Belief

[Bakiryu]

Do human beings need to believe in something to survive? Or is it just part of being human? Everyone seems to believe in something, even if it's not a cause. Or they believe that they do not believe in something.

What does it mean to believe? Does believing makes us what we are?

(Or you can just rant about belief: what is it and what does it mean to you?)

[browneyedbailey]

It could mean anythig. Some belive, others don't...

[Bakiryu]

It could mean anythig. Some belive, others don't...

no, everybody believes in at least something.

[blazeofglory]

Do human beings need to believe in something to survive? Or is it just part of being human? Everyone seems to believe in something, even if it's not a cause. Or they believe that they do not believe in something.

What does it mean to believe? Does believing makes us what we are?

(Or you can just rant about belief: what is it and what does it mean to you?)

This is a profound question and intriguing too. Everyone beleives in things, and to say what you beleive make you are is a notion hard to understand

[Bakiryu]

This is a profound question and intriguing too. Everyone beleives in things, and to say what you beleive make you are is a notion hard to understand

Not really, what you believe shapes your mind and if you study it deeply you usually start thinking in patterns set by that belief.

Oh look, my thread has been moved. (again!) oh well.

[Poppy]

Your belief system also becomes a creature of habit. It typically is ingrained in you by your parents at first, then your peers, and finally one is able to make up their own mind as to their beliefs.

[AdoreroDio]

A belief, by definition, is a confidence, faith or trust in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof or just a conviction. Belief to me is different to each person. To one person they believe that there is nothing to believe in and are living conundrums, to others a belief is something they are willing to die for, for children a belief is not knowing the truth yet. But then you could argue what truth is. It really depends on how you look at it. For me, belief is my life. Everyone believes, has faith, in something. Whether it's as simple as believing you will wake up tomorrow morning or as strong as believing in God, belief is everyday life. It's how we live, what we base our entire lives on. It's a necessity as much as breathing is.
So I guess that is my answer- belief is life.

[Midas]

Belief is thought without question, or is the absolute absence of any doubt whatsoever. If you have to be conscious of your belief, in other words if it is not a natural part of you controlling your actions and reactions, then it is not belief.

We have many levels of thought process, many of which we are not conscious because we do not have to think about them. If we had to consciously think about everything we did, every action before we did it our lives would be totally different, in fact, I doubt very much if we could live.

So our minds control us by our belief whether we think we believe that or not, From where do we get our belief? Simply - 'Nature and Nurture'. Can our beliefs be over ruled? Yes, by hypnotism which reaches into the subconscious -- that 'behind' our conscious thought where our beliefs lie.

Depending on the professionalism of the practitioner it can be very temporary, or could, eventually become a natural belief when reinforced over a long period.

Not all our beliefs are based on generally accepted truth (probably few are), only on our personal accepted truths.

Could Descartes have said not only 'I think therefore I am', but 'I believe, therefore that is how I really am'

Our beliefs make us who we really are.


(Now what I have explained has been very simplified. It would take too long to explain fully. However, the main points are there.)

[Taliesin]

We believe we would like a bottle of beer.

[blazeofglory]

Not really, what you believe shapes your mind and if you study it deeply you usually start thinking in patterns set by that belief.

Oh look, my thread has been moved. (again!) oh well.

Beliefs are fleeting things, indeed passe, and today I have sets of beliefs and tomorrows will be indeed different.

[TheFifthElement]

Do human beings need to believe in something to survive? Or is it just part of being human? Everyone seems to believe in something, even if it's not a cause. Or they believe that they do not believe in something.

What does it mean to believe? Does believing makes us what we are?

(Or you can just rant about belief: what is it and what does it mean to you?)

Baki, are you talking religious belief, or just belief? It has more than one meaning. If you mean faith, then best to talk about faith, I think.

Belief is all encompassing and we cannot live without it. Even scientific principles are based on belief, 'I believe that the Earth orbits the sun', 'I believe that when I take my next step forward my leg will not have grown and gravity will still hold me down', etc, etc.

I don't think faith is necessary, but rather a side effect of human need to explain and categorise things. Everything has to have an explanation, including life and why we are here, and if we can't find an absolute answer to a question we put forward theories and look for evidence to fit the theories, and then until the theory is disproved then it is pre-supposed to be true. If we learned to accept that there are some things we can't understand and put into neat little boxes, we would both destroy technological and scientific innovation and development, as well as religion, and creativity to boot.

