"Believe in . . ? or "Believe that . . ."

[realthinker]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

[Grumpy]

bjs

Assuming a priori that there is no God and that by “looking at and trying to understand the reality� I will find something other than God is not intellectual or reasonable.

Science assumes nothing of the kind, it is just that no evidence of god has been found, nor has anything been seen which requires a god to exist. Parsimony(Occam's Razor)tells us not to posit entities for which no need or evidence exists.

You will probably find what you are looking for (people usually do), but that doesn’t mean you will find the truth.

Actually, the scientific method tends to eliminate "conformation bias", there are always other scientists that try to tear down your work, only that which withstands such efforts can be deemed legitimate.

And you will have to define what you mean by truth, if it is facts and reason then science indeed reaches truths, though these truths are always subject to revision or rejection given new knowledge or understanding. If you are talking about "eternal truths" that is claimed by religions, they do not exist, they are religious opinions based on ??? One religion's truth is another's anathema or blasphemy. And none of these truths have valid evidence of their accuracy.

That is an example of deciding what the truth is and then looking for evidence to support what you already believe.

No, it is not, nor are the things science shows us "beliefs" at all. False claims simply cannot withstand scientific scrutiny, science tends to destroy such beliefs.

It depends on what you mean by science. If you mean science in the strictest sense of developing and testing a hypothesis about the physical world then you are right, there will not be any evidence of God. That search is specifically for something other than God.

Again, no. God is not considered at all, one way or another, how could he be? "And then a miracle occurred" is not a valid statement in a mathematical equation! Magic explains nothing.

If you mean science in the broader sense of the search for truth, then there is considerable debate about whether or not the evidence will lead us to God.

Debate, yes. Evidence, no. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Grumpy

[Slopeshoulder]

Believe that:
To ascribe objective existence, properties, intention, action etc. to God.
To make propositional truth claims about God, starting with exsitence.
I don't do this. I take an Ignostic position of a sort. The alternatives strike me as in-credible.

Believe in:
To align oneself existentially with the tradition of what god and godtalk stand for, inquire into, respond to, etc.
To make commitments to a framework for living having to with whatever the word god might mean.
I do this. I prefer it to the alternatives which bore and depress me.

[Coldfire]

What is the difference between these two statements:


"I believe in God."


"I believe that God exists

These two statements above are rather broad.

Both statements denote that a particular deity is existent shown by the use of “God� as opposed to “a god�

The first statement entails that the person who says it places certain aspects or qualities to “God� and trusts that the said god upholds these aspects.

The second statement only signifies that the person who says it believes that a particular god exists. The god believed in, has aspects that are either personal to the believer or the same as another person or group of people depending on the way in which it is used. However, there may or may not be any trust put into the god in regards to the upholding of these aspects.

Example 1:
Person A: “What is your theological position?�
Person B: “I believe that God exists�
Note that this “God� can be one personal to him/her or it can be the Christian God or Allah, Vishnu etc. there is a lot not mentioned, but this statement clearly implies that the person “knows� this “God� and may or may not believe in His/Its/Her ability or willingness to perform.

Example 2:
Person C: “What is your theological position?�
Person D: “I believe that a god exists�
Note that person D believes a god exists but doesn’t imply that he/she “knows� the god. To him/her the god may or may not have certain aspects and may or may not have the willingness or ability to live up to the aspects. This statement doesn’t necessarily leave out the notion that a particular “God� may exist to Person D and doesn’t state whether or not Person D “believes in� this god.

Example 3:
Person E: “God in the Bible is a merciful god. If you believe in Him, you will be saved. Do you believe in God?�
Person F: “Yes, I believe in God!�
Note that the particular god in question is specific, that being the one in the Bible. Person F has acknowledged that he/she trusts the Christian god to uphold his particular aspects.


