Rights are not self-evident

[James_S_Saint]

How do we judge the truth value of an ethic?

You can logically derive ALL ethics. They are NOT merely old traditions or genetically inbred tendencies.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, yes. But the key is that: if you assume Kantian morality to be true, it still doesn’t convince you to follow it. If you assume Christian morality to be true, you have sufficient incentive to follow it.

What if you don’t believe a morality is true, but only that it’s the best of the lot? I don’t know how you would prove that an ethical system is true or false. Surely you would agree that we couldn’t verify an ethical system in the same way that we could verify, say, the presence of substances?

One thing that is complicating our discussion is the two different usages of “true.” We say that a statement is true if it conforms to reality, and false if it does not. But ethics refer to obligations and are not descriptions in the same way that facts are, so we can’t prove them to be true or false using the above usage of “true.” What definition of “true” are you using for ethics, then? Personally, I think your usage of “true” is synonymous with “best.”

You are saying, then, that the good life is a function of people’s opinion of what the good life is?

Yes. How else do you expect to find those “good lives?” Surely you don’t think the good life exists as an object waiting to be found? What is best is obviously a matter of opinion.

Are there **no **character traits that must be necessary for a person to experience a fulfilling life? Can a coward be fully and lastingly happy? What about a spendthrift? What about a drug addict?

Do you really think there are universally necessary standards that people must meet to feel fulfilled? Feelings are feelings, and they can be manipulated very easily. I’m sure that some of the cowards, spendthrifts, and drug addicts have been happy/fulfilled. Maybe most of them haven’t, but you can’t dismiss a whole group of people and say, “You’re all not able to be fulfilled in your current state.”

Indeed, the world is such that any person, no matter how immersed in an non-Christian philosophy, will find that virtue is advantageous to them.

This obviously depends on what virtues you’re talking about. Before we get started on this, I want to know which camp you lie in: Are you Aristotelian in that you embrace the ‘moderate’ virtues (the virtues that are each between two extreme vices), or do you prefer more exclusive virtues? I find that Catholics typically belong to the latter camp.

The problem is that utilitarianism takes a very narrow view of “consequences”. In my mind, consequences must be evaluated in the light of revelation, but it is very hard to ask a non-Christian to agree with me on that.

You’re right. The only consequences we heed are the ones that will affect the feelings of sentient beings (which, theoretically, is a very broad consideration to make). It would be difficult to convince me to do otherwise.

These people are talking about motivation, not telos. The *motive *of Christian morality is to conform to the image of God (to be what we were made to be). The *end *of Christian morality is happiness.

Okay, I’ve never heard it explained that way, but I don’t think it invalidates the point that even Christian morality is consequential to some degree.

What outrageous things would happen if my philosophy was followed? Men would become like gods?

That depends on the virtues you support (you’d have to list them, and we’d elaborate from there).

**If God created the universe, why would He create it such that (if we knew the truth) we *wouldn’t ***wish to conform to His nature? This is a very important question, and I wonder if you have an answer.

You expect me to psychoanalyze a being I don’t believe exists? I remember a while ago when you complained that I can’t conclude that all humans seek pleasure by default. If you don’t think I can psychoanalyze members of my own species, why do you expect me to be any more successful with God?

I’ll address the rest in a few hours, when I get back from school. (I promise this time. )

 

[Oreoracle]

In your scenario, out of curiosity, do you do away with God (a *necessary *being) too?

I don’t agree with the concept of a “necessary being.” I may grant that there was a first cause, but I don’t see any reason to believe that that entity must exist at this time. Truly, I don’t have an opinion regarding the origin of the universe. In order to explain the origin of the universe, we either have to posit the existence of some ‘supernature’ that we’ve never experienced or we have to contradict fundamental inductions/natural laws. Neither course of action is very scientific.

Treating yourself as an end is (in my understanding) purely a contrast to treating oneself as a means to an end.

Defining something by its opposite is rarely useful. If I asked you what it means to treat yourself as a means to an end, would you say it’s purely a contrast to treating yourself as an end? Those distinctions are meaningless; they just point to each other and nothing of substance.

Sometimes acting like an animal conforms to one’s mental judgments.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I misunderstood your definition.

Be like Jesus.

