Comments on: Nobody believes in God

By: Dan | thesamovar

Dan | thesamovar — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:22:10 +0000

Well yes of course. In those terms, my point is that there is a very important, everyday, common sense meaning of the word ‘belief’ such that (most) theists do not believe in God. This point is largely unacknowledged, and important I think. If we assume that because a theist ‘believes’ in God in the sense that they say ‘I believe in God’ and don’t appear to be lying, that they will act in a way that is even slightly consistent with the actual existence of God, then we’re making a big mistake.

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:23:56 +0000

I suppose we have to accept that words have different meanings in different contexts (something I’m constantly banging on about), which means that people may believe in one sense and not in another.

It means you have to be very precise with your definitions.

TRiG.

By: deez

deez — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:42:16 +0000

good thought and great points. if someone does something without worry of consequence, that doesn’t neccessarily mean that person does not believe in consequence or the enforcement of.

By: Debbie Kean

Debbie Kean — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:27:31 +0000

Matthew, I really like the points you’re making! Awesome!
Especially “Regarding AIDS in Africa, if the Catholic Church’s position were responsible for the deaths of millions, one would expect to find a correlation between frequency of AIDS and frequency of Catholicism – one does not. The actual position of the Catholic Church is that sex outside marriage is no more a sin if condoms are used than if they aren’t.”

Debbie

By: Debbie Kean

Debbie Kean — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:24:40 +0000

Edward, sigh..
You say ” I’d been led to believe that St Paul was led by the Holy Spirit, and was certainly an outrageous homophobe. But presumably various Christians have different interpretations.”
First, define homophobe! Second, explain who and or what led you to believe that?

Debbie

By: Dan | thesamovar

Dan | thesamovar — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:24:52 +0000

The whole point is to ask what ‘belief in God’ might actually mean, what does it amount to? Do you have a definition of belief? Does it deal satisfactorily with the twiglet problem in the post above? I’d love to hear it!

See also my follow-up post on this: http://thesamovar.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/belief-and-pragmatism-god-ideals-and-addiction/ where I conclude:

“Things like belief in gravity or belief about some observable facts, which people act consistently with almost all of the time, could be still used unproblematically, but talk of belief in ideals or belief in God should raise alarm bells because we know that these beliefs will not inform us as to individuals actions. An alternative conclusion to my previous controversial entry would then be: belief in God is beyond the pragmatic limit of applicability of the concept ‘belief’.”

By: Debbie Kean

Debbie Kean — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:49:19 +0000

Sorry, but I really think that you make your case only by defining belief in God in such a way as to make your case plausible!

Yes, of course believers sin. But there’s much less premeditation or thought involved than you seem to think. People are rarely if ever wholly consistent, and that people seem to act, to you as if they don’t really believe, doesn’t make you right!.

Debbie

By: Belief and Pragmatism: God, ideals and addiction « The Samovar

Belief and Pragmatism: God, ideals and addiction « The Samovar — Wed, 28 May 2008 00:43:41 +0000

[...] Nobody believes in God [...]

By: Dan | thesamovar

Dan | thesamovar — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:14:00 +0000

OK, I just wrote a comment in reply to other Dan’s comment on Jay’s blog, which I’m copying here because it’s relevant here too. Other Dan wrote:

“Re: Dennett, you appear to be be extending his claim that belief-talk imperfectly measures belief-state to asserting that action perfectly measures belief state. I don’t think Dennet, or many others, would agree with you in your extension.”

I wouldn’t say that action perfectly measures belief state, although I can see how you would get that idea from my post. It’s cleared up somewhat in the comments, but it’s not a point I’ve directly replied to.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying something like: people do believe, they act largely consistently with their beliefs, but not entirely consistently (they sin, we are all imperfect, etc.). You are taking me as saying that since everyone has sinned at least once nobody can believe. Is that about right?

OK, so my reply to that is a refinement of the point I was originally trying to make (some of which is in the comments already there and in my latest reply to Jay over at my blog). I would say that theists act consistently with their stated beliefs when it is not inconvenient to do so, but inconsistently when it is inconvenient. Seeing sin as a sign of weakness or mistake is to say that they act consistently with their beliefs, but that they occasionally make mistakes (fail to act completely rationally with respect to them). My alternative view is to say that they are largely acting consistently, but that they are acting consistently with respect to a different set of beliefs from their stated set. The beliefs they are acting consistently with respect to are about their place in the social hierarchy, and what Dennett calls ‘belief in belief’.

I find my alternative view of it a more useful one, with greater explanatory power. In line with Dennett’s view of the intentional stance (as I understand it), I conclude that they do not believe in their stated beliefs, but in this alternative set of beliefs.

By: Dan | thesamovar

Dan | thesamovar — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:48:15 +0000

Another quick addition: the other Dan let me know that his second comment hadn’t appeared on the blog and I’ve just rescued it from the over-zealous Akismet filter (along with Allen’s post too). So I’m responding to his second post here.

I don’t think my reply wasn’t serious just because I used a joke example to illustrate my point.

“A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.”
- Ludwig Wittgenstein