Belief statements vs. behavior

[public hermit]

My question concerns those instances where someone states they believe p, and yet their behavior indicates they believe not-p. How are we to understand these instances?

In each example let's be generous and assume each person believes they believe what they say they believe.

Example 1
Jim is at the Grand Canyon and says, "I believe it is perfectly safe to walk out on the skywalk." However, when he walks out on it he begins to shake, trembling with fear. Does Jim believe the skywalk is perfectly safe, or no?

Example 2
Betty says that she trusts her boyfriend, Bill. And yet, when Bill is not around she often worries that he is acting in an untrustworthy manner. Does Betty believe Bill is trustworthy, or no?

Example 3
Elmer states that he believes all races are equal. And yet, Elmer exhibits implicit bias in his everyday interactions with those of races other than his own. Does Elmer believe all races are equal, or no?

Theological example 1
Percival says that he believes he is forgiven by the grace given in Jesus Christ. And yet, Percival experiences fears that he is unforgiven. Does Percival believe that he is forgiven, or no?

Theological example 2
Fred, a professing Christian, says that he believes Christians should help the poor. And yet, Fred makes no effort to help the poor. Does Fred believe Christians should help the poor, or no?

I have tried to give a wide variety of examples in hopes of helping us get a better sense of the issue. People's belief statements are sometimes at odds with their behavior, reactions, experiences, etc. There seems to be several explanations.

One possibility is that in spite of what one says they believe, their actions, reactions, behavior, etc. belie the truth. They may say they believe p, but their behavior shows they really believe not-p. This does not mean they are lying when they say they believe p, but it does raise the question as to why they think they believe something when it seems they don't.

Another possibility is that a person can believe both p and not-p, just not with the same credence value (i.e. believes one more than the other). The problem with this explanation is that in the examples above each one clearly believes they believe one and not the other. So, how can one believe what they don't believe they believe.

Finally, the theological examples highlight one of the problems with assuming that Christian faith is simply a matter of mere belief. In Theological Example 1, the issue may be that Percival has a mere belief that forgiveness is given through Jesus Christ, but not the requisite trust that such grace has been given to him.

What are your thoughts? Do we believe things we don't believe? If so, how can one be mistaken about one's own beliefs? Or, do we really believe what we think we believe, but not as much as we might have assumed? What are some other possibilities?

As far as the theological examples go: Is faith a matter of mere belief, or is there something else entailed in faith, such as trust? Does one's beliefs need to be commensurate with one's behavior? Why or why not?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In Mark 9:24, there is the man who cries, "Lord, I believe, help me in my unbelief". So I think we can believe in both p and not-p.

 

[Halbhh]

My question concerns those instances where someone states they believe p, and yet their behavior indicates they believe not-p.

Definitely that the person believes not-p (significantly), as shown by their actions.

Or as Christ words it regarding new leaders/those claiming to be prophets of some manner:

... 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Matthew 7 NIV

The real beliefs of a person are shown by their actions.

In each example let's be generous and assume each person believes they believe what they say they believe.

Example 1
Jim is at the Grand Canyon and says, "I believe it is perfectly safe to walk out on the skywalk." However, when he walks out on it he begins to shake, trembling with fear. Does Jim believe the skywalk is perfectly safe, or no?

Example 2
Betty says that she trusts her boyfriend, Bill. And yet, when Bill is not around she often worries that he is acting in an untrustworthy manner. Does Betty believe Bill is trustworthy, or no?

Example 3
Elmer states that he believes all races are equal. And yet, Elmer exhibits implicit bias in his everyday interactions with those of races other than his own. Does Elmer believe all races are equal, or no?

You know what came to mind here, it was Peter stepping out of the boat onto the water: at first he believed, then he looked away from Christ and faltered.

27But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

28“Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

29“Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” ... Matthew 14 NIV

Don't we all have a moment or 2 like that?

Finally, the theological examples highlight one of the problems with assuming that Christian faith is simply a matter of mere belief. In Theological Example 1, the issue may be that Percival has a mere belief that forgiveness is given through Jesus Christ, but not the requisite trust that such grace has been given to him.