Why is God’s opinion better than mine? I mean, why do you believe it’s the case that God’s opinion is superior to mine merely because it’s his? If that is the case, then God’s ethics don’t stand on their own merit.

That is the only solution an honest Christian can recommend.

This is likely true, given the dogma they must accept.

 

[Oreoracle]

You can logically derive ALL ethics. They are NOT merely old traditions or genetically inbred tendencies.

First off, that’s not the correct usage of “inbred.”

Secondly, no philosopher has ever given a valid argument with an ought-conclusion using only is-premises. It can’t be done.

 

[James_S_Saint]

First off, that’s not the correct usage of “inbred.”

Secondly, no philosopher has ever given a valid argument with an ought-conclusion using only is-premises. It can’t be done.

Main Entry: in·bred
Pronunciation: \ˈin-ˈbred
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1592

1 : rooted and ingrained in one’s nature as deeply as if implanted by heredity
2 [from past participle of inbreed] : subjected to or produced by inbreeding

That is how I meant it. I don’t know how you interpreted it. But then, I also have no idea what your second statement was intended to mean.

Well, cancel that… I figured out what you meant (I think). But then I have to say you are talking to one right now and I seriously doubt that I am the first.

The greater challenge, especially online as being discussed elsewhere, is making anything appear “valid” online. People are too free to simply disagree and run off to proclaim their same opinion again and again.

They demand foundation, but then demand foundation of that foundation and more and more until they can claim that you didn’t really prove anything, which is all they wanted to say anyway.

 

[Oreoracle]

That is how I meant it.

Hmm…that’s quite a stretch. I just thought it sounded funny.

Well, cancel that… I figured out what you meant (I think). But then I have to say you are talking to one right now and I seriously doubt that I am the first.

What do you think I meant in my second statement? I would love to see you provide a syllogism using only is-premises to produce an ought-conclusion. Everyone talks a big show around here about objective ethics, but no one really steps up to the challenge. I wonder why?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hmm…that’s quite a stretch. I just thought it sounded funny.

What do you think I meant in my second statement? I would love to see you provide a syllogism using only is-premises to produce an ought-conclusion. Everyone talks a big show around here about objective ethics, but no one really steps up to the challenge. I wonder why?

Well, no direct offense intended but seriously that subject requires humble intelligence that is very rare online. If you want to start a thread on it. I would probably be inclined to attempt the explanation, but no guarantees that your preference will not blind your sight.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, no direct offense intended but seriously that subject requires humble intelligence that is very rare online. If you want to start a thread on it. I would probably be inclined to attempt the explanation, but no guarantees that your preference will not blind your sight.

There’s no explanation required. All you have to do is provide a syllogism, like so:

1. All bachelors are not married
2. Bob is a bachelor
   C. Therefore, Bob is not married

The difficulty for you is that your conclusion must include “should” without the premises including “should.” Good luck with that.

 

[James_S_Saint]

As I said, you start the thread if you care so much.

 

[Oreoracle]

As I said, you start the thread if you care so much.

Nope, sorry. You can quell all my doubts right here if you wish. Heck, you may even save my eternal soul if you would only provide the argument. Yet, you don’t. It could be because you don’t have an argument, and you only wish to bash atheists. Hmm…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Or it “could be” that I personally couldn’t care less of Atheists and any effort required to convince them of anything “could be” a waist of my time. But I guess we will never know, huh.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What if you don’t believe a morality is true, but only that it’s the best of the lot? I don’t know how you would prove that an ethical system is true or false. Surely you would agree that we couldn’t verify an ethical system in the same way that we could verify, say, the presence of substances?

How, pray tell, could you verify the presence of substances? Any answer relies on the experience of perception (seeming) *corresponding *to an external world. You cannot verify that your perception is accurate, empirically – Hume would be the first to admit this.

So how do I verify the presence of morals? My answer relies on my intuitions (seemings) corresponding to an external world. Moral intuitions are real to us, phenomenologically; we cannot get away from them. They are, in the deepest and richest sense of the word, feelings. You might say that these intuitions can be shaped by my cultural experience, and I would agree. But, likewise, our experience of physical “reality” is shaped by our cultural experiences. (If you don’t think so, read the Greek philosophers). At any rate, moral intuitions are astonishingly similar across cultures. This is probably “because” the human animal adapted to socially behave in certain ways – that is, the one thing led to the other. But this is actually not a reason for the similarities; it is simply an explanation.