[NikolaiI]

True that everyone believes in something. Gravity, for instance, we are fairly convicted about.
I don't share Midas' definition of belief, which seems arbitrary. I believe in gravity but it is something which if I analyze I will still believe.


Does believing makes us what we are?

(Or you can just rant about belief: what is it and what does it mean to you?)

Yes, it does, and this is a great thing. Belief creates the reality which we live in. Belief creates who we are, and so the possibilities are limitless. When I say it creates reality, I mean it creates reality for us. Take smoking for example. It's what you believe whether you can quit or not. It might be difficult to take the leap and say that you're not addicted and you can quit if you want to. There are beliefs built on beliefs, but we can choose to believe what we want, we can even choose the beliefs which all others are built on.

The smoking example: if I define for myself what the effects are on me, then I can control my actions. Nicotine effects the brain, but so does fresh air. Nicotine wires the brain and makes it so that the brain is receptive to it, but so does fresh air and spirituality.

Often our beliefs separate us from others by a chasm. This can be good or bad- Saint Anthony was indubitably separated from others because he was on a plane of spirituality when the rest were in the worldly plane- and they saw the light that had been embodied in him, and they followed him and he brought many to liberation. It took twenty years of praying in the wilderness for the complete transformation which happened before he came back to the city. The austere practice of St. Anthony is remarkably similar to the austere practice of Milarepa of Tibet. The parallels are remarkable. The mind is transformed by the practice, and in the process of transformation the beliefs are aligned with integration, and the fundamental beliefs are also aligned with reality. I've done just a bit of this austere practice and it's sort of like an super-accelerated growth. It's a cascade. It's written that a single flame can dispel thousands of years of karmic impurity, and also that after one enlightened thought, all others are enlightened. I find this not to be exactly true; as we can have insights but then completely forget about them, but the cascade effect is real. I would go to say that the practice of St. Anthony and Milarepa was done to transform the mind- mind and beliefs are connected- and the beliefs, and to align them with nature, reality or spirituality- in Anthony's case, God- and then be transformed by the cascade.

St. Anthony's religion was Christianity, and Mila's religion was Buddhism. Schopenahur writes about a similar idea to Buddhism, that the world exists as our idea. It isn't the world we view that we know so much as the eye that views it. In Buddhism this is described in that reality exists in our minds. The self-sufficient mind contains everything it needs. So reality is subjective and we create our own reality for ourselves, and then there's practice which if we are dedicated to it will give us mental stability and clarity. Okay, that's my rant I suppose.

[blazeofglory]

Beliefs are not at one with life. Beliefs are things that come and go and of course they are temporal and indeed some beliefs may shape minds and most do not and fade away. They are like morning dews and you can not see them afternoon.

[NikolaiI]

Beliefs are not at one with life. Beliefs are things that come and go and of course they are temporal and indeed some beliefs may shape minds and most do not and fade away. They are like morning dews and you can not see them afternoon.

Beliefs come and go, but are beliefs the same thing as what you believe? What you believe truly shapes reality. I don't mean that it shapes things external, like supernatural powers- I don't mean that believing things aren't what they are will make them so. But beliefs in relation to our own minds do make our minds, and from our minds come our actions and our lives. Everything is in our minds, for example psychological problems, such as addiction. Beliefs and perceptions shape us, because if we think something is a certain way, then we won't act otherwise! But if we think things are another way, then we might have a much greater possibility.

[jon1jt]

I think the spirit of what Blaze is saying is the case, to an extent. Consider the deep Judeo-Christian roots still shaping politics and society today, despite the centuries of fierce opposition, particularly from the Enlightenment thinkers on.

I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned belief in the context of language and the role of language in shaping belief systems---sign systems that engender culture.

Nikolai is talking about the human 'eye' and world as IDEA, but Nikolai that thinking neglects the philosophy that proceeded Schopenhauer and eventually shattered it...or more importantly, shattered Cartesian Dualism.

Contributors of that include:
Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and god himeself, Jaques Derrida. :)

As Nietzsche said in more poetical terms: Belief is the handmaiden of guilt, and guilt is, ultimately, a Christian construct. And since I'm on the subject of Nietzsche and belief: don't you know, God is dead! ;)

[jon1jt]

and if we can't find an absolute answer to a question we put forward theories and look for evidence to fit the theories, and then until the theory is disproved then it is pre-supposed to be true. If we learned to accept that there are some things we can't understand and put into neat little boxes, we would both destroy technological and scientific innovation and development, as well as religion, and creativity to boot.

