Defining Belief

 

By Robert Hartwell

Originated 10 Nov 2001

Last modified 5 Dec 2001

Introduction

 

People have slaughtered each other in wars, inquisitions, and political actions for centuries and still kill each other today over beliefs.  These beliefs, when stated as propositions, may appear mystical and somehow genuine to the naive but when confronted with a testable basis, they fail miserably.  I maintain that beliefs create more social problems than they solve and that beliefs, and especially those elevated to the level of faith, produce the most destructive potential to the future of humanity.

 

Throughout history humans have paid reverence to beliefs and mystical thinking.  Organized religions have played the most significant role in the support and propagation of beliefs and faith.  On a societal level, this has resulted in an acceptance of and tendency toward beliefs in general.  Regardless of whether or not a person rejects religious belief systems, religious support of supernatural events gives credence to others in their support of mysticism, occultism, and superstition.  Even scientists and philosophers, who you may not expect to hold beliefs, usually support the notion that some forms of belief provide a valuable means to establish "truth" as long they contain the backing of factual data.  Belief has long become a socially acceptable form of thinking in science as well as religion.

 

Once a proposition turns to belief, it automatically undermines opposition to itself.  Philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky warned that people who reject religion "will end by drenching the earth in blood” but this represents a belief in-itself.  Quite the reverse, our history has shown that the blood letting has occurred mostly as a result of those who hold beliefs, not from the people who reject them.

 

However, does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?  Does productive science, ethics, morality, observing or enjoying nature, or living a productive and fulfilling life require attachment to beliefs of any kind?  Can we predict future events, act on data, theories, and facts without resorting to belief?  This section will show that indeed, you can, and should.

 

Relative to the history of human life, languages have existed for only a few thousand years.  It should come to no surprise that language takes time to develop into a useful means of communication and during that evolution, errors, delusions, and beliefs may develop.  All information systems contain errors, especially at the beginning of development.  It would behoove us to find and isolate these errors, in an attempt to thwart their dangers.

 

The ability to predict the future successfully provides humans with the means to survive.  No other animal species has a capacity to think, remember, imagine, and forecast to the degree of humans.  To replace our thoughts with inflexible beliefs contradicts the very nature of our creative thinking processes that sustains us.  I’m firmly convinced that reason is far superior to belief and that proper reason helps us understand and benefit ourselves, not the other way around.  I consider the power that a healthy human mind has to make sense of facts to be sacred -- it helps us make use of our practical reality.  In fact, if there is anything in this world deserving of our reverence and devotion, it is this sacred ability – for it alone, will allow us to flourish.

 

Origins of Belief

 

Humans have sought and continue to seek some indication throughout the far reaches of the cosmos, within the very heart of nature itself, that there might be some guiding intelligence, however remote the chances.  We have labeled our hope and desire for this supernatural force as “God.”  Upon this tiny, remote place that we call Earth and home, and across the apparently endless reaches of space, wisdom and science find only nature and the workings of nature -- nothing more.

 

Did reality stop humans from finding God?  No.  Through the ignorance and desires of believers, the illusion of a god still exists today.  God was formed long ago, in the childhood of the human race.  Ignorance formed God long before mankind found science, even before the wheel was invented or fire was captured.  In that barren, cold, dangerous world, stood our remote ancestors.  Humanity was struggling to understand the forces of nature, to escape its enemies, to feed and reproduce itself, and human minds were emerging from the darkness of animal instincts into the beginnings of reason…its only thought…SURVIVAL!

 

The oldest evidence of human culture has revealed that during the early Neolithic period, human culture showed few signs of dangerous war-inflicting belief-systems.  Instead, their concerns were aimed towards nature and female fertility worship.  Notably, the first known examples of art contain no images of armed might, cruelty, and violence-based power.  No images of battles or slavery [2].  At that time, there existed no fortifications built for defense or offensive weapons designed for war.  Violent belief-systems did not come into existence until humans invented language and male dominated religions.  According to Riane Eisler, "One of the best-kept historical secrets is that practically all the material and social technologies fundamental to civilization were developed before the imposition of a dominator society."  With the introduction of war-god beliefs, killing became honorable and acceptable and to this day, people continue to revel in it.