One of my favorite moments: John 20:27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe."

One thing though: if a person only has some doctrines they heard from some men, and has not read Christ's words, then how can they really have much trust?

 

[public hermit]

In Mark 9:24, there is the man who cries, "Lord, I believe, help me in my unbelief". So I think we can believe in both p and not-p.

That's a really good example! I hadn't thought of that passage.

 

[public hermit]

The real beliefs of a person are shown by their actions.

As always, you have some interesting and helpful thoughts. So, you would say that we sometimes believe things we don't actually believe?

 

[Halbhh]

As always, you have some interesting and helpful thoughts. So, you would say that we sometimes believe things we don't actually believe?

This moment is so helpful in a way here for your question:

In Mark 9:24, there is the man who cries, "Lord, I believe, help me in my unbelief". So I think we can believe in both p and not-p.

21 Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?”

“From childhood,” he answered. 22 “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”

23 “ ‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.”

24 Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”
Mark 9 NIV

So, initially the man believed Jesus is of/from God, but wasn't yet all the way to what that implies -- the implication of the fact that God can indeed do anything -- and in this moment, he realizes there is more than only recognizing that Jesus is at least a prophet or of/from God, but there is a more full level of belief. It's such a wonderful moment in a way. What a good thing to be brought to such a moment.

 

[Silmarien]

I would say that there are factors aside from belief underlying many of these examples. In the first one, for instance, if it is possible to have phobias that you know are completely irrational, it's also possible to have less pathological reactions that contradict what you think the level of risk is, intellectually.

In the third one also, having the intellectual conviction that all races are equal doesn't erase whatever ingrained biases you might have. When confronted with your behavior, you would hopefully try to correct course, whereas someone who does not believe that all races are equal would not.

I think something similar is going on in the second theological example. Knowing that you should be helping the poor is much easier than actually (not to mention consistently) taking actions to help the poor.

In all of these situations, I don't expect beliefs and behavior to match up 100% (mine certainly don't), but I do think it's important to be moving towards correlation rather than away from it. I guess you could understand it in terms of sin and sanctification?

 

[public hermit]

So, initially the man believed Jesus is of/from God, but wasn't yet all the way to what that implies -- the implication of the fact that God can indeed do anything -- and in this moment, he realizes there is more than only recognizing that Jesus is at least a prophet or of/from God, but there is a more full level of belief. It's such a wonderful moment in a way. What a good thing to be brought to such a moment.

I agree. I love this moment and the honesty and willingness of this man who says, "I believe, help me in my unbelief!"

So, my friend, we have two options on the table. On the one hand, we have "you shall know them by their fruits." I think that fits best with Theological example 2. Then we have this gentleman who believes and yet needs help believing. This seems to go with the idea that there can different credence levels, so that one can believe both p and not-p, just not in the same way.

I still struggle with the idea that we can believe things we don't believe we believe. This is where evidence plays a part, I think. Let's say that Jim truly believes the Grand Canyon skywalk is perfectly safe. But, once he walks out on it, he has evidence that he is not as truly convinced as he thought he was. He probably still believes it is safe, just not with the credence (confidence) he initially believed. Does that sound right?

 

[Halbhh]

I agree. I love this moment and the honesty and willingness of this man who says, "I believe, help me in my unbelief!"

So, my friend, we have two options on the table. On the one hand, we have "you shall know them by their fruits." I think that fits best with Theological example 2. Then we have this gentleman who believes and yet needs help believing. This seems to go with the idea that there can different credence levels, so that one can believe both p and not-p, just not in the same way.

I still struggle with the idea that we can believe things we don't believe we believe. This is where evidence plays a part, I think. Let's say that Jim truly believes the Grand Canyon skywalk is perfectly safe. But, once he walks out on it, he has evidence that he is not as truly convinced as he thought he was. He probably still believes it is safe, just not with the credence (confidence) he initially believed. Does that sound right?

Yes, is Jim then more like Peter who literally it seems looked away from the best to instead focus on what isn't best, or is Jim doing instead a different thing more like what Silmarien points out just above usefully, just having what amounts to a bodily reaction, involuntary, which we have all experienced also? Is it that the body is independently perceiving/reacting differently than the mind is believing? Or is it that the mind didn't fully believe? Christ did say "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" .

