Philosophical Question: Is there a different between "Belief" and "Faith"?

[Die Hard]

Is there a difference? Please define each and feel free to discuss. There's no agenda here... I'm just working on my own definition and understanding and would appreciate input from others of perhaps things I haven't considered. Thanks in advance.

[twa]

faith is usually describing a action or state of mind,whereas belief is generally like a doctrine or conclusion drawn

you can have a belief (draw a conclusion) in or about something w/o exercising faith



Hebrews 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

add

Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.
Voltaire

Faith has to do with things that are not seen and hope with things that are not at hand.
Thomas Aquinas

Faith indeed tells what the senses do not tell, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them and not contrary to them.
Blaise Pascal

one last one to demonstrate belief

I confused things with their names: that is belief.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/belief.html#bzdo5LsyG83FwT84.99

[Die Hard]

So do you believe in extraterrestrial life.... or do you have faith in it?

[twa]

So do you believe in extraterrestrial life.... or do you have faith in it?

I would say you can believe in the possibility, but to assume it exists is a act of faith imo

what is it based on

[Die Hard]

So do you believe in extraterrestrial life.... or do you have faith in it?

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 01:28 AM ----------


I would say you can believe in the possibility, but to assume it exists is a act of faith imo
on

Why can you not believe something exists... but only assume it? You can't assume possibilities?

[Califan007]

twa touched on what I was going to say...you can have a set of beliefs, but you can't have a set of faiths. Faith is when you act on your beliefs.

[DCsportsfan53]

I think a big difference for me is if it's a belief you're acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong. To have faith in something is to believe without a smidgen of doubt.

[Thinking Skins]

Nah I don't differentiate between the two. Generally I have faith in something because I believe in it or that its true.

But neither should get in the way of true provable facts.

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 05:36 AM ----------


I think a big difference for me is if it's a belief you're acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong. To have faith in something is to believe without a smidgen of doubt.

So I wonder then how faith deals with being wrong.

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 05:37 AM ----------


I think a big difference for me is if it's a belief you're acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong. To have faith in something is to believe without a smidgen of doubt.

So I wonder then how faith deals with being wrong.

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 05:38 AM ----------


I think a big difference for me is if it's a belief you're acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong. To have faith in something is to believe without a smidgen of doubt.

So I wonder then how faith deals with being wrong.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes
I am working from my own Christian perspective here, so when I hear these it is from that referrence.

Belief is a cognitive assertion to a perceived fact.

Faith, in so far as Christian theology is concerned isn't so much as cognitive assertion to that which unproveable (as faith is most times described). Instead when we as Christians talk about faith, it what we're saying is not that we believe in God/Jesus even though we cannot see God, but instead that we are putting our trust into what we're hoping for, and acting upon what we cannot see. As such to put our faith in Jesus we are not just believing that he exists, but that we are hoping for the promises we have been given through calling upon him to save us, and us living as his disciples.

IMO too much of an effort has been made in recent decades to bridge the gap between belief and faith, efforts that I believe have contributed in no small manner to the rise in nominal Christianity.

[Burgold]

I think others before are on the right track. There is a difference in degree, but the two are linked.

[twa]

Why can you not believe something exists... but only assume it? You can't assume possibilities?

if you only class it as a possibility,you then do not believe it exists....no faith and no belief

[Die Hard]

if you only class it as a possibility,you then do not believe it exists....no faith and no belief

So by your definition.... faith is absolute certainty.. and belief is only relative certainty?

Is there no variance in faith? Can one have weak faith? Mild faith? Passing faith?

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 08:34 AM ----------

And would people mind contributing examples for belief and faith other than God?

What else do you have absolute faith in?

[alexey]

To me faith seems like an interconnected system of beliefs.

For belief, maybe something like "Belief is an assertion of a concept."


I think there is a lot of confusion about the word "belief". For example, some people may say that you need to believe in gravity in order to get out of bed in the morning. I disagree with that. I think that's like saying you need to believe that fire causes tissue damage in order to yank your hand our of it. You just do it because you have very simple and effective tools to deal with reality. I think belief has to be a higher level construct.

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 09:01 AM ----------


And would people mind contributing examples for belief and faith other than God?

