First and second order belief

[gavanhe]

Came across this quote whilst reading the review of a book in quadrant magazine called “50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists” - 50 essays by atheists attacking religion.

Quote - Philosopher Adèle Mercier makes the point that “believing that you believe something is not the same as believing it”. You may (mistakenly) believe that you believe in God, without believing in God. Believing something is a first-order belief; believing that you believe it is a second-order belief. Mercier argues that “Virtually all religious beliefs are second-order beliefs, mistaken for first-order beliefs.” - end quote.

Not being schooled in philosophy, how does one make sense of this quote. How do you define first and second order belief. Either one believes or one does not!

Gerry

 

[Snerticus]

Came across this quote whilst reading the review of a book in quadrant magazine called “50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists” - 50 essays by atheists attacking religion.

Quote - Philosopher Adèle Mercier makes the point that “believing that you believe something is not the same as believing it”. You may (mistakenly) believe that you believe in God, without believing in God. Believing something is a first-order belief; believing that you believe it is a second-order belief. Mercier argues that “Virtually all religious beliefs are second-order beliefs, mistaken for first-order beliefs.” - end quote.

Not being schooled in philosophy, how does one make sense of this quote. How do you define first and second order belief. Either one believes or one does not!

Gerry

I’m already lost.

But what if you believe that you believe only to find out that you really believe a false belief instead of a true belief?

And what about 453rd order beliefs? Are they real or just imagined?

:hypno:

 

[jmcrae]

Came across this quote whilst reading the review of a book in quadrant magazine called “50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists” - 50 essays by atheists attacking religion.

Quote - Philosopher Adèle Mercier makes the point that “believing that you believe something is not the same as believing it”. You may (mistakenly) believe that you believe in God, without believing in God. Believing something is a first-order belief; believing that you believe it is a second-order belief. Mercier argues that “Virtually all religious beliefs are second-order beliefs, mistaken for first-order beliefs.” - end quote.

Not being schooled in philosophy, how does one make sense of this quote. How do you define first and second order belief. Either one believes or one does not!

Gerry

One might have an erroneous concept of God, and in a case like that, one would believe that one believes in God, without actually believing in God.

For example, if you think that God is a great Santa Claus in the sky who grants us our every wish, then not only will you be deeply disappointed and stop believing in “God” at some point, what you believed in was never actually God, in the first place.

Saying the word “God” does not automatically guarantee that you know the meaning of the word.

Over the years I have had many people say to me, “I could never believe in a God who …” does something that God does, in fact, do. These people do not believe in God. They believe that they believe in God, but the God that they believe in, is not the God who actually exists.

 

[gavanhe]

One might have an erroneous concept of God, and in a case like that, one would believe that one believes in God, without actually believing in God.

Thank you for that. Makes sense when looked at from that aspect. And yes you are correct that some people can have an erroneous concept of God but I would have thought that they are in a minority.

Gerry

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for that. Makes sense when looked at from that aspect. And yes you are correct that some people can have an erroneous concept of God but I would have thought that they are in a minority.

Gerry

They would be a minority among active church-going Christians, but those who are somewhat lapsed also seem to have some very odd ideas about God, at times.

 

[GEddie]

Over the years I have had many people say to me, “I could never believe in a God who …” does something that God does, in fact, do. These people do not believe in God. They believe that they believe in God, but the God that they believe in, is not the God who actually exists.

Wouldn’t someone who said that end up admitting that they do NOT believe in God?

 

[awatkins69]

It sounds like so much vague nonsense to me. If the author of the quote is trying to describe a hierarchy in self-reflexivity of the mind, that doesn’t say too much. It could go on to infinity. I don’t see what the big deal is.

 

[JohnDamian]

It sounds like so much vague nonsense to me. If the author of the quote is trying to describe a hierarchy in self-reflexivity of the mind, that doesn’t say too much. It could go on to infinity. I don’t see what the big deal is.

Absolutely right.

There is no second order belief; this is utter nonsense – what the author refers too as a “second order belief” is merely an appeal to equivocation. Let us simply break down what is said;

When a person believes that they believe in God;-- their belief is attached to a subject; the “belief in God” – and that qualifies the statements somewhat;

It qualifies the argument with the following “I believe my beliefs”; this is patently self evident; and does not require asserting; if someone does not “believe their beliefs” then their beliefs are not essentially beliefs.

This only presents a contingency problem if we challenge the axiomatic statement “I believe my beliefs” which no sensible person would argue against. The statement “I believe my beliefs” is always true – one cannot believe something we do not believe; this would violate the law of noncontradiction.

We then move on to understand that “God” as an idea can be understood in many ways; but it is only in the meaningful way to the individual that claims “I believe in God” that is true;- take for example a trinitarian and a nontrinitarian; we both can say “I believe in God” and be honest in that statement; because what is understood by “God” can be different from person to person.