The scientific method is actually a fairly recent practice - 1000 years, maybe - especially if you consider the span of human history and ideas. Life was not always a quest for Progress toward technological and scientific superiority. ;)

[NikolaiI]

But you fail to mention exactly what philosophy that is, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[jon1jt]

But you fail to mention exactly what philosophy that is, so I don't know what you're talking about.


Ontology, and Schopenhauer is in the early modern development of that.

[NikolaiI]

Perhaps I am associating belief too closely with the mind.

It is from the mind that afflictive states cause suffering.

The mind that is transformed does not suffer (as it does not have the afflictive states.)

So can a mind that is yet to be transformed become transformed?

Of course it can.

The mind can effect this transformation by acting the practice, and the practice transforms the mind.

Ontology is actually the basis of what I'm saying. The fundamental state of the mind is what all others are built on.

I guess what Blaze is saying is that beliefs do not affect the fundamental state of the mind. And this is true in a sense. However, it is very limited in another. The mind is not something out of our limits. It's within our limits to change our minds.

Like I say, it might be quite a leap to change our minds about something. Especially if we don't try to understand what's beneath.

Elaborate a little and tell me something I am missing, a wider view, or refine my beliefs.

[TheFifthElement]

The scientific method is actually a fairly recent practice - 1000 years, maybe - especially if you consider the span of human history and ideas. Life was not always a quest for Progress toward technological and scientific superiority. ;)

but then is the Scientific Method just a label for one particular aspect of human nature - that being categorisation and pattern recognition. Taking the label aside the process appears instinctive - observe a bunch 5 year olds for a while and you'll see them do it, they propose theories which fit what they observe, even though the results may be a little shaky!

I'm not sure you can say that scientific and technological superiority is an aim in itself, but perhaps a side effect of the survival instinct - the more we can understand and manipulate our environment the greater our chance of survival. Again, this appears to be a matter of labels - survival has been an aim as long as there has been man, and man has developed technology to aid him, clothing, spears etc - all older than 1000 years.

But Jon, perhaps I am ill equipped to debate with you on philosophical matters!

[APEist]

If it's not shoved away into the BS compartment in your brain, then it is belief.

[jon1jt]

I'm not sure you can say that scientific and technological superiority is an aim in itself, but perhaps a side effect of the survival instinct - the more we can understand and manipulate our environment the greater our chance of survival.

I agree with you on the first part, science and technology are fields of inquiry that provide the material resources---i.e. instruments of power. There are many other means as well. Power becomes the ultimate aim. :D


Again, this appears to be a matter of labels - survival has been an aim as long as there has been man, and man has developed technology to aid him, clothing, spears etc - all older than 1000 years.

Let me throw some things out there, not in any order, just food for thought:
I agree with your point, Fifth, it's a good one. But why do you need to equate the survival instinct with belief? Why would, say, the first hunters and gatherers, equipped with self-preserving instincts, stop themselves in the middle of running a buffalo off a cliff to say, "I believe I need this food to survive!" Does the hunter rely on the statement of fact or was the hunter, by his very being there, thrown into the quest of the hunt? Hmm. Surely trial and error prefigured the capturing of the buffalo, but it relied on instinct. Belief began with self-reflection whereas instinct requires only the individual and the world. Belief has both a past- and future-orientation. Consider it this way: the past needs the future to survive, the future doesn't need the past for the individual to survive. "Thou shalt not..."

Consider Socrates' statement: "Know thyself." It takes meaning from instinct and places it in rationality---in the self. Self as phenomena, not self as being-in-a-world, living-in-a-world. (Nikolai) Schopenhauer made the same blunder, like Kant before him. The birth of rational individualism made reason the ROAD to truth. And with that came the loss of the sense of self.

I love the example Camus provides in The Stranger, the scene where Mersault and his girlfriend can hear in the next apartment over or so their neighbor beating his girlfriend. Mersault's girlfriend says (paraphrasing), "Call the cops, we have to stop him!" And Mersault, who epitomizes the antithesis of reason/belief, answers calmly, "I don't like cops."

