Samhain

The Purpose of Belief

While it may be said that, in an epistemic sense, belief holds a certain weighty value, how far can it be said that this value extends? What is the purpose of belief in the sense of the acquisition of truth? In the following essay my attempt will be to distinguish the differences between truth and belief and attempt to define the purpose of belief in regards to epistemology. In order to do this I will be trying to accomplish several things in order to get to this conclusion. First, it is necessary that one must define belief, define truth, and determine the difference between the two of them in order to establish what role belief has in regards to obtaining truth. Also, critique is necessary in terms of the ethics of belief, and the ethics of believing something, which is not justified by sufficient evidence. What is sufficient evidence to justify belief? While I do not attempt to supply all of the answers, as I am not arrogant enough to believe that I have them, perhaps the following will help to further establish the relationship between belief and truth in an epistemic sense. In conclusion, I feel that while belief is a necessary step in the process of obtaining truth, I do not think that it is the only part, or even a major part, but only a part, which may act as a catalyst in the process of obtaining truth, and a part that should hold little stock in its isolated form.
As stated earlier, it is necessary to briefly determine what truth actually is before we move on. As defined, truth is that which is indisputable. For the purposes of this essay, I will adopt this pragmatic definition of truth. This is not to mean that everything that is true must be indisputable; some things may not be disputable yet, though they may be in the future, or some truths may have illegitimate disputes, etc. It is not my attempt to delve into those categories of truth within this essay, so we may say that for all practical purposes truth is that which is indisputable, and/or that, which can be factually verified.
Now that we have a working definition for truth, we can now determine the answer to the question: “Is belief truth?” Of course, the obvious answer is that it is not. However, why is this so? Are our lives not, as humans, based largely around belief? Do we not live our lives, solve problems, formulate theories, and come to conclusions based on what can be fundamentally known as faith? Can it not be said to be as William James argues: “Our faith is faith in someone else’s faith…” (James 521)? If one examines one’s life, one might find that many decisions and choices in one’s life are made solely on the basis of second, third or even fourth hand knowledge, or merely on the proposition that such has worked before in another’s case, or such has worked before in his case in a different situation. Are such things matters of indisputable truth? Of course, typically they are not, though even if they were could one say “I know this for truth,” and be genuine in their statement? W.K. Clifford would afford that he/she is “Clearly not; the question is not whether the belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on the wrong grounds” (Clifford 516). So once again we come to the question of why belief is not truth. The crucial difference between belief and truth is one of evidence. One can entertain all varieties of beliefs, some good, some bad; truth, as I have defined earlier, is absolute, no amount of belief can sway its quality of being truthfulness.
The reader may wonder at this “What is the point? Of course truth requires evidence; belief needs none.” While the point is conceded, it is necessary to establish this difference in order for one to make note of the ethical aspects of truth over belief. Further, by distinguishing this difference, we now realize that belief can only be, at most, a catalyst for discovering truth, it cannot be truth itself, regardless of the accuracy of the outcome of a belief in regards to truth. For example, if a man were to be stranded in the desert for an extended period of time and if he were to see an oasis in the distance, and in his thirst if he were to run to the oasis and put his lips to the water only to find sand to greet his throat we would say that this man’s belief that the mirage was an oasis had steered him from the truth and caused him harm. If, however, the man found water to greet his throat, would we say that he knew that there was an oasis there? Most likely we would not say such, at least until he felt the water of the oasis course through him. However, while we may see that the man’s belief in the oasis was not truth, his belief did serve a purpose. Without his belief, he would never have had journeyed to the oasis to attempt to save his life. If we made another alteration and said that the man saw the oasis, and did not investigate, thinking it to be a mirage, what would we say of this man? In either case, whether the oasis be true or only a mirage, it would seem that the man acted in a non-genuine fashion. For if the man did not investigate the oasis, and it was actually a mirage or if it was an oasis, he committed an error by stifling his belief in the mirage and not investigating further to obtain the truth.
This brings me to the ethical problems with belief. As noted before, it would seem that belief is necessary in order to get to truth. However, the question I will pose and attempt to answer is “Where does truth begin and belief end?” I am not attempting to lay down a criterion for truth or belief, my attempt is a humble one, namely, how can we consider our belief to be justified, and what should be done with belief if it contradicts truth? In Of Enthusiasm Locke argues, “…If the light, which every one thinks he has in his mind, which in this case is nothing but the strength of his own persuasion, be an evidence that it is from God, contrary opinions have the same title to be inspirations…” (Locke 513). We can say, in the case of Locke’s example, that while belief in these inspirations can be cause for this man to search for evidence that would lead him to the truth regarding these inspirations, it would be unethical to let them stand, by themselves, as evidence, for the only credibility that they have apart from this man’s own musings is his belief that they are inspirations from his god, if it can in fact even be called credibility.
So what of belief? When is belief in something ethical? As stated before, we can be said, in many cases, to live our lives based primarily on belief, so where can we draw the line to say that belief in this is acceptable, while belief in something else is not? Clifford praises belief and sets his own guideline for how it should be used: “Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning” (Clifford 517). Of course, James would later contest that this is far too strict, though he summarily ignores the very reasons that Clifford points out to be needed when utilizing belief it what is commonly known as a truth. James protests that “…We all of us believe in molecules and the conservation of energy, in democracy and necessary progress, in Protestant Christianity…all for no reasons worthy of name” (James 521). While he may have been true regarding the latter, he fails to see that there is good reason to believe in such things as molecules (even in his time), by Clifford’s standard. Instead, he proffers what seem to be false dilemmas and the faulty reasoning of Pascal’s Wager in order to make his point. This, in itself, becomes a problem between belief and truth.
However, James does make a good point about how belief is used to advance and to find truth: “…Science would be far less advanced than she is if the passionate desires of individuals to get their own faiths confirmed had been kept out of the game” (James 523). Once again it is, in regards to belief, that it should not be used as a substitute of truth, but only as a part of the process of obtaining truth. While James might disagree, it would seem that placing Clifford’s “strict” guidelines for keeping or abandoning belief is the most genuine way to make inquiry into truth. To believe without sufficient evidence is to violate all that those who seek truth would stand to achieve.
In conclusion we can note that belief should hold no stock by itself. If the quest is to obtain truth, belief should not be considered as a form of it. That is not to say that belief does not help to get the truth seekers to where they are going, for they must believe in something in order to find the truth they are looking for. A person could sit in their house all day for fear that they might get shot in the face if they walk out of their front door, and while it may be a possibility, in what case is there more to be lost? While a person may be able to spare their life forever by staying caged in their house for fear of an untimely death, can it be said that they actually lived at all? As we can see, belief is a step on the road that can get us where we are going, it is not the road itself, but it is a step, and it is probably a step better than most.

Of Enthusiasm - John Locke
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos...ke/cib4c19.htm

The Ethics of Belief - William K. Clifford
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...of_belief.html

The Will to Believe - William James
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthurs...da/jamesw.html

Thoughts/Comments?

Try to remember, this is only a draft, I've had to struggle through a few points already, so any help would be much appreciated.

jpbrooks

Hello again, Samhain! Nice post.

I don't have much time, so briefly, the exception to your analysis would seem to be truths that are "subjective"; that are about an individual's own subjective experiences. For example, if I am actually experiencing a pain in a part of my body that is of psychosomatic origin, to say that I am experiencing a pain is to make a true statement even though there is no (objective) evidence to support my belief that I am experiencing pain. So I would adopt the more general definition that truth is that "condition" that is shared by statements that accurately describe actual states of affairs in the world. Though I expect there to be some disagreement with that definition of truth as well.

I'll be back online later.