To conclude;

“I believe that I believe in God” for myself means thus;

1. I believe my beliefs are beliefs
2. The subject “God” is one of my beliefs; understood by myself as the Catholic God.

Obviously 2) is contingent upon 1),-- but 1) is necessarily true and an axiom; or else a violation of the law of noncontradiction occurs.

The Philosopher quotes in that essay is trying to confuse people by unnecessarily truncating an argument; if he can get someone to conceive the notion that the axiom 1) is false; then he can confuse them into doubt about their faith. His pseudophilosophy is nothing but sophistry.

 

[Leela]

Came across this quote whilst reading the review of a book in quadrant magazine called “50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists” - 50 essays by atheists attacking religion.

Quote - Philosopher Adèle Mercier makes the point that “believing that you believe something is not the same as believing it”. You may (mistakenly) believe that you believe in God, without believing in God. Believing something is a first-order belief; believing that you believe it is a second-order belief. Mercier argues that “Virtually all religious beliefs are second-order beliefs, mistaken for first-order beliefs.” - end quote.

Not being schooled in philosophy, how does one make sense of this quote. How do you define first and second order belief. Either one believes or one does not!

Gerry

Hi Gerry,

I think I know what the author means.

Suppose someone claims that she will go to heaven after she dies and even believes that she really believes this. Then someone points out to her that her behavior is not consistent with this belief. If she really believed that she would go to heaven after she dies, she would not fear death. In fact, she would look forward to death. Yet she is very fearful of death.

To believe something is to be prepared to act in certain ways under certain circumstances. If someone thinks she believes something, but does not behave in ways consistent with that belief, then she doesn’t really believe it, she just believes that she believes it.

Daniel Dennett says that we don’t believe in God so much as believe in belief. We think it is good for people to believe in God. We’d like to believe in God. We think other people should believe in God. But that is something different from believing in God.

Best,
Leela

 

[Snerticus]

Absolutely right.

There is no second order belief; this is utter nonsense – what the author refers too as a “second order belief” is merely an appeal to equivocation. Let us simply break down what is said;

When a person believes that they believe in God;-- their belief is attached to a subject; the “belief in God” – and that qualifies the statements somewhat;

It qualifies the argument with the following “I believe my beliefs”; this is patently self evident; and does not require asserting; if someone does not “believe their beliefs” then their beliefs are not essentially beliefs.

This only presents a contingency problem if we challenge the axiomatic statement “I believe my beliefs” which no sensible person would argue against. The statement “I believe my beliefs” is always true – one cannot believe something we do not believe; this would violate the law of noncontradiction.

We then move on to understand that “God” as an idea can be understood in many ways; but it is only in the meaningful way to the individual that claims “I believe in God” that is true;- take for example a trinitarian and a nontrinitarian; we both can say “I believe in God” and be honest in that statement; because what is understood by “God” can be different from person to person.

To conclude;

“I believe that I believe in God” for myself means thus;

1. I believe my beliefs are beliefs
2. The subject “God” is one of my beliefs; understood by myself as the Catholic God.

Obviously 2) is contingent upon 1),-- but 1) is necessarily true and an axiom; or else a violation of the law of noncontradiction occurs.

The Philosopher quotes in that essay is trying to confuse people by unnecessarily truncating an argument; if he can get someone to conceive the notion that the axiom 1) is false; then he can confuse them into doubt about their faith. His pseudophilosophy is nothing but sophistry.

I think I understand now: it’s like being told: “You don’t have any pain, you’re just imagining it!”

Uh… hello!!! Regardless of the imagined pain or not, it’s still there, and one percieves it just like it’s real. So it’s real, even if the observer doesn’t think it is.

 

[jmcrae]

Wouldn’t someone who said that end up admitting that they do NOT believe in God?

Not unless it were shown to them in a way that admits of no doubt, that God in fact does the things that they “can’t believe” God would ever do. ie: “I could never believe in a God who would send people to Hell” - well, if we are to believe what is written in the Bible (which not everyone does) then the God who actually exists, does in fact send people to Hell.

They are more likely to say that the other person doesn’t really believe in God, or that the God of the Bible is an invented fantasy, but that the God they believe in (the one who never sends anyone to Hell) is in fact the real God.

 

[Leela]

I think I understand now: it’s like being told: “You don’t have any pain, you’re just imagining it!”

Uh… hello!!! Regardless of the imagined pain or not, it’s still there, and one percieves it just like it’s real. So it’s real, even if the observer doesn’t think it is.

No, that’s not it. Second order belief is a matter of whether one really believes what he thinks he believes.

If I think I believe in charity, but I never give, then I don’t really believe in charity.

Second order belief is about the possibility that we can be wrong about ourselves. We may believe that we believe something, but if we don’t act in a way consistent with that belief, then we don’t really believe it.

