Writing Out Your Belief System

[openingmind]

How many of you have tried writing down your belief system and analyzing why you believe each thing, subjecting it to logic? (It's a good exercise -- I'm in the middle of it again).

Or, how many of you would say you don't have a "belief system"? Believe is a tricky word.

[slingblade]

I can't tell you if I have a belief system, until I know what you mean by that phrase.

So, what do you mean?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by openingmind

How many of you have tried writing down your belief system and analyzing why you believe each thing, subjecting it to logic? (It's a good exercise -- I'm in the middle of it again).

Or, how many of you would say you don't have a "belief system"? Believe is a tricky word.

Is "belief" a tricky word or is it "believe?" Perhaps it's "system" that's tricky or perhaps "tricky" is tricky.

I wrote all these words down and I'm still confused.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by openingmind

How many of you have tried writing down your belief system and analyzing why you believe each thing, subjecting it to logic? (It's a good exercise -- I'm in the middle of it again).

Or, how many of you would say you don't have a "belief system"? Believe is a tricky word.

"Belief system"?

I honestly don't know what that means.

I've got my senses, and I've got a rational brain.

Is that a belief system?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gord checks his sig.

Beats me.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Piggy

"Belief system"?

I honestly don't know what that means.

It's a system of beliefs. You know, stuff you believe in.

[MattusMaximus]

I suppose the best way to describe my belief system is as a kind of modern-day Epicureanism.

[Bikewer]

Isn't that what forums like this one are for?

[David Henson]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I suppose the best way to describe my belief system is as a kind of modern-day Epicureanism.

Is that gay?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by David Henson

Is that gay?

No. I have no idea why you would think it is... unless, you have a thing for teh gay.

Are you gay?

[Wolfman]

I find it humorous when people make the claim, "I have no belief system". In most cases, they are trying to differentiate themselves from what they see as the 'irrational' belief systems of others, by claiming that they don't need a belief system.

Gord's signature, which he points out above, is a good example: "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." But I argue that it is, in fact, impossible not to have a belief system.

First, of course, we're going to have to define what a "belief" or "belief system" is; and it is here that we're likely to run into the biggest problems, as definitions are bound to differ. There would, in fact, be two common definitions for most people:

1) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality.

2) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality that is not supported by concrete evidence.

Those who use the first definition would say that all people have "beliefs" and "belief systems" (since everyone must make some sort of conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality); those who use the second definition would claim that beliefs apply only to issues of "faith", to those matters which can't be proven by a rational, verifiable process to be absolutely true.

To illustrate the difference further, take the mathematical statement that one plus one equals two. Those in the first camp would state that this is a "belief"; those in the second camp would say it is not, it is a "fact", and does not involve "belief" at all.

But I would say that, even for those who hold the second definition, their claim that they "don't have any beliefs" is fundamentally untrue. Oh, sure, there are lots of things that we can confirm scientifically, that we can demonstrate to be absolutely true (to any reasonable interpretation, anyway); but there are many others that we cannot.

Let me illustrate:

Do you believe that murder is right, or wrong? Do you believe that a democratic system of government is superior to an autocratic one?

Now, in the above questions, it is certainly quite possible to present arguments to support one belief, or another; but there is no way (at least none that I've ever seen) to demonstrate that one particular conclusion about these issues, or many others, have an absolute answer. You can present plenty of facts and data to support your particular belief; but there is no conclusion possible to questions like these, that has the same level of absolute truth that 1+1=2 does.

This has an inevitable impact on how I view life. I have never really changed my 'belief' that 1+1=2, because it is an absolute truth, one that does not change based on one's perception, or on particular circumstances (now someone's gonna' pop in and point out that, in certain theoretical dimensions, 1+1 would not equal two, or something like that). Whereas my beliefs on things like murder, capital punishment, political systems, human rights...these have changed and varied throughout my life.