What else do you have absolute faith in?
Is that possible? :) Without religion or God, can we just call them thoughts, reasons, ideas, concepts, etc?

What is the difference between "I think" and "I believe"? It seems that the latter adds an emphatic assertion, but that's about it.

[Thiebear]

as a more scientific person:
I've had lots of beliefs shattered due to people on here much smarter than myself.
I have faith in the things pretty much proven, Nature, math, 2+2.

I'm not unshakeable in any of it though really, we are so new to the scene of existence it would be rediculous to say we "Know" everything.
Every thousand year we laugh at what we though we knew... (most things).

My most absolute faith is we seem to come together during the hardest times. And apart during the easiest.

[MLSKINS]

I am a Christian, but others have already answered regarding that so I ask this.

You ask somebody to do something important to you and you end it with:

I have faith in you.

or

I believe in you.

I guess having faith in them means that you hope that they get the job done, where as believing in them means you know they will get it done. :whoknows:

[HOF44]

To me a belief has always been when you look at all the evidence available and it points to a logical answer, that is a belief. Faith is the belief in something without the requirement of logical evidence or any way to substantiate the belief.

[alexey]

To me a belief has always been when you look at all the evidence available and it points to a logical answer, that is a belief.

I have faith in the things pretty much proven, Nature, math, 2+2.
I think it is important to use different words for a "belief" in 2+2=4 and a belief that killing a goat can bring good harvest.

This is why I think it is not appropriate to use the word "belief" to describe subjective acceptance of grounded knowledge.

[twa]

So by your definition.... faith is absolute certainty.. and belief is only relative certainty?

Is there no variance in faith? Can one have weak faith? Mild faith? Passing faith?

---------- Post added July-27th-2012 at 08:34 AM ----------

And would people mind contributing examples for belief and faith other than God?

What else do you have absolute faith in?

I have absolute faith in nothing,so naturally I believe in degrees of faith

to use your extraterrestrial example

I can accept the concept of other life w/o believing it exists

or I can deduce it does from evidence and make it my belief

or I can go beyond that to faith

simply levels of certaintude;) ..... faith in extraterrestrial life would enable you to risk a one way space flight,whereas a belief is more open to revision

[drtdrums]

They are not the same thing. Faith is not just a greater degree of belief.

A belief is acceptance of a truth claim -- it is as simple as that. You can believe all manner of truth claims without ever getting down to where the rubber meets the road.

Faith is the action/state caused by whole-hearted acceptance of the truth claim. In some cases, faith is as easy as breathing (when there is no consequence to being wrong, or when a truth claim is so tested that acting counter to that truth claim would be nearly impossible). In other cases, it is flying on the trapeze with no net.

A very simple example: I believe there is a Cairo in Egypt; If I get on a plane to fly there, I am exhibiting faith in that truth claim.
________________

True, unreserved belief compels faith (read: action).

[alexey]

A belief is acceptance of a truth claim -- it is as simple as that. You can believe all manner of truth claims without ever getting down to where the rubber meets the road.
I have a problem with this, and it looks like I'm not the only one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief_as_a_psychological_theory


(Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker has outlined four main contemporary approaches to belief in her controversial book Saving Belief)

1) Our common-sense understanding of belief is correct
...

2) Our common-sense understanding of belief may not be entirely correct, but it is close enough to make some useful predictions
...

3) Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong and will be completely superseded by a radically different theory that will have no use for the concept of belief as we know it - Known as eliminativism, this view, (most notably proposed by Paul and Patricia Churchland), argues that the concept of belief is like obsolete theories of times past such as the four humours theory of medicine, or the phlogiston theory of combustion. In these cases science hasn't provided us with a more detailed account of these theories, but completely rejected them as valid scientific concepts to be replaced by entirely different accounts. The Churchlands argue that our common-sense concept of belief is similar in that as we discover more about neuroscience and the brain, the inevitable conclusion will be to reject the belief hypothesis in its entirety.

4) Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however, treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is often a successful strategy - The major proponents of this view, Daniel Dennett and Lynne Rudder Baker, are both eliminativists in that they believe that beliefs are not a scientifically valid concept, but they don't go as far as rejecting the concept of belief as a predictive device. Dennett gives the example of playing a computer at chess. While few people would agree that the computer held beliefs, treating the computer as if it did (e.g. that the computer believes that taking the opposition's queen will give it a considerable advantage) is likely to be a successful and predictive strategy. In this understanding of belief, named by Dennett the intentional stance, belief-based explanations of mind and behaviour are at a different level of explanation and are not reducible to those based on fundamental neuroscience, although both may be explanatory at their own level.
I'm thinking along the lines of 3) and 4).

[twa]

A very simple example: I believe there is a Cairo in Egypt; If I get on a plane to fly there, I am exhibiting faith in that truth claim.
________________

True, unreserved belief compels faith (read: action).

Why would believing Egypt would be there not be simply a belief?

[alexey]

Why would believing Egypt would be there not be simply a belief?
Because as we learned from the Wikipedia article the word "belief" is nonsensical ;)

[twa]

Because as we learned from the Wikipedia article the word "belief" is nonsensical ;)

and faith moreso?

[alexey]

and faith moreso?
Supposedly (per eliminativism) if we come up with appropriate terminology to describe various mind states, then the word belief will go away and the word faith will end up pointing at the concept of religion.

In other words, from that perspective the word "faith" is nonsensical as a description of a state of mind, but it does make sense as a synonym of the word "religion".

[Renegade7]

I feel there is a difference in "believing" there was historically a Jesus Christ versus having "faith" he's up in heaven watching over us, if that makes any sense at all...

[drtdrums]

Why would believing Egypt would be there not be simply a belief?

Thanks for asking, as it will allow me to clarify.

Believing there is a Cairo in Egypt *is* simply a belief.

The act of going there is faith.

[alexey]

Thanks for asking, as it will allow me to clarify.

Believing there is a Cairo in Egypt *is* simply a belief.

The act of going there is faith.
In this framework, can the word "belief" take on radically different meanings in different contexts?

If so, do you propose an approach for avoiding confusion?

[drtdrums]

In this framework, can the word "belief" take on radically different meanings in different contexts?

If so, do you propose an approach for avoiding confusion?

It doesn't. Also, this epistemological framework is entirely unconcerned with the psychological mechanisms involved. There is certainly a very interesting debate to be had within the realm of psychology, but it does not appear to matter. One must eat whether the world is flat or round; whether "belief" conforms to our classical understanding or has yet-to-be-defined component parts is irrelevant. We hold beliefs, or whatever semantic values one applies to "acceptance of data/truth claims".

[Prosperity]

A belief is a combination of an idea and a judgment that the idea is true.

Faith is a type of foundation for a judgment that something is true, proof is another type of foundation

The difference isn't a matter of degree, instead it is a matter of category, i.e. they are totally different things though they are related ideas.

[alexey]

It doesn't. Also, this epistemological framework is entirely unconcerned with the psychological mechanisms involved. There is certainly a very interesting debate to be had within the realm of psychology, but it does not appear to matter. One must eat whether the world is flat or round; whether "belief" conforms to our classical understanding or has yet-to-be-defined component parts is irrelevant. We hold beliefs, or whatever semantic values one applies to "acceptance of data/truth claims".
Do you see a problem with using a framework to describe psychological mechanisms that is entirely unconcerned with actual psychological mechanisms?

If the word "belief" means everything, then it does not really mean anything.

[drtdrums]

Do you see a problem with using a framework to describe psychological mechanisms that is entirely unconcerned with actual psychological mechanisms?

If the word "belief" means everything, then it does not really mean anything.

You seem to believe (;)) that the epistemological framework is dependent on psychological mechanisms. And your last sentence seems to indicate that perhaps I need to do a better job clarifying that "belief" is rather strictly defined within this framework. I'm not sure how I gave the impression it wasn't, so I don't know to go about fixing the perception.

Restated:

1. Belief, epistemologically speaking, is acceptance of a data point or truth claim
2. Faith is the action or state compelled by acceptance of a data point or truth claim

I gather from your previous post that you would like to disagree with 1. Where, epistemologically speaking, is your disagreement?

