First and second order belief

[jmcrae]

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.

The “you” was meant generally.

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.

You don’t have to be the giver, to be part of the equation. Are you a receiver of charity? In being a receiver of charity, you would be helping the rich to get their “camel” through the “eye of the needle” - which is, itself, an act of kindness.

Also, not all charity has to be financial - if you have the gift of free time, you can share that with others, as well.

 

[gavanhe]

But then again your belief in something is conditional on acting on that belief within the constraints of your ability otherwise it would become a second order belief.
From the explanations give so far that’s now how I understand it.
Gerry

 

[Snerticus]

The “you” was meant generally.

You don’t have to be the giver, to be part of the equation. Are you a receiver of charity? In being a receiver of charity, you would be helping the rich to get their “camel” through the “eye of the needle” - which is, itself, an act of kindness.

Also, not all charity has to be financial - if you have the gift of free time, you can share that with others, as well.

LOL, I know all that silly. I constantly pray for people and do what I can to help others. I was just showing the flaws of the first and second order belief.

The theory doesn’t take into account specifics, it just generalizes. And in doing so, it becomes easy to convince others of it’s validity. But once you start to delve deeper into it’s applications, then it becomes evident that it is flawed. When you generalize something - wow, that makes sense! But when you start to apply it to real-world situations, the theory falls apart. Of course, you can always modify a theory. But a house built on sand will not last.

 

[gavanhe]

But then again your belief in something is conditional on acting on that belief within the constraints of your ability otherwise it would become a second order belief.
From the explanations given so far that’s now how I understand it.
Gerry

 

[jmcrae]

But then again your belief in something is conditional on acting on that belief within the constraints of your ability otherwise it would become a second order belief.
From the explanations given so far that’s now how I understand it.
Gerry

That makes sense to me, too. Obviously, one would not be required to act in a way that is physically impossible - but at the same time, how one reacts to real-world situations that are related to the belief, would be indicators of whether one were a 'true believer" or not.

 

[Leela]

But then again your belief in something is conditional on acting on that belief within the constraints of your ability otherwise it would become a second order belief.
From the explanations give so far that’s now how I understand it.
Gerry

I don’t think that is quite right. Second order beliefs don’t become first order beliefs or vice versa based on any conditions.

First order belief: Joe believes X.
Second order belief: Joe believes that he believes X.

The distinction allows us to make sense of a sentence like “Joe thought he believed X but later realized that he never really believed it.”

 

[fhansen]

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.

The acrobat story is a great allegory for our situation regarding death. A true believer trusts that someone will be there to catch them when they fall. The stronger the faith, which is a separate quality or virtue from *trust *in Catholicism, the more confidence that this will, in fact, occur. And people do live and die differently as a result.

Both my parents had virtually no fear of death. But everyone strives to continue to* live*. Our bodies always instinctively strive to this end-this is right and good because existence is good and so everyone’s sort of naturally pro-life in that sense. But ultimately the abyss wins out and then the spirit is challenged to overcome the natural tendencies of the flesh. And this is exactly what happens. So St Paul could say, even years before his death, that he didn’t know if it was better to die and be with the Lord or live and continue his work. Scripture also speaks of the “sting of death” being removed by our faith.

So just as faith, especially as it matures, causes-or gives more reason-for people to contribute more charitably or to hope more in the future or to overlook and forgive others faults or even their own failures, it also strengthens one in the face of death-that there’ll be a net at the bottom of the abyss-that they’re really heading into the light and not the darkness.

Being there during the dying of a strong believer-however long that dying takes and however much suffering may be involved- can only be described as inspirational.