I'm a Humanist. This means I have certain beliefs, or principles, or values, or philosophies...whatever you want to call them. None of these are things that I can prove absolutely; there is no replicable experiment that I can conduct that can conclusively demonstrate that in every situation, for all humans, these beliefs will always hold true, or will always be the best. But I still believe in them. To whit:

* I believe that knowledge can be, and should be, acquired through a rational process of observation and experimentation; and that there is no knowledge or truth that, due to its claimed source (divine or otherwise) can be considered beyond questioning, especially if presented with evidence to the contrary.
* I believe that while there are universal laws governing our physical universe, there are not universal laws that govern morality. Thus, absolute answers in regards to physical reality are possible; but absolute answers in regards to morality are not.
* I believe that, as a human being, the perpetuation of the human species as a whole is an admirable and desirable goal.
* I believe that, beyond perpetuating the human species, an even more important goal is to ensure that as many humans as possible are able to have equal opportunities, and to pursue their full potential. Where inequalities exist, where abuses take place, it is our responsibility to do what we can to change that.
* I believe that a democratic society is the most desirable end goal, as it offers the greatest degree of personal freedom and (potential) equality of any political system that I've seen demonstrated thus far.
* I believe that democracy, while a desirable end goal, is not always either possible or useful in specific circumstances; that in order to reach the point where a sustainable democracy is possible, it is sometimes necessary to go through a period of autocratic rule.

I could go on forever and ever. Some people will agree with what I've said; others will disagree. But agree, or disagree...it is still a belief.

[temporalillusion]

Not posting while drunk is part of my belief system.

[Manopolus]

I believe in eating babies, does that count?

Oh, and I also strongly believe in posting while drunk.

[jiggeryqua]

I believe in a thing called love

Just listen to the rhythm of my heart

There's a chance we could make it now
We'll be rocking 'til the sun goes down

I believe in a thing called love

Ooh!

[Ocelot]

I believe the children are our are future Teach them well and let them lead the way

[openingmind]

1) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality.

Thanks, Wolfman, this is what I meant by "belief."

2) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality that is not supported by concrete evidence.

This works too. I'm not picky. I have both kinds of beliefs. For instance, I believe that the universe has always been here. I have no concrete evidence for it, but I've chosen not to believe in a creator/designer (which I also feel there's no evidence for). In the absence of a belief in a creator, I believe that the universe was not created, i.e., had no beginning. You might call it a rational sort of irrational belief since I no that there's no evidence for it; but it is, nonetheless, what I prefer to think.

[HansMustermann]

Oh, I'm a devout believer. I believe I'll have another beer. *fssst* *gulp* Ahh, I love it when a prophecy comes true

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

Not posting while drunk is part of my belief system.

Dave H please copy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I find it humorous when people make the claim, "I have no belief system". In most cases, they are trying to differentiate themselves from what they see as the 'irrational' belief systems of others, by claiming that they don't need a belief system.

Gord's signature, which he points out above, is a good example: "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." But I argue that it is, in fact, impossible not to have a belief system.

First, of course, we're going to have to define what a "belief" or "belief system" is; and it is here that we're likely to run into the biggest problems, as definitions are bound to differ. There would, in fact, be two common definitions for most people:

1) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality.

2) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality that is not supported by concrete evidence.

Those who use the first definition would say that all people have "beliefs" and "belief systems" (since everyone must make some sort of conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality); those who use the second definition would claim that beliefs apply only to issues of "faith", to those matters which can't be proven by a rational, verifiable process to be absolutely true.

To illustrate the difference further, take the mathematical statement that one plus one equals two. Those in the first camp would state that this is a "belief"; those in the second camp would say it is not, it is a "fact", and does not involve "belief" at all.

But I would say that, even for those who hold the second definition, their claim that they "don't have any beliefs" is fundamentally untrue. Oh, sure, there are lots of things that we can confirm scientifically, that we can demonstrate to be absolutely true (to any reasonable interpretation, anyway); but there are many others that we cannot.

Let me illustrate:

Do you believe that murder is right, or wrong? Do you believe that a democratic system of government is superior to an autocratic one?

Now, in the above questions, it is certainly quite possible to present arguments to support one belief, or another; but there is no way (at least none that I've ever seen) to demonstrate that one particular conclusion about these issues, or many others, have an absolute answer. You can present plenty of facts and data to support your particular belief; but there is no conclusion possible to questions like these, that has the same level of absolute truth that 1+1=2 does.