I think of the modern state of belief this way: If the sole project of "God" was for us to be happy by creating beliefs and meaning and systems to follow, then we wouldn't have needed instincts in the first place. ;)

[NikolaiI]

Jon1t, all I am saying is that the mind can be changed, and the mind determines largely what happens. Our beliefs shape things very strongly. If I think I can't quit smoking, then I limit myself, and I'm bypassing all sorts of analytical junctures. But if I think cigarettes aren't addictive at all, then they won't be. I understand that I want to smoke, and if I take away that desire, to smoke, then I won't smoke.

I'm talking about belief and mind, but I don't think I'm making the "blunder" of calling "Self as phenomena, not self as being-in-a-world, living-in-a-world." I'm talking about mind and beliefs, words or symbols which have a more or less agreed-upon meaning. Why can't you discuss this with me or at least say you'd rather not discuss it? Rather than saying I make blunders but ignoring me.

[jon1jt]

Jon1t, all I am saying is that the mind can be changed, and the mind determines largely what happens. Our beliefs shape things very strongly. If I think I can't quit smoking, then I limit myself, and I'm bypassing all sorts of analytical junctures. But if I think cigarettes aren't addictive at all, then they won't be. I understand that I want to smoke, and if I take away that desire, to smoke, then I won't smoke.

I'm talking about belief and mind, but I don't think I'm making the "blunder" of calling "Self as phenomena, not self as being-in-a-world, living-in-a-world." I'm talking about mind and beliefs, words or symbols which have a more or less agreed-upon meaning. Why can't you discuss this with me or at least say you'd rather not discuss it? Rather than saying I make blunders but ignoring me.

I didn't mean to ignore you, honestly. I thought I addressed that part about Schopenhauer above. I see what you're saying about the mind and your point is made given our stage of psychological development. And belief is deeply rooted in what we know as the mind. Cultism (e.g. the Judeo-Christian heritage) inculcated that awareness whereby reason no longer is beyond itself---beyond its subject-object structure. You see, Nik, you have taken this "I" who wants to smoke or "desires" to smoke or quit as a structure of Being---and in that there is a deep self-conscious awareness. What the self has lost is ecstatic experience whereby reason withdraws and the self returns to the innocence of becoming. The individual in your scheme becomes the point of reference (ego) masked in layers of overlapping belief systems. In that we are caught in the trappings of experience, and for the ego to be eliminated from that center - as Freud acknowledges - would be too devastating for humans.

Consider what happens when individuals are caught in the grip of addiction---their ego is severely debilitated and what normally occurs? Seizure, vulnerability to archetypes, neurological disorders, etc.

I love C.S. Lewis who says: "We live in the Shadowlands." It's just too bad we can't get there. We are the end of innocence. I guess we must 'believe' in belief then. ;)

[TheFifthElement]

I agree with your point, Fifth, it's a good one. But why do you need to equate the survival instinct with belief?

I didn’t, or at least that was not my intention, not in relation to religious belief anyway. I think I was off on a tangent, or perhaps just heading down a different path which lead from here:


I don't think faith is necessary, but rather a side effect of human need to explain and categorise things. Everything has to have an explanation, including life and why we are here, and if we can't find an absolute answer to a question we put forward theories and look for evidence to fit the theories, and then until the theory is disproved then it is pre-supposed to be true. If we learned to accept that there are some things we can't understand and put into neat little boxes, we would both destroy technological and scientific innovation and development, as well as religion, and creativity to boot.

to here :


The scientific method is actually a fairly recent practice - 1000 years, maybe - especially if you consider the span of human history and ideas. Life was not always a quest for Progress toward technological and scientific superiority.

to here :


I'm not sure you can say that scientific and technological superiority is an aim in itself, but perhaps a side effect of the survival instinct

so, I think, we moved from faith to the purpose of science and technology. That being said, going back to my original post, I think the science and religion are two opposing poles of the same thing, the search for truth and meaning, which in itself naturally follows from the human need to categorise, classify and pattern recognise. The goals of science and religion are the same, they just approach it in different ways.


Consider Socrates' statement: "Know thyself." It takes meaning from instinct and places it in rationality---in the self. Self as phenomena, not self as being-in-a-world, living-in-a-world. (Nikolai) Schopenhauer made the same blunder, like Kant before him. The birth of rational individualism made reason the ROAD to truth. And with that came the loss of the sense of self.

My brain melted here.


I love the example Camus provides in The Stranger

is this The Outsider renamed for the American market ;)



I think of the modern state of belief this way: If the sole project of "God" was for us to be happy by creating beliefs and meaning and systems to follow, then we wouldn't have needed instincts in the first place.