 

With language, came the contemplation and study of thoughtful systems.  Socrates and Plato introduced beliefs of "forms," existing independent of their physical examples.  They believed that every measurement in the world represented superficial representations of an underlying and “absolute reality."  Aristotle carried this concept further by linking these forms to physical objects as "essences."  He proposed the existence of a soul and introduced the concept of an immovable mover (a god, who exists in the “heavens”) to justify matter.  These ghostly concepts live today, not only in religion, but also in our language.  Many early societies believed in human spirits and animism (animals or inanimate objects possessing a spirit).  Generally, people express essence ideas without giving them due consideration because they are interwoven in the very fabric of common communication, derived from ancient philosophers and cultures.  Since no one can prove or measure essence ideas, they are impossible to understand and therefore can only be accepted upon belief.  Sadly, people still accept essence ideas as "real," based on nothing but faith without ever investigating whether they exist or not.

 

Orthodox religionists hinge their "sacred" beliefs upon the shoulders of ancient philosophers.  Plotinus reorganized Plato's work as the bases for Platonism, which lasted for many centuries.  Thomas Aquinas became the foremost disseminator of Aristotle's thought.  Aristotelianism and its limited logic still hold the minds of many believers.  Even today, people believe in spirits, gods, goddesses, angels, ghosts, and alien UFOs, without ever questioning the reliability of their sources.  Belief and faith overwhelms the minds of believers to such an extent that even in the teeth of contrary evidence, they’ll continue to believe, if for no other reason than others around them believe or people have believed for centuries.  Talk about a ball and chain for human progress.

 

Terminological Precision

 

Terminological precision is an important element, a distinguishing mark, and a recurrent stumbling block of serious, productive discussion and honest understanding.  This is why, in scientific disciplines, terms with various, common uses are often narrowly defined.  “Energy” in the context of chemistry or physics, for example, has a very specific meaning as compared to common usage.  Thus, words can mean many different things, depending upon context and what the speaker intends them to mean.

 

Nor are dictionaries authoritative because they do not fix the meaning of words, so much as they reflect their “common” usage in society.  They are field guides; not rule books.  In fact, they did not even exist before the 17th century.  This accounts for why there are so many different dictionaries and why they must be frequently updated.  Therefore, while dictionary definitions can be helpful, they do not “prove” anything about what a word “really” means.

 

To establish common ground for the usage of essence words, like “belief” and “believe,” you cannot rely on the generally accepted, dictionary definitions because they are misleading.  They are too vague or broad and tend to inadvertently and inappropriately associate reality with theoretical, superstitious thinking, which of course, you can’t do.  Nonetheless, our society has managed to twist concrete understanding with broad, abstract, limited words.  They failed miserably.  Because of this, there are numerous essence words that are used out of context or improperly and few people think twice about it.  Every essence word, noun or verb, has one common denominator -- they reflect the hopes and desires of the person making a claim onto what he or she is claiming and elevates their desires to an abstract, supernatural level.

 

I intend to clarify the need for more appropriate and accurate word choices for the many ways that the word “belief” and “believe” are used.  As you will see, it’s not about semantics; it’s about using language effectively, to ensure proper understanding about the intent and objective of the person communicating.  Merely replacing the word “believe” with “think” for instance, is not only inappropriate, it’s inaccurate.  The word “think” is a process of mind acting on mind, whereas “belief” is a result of that process.  Swapping one word for the other does nothing but comfort the mind of someone adamantly biased against a specific word or altogether unfamiliar with the meaning of the word being used to replace it.  You must fully grasp the meaning of the words you use if you are to communicate effectively; otherwise, you’re being reckless.  If you don’t put forth the effort to speak plainly and concisely, then what you say and why you say it become highly questionable, not to mention usually short-sighted and empty.