Because these are rather broad statements, Person B, D and F can say that they “believe that God exists,� they “believe that a god exists,� or “they believe in God� Neither statement truly contradicts itself. If you believe in the Christian god, than you most certainly believe that he exists, therefore you believe that a god exists. These can very well be or not be interchangeable. A lot of it has to do with the context.

That is an example of deciding what the truth is and then looking for evidence to support what you already believe.

No, it is not, nor are the things science shows us "beliefs" at all. False claims simply cannot withstand scientific scrutiny, science tends to destroy such beliefs.

What is your definition of “belief?�

I agree that “false claims� wouldn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. Are you saying that if a particular belief is not destroyed by this scientific scrutiny (people still believe it as fact) than the said belief is not a “false claim?�

[Slopeshoulder]

You can existenstially affirm a belief IN god without propositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different. The fornmer does not imply or demand the latter.

I recommend the word knowledge when we can reasonably say we know (we never know god exists).

I recommend ebelief when we have a hunch or conclude something is true without evidence.


I recommend the word faith when we affirm and align with something that we cannot know. This is belief IN God.

[scourge99]

You can existenstially affirm a belief IN god without propositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different. The fornmer does not imply or demand the latter.

I agree. One can affirm a belief in ANYTHING, even nonsense, without propositionally claiming anything related to factual existence.

I recommend the word knowledge when we can reasonably say we know (we never know god exists).

And I recommend using the word "justified belief" when we can attribute some rational reason for belief in something or in the existence of something. The reason need not be objective.

Anyone can lay claim to belief in gods, auras, chi, unicorns, and ghyzytfx. But belief in or belief that these things exist is not necessarily justified.

I recommend belief when we have a hunch or conclude something is true without evidence.

I agree. But wouldn't agree that "hunches" or "intuition" justify belief.

I recommend the word faith when we affirm and align with something that we cannot know. This is belief IN God.

I have issue with the wide scope of this definition.

E.G., I cannot absolutely "know" anything. But that does not mean there isn't reason or evidence to believe that some things are true. Your definition of "faith" does not appear to distinguish between such things. Thus, the vast differences are not made between "faith" in unicorns versus "faith" in objective reality.

Perhaps there are some assumptions I'm not making that you are?

Or are you just saying that "faith" only applies to concepts which relate to a disposition or attitude, and not to actual existence?

[McCulloch]

You can existentially affirm a belief IN god without prepositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different.

I really do not understand. Are you saying that you can believe in something that you are not convinced exists?

[cnorman18]

You can existentially affirm a belief IN god without prepositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different.

I really do not understand. Are you saying that you can believe in something that you are not convinced exists?

Did you miss my often-posted essay in post 3?

[Slopeshoulder]

You can existentially affirm a belief IN god without prepositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different.

I really do not understand. Are you saying that you can believe in something that you are not convinced exists?[/quote,

No, I am not. The category of existence, and belief about existence, belongs to "belief THAT," not "belief IN." So it's a category issue. So believeing is is not apllied to existence, or vice versa. That's what i mean by the distinction.

I am saying you can affirm and align with some or any"thing," putting faith in it, if you are inclined to think it may exist or that the act of faith itself is felicific, or not atrociously wrong-headed.

I believe IN God (as a notion, a meme, a framing principle). I don't know or therefore believe IF God is, is a THAT. God may be. It would be nice. But the collection of meaning that we mean when we say god is something I orient to. In practical terms it translates to, "I like this god stuff, at its best. I orient toward it, frame my identity and choices around it. No plans to claim it's real or get into apologetics. Might be real; maybe there's something to it. But who am I to insist, especially knowing that any rational argument falls flat. All I can do it maybe pass the lens around. it's all good, except extremism. in the meantime, I'll stay clear of magical thinking and epistemological nihilism." No more than that.