 

[public hermit]

I would say that there are factors aside from belief underlying many of these examples. In the first one, for instance, if it is possible to have phobias that you know are completely irrational, it's also possible to have less pathological reactions that contradict what you think the level of risk is, intellectually.

That's a good point. So, what is a phobia? Isn't it an irrational belief? In the case of Jim, he seems to have contradictory beliefs. Or, not contradictory, but he believes contradictory things with different credence levels, perhaps? He both believes the skywalk is safe, and yet also has this "irrational" belief that he still might fall? I'll be honest, if it were me, I would believe it is safe, and yet be a little nervous walking out.

In the third one also, having the intellectual conviction that all races are equal doesn't erase whatever ingrained biases you might have.

Would it be accurate to say his behavior is influence by something unconscious?

In all of these situations, I don't expect beliefs and behavior to match up 100% (mine certainly don't), but I do think it's important to be moving towards correlation rather than away from it. I guess you could understand it in terms of sin and sanctification?

I agree. I think it's pretty common for our behavior to not match our beliefs 100%. And, I also think the idea of sanctification as a process (in terms of the theological examples) is an important part of this.

There is something intuitively odd that I, perhaps, believe things I don't believe I believe. How can that be? Aren't I aware of what I believe? Perhaps not? What is a belief if one is not conscious of it?

 

[Halbhh]

In the first one, for instance, if it is possible to have phobias that you know are completely irrational, it's also possible to have less pathological reactions that contradict what you think the level of risk is, intellectually.

That's a useful thing to consider. Christ did say "...the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

 

[public hermit]

Yes, is Jim then more like Peter who literally it seems looked away from the best to instead focus on what isn't best, or is Jim doing instead a different thing more like what Silmarien points out just above usefully, just having what amounts to a bodily reaction, involuntary, which we have all experienced also? Is it that the body is independently perceiving/reacting differently than the mind is believing? Or is it that the mind didn't fully believe? Christ did say "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" .

I do think Silmarien makes an important point about phobias, or just unconscious reactions in general. Part of the problem with the way I phrased the examples is that they don't take into account bodily reactions and unconscious motivators. Perhaps, Jim didn't know how afraid of heights we was? Presumably, he would adjust his credence level of belief accordingly. But, we could assume he knew he was afraid of heights, but also believed it was perfectly safe.

Yes, the body and the spirit are not always in tune!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My question concerns those instances where someone states they believe p, and yet their behavior indicates they believe not-p. How are we to understand these instances?

In each example let's be generous and assume each person believes they believe what they say they believe.

Example 1
Jim is at the Grand Canyon and says, "I believe it is perfectly safe to walk out on the skywalk." However, when he walks out on it he begins to shake, trembling with fear. Does Jim believe the skywalk is perfectly safe, or no?

Example 2
Betty says that she trusts her boyfriend, Bill. And yet, when Bill is not around she often worries that he is acting in an untrustworthy manner. Does Betty believe Bill is trustworthy, or no?

Example 3
Elmer states that he believes all races are equal. And yet, Elmer exhibits implicit bias in his everyday interactions with those of races other than his own. Does Elmer believe all races are equal, or no?

Theological example 1
Percival says that he believes he is forgiven by the grace given in Jesus Christ. And yet, Percival experiences fears that he is unforgiven. Does Percival believe that he is forgiven, or no?

Theological example 2
Fred, a professing Christian, says that he believes Christians should help the poor. And yet, Fred makes no effort to help the poor. Does Fred believe Christians should help the poor, or no?

I have tried to give a wide variety of examples in hopes of helping us get a better sense of the issue. People's belief statements are sometimes at odds with their behavior, reactions, experiences, etc. There seems to be several explanations.

One possibility is that in spite of what one says they believe, their actions, reactions, behavior, etc. belie the truth. They may say they believe p, but their behavior shows they really believe not-p. This does not mean they are lying when they say they believe p, but it does raise the question as to why they think they believe something when it seems they don't.