 

For practical purposes, I will show how every common form of belief can be eliminated, except one.  By cleansing all the incorrect, vague usages of the word away, it’s true meaning will be revealed.  What remains is its extreme form – a product of hope, fear, selfishness, or all of these desires combined, elevated to abstract, superstitious belief, then faith, and finally…action.

 

Most superficial beliefs result from of a need or desire to express our experience of external events.  From past experience for example, I “believe” that dark clouds can produce rain, therefore, I am attempting to predict the weather by forecasting from past events.  In this manner then, superficial beliefs are more of an attempt at predicting the future.  However, to “believe” that something will occur, means that you are not only forecasting it, you are hoping that it will or fearing that it won’t happen and somehow relating it to supernatural power.  Believing “external” events will happen sets you up for disappointment and suffering, if your prediction never comes to pass.  To make a prediction based on past events alone does not require belief in the future event, but rather, a reasonable guess.

 

By eliminating superficial usage of the words “belief” and “believe, ” we can eliminate and substitute them with more accurate, descriptive, meaningful, and beneficial words.  Whether the words depict rational or emotional motivation, the intent of the speaker becomes clearer.  As a result, statistical words would denote probable events, not believed events and emotional words would clearly denote the desires of the speaker.  Here are several examples of the same statement with different meanings:

 

·        Rational:  “I expect my family to be home soon.”

 

·        Emotional:  “I hope my family will be home soon.”

 

·        Mystical:  “I believe my family will be home soon.”

 

As you can see, belief combines the rational with the emotional and then subdues them under a veil of superstition.  Not only does it muddy the actual intent of the speaker, it points quite clearly to the mindset of the speaker.  This speaker has a superstitious mindset or doesn’t know any better.

 

Belief represents a subclass of many kinds of mental thought.  To "think" represents the process of thought, not the motivation or results of thinking.  What results from thinking is obviously quite different and varied.  Many kinds of concepts occur without a need for belief.  People can invent rules, maps, games, social laws, and testable models without requiring a habit or absolute trust in them.  For example, a map may prove useful to get from point A to B, but to believe that the map equals the territory would produce a falsehood.  Humans have invented numerous games, but they do not require belief or some attached “truth” for people to play or enjoy them.  Technological societies invent "rules of the road" and construct traffic lights, signs, and warnings as guidance to ensure our safety.  We do not take these rules as absolute but we do realize that they form a system of conduct, which allows mass transit to exist in relative safety.  If any confidence results from the use of these rules, it comes from past experience of events, resulting from the models, rather than belief in them.  Thoughts serve best as expressions of nature and feelings, not for the sake of beliefs.

 

Examples of Non-beliefs

 

What constitutes belief and what does not?  For the majority of people, belief has so infiltrated their minds, that everything perceived or thought incorporates a belief, including all of their knowledge and experience.  However, beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements, which means that although you may believe in knowledge, you can know without beliefs.  If belief was defined to incorporate all forms of thought, then the word would become too broad and meaningless, not to mention that knowledge and experience would fall as a subset of belief.  Here are some more accurate and appropriate words, but by no means all of them that not only differ in their spelling but also in their meanings:

 

Acceptance:  Although beliefs require some level of acceptance, nothing accepted requires belief because beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements.  For example, you can accept the premise of a fictional story, but you do not for one moment, have to believe in it; you can accept a scientific hypothesis without believing in it; computers accept data and produce solutions but have no consciousness, let alone beliefs in what they do; you may take an apposing position in a conversation by acting as Devil’s Advocate in order to make a point, yet not necessarily agree with your own claim.  You may accept any premise, without believing in it.

 

Action:  Although you may believe in the actions you perform, you can act without beliefs because beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements.  Actions can occur out of a need or desire, a submission to an authority, by unplanned events, or even by mechanical means, completely absent of humans.  For example, you can act a part without believing in it; you can act from a set of rules, without believing in them; you may act in response to an order from the police or government; you may act out of need for food or desire to achieve financial security.  There occurs no action that requires belief.