I offer a reason: moral intuitions are just as real to us as physical sensation because they are built into our nature, like a compass. You may ask, then: why are there so many ethical systems? In response, I would ask, why do nearly all of these ethical systems provide such similar prescriptions for human action?

When we look to criticize scientific theories, we look to our perceptions. Why? Because they are our most reliable access to scientific truth.

When we look to criticize ethical systems, we look to our intuitions. Why? Because we know they are our most reliable access to moral truth.

So who built these intuitions into us? If it was just evolution, then we can learn to dull our consciences if we like, and ignore ethical intuition. If it was God (or God and evolution), then ignoring our intuitions could land us with hell to pay – literally.

One thing that is complicating our discussion is the two different usages of “true.” We say that a statement is true if it conforms to reality, and false if it does not. But ethics refer to obligations and are not descriptions in the same way that facts are, so we can’t prove them to be true or false using the above usage of “true.” What definition of “true” are you using for ethics, then?

Conforming to reality. :banghead: I hoped you might have realized that by now.

Yes. How else do you expect to find those “good lives?” Surely you don’t think the good life exists as an object waiting to be found? What is best is obviously a matter of opinion.

“Man is the measure of all things,” eh? Some day, Oreo, you will, I guarantee you, come to disagree with that sentiment. There are better and worse ways to live, and we do not figure out what those are by simply following our desires and opinions. If this were the case, education would be an absolute evil.

Premise: Reasonable people can disagree about x.
Conclusion: There is no truth about x.

I’ve sketched the framework of your argument above, and it just ain’t valid. Feel free to give me a logical formal argument that proves “there is no truth about morality.” Until you do, you’re just practicing eristic.

I’m sure that some of the cowards, spendthrifts, and drug addicts have been happy/fulfilled. Maybe most of them haven’t, but you can’t dismiss a whole group of people and say, “You’re all not able to be fulfilled in your current state.”

I presume you’ve read “Brave New World”? Please explain to me what is wrong with it, given your assumptions above. Why can’t we all just live on dope? :hypno:

This obviously depends on what virtues you’re talking about. Before we get started on this, I want to know which camp you lie in: Are you Aristotelian in that you embrace the ‘moderate’ virtues (the virtues that are each between two extreme vices), or do you prefer more exclusive virtues? I find that Catholics typically belong to the latter camp.

I’ll tell you that I’m not a reductionist, who thinks that morality can be neatly put in one systematic box. But I certainly embrace Aristotelian virtues, as well as the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.

You’re right. The only consequences we heed are the ones that will affect the feelings of sentient beings (which, theoretically, is a very broad consideration to make). It would be difficult to convince me to do otherwise.

Why not animals?

That depends on the virtues you support (you’d have to list them, and we’d elaborate from there).

Well, take courage and temperance, to list a couple.

You expect me to psychoanalyze a being I don’t believe exists? I remember a while ago when you complained that I can’t conclude that all humans seek pleasure by default. If you don’t think I can psychoanalyze members of my own species, why do you expect me to be any more successful with God?

In considering each other’s arguments, we often assume (for the sake of argument) that the other person’s assumptions are true. My point was that, if God existed, God would create us so that we would (given the right knowledge) desire His way fully. Or rather, I see no possible reason that He would not do so. Why would a creator want his creations to find fulfillment in opposition to his ways?

This is, I repeat, a very important question.

Well, I’m out of time for now, too. I’ll reply to the rest later, in a possible universe – we’ll just have to see if we like in said universe.

 

[Oreoracle]

How, pray tell, could you verify the presence of substances? Any answer relies on the experience of perception (seeming) *corresponding *to an external world. You cannot verify that your perception is accurate, empirically – Hume would be the first to admit this.

You’re just trying to make my question sound ridicluous by bolstering the standard of evidence. Yes, we must accept the reliability of our senses as axiomatic. What does this have to do with the objectivity (or lack thereof) of ethics?

So how do I verify the presence of morals? My answer relies on my intuitions (seemings) corresponding to an external world.

