Is it stupid to hold beliefs about anything we do not know?

Is the word belief just that a word to make communication and life easier?

Belief: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

Knowledge: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

I read a coffee table book recently called "what we believe but cannot prove." It interviewed scientists mainly; the only response I remember involved free will. The scientist didn't believe in free will, but couldn't disprove it. I feel the opposite.

They should have said induction.

I'll sort of agree with OP; it seems to me that the only difference between a belief and knowledge is in the degree of certainty or justification of the proposition being true. Many kinds of belief which fall short of knowledge are clearly not 'stupid', but many beliefs are not warranted, or should more plainly reflect the relevant probabilities. For example, if somebody 'believes in the existence of aliens', what that should mean is that they think the probability of the existence of aliens meets some reasonably high value.

There are different levels of certainty or "knowing" which should affect the strength of one's belief.

The whole point of the word 'belief' is to refer to things we don't know (of course, we also believe things we know, believe that's not very interesting)

I'm having trouble imagining how one would get through daily life without believing things one didn't know.

I think a better word to use would be assume.

My brother asked me is my car going but I haven't driven it since yesterday and left it parked on my drive way. So I don't know if it is or not since the time I parked it up.

A better example would be is my wife cheating on me?

I'm still waiting for someone to classify what "knowing" something means. Some people "know" Jesus Christ is their savior. Other people "know" gravity exists because it's a scientific law. I would disagree that either of them can claim100% certainty, which is what "knowing" means to me. I believe that it's for each individual person to decide when they have enough evidence about something that investigating or questioning the potential it may be untrue isn't worth it.

Are you asking if it is stupid to believe in something if the human mind (or just your mind) isn't capable of logically proving it's existence?


"It is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest reason for scientific research." -Albert Einstein

A lot has been written on the subject of knowing.

It's usually agreed that you can't know something that isn't true. The JC people believe they know he is their saviour, but don't actually know it.

It can also be argued that knowing that you know something is different to just knowing it, too.

Really? That would imply that we cannot be certain anyone knows anything unless we ourselves are absolutely certain that it is true. That's not illogical but would render the concept meaningless in the real world.

Exactly my point.

Most JC people I've ever encountered will freely admit they don't "know" JC is really god, messiah, love, etc. but they believe anyway. This is what they mean by faith. In some ways it's actually quite beautiful, mind over matter stuff. Then, in other ways it's quite disturbing and awful.

I don't know about that... I think it's more like 50/50. I know some people I have met "know" the lord their savior personally and he has given them signs and spoken to them through their souls or whatever. I can't disprove them. I have also met the religious types you talk of that admit doubt but overcome them with "faith."

It is difficult, if not impossible, to say where beliefs end and reality begins - if you go back far enough into your own personal history.