 

Agreement:  Although beliefs require some level of agreement, nothing agreed with requires belief because beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements.  For example, you might agree that Captain Kirk served aboard the Starship Enterprise, but hold no beliefs in Star-Trek fiction; you may agree with firearm safety rules but you do not need to believe in them to appreciate their importance.  I may agree with any premise, without believing in it.

 

Knowledge:  Although you may believe in what you know, nothing known requires belief in it because beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements.  For example, you may know of a story or poem but you do not need to believe in it to understand the message being conveyed; you may know the rules of many games but belief is not required to play or enjoy them; I know the mathematics of calculus but I do not believe in it and still make use of it.  Countless forms of information come to mind and belief is not required to make use of any of it.

 

Information:  Although you may believe the information you receive, information received does not require belief in it because beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements.  For example, the information gained from books, stories, science, theories, testable models, religion, etc, all represent communicated ideas but one does not need to believe in them, to utilize them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Above is a chart that represents a simple, visual breakout of the differences between the paths of belief and knowledge.  There is a conversion point at the bottom of the chart where thoughts are formed; this represents the mind.  At this level, thoughts appear virtually the same with the only distinction amounting to individual motivation.  As each path progresses however, the method of development causes a divergence, forming entirely dissimilar paths.  The path of belief progresses towards inflexible objectivity (ignorance), whereas the path of knowledge leads towards factual understanding (wisdom).  Beliefs in supernatural essence ideas, like ghosts, goblins, spirits, souls, gods and goddesses, leprechauns, unicorns, etc, etc, etc, require no external evidence whatsoever and do not agree with reality because they are not apparent or testable.  The path of knowledge on the other hand, requires external verification (observation and testing), yet does not rely upon belief.  For example, observing that the earth orbits the sun and airplanes fly is apparent and testable, regardless of whether you believe in them or not.  Leading you to deduce that belief and that which is believed do not need to agree with nature at all, whereas the path towards workable knowledge (facts) must agree with nature, if we are to utilize them.

 

Unfortunately and due in great part to cultural influences, it is more common that a person’s process of thinking involves the combination of beliefs, abstract theory, and factual knowledge.  Most people tend to believe that their beliefs are facts and knowledge, including perhaps some of the more rational people of all -- scientists and philosophers.  Although a good scientist should never approach inflexibility, they usually believe in their data and theories, just as most philosophers believe in their philosophies.  However, consider that every scientific fact can stand on the evidence alone.  Nature occurs without human beliefs and so does reliable evidence.  Human desire is what drives beliefs; otherwise, there is simply no necessity for attaching beliefs to knowledge.

 

Consider the following: regardless of how fervently you attach beliefs to scientific facts, no matter how religious the disposition of a scientist, there has never appeared a single workable theory or scientific fact that required the concept of a god or any superstitious idea.  Not a single workable mathematical equation contains a symbol for a "creator."  There occurs not the slightest evidence for ghosts in our machines or in our bodies. Even the most ardent non-believers can live their lives in complete accord with nature and live as long and as well as the most fanatical believer.  In spite of the temporary mental comfort that belief might bring, as do drugs, then what purpose can belief serve in the establishment of useful knowledge about the world?

 

I find it interesting to observe the state of belief in people.  They almost always see the problems of belief above them on the chart, especially fanatical believers, but they never accept the disbelief of those below them. It seems that believers always retain just the right amount of belief and they unconsciously place themselves into a selfish, subjective, dogmatic bubble.  I contend that most of us do not own beliefs of every kind and, indeed, we disbelieve more than we believe.  Just as some believers have fewer beliefs than others, non-believers, like myself, simply sit at the bottom of the scale.  Temporarily set your own beliefs aside, then question why you dismiss the beliefs of others, and you may begin to realize why I dismiss yours.