Let’s cut to the chase: Imagine that Earth is a Christian utopia lacking fornication, lies, violence, murder, hypocrisy, blasphemy, theft, general selfishness, and every other atrocity you could imagine. Now, would the statement, “I should not lie.” describe such a world in any way? Of course not! Rather, the description would be “I do not lie.” The “should” is meaningless even when the ideal world of one’s dreams is actualized. Just because the world is doesn’t mean it should be. Nothing can make an ethic a fact or any other kind of description. It’s essential that you understand this.

So even if you intuit how the world you deem ideal is, it dosn’t mean that world should be. You’re attempting to derive an “ought” from an “is.”

They are, in the deepest and richest sense of the word, feelings.

Not to sound childish, but feeling that blue is a great color doesn’t mean that blue possesses the quality of “greatness.” Feelings, in the sense you’re using, are not perceptions, but rather reactions to perceptions. A person who thinks blue is great has not detected blue’s quality of greatness. They are merely reacting to the perception of blue, which pleases them. It seems to me that you’re going to great lengths to avoid this simple observation.

But, likewise, our experience of physical “reality” is shaped by our cultural experiences.

To an extent, yes.

(If you don’t think so, read the Greek philosophers)

I think you give the Greek philosophers far too much credit. I mean, sure, they came up with some significant improvements, but that’s precisely because we had a lot of room for improvement. I think that, for the most part, we would have made similar advancements in that time period without those thinkers; if not for them, their would have been others. But I digress…

At any rate, moral intuitions are astonishingly similar across cultures. This is probably “because” the human animal adapted to socially behave in certain ways – that is, the one thing led to the other. But this is actually not a reason for the similarities; it is simply an explanation.

Evolution explains most ethical trends, I think. That is, it is necessary for our species to follow some rules (albeit loosely, it seems) in order to flourish. As for the ones who didn’t…well, they didn’t flourish, did they?

I offer a reason: moral intuitions are just as real to us as physical sensation because they are built into our nature, like a compass. You may ask, then: why are there so many ethical systems? In response, I would ask, why do nearly all of these ethical systems provide such similar prescriptions for human action?

I think you’re trying to say the glass is half full instead of half empty just to discourage questioning. I could just as easily ask, in the same accusing tone, “Why do nearly all of these ethical systems provide different prescriptions for human action?” It doesn’t matter how many of the rules are the same, just as long as a few are different, I can question whether you’re really ‘sensing’ the ideal world or just imagining it. Wouldn’t you say that others who propose different standards aren’t sensing the ideal world? Are they the deluded ones who aren’t seeing reality as it is, or is it you who is deluded?

So who built these intuitions into us? If it was just evolution, then we can learn to dull our consciences if we like, and ignore ethical intuition.

We could do those things even if God was the one who did it. Whether Daddy spanks us or not, we can still disobey him. Your intuition and its origin don’t change reality in the slightest, it seems.

Premise: Reasonable people can disagree about x.
Conclusion: There is no truth about x.

You and I both know this is a strawman. What’s gotten into you?

I presume you’ve read “Brave New World”?

No, I haven’t.

Why can’t we all just live on dope? :hypno:

How much dope are we talking about?

Why not animals?

The animals that are sentient are ethically significant. Please don’t tell me you’re one of those Christians who don’t believe that animals have feelings?

Well, take courage and temperance, to list a couple.

What end is the virtue of courage meant to attain? And as I’m sure you know, “temperance” covers a lot of ground. The virtue of temperance tells us that we ought to avoid extremes that will detract from reaching the ethical end. What is the ethical end, and what extremes would act as obstacles to this end?

In considering each other’s arguments, we often assume (for the sake of argument) that the other person’s assumptions are true. My point was that, if God existed, God would create us so that we would (given the right knowledge) desire His way fully. Or rather, I see no possible reason that He would not do so. Why would a creator want his creations to find fulfillment in opposition to his ways?

This is, I repeat, a very important question.