 

[Snerticus]

No, that’s not it. Second order belief is a matter of whether one really believes what he thinks he believes.

If I think I believe in charity, but I never give, then I don’t really believe in charity.

Second order belief is about the possibility that we can be wrong about ourselves. We may believe that we believe something, but if we don’t act in a way consistent with that belief, then we don’t really believe it.

I don’t believe it.

Seriously, belief and action are two different things. You can believe something and still not act on it. Then you would simply be lazy or lax in your belief.

You might percieve it as not really believing in the first place, but I wouldn’t.

Actually, now I’m confused again…

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t believe it.

Seriously, belief and action are two different things. You can believe something and still not act on it. Then you would simply be lazy or lax in your belief.

If your actions are directly contrary to your stated belief, then you don’t “believe” it - or else you don’t understand what you are saying (and you can’t believe something that you don’t understand).

You are probably familiar with the story of the acrobat who put a tightrope across the Grand Canyon, and danced across back and forth on it with a wheelbarrow.

When he asked the admiring crowd whether they believed he could take a person safely across to the other side, and then safely back again, they all cheered.

When he asked for a volunteer, the silence was deafening.

Did the crowd really believe that he could do this? Based on their actions - no, they didn’t. But before they were put to the test, they certainly thought they did.

 

[gavanhe]

…

To believe something is to be prepared to act in certain ways under certain circumstances. If someone thinks she believes something, but does not behave in ways consistent with that belief, then she doesn’t really believe it, she just believes that she believes it.
…

Leela
A gook and acceptable explanation. There is some doubt expressed about second order belief but thinking it through I would have to agree that to belief something requires action in accordance with that belief (first order), else as we are only paying lip service to this belief then it does become second order belief.

…
When he asked the admiring crowd whether they believed he could take a person safely across to the other side, and then safely back again, they all cheered.
When he asked for a volunteer, the silence was deafening.
…

An interesting explanation of the situation.

Gerry

 

[Snerticus]

If your actions are directly contrary to your stated belief, then you don’t “believe” it - or else you don’t understand what you are saying (and you can’t believe something that you don’t understand).

You are probably familiar with the story of the acrobat who put a tightrope across the Grand Canyon, and danced across back and forth on it with a wheelbarrow.

When he asked the admiring crowd whether they believed he could take a person safely across to the other side, and then safely back again, they all cheered.

When he asked for a volunteer, the silence was deafening.

Did the crowd really believe that he could do this? Based on their actions - no, they didn’t. But before they were put to the test, they certainly thought they did.

But that’s just it. They did believe he could do it. Their were two types of belief going on here: one in the man doing the act by himself and the other in the man’s ability to keep another safe while performing his act accompanied by someone. There is a difference. I personally would believe in one but not the other myself. Or let’s be more accurate here: I would have faith in the man’s abilities to do it by himself because he was prepared. If I had gone along with him in the wheelbarrow I would probably do something really stupid to upset his balance and cause us both to tumble. And that I would not have faith in.

 

[Snerticus]

Okay so let’s take a previous example: I believe in charity. Yet I do not give money in charity.

So you’re saying I really don’t believe in charity in the first place?

 

[jmcrae]

Okay so let’s take a previous example: I believe in charity. Yet I do not give money in charity.

So you’re saying I really don’t believe in charity in the first place?

Right - because if you truly believed that charity was the means by which ordinary people can change the world for the better, you would do it.

But your lack of action shows a lack of belief that you can personally make a difference in the world. (Either that, or you’ve made a decision not to do so, in which case you don’t “believe in” charity, in the sense of agreeing with the goal and considering it important, even if you believe from an academic point of view that it works.)

 

[Snerticus]

Right - because if you truly believed that charity was the means by which ordinary people can change the world for the better, you would do it.

But your lack of action shows a lack of belief that you can personally make a difference in the world. (Either that, or you’ve made a decision not to do so, in which case you don’t “believe in” charity, in the sense of agreeing with the goal and considering it important, even if you believe from an academic point of view that it works.)

Well, that’s a very general statement to be making and completely erroneous. It is an assumption, nothing more, that fails to take into account any specific circumstances.

Why? Because I’m currently unemployed and cannot pay my bills without difficulty. Although I *have *made a decision to not give in charity. I could certainly take even more away from my bills and give to others, though. You are right in the sense that I do have a choice.

So I guess because I am unemployed and am unable to survive without difficulty I foolishly ‘believe that I believe’ in charity, but in reality I don’t - all because I don’t give any money. That’s absolutely absurd. And extremely presumptuous.

My lack of action in this case is due to lack of ability, not lack of belief.

I submit that this first and second order ‘theory’ holds no merit in real life.

 

[JohnDamian]

I submit that this second and third order ‘theory’ holds no merit in real life.

I wholeheartedly concur with those sentiments.

There is no merit or substance in the “theory”.