 

Barrier to Progress

 

Arguing that beliefs, supported by scientific evidence, are somehow acceptable is not only pointless but also ignorant of the more important fact that beliefs act as barriers towards further understanding.  Even the most productive scientists and philosophers through the ages have held beliefs that prevented them from seeing beyond their discoveries and inventions.  For example:

 

 

 

 

Although thinking without beliefs does not guarantee that people will make scientific break throughs, it can, at the very least, remove unnecessary and potentially harmful mental obstructions.  Even superficial beliefs can create problematic and unnecessary barriers.

 

On the extreme side of belief, when it progresses towards faith and dogma, the problems escalate and become more obvious.  This can be seen in religions ideologies, especially those that contain scriptures that honor war, intolerance, slavery, and superstitions under the guise of love and kindness to a devout few.  This belief mentality has unfolded in an ugly manner, through religious inquisitions, so-called "holy" wars, and slavery.  During the period of the black plague, millions of people died because they ignored finding a cure for the disease, believing that Satan caused it.  All the while, their religious leaders discouraged experimental scientific investigation.  In the 1930s and 40s the world saw the fanatical idealism of communists as they destroyed millions of lives, and the holocaust by the Nazis.  To this day, you can observe religious and ethnic beliefs creating war and intolerance in Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Israel, Africa, Russia, and many other countries.

 

Children get brainwashed at a very young age to believe in abstract concepts such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and eventually, superstitious, religious dogma.  There exists no understanding, much less control of the dangers.  As a result, societies everywhere are conditioned to not only accept beliefs, but to honor, fight, and die for them.  This belief mentality commonly results in conflicts between free expression and censorship.  For a believer, expressions of ideas in-and-of-themselves represent beliefs.  Thus, violent or controversial books, television shows, movies, and other fictions present opportunities for the ignorant to believe in them. 

 

If instead, we taught our children about the genuine downfalls of unrestrained mental action, like that of belief, and how it infects individuals and societies with learning disabilities, emotional vulnerability, and eventually motivates people to act dangerously, then we would be much better off and have far less need for censorship. People would be less likely to accept things without critical analysis.

 

Refutations Against Statements for Belief

 

Everyone Believes in Something

I can’t remember how many times I’ve had someone tell me, “Everyone believes in something,” in response to my stance against belief.  This is truly a sad statement and an unwise one to make.  It only clarifies the importance of opening the eyes of as many a believer as possible.  Whether a person is subtle or extreme in their beliefs, they tend to become astonished when a statement against belief is posed, if for no other reason than they believe and other people around them have similar beliefs.  Believers tend to assume that everyone holds beliefs and essentially project their beliefs onto others.  Just to make the claim that “Everyone on earth believes in something,” is an astonishing assertion that requires an omniscient ability to see into the minds of every human on earth.  Just because most people accept this or that thing to be true, does not mean all people require, much less maintain, beliefs.  Moreover, you must remember that belief requires some level of acceptance, whereas acceptance requires no belief.

 

I Don't Believe the Sun Will Rise Tomorrow

Disbelieving does not mean thinking something may not happen.  Absence of belief does not prevent a person from anticipating, expecting, predicting, etc, an event from happening.  It may sound silly not to believe the sun will appear the next day.  However, as a limited human being, I maintain no absolute certainty that a sunrise will occur.  At best, I can only make a prediction based on past experience.  Since I have experienced daylight every day of my life and know of no human who hasn't, I have little evidence that a sunrise will not occur tomorrow.  Therefore, I make an extremely likely prediction based on past experience that the sun will appear the next day.  Note that I do not require belief to do this, only observation, experience, and good guessing.  Prediction based on experience, in this case, replaces belief.  But remember, my prediction may prove wrong, regardless of how remote the chances.  There is evidence for instance, that supernovas exist in the universe, which can create or destroy local solar systems.  If indeed, such an event occurred in our part of the galaxy, then our sun could possibly get absorbed, along with the earth and all humans on it.  So although there is a remote possibility that the sun will not appear, I can at least predict with great, although imperfect, accuracy that it will.  By replacing belief with predictive thought, you can eliminate the need for belief, yet still maintain a positive, beneficial outlook on life and make useful predictions.  Unless of course, you just can’t accept reality.