This has an inevitable impact on how I view life. I have never really changed my 'belief' that 1+1=2, because it is an absolute truth, one that does not change based on one's perception, or on particular circumstances (now someone's gonna' pop in and point out that, in certain theoretical dimensions, 1+1 would not equal two, or something like that). Whereas my beliefs on things like murder, capital punishment, political systems, human rights...these have changed and varied throughout my life.

I'm a Humanist. This means I have certain beliefs, or principles, or values, or philosophies...whatever you want to call them. None of these are things that I can prove absolutely; there is no replicable experiment that I can conduct that can conclusively demonstrate that in every situation, for all humans, these beliefs will always hold true, or will always be the best. But I still believe in them. To whit:

* I believe that knowledge can be, and should be, acquired through a rational process of observation and experimentation; and that there is no knowledge or truth that, due to its claimed source (divine or otherwise) can be considered beyond questioning, especially if presented with evidence to the contrary.
* I believe that while there are universal laws governing our physical universe, there are not universal laws that govern morality. Thus, absolute answers in regards to physical reality are possible; but absolute answers in regards to morality are not.
* I believe that, as a human being, the perpetuation of the human species as a whole is an admirable and desirable goal.
* I believe that, beyond perpetuating the human species, an even more important goal is to ensure that as many humans as possible are able to have equal opportunities, and to pursue their full potential. Where inequalities exist, where abuses take place, it is our responsibility to do what we can to change that.
* I believe that a democratic society is the most desirable end goal, as it offers the greatest degree of personal freedom and (potential) equality of any political system that I've seen demonstrated thus far.
* I believe that democracy, while a desirable end goal, is not always either possible or useful in specific circumstances; that in order to reach the point where a sustainable democracy is possible, it is sometimes necessary to go through a period of autocratic rule.

I could go on forever and ever. Some people will agree with what I've said; others will disagree. But agree, or disagree...it is still a belief.

I understand perfectly what you say but I still disagree with you. I have one working assumption -- The Universe is Self Coherent. See Coherentism^WP to see what I am getting at.

I don't have any of the "beliefs" you list above. They are not intrinsic to the fabric of the Universe and are essentially "just" opinions. I may concur with their application to form a working human society but they are not absolute.

Incidentally, you don't have to believe that 1 + 1 = 2, it can be proven (and that is proven in the mathematical sense before someone objects).

[madurobob]

I think Wolfman pretty much nailed it. We all have some sort of core belief system that informs how we encounter and engage life.

Last year my wife dragged me to a UU class called "Building Your Own Theology". I was prepared for a miserable time of resiting the urge to dispute others silly woo beliefs, but was pleasantly surprised. The "class" was a series of meetings where discussions were led around a single question such as:

• Who or what is in charge?
• What is the purpose of your life?
• What is the essence of being human?
• What does death mean to you and what does it teach you about life?
• What are the sources of truth/how do you know what is true?

While some folks had some silly new-agey views about "life forces" and "spiritual energy" and "positive vibrations" and such, for the most part the discussion was wonderful and intellectual. I came away thinking that this is something everyone should stop and think about at least every few years.

From some of the responses here, I'd say the OP is well ahead of some folks here in that regard.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

I believe the children are our are future Teach them well and let them lead the way

Just be careful about that "show them all the beauty they possess inside" part. That is frowned upon in many jurisdictions.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I understand perfectly what you say but I still disagree with you. I have one working assumption -- The Universe is Self Coherent. See Coherentism^WP to see what I am getting at.

I don't have any of the "beliefs" you list above. They are not intrinsic to the fabric of the Universe and are essentially "just" opinions. I may concur with their application to form a working human society but they are not absolute.

Incidentally, you don't have to believe that 1 + 1 = 2, it can be proven (and that is proven in the mathematical sense before someone objects).

So you believe that Wolfman's beliefs are:
1) incoherent,
2) opinions,
3) not absolute (as opposed to Wolfman's statement that they are not absolute?),
4) not within space-time and carry no gravity.

I believe you posted an incoherent "belief".

