Why belief? As ‘An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof‘1 the phenomenon of belief should surely strike us as odd. Why not a suspension of belief, until proof is secured? Why not make certain knowledge the benchmark of belief?
In the field of epistemology (the study of knowledge), justified true belief is the gold standard of sound philosophical belief. Justified true belief is almost formulaic, with a logically determined conclusion built on logically true premises.
There are all sorts of thoughts about what we can ‘know’ to be true, with Descartes ‘cogito ergo sum‘ (I think therefore I am) being the most stringent and well known.
We think we know all sorts of things, until proven otherwise. We might think 1 + 1 = 2, and that is correct for all times in all contexts, until we fall prey to the visual joke.3
I’m inclined to agree with Nilsson, that there is no qualitative difference between belief and knowledge, and that claims to knowledge merely indicate the strength of one’s belief. So, perhaps belief is all we have, after all. I suspect most people, however, would like to think (‘believe?!’) that their beliefs have more substance than might be easily proven.
Hmmm. How unsettling!
1. Oxford Dictionary of English (italics mine)
2. Wittgenstein’s ‘language games’ provide some clues here.
3. Understanding Beliefs, Ch. 1. Nils Nilsson
whybelief.com 