Believe belief?

Belief is quite the taboo, isn’t it? Ya either love it or hate it as it asserts itself into the lives of thinkers and feelers and those who are torn in between. Belief is, indeed, argued as a psychological state more than a mode of logic. Literally, it means that one has confidence, faith, or trust in something. That’s all fine and well by itself; what people get riled up about is what that belief is based off of. Are you believing something because it makes sense or because you really want it to be true or is there concrete evidence to back up your claim? Is there such thing as concrete evidence at all?

There are two sides of the coin here, or four if you ask Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker. According to her book Saving Belief, published in 1989, we typically view the concept of belief in four different ways.

One way is through the “mental sentence theory,” which I suppose the majority of people believe because it agrees with our common sense understanding of the world as it is today. This belief is basically that if we can back a belief up with a generally accepted form of concrete evidence, it is valid scientifically. This accommodates to our present knowledge, and not necessarily how the future might alter it. However, it also accommodates the past, because we believe something happened based on evidence back then. Anything we can prove happened is valid as a belief.

For example: bees exist. I believe that because I have seen them exist, and therefore it is valid. In the future bees may not exist because they might be extinct. In this theory, such knowledge is irrelevant. What matters is what is happening NOW.

Another way that people look at belief is a little more flexible. Because there is no present name for this theory, I will call it “mental history.” This argues that although eventually we will reject what we believe now in favor of a new, enlightened perspective, there is still a relation between those two beliefs since we believed them at all. In other words, the new belief can explain the other, and so the old belief isn’t completely invalid. Cause and effect.

For example: I believe that bees won’t exist in the future because eventually they will be extinct. However, before that they did exist, so I also believe that. This theory, therefore, accommodates the present as well as the future.

A harsher version of “mental history” is “eliminativism.” This argues that because we are enlightened on a new way to believe something, now we can completely reject the other. Indeed, the more we develop neuroscience and our brain, the more things are not accepted as believable such as medicinal practices or the old belief that the world was flat. Because we know better, now that theory lacks value completely.

For example: I believe that bees exist so anything claiming otherwise in the past is not valid; however, if I can prove in the future that bees won’t exist, what I believe now is irrelevant.

And finally, another way to look at belief is by rejecting it altogether yet encouraging it in others. This is called the “intentional stance.” Some consider the concept of belief not scientifically valid because it cannot be proven, yet will concede that assuming belief in others has its advantages. In a game of poker, if I suppose that my opponent believes he has a good hand, I will be a little more weary in placing a bet against him. So I am given an advantage in following his belief in spite of the fact that I don’t believe in mine.

For example: I don’t believe bees exist because in the great scheme of things, you can’t prove it to me rationally without at least a tiny window of doubt. However, if you believe bees exist I am advantaged by your perspective because I have gained a new one and have thus broadened my horizons.

In sum:
“mental sentence theory” = prove it, past or present, and it’s a valid belief.
“mental history theory” = present knowledge and future knowledge are both valid beliefs because they are connected.
“eliminativism” = today’s accepted beliefs are true only, and not the past in any shape or form.
“intentional stance” = you can’t *prove* anything, but can learn from others’ beliefs.

Whoo, talk about food for thought!

Intentional stance sounds like the most annoying, since ya can’t get anywhere in a debate, but it does sound the most open-minded of the four. Mental sentence theory sounds like my vote, however, as I love a good debate and ya gotta have a belief to get anywhere there.