Since you feel that this is important, I’ll answer. You’re right that it seems most people, if put in God’s shoes, would choose to create cooperative subjects to please themselves. However, God’s “ways” do not seem to be those of a sane person. His decrees require that we live up to his supernatural standards, as though we aren’t animals living in the natural world, and that failures to do so will be punished. Knowing that we’ll fail without his aid, his ultimatum forces us to cling to him as though we will fall to our deaths if we release. It’s like a doctor injecting someone with poison and forcing the victim to crawl on his knees and grovel for the antidote. This is pure madness, and makes your god a rather unpredictable character. There, you got your honest answer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t agree with the concept of a “necessary being.” I may grant that there was a first cause, but I don’t see any reason to believe that that entity must exist at this time.

You misunderstood here. I wasn’t bringing up metaphysics, but rather responding to your point. Rewind…

For example, if humans (and yourself) and other somewhat sapient animals still existed, but all have lost their consciousness/awareness (thus, they are no longer sapient or sentient), would morality still exist? No subjectivity=no ethics.
In your scenario, out of curiosity, do you do away with God (a necessary being) too? That is one powerful hypothetical! If God is bound by morality, then morality always remains objective.

Your claim: Morality would not exist without subjectivity.
My claim: God is a subject of morality.

If you admit that God *could *exist, then you must concede that: If God exists, then subjectivity exists. That is all I was seeking to establish.

Defining something by its opposite is rarely useful. If I asked you what it means to treat yourself as a means to an end, would you say it’s purely a contrast to treating yourself as an end? Those distinctions are meaningless; they just point to each other and nothing of substance.

End: the purpose for which something is done. Means: the things that are done to accomplish an end. This is not a vicious circle, and it is not meaningless. All definitions are distinctions, and they all point to other words (other distinctions). You can either be a post-structuralist, and say that this insight means that all communication is impossible, or realize that we only learn words by understanding what-they-are-not. Or by using examples – if you’re looking for these, Kant gives thousands of them.

Why is God’s opinion better than mine? I mean, why do you believe it’s the case that God’s opinion is superior to mine merely because it’s his?

Looks like Oreo didn’t take his humility pills today…

If you explain to me exactly how God could have an opinion, I’ll answer your question. But in fact it is meaningless to say that God opines about anything, and this is precisely the reason why God’s knowledge of morality applies universally.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You’re just trying to make my question sound ridicluous by bolstering the standard of evidence. Yes, we must accept the reliability of our senses as axiomatic. What does this have to do with the objectivity (or lack thereof) of ethics?

I seem to recall a proposal that we take moral objectivity as axiomatic, as well.

Let’s cut to the chase: Imagine that Earth is a Christian utopia lacking fornication, lies, violence, murder, hypocrisy, blasphemy, theft, general selfishness, and every other atrocity you could imagine. Now, would the statement, “I should not lie.” describe such a world in any way? Of course not! Rather, the description would be “I do not lie.” The “should” is meaningless even when the ideal world of one’s dreams is actualized. Just because the world is doesn’t mean it should be. Nothing can make an ethic a fact or any other kind of description. It’s essential that you understand this.

I agree that “Nothing can make an ethic a fact or any other kind of description.” An ethic is not a description, but a prescription. And it is not a “fact”, taken in the usual sense of “state of events”.

Something need not be a state of events nor a description, however, in order to be true.

Consider: Sally sees her husband leave the house and get into his car. At this time, every weekday, for as long as she remembers, her husband has gone to work. It is a weekday.

P = Sally is justified in believing her husband has gone to work.

P is not a description of events, nor a mathematical certainty. Is P true?

Not to sound childish, but feeling that blue is a great color doesn’t mean that blue possesses the quality of “greatness.” Feelings, in the sense you’re using, are not perceptions, but rather reactions to perceptions.

So what? Either you are saying: a) they are *merely *reactions to perceptions, which is simplistic reductionism, or b) they are (among other things) reactions to perceptions, which is trivially true.

I think you give the Greek philosophers far too much credit. I mean, sure, they came up with some significant improvements, but that’s precisely because we had a lot of room for improvement. I think that, for the most part, we would have made similar advancements in that time period without those thinkers; if not for them, their would have been others. But I digress…

Funny, I intended to show them disrespect. My point was that they saw the world very myopically.

I could just as easily ask, in the same accusing tone, “Why do nearly all of these ethical systems provide different prescriptions for human action?” It doesn’t matter how many of the rules are the same, just as long as a few are different, I can question whether you’re really ‘sensing’ the ideal world or just imagining it. Wouldn’t you say that others who propose different standards aren’t sensing the ideal world? Are they the deluded ones who aren’t seeing reality as it is, or is it you who is deluded?