 

Don't You Believe You Exist?

To the believer who poses this question, I can only respond, "I know I exist, but apparently you only believe you exist."  I acquire knowledge of my existence every second of my conscious life directly through awareness of my feelings, thoughts, and observation of external objects -- no belief required.  My knowledge of existence comes from personal experience, not some belief about that experience.

 

Crafty believers often pose seemingly insurmountable questions about our existence, in an attempt to justify their illogical position and pry their way out of the wooden crate that their beliefs nailed them into.  Anyway, belief adds nothing to furthering our understanding of human existence or any other unanswered question we may put forth.  This appears so obvious that it only shows how completely belief isolates people from reality.  Any fair observer will note that no animal, including humans, require a need to “believe” in their existence to exist.  When you only believe you exist, you automatically reduce your entire life to an abstraction…a belief.

 

No, I don't believe my own words

Everything I have presented in this book is not only unbiased but it presents truth and facts, based upon experience, observation, research, and verifiable history.  These words are not presented as a belief but rather as an investigation into the mechanism of belief.  If any of my statements prove false down the road, then they will show simply that.  Truth is always open to further revision.  Disowning beliefs does not guarantee truth or accuracy, only a method to help clear away superstitious obstacles and avoidable falsehoods.

 

Preconceived Beliefs

 

The following is a story about the artist, Picasso.  It makes a good point about how people construct beliefs of reality from abstractions.

 

A stranger recognizing Picasso asked him why he didn't paint pictures of people "the way they really are."  Picasso asked the man what he meant by "the way they really are," and the man pulled out of his wallet a snapshot of his wife as an example.  Picasso responded: "Isn't she rather small and flat?

 

To believe that an abstract representation shows the actual thing leads to an unnecessary biased form of perception.  Belief of any kind puts a kind of shield on the thinker and puts in its place a form of thought, which in effect says, "This is real."  Preconceived beliefs coupled with the lack of information can lead to false conclusions.

 

To take another example, I might say to a group of people, "I love fish."  Everyone may hear me correctly, but because of their preconceived beliefs and a lack of context, some may interpret my meaning as a statement about dining and others may believe I have a love for aquarium fish.  Virtually all expressions of thought contain some limitations and to add preconceived ideas without evidentiary support can produce false statements and beliefs.

 

Without resorting to belief, I can look at a photograph and see that it only resembles some aspect of a particular thing or person, and that it represents an indirect abstraction. Without belief, I can question a proposition before arriving at a conclusion.

 

Conclusion

 

Language and thought cannot describe the totality of an object anymore than a painting or photograph can.  At best, our thoughts and expressions are but a reflection of this world, not the world itself.  A picture does not equal its subject and a map does not equal its territory.  However, our ability to think rationally does provide a means, though imperfect and limited, for humans to understand the world and make predictions about external events.  They provide a way to quantify and simplify our communication systems so we can perform desirable and useful actions in the world.  If we allow unnecessary beliefs to reside with our communication systems, we distort our ability to observe reality.

 

As limited humans, we do not possess absolute knowledge, if there is such a thing.  Our perceptions and information comes to us incomplete.  When we observe and study an object by looking, touching, and measuring it for example, we only observe part of its totality.  Belief, on the other hand, can provide the illusion that we understand without limitations.  Eliminating beliefs, at least puts us closer to the range of our perceptions.  We inherit mortal limitations and therefore, cannot know with absolute certainly about the external world; we cannot completely remove doubt about our conclusions.  Any good philosopher or scientist will come to this same conclusion and realize that doubt is the fire that energizes further investigation.