One observation: I've known several people who incline strongly toward atheism or are atheists who also carry an often justifiable anger, derision, or deep suspicion toward the dominant tradition of their backgound or culture (usually christianity in these parts). But these same people, knowing that they are under no pressure to conform or assent to magical claims, have found themselves beguiled and enchanted or impressed and moved by other traditions, like daoism, buddhism, animism, native american spirituality, neo-paganism, etc, from a distance, and disabused of their mythical claims and enjoyed for their mythical wisdom. But they get into it, they quote it, they sometimes take it in and it becomes something of a lens for them. I've come full circle and now I (try to) do this with my own tradition of origin to the degree I can. It's been kinda interesting to do. And it becomes what I would describe as a mature faith that balances abiding and unknowing.
The day it sucks I'll stop, I promise.

[Slopeshoulder]

You can existenstially affirm a belief IN god without propositionally claiming THAT god exists. The two statements are crucially different. The fornmer does not imply or demand the latter.

I agree. One can affirm a belief in ANYTHING, even nonsense, without propositionally claiming anything related to factual existence.

I recommend the word knowledge when we can reasonably say we know (we never know god exists).

And I recommend using the word "justified belief" when we can attribute some rational reason for belief in something or in the existence of something. The reason need not be objective.

Anyone can lay claim to belief in gods, auras, chi, unicorns, and ghyzytfx. But belief in or belief that these things exist is not necessarily justified.

I recommend belief when we have a hunch or conclude something is true without evidence.

I agree. But wouldn't agree that "hunches" or "intuition" justify belief.

I recommend the word faith when we affirm and align with something that we cannot know. This is belief IN God.

I have issue with the wide scope of this definition.

E.G., I cannot absolutely "know" anything. But that does not mean there isn't reason or evidence to believe that some things are true. Your definition of "faith" does not appear to distinguish between such things. Thus, the vast differences are not made between "faith" in unicorns versus "faith" in objective reality.

Perhaps there are some assumptions I'm not making that you are?

Or are you just saying that "faith" only applies to concepts which relate to a disposition or attitude, and not to actual existence?

I think that this invites a long inquiry into the nature of post-analytic philosophy and its curtailment or enrichment, limits or possibilities, for theology. Perhaps we can revisit that later, although it's been talked out rather well in other threads, especially if separately by theopoesis and furrowed brow, with a little wide-eyed and amateurish participation from me.

For now, can I ask, is there anything that would "justify" "belief" as you see it? (Recall in my scheme, no beliefs are justified. Only knowledge or faith.)

To answer your last question, yes, faith is a dispositional attitude that MIGHT MAYBE KINDA SORTA SOMEDAY turn out to have something to do with reality and wouldn't that be nice. In the end it's a dispositional or (borrowing from Kierkegaard) aesthetic, ethical, and "unscientific," paradoxical, and existential leap into faith followed by participation in a kind of wittgensteinian language game in a particular, in this case religious, community of discourse and memory. (Whew!)
One hopes that this would not provide cover, from within a sectrarian location, for any sort of crazy talk when it comes to confusing magic with reality. As postmodern religion is young, the jury is out on that one.

Let me think about the rest of your post some more.

[McCulloch]

Did you miss my often-posted essay in post 3?

No.

It just seems to me that belief here has a meaning in religion that it has in no other context.

You wouldn't say, "I believe in democracy" if you did not believe that democracy does or could exist. Or "I believe in love" or justice or chocolate with chilies.

But "I believe in God" according to you may mean, "I believe in God as a moral principle, an ideal, a way of understanding and approaching existence; and I HOPE that there is a truth - the nature and details of which I cannot know - that validates that belief." In other words, "I believe in God" does not mean I believe in God. But it means I hope that there is something, admittedly vague, that validates a belief in something equally vague, (a principle, an ideal or an approach to existence) that I call God.

Maybe I am not getting it, but your statement "I believe in God" seems to be as devoid of meaning as I anything can imagine. Don't take it personally, I find that when the likes of John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Greta Vosper and Tom Harpur argue against something, they are clear and understandable, but when they try to explain what they do believe, it is as clear as mud to me.