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson 75

So you believe that Wolfman's beliefs are:
1) incoherent,

No. Why do you say that?

Quote:

2) opinions,

Of course they are opinions. Everything anyone says are opinions.

Quote:

3) not absolute (as opposed to Wolfman's statement that they are not absolute?),

Sorry?

Quote:

4) not within space-time and carry no gravity.

I don't see no smiley.

Quote:

I believe you posted an incoherent "belief".

Believe what you will.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

No. Why do you say that?

Of course they are opinions. Everything anyone says are opinions.

Sorry?

I don't see no smiley.

Believe what you will.

Well, were you disputing everything Wolfman said or parroting it?

[openingmind]

Hmmm, the thread so far seems to confirm what I suspected: belief, and the concept of believing, is tricky to define and is repulsive to some here.

I suppose it's tricky to define for me...but that's why, instead of engaging in mental gymnastics, I choose to seize on a simple, more or less neutral defintion like the one Wolfman suggested: "a conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality."

[Marquis de Carabas]

I have too many beliefs to list them all. I have so many that I am fairly confident that a few of them must be in direct contradiction with others, but I haven't noted them specifically yet.

[Piscivore]

if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I could go on forever and ever. Some people will agree with what I've said; others will disagree. But agree, or disagree...it is still a belief.

My quibble, and request for his definition, wasn't so much with the word "belief," but with "system."

I do hold certain beliefs, but I'm not sure I'd call them a system.

So I wanted to know what qualifies. That's okay, isn't it?

[openingmind]

How about the first dictionary.com definition of "system"?

sys·tem
–noun
1.
an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.

So, in the context of this thread, a "belief system," we'll say, is a unified assemblage of conclusions or assumptions about the nature of reality, with or without evidence backing up those conclusions and assumptions.

What does "unified" mean? Here is, again, the first dictionary.com definition for "unify":

u·ni·fy
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -fied, -fy·ing.
to make or become a single unit; unite: to unify conflicting theories; to unify a country.

So, to be absolutely clear: a "belief system" (if you want to play along) is:

an assemblage of non-conflicting conclusions or assumptions about the nature of reality, with or without evidence backing up the conclusions or assumptions.

[slingblade]

Oh, okay, in that case, I don't have one. Thanks.

[madurobob]

Originally Posted by openingmind

an assemblage of non-conflicting conclusions or assumptions about the nature of reality, with or without evidence backing up the conclusions or assumptions.

"non conflicting" probably rules me out, too.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson 75

Well, were you disputing everything Wolfman said or parroting it?

Neither or both. Whatever you want to believe.

Do you have any opinions of your own?

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Do you have any opinions of your own?

NO! Don't a--

Damn, too late.

[openingmind]

So, those of you who say you have no beliefs -- at least according to the working definition laid out here -- what would you say informs the way you react to reality from day to day?

Do you prefer to say you know this or that, instead of believe? (Because of the latter's association with assumptions based on no hard evidence?)

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by openingmind

So, those of you who say you have no beliefs -- at least according to the working definition laid out here -- what would you say informs the way you react to reality from day to day?

Do you prefer to say you know this or that, instead of believe? (Because of the latter's association with assumptions based on no hard evidence?)

Well, I don't prefer to say I know. I prefer to know, whenever possible. If I can't know, or if no one can know, I try to reserve judgment, but I'm not always successful.

For instance, I know a fair bit of science, but I don't consider myself a scientist or any kind of expert. So when astronomers tell me the distance to the sun is 93 million miles, I accept that. I haven't the knowledge to find it out for myself. So one can call that a belief, based on expert knowledge.

But yeah, I prefer to know things.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by plumjam

It's a system of beliefs. You know, stuff you believe in.

I don't believe in, I only believe that.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Piggy

I don't believe in, I only believe that.

Yeah. That.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Piggy

I don't believe in, I only believe that.

I believe that's a nonsensical distinction.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Neither or both. Whatever you want to believe. (

Ah, so you decided on vacillation.

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Do you have any opinions of your own?

Yes, they are Self-Coherent, but they fell through a hole in the fabric of the Universe and are absolutely "just" opinions.