Another possibility is that a person can believe both p and not-p, just not with the same credence value (i.e. believes one more than the other). The problem with this explanation is that in the examples above each one clearly believes they believe one and not the other. So, how can one believe what they don't believe they believe.

Finally, the theological examples highlight one of the problems with assuming that Christian faith is simply a matter of mere belief. In Theological Example 1, the issue may be that Percival has a mere belief that forgiveness is given through Jesus Christ, but not the requisite trust that such grace has been given to him.

What are your thoughts? Do we believe things we don't believe? If so, how can one be mistaken about one's own beliefs? Or, do we really believe what we think we believe, but not as much as we might have assumed? What are some other possibilities?

As far as the theological examples go: Is faith a matter of mere belief, or is there something else entailed in faith, such as trust? Does one's beliefs need to be commensurate with one's behavior? Why or why not?

Another, 3rd possibility may be that the brain/mind of any one singular human being is much more complex and vulnerable to mediating psychological and social forces that can prevent a person from merely operating in a linear behavioral fashion on some stated belief or set of beliefs.

Without getting into a long elaboration that I presently don't have time for, I'll just refer back again, as I've done elsewhere in other threads, to the kinds of forces that Pascal and Kierkegaard have brought up which mediate and sometimes muddle any person's attempt to act and consistently cohere to the beliefs they say they may have. This is most especially the case where 'religious beliefs' come into view.

There can also be the fact that a person, while attempting to assess another person's behavior in perceptual linkage involving inherent claims and actions, doesn't quite make an evaluation that discerns to the fullest whether there is indeed a disconnect between CLAIM C and BEHAVIOR C. It could even be that this is one reason Jesus tells His disciples to be careful in 'how' they judge other people since the whole of an interpersonal evaluation is one that often prevents a clearly dichotomous discernment, a discernment that only God could make in a perfect, comprehensive way.

We might have to wonder what was going on in instances where, say, Paul berated either Peter or seemingly good-hearted Barnabas. From our points of view here, 2,000 years later, we might ask: What in the heck was going on with Paul in each of those instances?

 

[public hermit]

Another, 3rd possibility is the brain/mind of any one singular human being is more complex and vulnerable to mediating psychological and social forces than prevent a person from merely operating on some stated belief or set of beliefs.

So, perhaps I truly believe that as a Christain I should help the poor, but I also have these other (social) voices in my head saying doing so enables the very situation they are in. Would that be an example of social forces preventing a full opration of one's stated belief?

There can also be the fact that a person, while attempting to assess another person's behavior in perceptual linkage involving inherent claims and actions, doesn't quite make an evaluation that discerns to the fullest whether there is indeed a disconnect between CLAIM C and BEHAVIOR C. It could even be that this is one reason Jesus tells His disciples to be careful in 'how' they judge other people since the whole of of evaluation is one that often prevents a clearly dichotomous discernment.

That's a good point. What, from my perspective, looks like an inconsistency between a stated belief and behavior may include factors to which I am not privy.

 

[topher694]

My question concerns those instances where someone states they believe p, and yet their behavior indicates they believe not-p. How are we to understand these instances?

In each example let's be generous and assume each person believes they believe what they say they believe.

Example 1
Jim is at the Grand Canyon and says, "I believe it is perfectly safe to walk out on the skywalk." However, when he walks out on it he begins to shake, trembling with fear. Does Jim believe the skywalk is perfectly safe, or no?

Example 2
Betty says that she trusts her boyfriend, Bill. And yet, when Bill is not around she often worries that he is acting in an untrustworthy manner. Does Betty believe Bill is trustworthy, or no?

Example 3
Elmer states that he believes all races are equal. And yet, Elmer exhibits implicit bias in his everyday interactions with those of races other than his own. Does Elmer believe all races are equal, or no?

Theological example 1
Percival says that he believes he is forgiven by the grace given in Jesus Christ. And yet, Percival experiences fears that he is unforgiven. Does Percival believe that he is forgiven, or no?