[alexey]

You seem to believe (;)) that the epistemological framework is dependent on psychological mechanisms. And your last sentence seems to indicate that perhaps I need to do a better job clarifying that "belief" is rather strictly defined within this framework. I'm not sure how I gave the impression it wasn't, so I don't know to go about fixing the perception.

Restated:

1. Belief, epistemologically speaking, is acceptance of a data point or truth claim
2. Faith is the action or state compelled by acceptance of a data point or truth claim

I gather from your previous post that you would like to disagree with 1. Where, epistemologically speaking, is your disagreement?
I think that this framework is incomplete without a definition of the term "acceptance". This is where those pesky psychological mechanisms come into play and you cannot get around it :)

What does this mean to "accept" something?

[Thinking Skins]

as a more scientific person:
I've had lots of beliefs shattered due to people on here much smarter than myself.
I have faith in the things pretty much proven, Nature, math, 2+2.

I'm not unshakeable in any of it though really, we are so new to the scene of existence it would be rediculous to say we "Know" everything.
Every thousand year we laugh at what we though we knew... (most things).

My most absolute faith is we seem to come together during the hardest times. And apart during the easiest.

From a scientific standpoint though, would you say you believe in Global Warming or you have faith that its true?

People use phrases like "this supports my faith", but I find that as having the same or similar meaning as ."this makes me more likely to believe". I believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because I trust the axioms on which the proof is derived.

But if you want to throw another term into the equation, how do either of these differ from an assumption? If I make an assumption.....say that God exists, or that I have enough gas to get to work. Then I can go out and act accordingly as if my assumption is true (either by how I live my life or where I drive my car). Whether I believe that my car will make it, or whether I have faith that it'll do so seems about the same to me.

[Jumbo]

I can be fairly comfortable with quality dictionary definitions in almost every matter. Oddly enough (or maybe predictably) in typical social discourse people are often somewhat unfamiliar with many actual definitions of terms they use and we sort of "make up our own" tweaked versions which adds to the fun of trying to argue various matters. :pfft: :)

Fortunately, there's usually enough commonality in our customizing of word meanings that we can make some connection. :D

To answer with the way I'd normally use them---essentially, faith is a stronger expression of a belief. Faith is more sure, and is so even in the face of lack of proof, arguable reason, or "outside" support.

A belief (in my usage) can be very powerful, but is also more easily subject to change (even if it's still difficult) and it's not "100%."

Faith is "100%"---ideally it is a complete and total commitment--"unshakable."


Merriam-Webster:

Definition of FAITH

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


Merriam-Webster:

Definition of BELIEF

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


There are examples given of each, but you can see how easy it is to intertwine the meanings. There are some brilliant and extensive (many pages) essays written on this, and a great deal of material (of course) on religion-centered use of the terms. Actually, wiki has decent offerings for each term beyond the dictionary definitions.

When it comes to "belief", I am more into exploring the hows and whys of the way our belief process works. So while of course it matters to me what I, and often what others, believe, I like to examine what might be the reasons (from environment to biology etc etc), either individually or a species that process that arrived at that belief took place. I find this often offers significant and useful insight as to "why do I (or they) believe that?"

This can often help inform me as to how valid or credible or objective my belief may be---i.e. how much is coming from the areas of my brain really devoted to letting critical thinking take the reins and the "reptile brain" having to deal with it, versus how much is the ole amygdala/limbic system is in charge (it always gets first crack) and is just using the rest of the brain to seek support for and pad it's own agenda and make it snug-n-comfy, ego/self-identity wise.

Continuing this tangent, DH, I think you would have fun reading 'Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Sherman. It's a fairly light and easy read, but I think you'd like him if you don't already know of him. He's a founder of one of my favorites--Skeptics Magazine and Ex. Dir. of the Skeptics Society (last time I looked)

Here--I haven't looked in quite awhile and it's a different layout, but here's the website (some fun stuff should be easy to find).

http://www.skeptic.com/

[Thiebear]

I think it is important to use different words for a "belief" in 2+2=4 and a belief that killing a goat can bring good harvest.
This is why I think it is not appropriate to use the word "belief" to describe subjective acceptance of grounded knowledge.
I have Faith 2+2=4, more than a belief. (You break this and I have to start over on most everything i know)
I believe we came from a white hole from a larger universe. (You break this and i say darn).
difference

[Die Hard]

After further consideration.... I'm inclined to believe the following.