But all these latter questions could be used by someone claiming that the world was flat. They could apply as a criticism of any argument, however true.

We could do those things even if God was the one who did it. Whether Daddy spanks us or not, we can still disobey him. Your intuition and its origin don’t change reality in the slightest, it seems.

One word: eschatology. No believer ever lacks reason to obey.

You and I both know this is a strawman. What’s gotten into you?

You said: “What is best is obviously a matter of opinion.” I was trying to figure out how you got there, logically. Please explain.

No, I haven’t.

It is worth reading Brave New World – and I’m not saying that because I want to “change” you. It is a monumentally important dystopic vision of the future. Philosophy without literature is nothing but a brain in a vat.

The animals that are sentient are ethically significant.

Oops. I must have misread the word “sentient” in your original post.

Gotta go to bed now…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why is God’s opinion better than mine? I mean, why do you believe it’s the case that God’s opinion is superior to mine merely because it’s his?

Wow.

That one kind of sums it all up, doesn’t it.

{and they ME arrogant… sheeesh}

 

[Hubriss]

One of the most interesting posts I’ve seen in a long time. Dionysus makes several good and true points, but there are lots of subtle flaws in his reasoning. I don’t have time to make a long post now, I have to go to bed. However, I will say that he is correct that there are no such “real” things as rights, only some religious people believe that. But he is wrong to say that any sort of religious morality or institution of law is superior to a secular one. Plus the concept of rights is still useful and made a reality by its use.

I’LL BE BACK!

 

[tonyrey]

One of the most interesting posts I’ve seen in a long time. Dionysus makes several good and true points, but there are lots of subtle flaws in his reasoning. I don’t have time to make a long post now, I have to go to bed. However, I will say that he is correct that there are no such “real” things as rights, only some religious people believe that. But he is wrong to say that any sort of religious morality or institution of law is superior to a secular one. Plus the concept of rights is still useful and made a reality by its use.

On what do you base rights in a secular society?

 

[wanstronian]

Wow.

That one kind of sums it all up, doesn’t it.

{and they ME arrogant… sheeesh}

It’s kind of an interesting question actually - do you believe that the opinion of everybody who holds some sort of authority over you, is superior to your own? If not, why not? The answer may - or may not - be obvious, but I’d be interested to hear somebody ‘vocalise’ it.

 

[Oreoracle]

Your claim: Morality would not exist without subjectivity.
My claim: God is a subject of morality.

What exactly does it mean to be a subject of morality? I was under the impression that God was a moral standard, not a moral agent.

If you admit that God *could *exist, then you must concede that: If God exists, then subjectivity exists. That is all I was seeking to establish.

Alright, I accept that.

End: the purpose for which something is done. Means: the things that are done to accomplish an end. This is not a vicious circle, and it is not meaningless. All definitions are distinctions, and they all point to other words (other distinctions). You can either be a post-structuralist, and say that this insight means that all communication is impossible, or realize that we only learn words by understanding what-they-are-not. Or by using examples – if you’re looking for these, Kant gives thousands of them.

Those definitions are sufficient (I just wanted a third term such as “purpose” to be mentioned.). In that case, all conscious/self-aware beings are rational animals since we all treat ourselves as an end (we are unable to act without considering ourselves). Even other species would be considered rational animals using Kant’s definition. Do you think Kant would agree with this?

Looks like Oreo didn’t take his humility pills today…

So it’s a sign of arrogance to ask a question? It looks like the Catholics are showing their true colors today.

If you explain to me exactly how God could have an opinion, I’ll answer your question. But in fact it is meaningless to say that God opines about anything, and this is precisely the reason why God’s knowledge of morality applies universally.

o·pin·ion

NOUN:

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing

I was mostly using the second definition (actually, I was using the first half of #1). In this case, “belief” is synonymous with “opinion.” I trust that you know the definition of “knowledge” is “true, justified belief.” So if God has knowledge, he has belief, which also means that he has opinions. I know “opinion” has a negative connotation around here, but the definitions do in fact indicate that it is synonymous with “belief.”