Uses Of Tea bags

Tuesday 24 October 2017

LIFE - What Do You Belief