In every moment of our lives, our brain is constantly processing information (ie. references... which can be personal experiences, second-hand experiences, reading books, our imagination, etc) and storing the information (ie. memory) and associating emotions with those memories. As a survival mechanism, our brain processes objective data -- it organizes it in a matter of "pain" or "pleasure -- with an associated level of "certainty".

Opinions, beliefs and Conviction (faith) are merely varying levels of "certainty".

The reason for this exercise was that I've recently begun exploring my entire belief system. In doing so, it's been mentioned in my references that I will require a certain level of "faith" at times... and I had to question -- as an athiest and general all-round skeptic -- if I even had the capacity to have "faith". Now I know I do :)

[drtdrums]

I think that this framework is incomplete without a definition of the term "acceptance". This is where those pesky psychological mechanisms come into play and you cannot get around it :)

What does this mean to "accept" something?

Why would I try to get around something entirely irrelevant to the discussion? You're talking psychology, the OP and everyone else are talking epistemology.

You are making, accepting, and rejecting assertions all over the place. Don't tell me know don't know what "acceptance of a truth claim" is. But, just for the record, it is asserting to one's self that the truth claim conforms to reality.

Just to break this down: Do you think people accept and reject truth claims? If so, that's as far as you need to go, psychologically speaking, for debating the difference between belief and faith. The lights are on. It doesn't matter if it's magic or electricity.

[alexey]

After further consideration.... I'm inclined to believe the following.

In every moment of our lives, our brain is constantly processing information (ie. references... which can be personal experiences, second-hand experiences, reading books, our imagination, etc) and storing the information (ie. memory) and associating emotions with those memories. As a survival mechanism, our brain processes objective data -- it organizes it in a matter of "pain" or "pleasure -- with an associated level of "certainty".

Opinions, beliefs and Conviction (faith) are merely varying levels of "certainty".

The reason for this exercise was that I've recently begun exploring my entire belief system. In doing so, it's been mentioned in my references that I will require a certain level of "faith" at times... and I had to question -- as an athiest and general all-round skeptic -- if I even had the capacity to have "faith". Now I know I do :)
Different kinds of information are encoded in vastly different ways by the brain.

For example, let's say you look at a strawberry, you take it, you smell it, and then you eat it. At every step, your brain is processing sensory data and making predictions. It "believes" that a strawberry will feel a certain way when you pick it up, that it will have a particular kind of smell, that it will taste more or less like a strawberry. Your actions will automatically test these "beliefs". If things work as expected, your brain will not run into surprises and your "beliefs" will get reinforced. If the strawberry feels like an apple, if it smells like a rose, or if it tastes like cheese, your brain will work to resolve the discrepancy. You will become very much aware of the failed prediction, marshall additional mental resources to resolve it, etc. This is a little bit like the mechanism you are describing.

Now, how about your brain's "belief" that the Earth is round or that there is a city called Paris? It is a completely different thing. It is kept in a different place in the brain, it is placed there by different mechanisms, it gets pulled up by different mechanisms, etc. It is an entirely different kind of thing. This is why some people who study the brain (e.g. Patricia Churchland) argue that the word "belief" does not mean anything and should be replaced by more accurate terminology.

---------- Post added July-28th-2012 at 09:35 PM ----------


Why would I try to get around something entirely irrelevant to the discussion? You're talking psychology, the OP and everyone else are talking epistemology.

You are making, accepting, and rejecting assertions all over the place. Don't tell me know don't know what "acceptance of a truth claim" is. But, just for the record, it is asserting to one's self that the truth claim conforms to reality.

Just to break this down: Do you think people accept and reject truth claims? If so, that's as far as you need to go, psychologically speaking, for debating the difference between belief and faith. The lights are on. It doesn't matter if it's magic or electricity.
Sounds like your answer to my question "what does it mean to accept something?" is something like "you know what it means".

Yes I do know what it means. It means a whole bunch of different things. Those things are so different, in fact, that it is not correct to use the same words to reference them ;)

If we are discussing different ways of making light, you cannot just say hey, lights are made by flipping the switch, no need to go beyond that.