[cienaños]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

I find it humorous when people make the claim, "I have no belief system". In most cases, they are trying to differentiate themselves from what they see as the 'irrational' belief systems of others, by claiming that they don't need a belief system.

Gord's signature, which he points out above, is a good example: "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." But I argue that it is, in fact, impossible not to have a belief system.

First, of course, we're going to have to define what a "belief" or "belief system" is; and it is here that we're likely to run into the biggest problems, as definitions are bound to differ. There would, in fact, be two common definitions for most people:

1) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality.

2) A conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality that is not supported by concrete evidence.

Those who use the first definition would say that all people have "beliefs" and "belief systems" (since everyone must make some sort of conclusion or assumption about the nature of reality); those who use the second definition would claim that beliefs apply only to issues of "faith", to those matters which can't be proven by a rational, verifiable process to be absolutely true.

To illustrate the difference further, take the mathematical statement that one plus one equals two. Those in the first camp would state that this is a "belief"; those in the second camp would say it is not, it is a "fact", and does not involve "belief" at all.

But I would say that, even for those who hold the second definition, their claim that they "don't have any beliefs" is fundamentally untrue. Oh, sure, there are lots of things that we can confirm scientifically, that we can demonstrate to be absolutely true (to any reasonable interpretation, anyway); but there are many others that we cannot.

Let me illustrate:

Do you believe that murder is right, or wrong? Do you believe that a democratic system of government is superior to an autocratic one?

Now, in the above questions, it is certainly quite possible to present arguments to support one belief, or another; but there is no way (at least none that I've ever seen) to demonstrate that one particular conclusion about these issues, or many others, have an absolute answer. You can present plenty of facts and data to support your particular belief; but there is no conclusion possible to questions like these, that has the same level of absolute truth that 1+1=2 does.

This has an inevitable impact on how I view life. I have never really changed my 'belief' that 1+1=2, because it is an absolute truth, one that does not change based on one's perception, or on particular circumstances (now someone's gonna' pop in and point out that, in certain theoretical dimensions, 1+1 would not equal two, or something like that). Whereas my beliefs on things like murder, capital punishment, political systems, human rights...these have changed and varied throughout my life.

I'm a Humanist. This means I have certain beliefs, or principles, or values, or philosophies...whatever you want to call them. None of these are things that I can prove absolutely; there is no replicable experiment that I can conduct that can conclusively demonstrate that in every situation, for all humans, these beliefs will always hold true, or will always be the best. But I still believe in them. To whit:

* I believe that knowledge can be, and should be, acquired through a rational process of observation and experimentation; and that there is no knowledge or truth that, due to its claimed source (divine or otherwise) can be considered beyond questioning, especially if presented with evidence to the contrary.
* I believe that while there are universal laws governing our physical universe, there are not universal laws that govern morality. Thus, absolute answers in regards to physical reality are possible; but absolute answers in regards to morality are not.
* I believe that, as a human being, the perpetuation of the human species as a whole is an admirable and desirable goal.
* I believe that, beyond perpetuating the human species, an even more important goal is to ensure that as many humans as possible are able to have equal opportunities, and to pursue their full potential. Where inequalities exist, where abuses take place, it is our responsibility to do what we can to change that.
* I believe that a democratic society is the most desirable end goal, as it offers the greatest degree of personal freedom and (potential) equality of any political system that I've seen demonstrated thus far.
* I believe that democracy, while a desirable end goal, is not always either possible or useful in specific circumstances; that in order to reach the point where a sustainable democracy is possible, it is sometimes necessary to go through a period of autocratic rule.

I could go on forever and ever. Some people will agree with what I've said; others will disagree. But agree, or disagree...it is still a belief.

Well said.

What's interesting to me is the pesky fact that an able mind is required to construct a belief system, but the brick and mortar of most belief systems are perpetuated for and by those whose minds are question-able at best. Is this a paradox?

The infant always lacks it, the infirm sometimes, but what about the loon? The loon whose beliefs are halved equally at 1+1=2 and 2+2=5? The loon, whose fleeting conclusions about the nature of reality can and do change - just like that. Is one moment all that's required for a belief to exist?

Just thinking out loud.