I think that it is possible to put together a logical construct of ‘God’ but the logical ‘God’ has been perverted by the human quest for more power over other humans. If you take ‘religion’ out of ‘God’ then it could be logically explained, though never proven. Proof would expunge ‘belief’ right? I think we create beliefs for our own purposes, because the concept of a finite self is unpalatable. Belief systems get us through the day, to the next day, to the next day. In that respect perhaps it is linked to the survival instinct...did I just say that?!!! Perhaps this can only occur when we have the leisure (through technology) to live in a way other than 'hand to mouth', when we have more to think about than the next meal. So, farming is the cause of religion...well, that's my opinion anyway ;)

[jon1jt]

I love the example Camus provides in The Stranger


tis this The Outsider renamed for the American market ;)


:eek: :eek: Hah, good comeback, I'll give you that! But just wait you, my turn! :p

[blazeofglory]

We are in fact indoctrinated into believing things and what we believe in at the root is not our own, and we are programmed or stuffed with software to believe the way we do. Once deprogram or unlearn all that what remains at the end is you. The sheer you and the rest is external to it.

When you see a rose you start philosophizing it. Do see it the way a butterfly does it and it has nothing with aesthetics, ethics. Whereas you start rationalizing it.

If you see the sun you ratiocinate it. If you are an ancient thinker you associate the sun with a particular God, and if you are a modern one you stuff your mind all scientific rubbish.

Keep your mind clean of it and see where does belief go.

They evaporate for they at the root are nonexistencial!

[blazeofglory]

Beliefs come and go, but are beliefs the same thing as what you believe? What you believe truly shapes reality. I don't mean that it shapes things external, like supernatural powers- I don't mean that believing things aren't what they are will make them so. But beliefs in relation to our own minds do make our minds, and from our minds come our actions and our lives. Everything is in our minds, for example psychological problems, such as addiction. Beliefs and perceptions shape us, because if we think something is a certain way, then we won't act otherwise! But if we think things are another way, then we might have a much greater possibility.

Nikolai, I understand your point of view, of course. Your points are logically sound and agreeble.

Yet I have a different opinion. Beliefs are learned. kind of software, and we are from the moment we are born programmed to believe things. This belief has a wide repertoire indeed from believing in Gods to many other social taboos.

Indeed we cannot free ourselves from believing some thing. Even not to believe in God is also believing in the fact that there is no God, paradoxically speaking.

Therefore belief has no strong foundation and it is very shaky. And our beliefs are changed and if we analyze or study how our beliefs progressed babyhood to now we observe variations of course in our beliefs ub high degrees from then to now.

This is what I believe in. I do not say I am totally right, may be from one angle. There are other dimensions I may overlook and you may discern.

[NikolaiI]

No, in this case you need to have an active assertion, such as "I am at peace." It is true that being at peace is no different in actuality than in descrition, that is, if you are at peace then your mind can't otherwise be, yet it also must be from the mind that you are at peace. This is not something that comes after years of development, it's something that is in greater flux, yet it is no less important on gradual developmental advances.

[blazeofglory]

Mind and peace are incongruous things, Nikolai, for the mind is subject to attributes, and the peace you get from the mind is not static, and of course it is the absence of sadness.

There is peace above the level of the mind, and this is what we cal Satchitananda in Sanskrit.

[NikolaiI]

I say mind, but of course I do not know what I'm talking about my friend! Isn't there a word for heart-mind? That is usually what I mean when I say mind.

[Bruce Bradley]

Belief is a conviction of certain things to be true. It is also used in religious faith as a way to obtain everlasting life. It could mean trust and confidence in someone or thing. These definitions are from the Webster New World Dictionary.

In my belief I must say the most important belief is what one has in themself. This belief decides whether or not they will have the confidence in themselves enough to succeed. Without it you will be afraid to try something new in the event you might fail. To fail is only a way to learn to be successful in the end. Never give up, have belief in yourself.

To know that if we (the human race) apply enough effort anything can be accomplished. But with all these accomplishments do you believe the world is a better place. This is belief that things are getting better.

[NikolaiI]

There's an enigmatic saying in Buddhism that goes "If one has knowledge of their mind, then they are a teacher of gods and buddhas. But if they don't know the nature of their mind, they never will." :)

[blazeofglory]

Not really, what you believe shapes your mind and if you study it deeply you usually start thinking in patterns set by that belief.

Oh look, my thread has been moved. (again!) oh well.

There are elements of truth in what you said.