[drtdrums]

Different kinds of information are encoded in vastly different ways by the brain.

For example, let's say you look at a strawberry, you take it, you smell it, and then you eat it. At every step, your brain is processing sensory data and making predictions. It "believes" that a strawberry will feel a certain way when you pick it up, that it will have a particular kind of smell, that it will taste more or less like a strawberry. Your actions will automatically test these "beliefs". If things work as expected, your brain will not run into surprises and your "beliefs" will get reinforced. If the strawberry feels like an apple, if it smells like a rose, or if it tastes like cheese, your brain will work to resolve the discrepancy. You will become very much aware of the failed prediction, marshall additional mental resources to resolve it, etc. This is a little bit like the mechanism you are describing.

Now, how about your brain's "belief" that the Earth is round or that there is a city called Paris? It is a completely different thing. It is kept in a different place in the brain, it is placed there by different mechanisms, it gets pulled up by different mechanisms, etc. It is an entirely different kind of thing. This is why some people who study the brain (e.g. Patricia Churchland) argue that the word "belief" does not mean anything and should be replaced by more accurate terminology.

---------- Post added July-28th-2012 at 09:35 PM ----------


Sounds like your answer to my question "what does it mean to accept something?" is something like "you know what it means".

Yes I do know what it means. It means a whole bunch of different things. Those things are so different, in fact, that it is not correct to use the same words to reference them ;)

If we are discussing different ways of making light, you cannot just say hey, lights are made by flipping the switch, no need to go beyond that.

You're either being intentionally obtuse or are incapable of understanding my answers. I'm not sure which, but I'm done.

[Kosher Ham]

I believe I won't have a drink while in Vegas this week, but I do not have faith enough to trust my beliefs.

To me having faith in something is more inspirational than anything else. To believe in something means you expect it to be true.
I know it is a simple response...but think about it and apply it to things you may have faith in and things you may believe in.

[alexey]

You're either being intentionally obtuse or are incapable of understanding my answers. I'm not sure which, but I'm done.
It's neither and you know it. I understand what you mean and I am putting forth a strong argument against it. Can you respond?

You are proposing that we discuss acceptance of truth claims without discussing the way people actually go about accepting truth claims. This position is very hard to defend. No wonder you prefer to disengage.


There are tons of different ways of accepting and tons of different types of truths. What does the statement "accept as truth" mean? It depends on the context. What does it mean without any context?

[Burgold]

I believe I have faith, but do I have faith in my belief?

[Darth Tater]

Yes, while faith includes belief, it also more strongly indicates positive trust and REQUIRES evidence (that evidence may be based on belief). For example, it is very easy to believe that the POTUS will attempt to carry out his plan. Faith is that he will carry out his plan and that his plan will work. Another example, the Bible says that God desires the best for you, this is faith. It also tells us that Satan and his minions believe.

[Burgold]

I believe you haven't a clue, but I have faith you'll figure it out. (not aimed at anyone just having fun with language.)

[alexey]

Yes, while faith includes belief, it also more strongly indicates positive trust and REQUIRES evidence (that evidence may be based on belief). For example, it is very easy to believe that the POTUS will attempt to carry out his plan. Faith is that he will carry out his plan and that his plan will work. Another example, the Bible says that God desires the best for you, this is faith. It also tells us that Satan and his minions believe.
I have faith that everything will work out on the long run. I do not need any evidence for that faith of mine... I just made a choice to have that as a part of my belief system.

I also believe that we do not have free will... I believe that our "choices" are inevitable results of our genes and environment. Still, I believe it is important to hold people responsible for choices that they make because I believe that holding people responsible for their choices that they make should be a part of their environment.

I believe there is a lot of confusion about these things, but I have faith that we will sort them out, eventually. I hope that we do. I believe that we will when I am in a good mood.

I also believe that a volcano could explode tomorrow and kill every human on this planet. I believe it is important to act Iike this will not happen, but I do not have faith that it will not happen because I know that it can.

I believe that our folk psychology language of belief and faith is not very well suited to properly discuss these things.

[Califan007]

I'm not sure "believe" and "belief" are interchangeable.