Theological example 2
Fred, a professing Christian, says that he believes Christians should help the poor. And yet, Fred makes no effort to help the poor. Does Fred believe Christians should help the poor, or no?

I have tried to give a wide variety of examples in hopes of helping us get a better sense of the issue. People's belief statements are sometimes at odds with their behavior, reactions, experiences, etc. There seems to be several explanations.

One possibility is that in spite of what one says they believe, their actions, reactions, behavior, etc. belie the truth. They may say they believe p, but their behavior shows they really believe not-p. This does not mean they are lying when they say they believe p, but it does raise the question as to why they think they believe something when it seems they don't.

Another possibility is that a person can believe both p and not-p, just not with the same credence value (i.e. believes one more than the other). The problem with this explanation is that in the examples above each one clearly believes they believe one and not the other. So, how can one believe what they don't believe they believe.

Finally, the theological examples highlight one of the problems with assuming that Christian faith is simply a matter of mere belief. In Theological Example 1, the issue may be that Percival has a mere belief that forgiveness is given through Jesus Christ, but not the requisite trust that such grace has been given to him.

What are your thoughts? Do we believe things we don't believe? If so, how can one be mistaken about one's own beliefs? Or, do we really believe what we think we believe, but not as much as we might have assumed? What are some other possibilities?

As far as the theological examples go: Is faith a matter of mere belief, or is there something else entailed in faith, such as trust? Does one's beliefs need to be commensurate with one's behavior? Why or why not?

What you are describing is the difference between belief and trust.

There is a difference between belief IN, and belief THAT

Even the demons believe IN God (James 2:19) but clearly they don't believe THAT God's way is best (ie they don't trust Him)... many people, even Christians, are the same at some level.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, perhaps I truly believe that as a Christain I should help the poor, but I also have these other (social) voices in my head saying doing so enables the very situation they are in. Would that be an example of social forces preventing a full opration of one's stated belief?

No, I have more in mind a situation where, say, one Christian spouse prohibits his/her spouse from 'giving' to some seemingly Christian cause because the first spouse thinks it's a waste of time and money. In this kind of instance, it's much more than just a 'voice' in one's head. It's an actual, tangible voice coming from somewhere in the outer reality we all share.

That's a good point. What, from my perspective, looks like an inconsistency between a stated belief and behavior may include factors to which I am not privy.

Exactly!

Although this isn't to say that the person making an evaluation about the conjunction between the beliefs and behavior of another person is completely wrong. Rather, it means that he/she may be making a judgement which falls somewhere on a continuum between "Yes, You're Absolutely Right about that other person's behavior!" to "No, 'what were you thinking you prudish prig?'"

 

[Halbhh]

I do think Silmarien makes an important point about phobias, or just unconscious reactions in general. Part of the problem with the way I phrased the examples is that they don't take into account bodily reactions and unconscious motivators. Perhaps, Jim didn't know how afraid of heights we was? Presumably, he would adjust his credence level of belief accordingly. But, we could assume he knew he was afraid of heights, but also believed it was perfectly safe.

Yes, the body and the spirit are not always in tune!

I do find, over and over, that when I pray the prayer Christ gave us to pray in Matthew chapter 6, it makes quite a difference in how I feel! The bodily reactions are changed(!). That's a big deal. Also....something more happens. It's like not only am I helped inside, but also it seems like situations around me are also altered, a separate aid, additionally. I'm often surprised to find people suddenly acting differently than usual after I've prayed for us. It's not that I didn't believe when I prayed, but that I didn't guess what all might be done.

 

[public hermit]

No, I have more in mind a situation where, say, one Christian spouse prohibits his/her spouse from 'giving' to some seemingly Christian cause because the first spouse thinks it's a waste of time and money. In this kind of instance, it's much more than just a 'voice' in one's head. It's an actual, tangible voice coming from somewhere in the outer reality we all share.

Oh yeah, that is much more than just a voice in one's head. A true "social" motivator.

 

[public hermit]

There is a difference between belief IN, and belief THAT

Agreed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh yeah, that is much more than just a voice in one's head. A true "social" motivator.

... or 'de-motivator,' as fate might have it.