Properly Basic Beliefs

[Chany]

Indeed, I think Descartes is a sure advocate for foundationalism. Our existence being self-evident to us does not establish the existence of another thinker, though (does it?), which seems I must say I know you exist based on some other proposition or belief. That also suggests basic beliefs, if exist at all, must be open to being fallible as well.

No. That does not follow.

"I think; therefore I am" indicates that we cannot deny our own personal existence to ourselves. The belief "I exist" is basic. You are correct in saying "other conscious agents exist" is possibly fallible, but that does not mean basic beliefs must be fallible; "other conscious agents exist" is not a basic belief. Therefore, it is to be expected it is fallible and does not create any problems for the idea of basic beliefs.

 

[elopez]

"I think; therefore I am" indicates that we cannot deny our own personal existence to ourselves. The belief "I exist" is basic.

Basic in what sense? I have outlined two usual applications of basicality. Here they are again in better detail:

Doxastic Basicality (DB)
S's justified belief that p is basic if and only if S's belief that p is justified without owing its justification to any of S's other beliefs.

Epistemic Basicality (EB)
S's justified belief that p is basic if and only if S's justification for believing that p does not depend on any justification S possesses for believing a further proposition, q

The latter is more restrictive as to what can be considered a basic belief while the other is not. "I exist" seems to further be justified by a belief of what existence is, for us to say "I exist", no? That's on DB. On EB, "I exist" seems there is a belief of another proposition, namely, again, of what existence is.

You are correct in saying "other conscious agents exist" is possibly fallible, but that does not mean basic beliefs must be fallible; "other conscious agents exist" is not a basic belief.

Nor does this mean basic beliefs must be infallible. And nor has there been stated a good reason to think they might be. I cannot imagine an infallible belief could hold except for possibly "I exist" and even then that is seemingly problematic too, and even if it is not, cannot be used to somehow transfer to other beliefs about the external world (the universe has a beginning). Or can it?

 

[juvenissun]

Basic in what sense? I have outlined two usual applications of basicality. Here they are again in better detail:

Doxastic Basicality (DB)
S's justified belief that p is basic if and only if S's belief that p is justified without owing its justification to any of S's other beliefs.

Epistemic Basicality (EB)
S's justified belief that p is basic if and only if S's justification for believing that p does not depend on any justification S possesses for believing a further proposition, q

The latter is more restrictive as to what can be considered a basic belief while the other is not. "I exist" seems to further be justified by a belief of what existence is, for us to say "I exist", no? That's on DB. On EB, "I exist" seems there is a belief of another proposition, namely, again, of what existence is.


Nor does this mean basic beliefs must be infallible. And nor has there been stated a good reason to think they might be. I cannot imagine an infallible belief could hold except for possibly "I exist" and even then that is seemingly problematic too, and even if it is not, cannot be used to somehow transfer to other beliefs about the external world (the universe has a beginning). Or can it?

Let me make a simple version of what you said:

Whether is "I exist" a basic belief or not depends on if the "exist" is precisely defined or not.

Is it correct?

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Then there is no reason to adopt a theistic conceptual framework. Remember, that was my initial question: why should we adopt such a framework in the first place? You haven't given any reason to do so.

I've given you a great reason to. I said that a naturalistic conceptual framework is self-refuting. Obviously I'm a theist and I don't believe that my framework has any inherent issues of its own. Would you like to compare worldviews and see whose comes out on top? lol

 

[elopez]

Let me make a simple version of what you said:

Whether is "I exist" a basic belief or not depends on if the "exist" is precisely defined or not.

Is it correct?

It depends on if it follows either DB or EB. It would be correct to say I am questioning that on both.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Ah, yet the basic belief (God exists) must be justified by virtue of something. The question then turns to what is that something? In foundationalism, justification is transferred from basic to non-basic beliefs, yet how that transformation occurs must also be accounted for. Those are but two problems for foundationalism to solve.

It does not need to be justified. That's the nature of a properly basic belief. It is justified by other facts, but it doesn't need to be.

As to the rest of what you've said, it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind on coherentism. I'm not going to try to argue you out of it. That would inevitably turn out to be a waste of my time.

 

[juvenissun]

It depends on if it follows either DB or EB. It would be correct to say I am questioning that on both.

Please use this example "I exists" to explain the difference between DB and EB.
The general description is confusing. Please use example.

"I exist" is a basic belief if the "exist" is precisely defined.
According to DB or EB, why is it not correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, hows it going man?

So would you say the belief of God is not a proper basic belief? It depends on other beliefs, or further propositions?

Can you explain the structure of your beliefs of the Bible according to a coherentist view?

Hi elopez,

Things are going well with me. How 'bout for yourself?

You ask if I can explain the structure of my beliefs according to a Coherentist view? Hmmm...it might be possible for me to do, but I don't think anyone wants to read a prolonged treatment and then find out that my conclusions only provide an inconclusive epistemology. So, let me just introduce some generic ideas instead, keeping things short and simple:

1) In my estimation, Foundationalism (or 'F') can be a little bit hokey overall (as are most epistemic schemes) and very tempting for people to over-utilize--in fact, I include Christians in this group of those who do so. Essentially, I think there are a lot of issues involved with adopting 'F' as one's main epistemological "template" of knowledge. Sure, it's handy at times, but I don't think it really provides the 'surety' that many think it does (unless one enjoys drinking out of a Cartesian well, so to speak. Maybe 'F' is more solid that I have surmised, but I "Kant" see why it would be ).

2) I think we can agree that the Bible itself gives only a modicum of unorganized epistemological indicators rather than any kind of systematically oriented principles by which we are to hold a worldview. What we actually have in the Bible are what I like to call Epistemic Indicia (as opposed to what we think of as Properly Basic Beliefs). These Indicia give us some ideas (or indications) as to some other ideas we might infer at a very simple level (such as the Trinity, for instance). So, what we have is a simple Coherentist engagement with partial Revelatory data, fused with some basic historical narratives (i.e. the narratives are glazed over accounts of past events), all of which has been left open to human criticism and historical accident.

3) For those who are Christian (or even just contemplating Christianity), I think it is a mistake to see Religious Knowledge, which is intricately tied to Christian faith, as a collection of data structured into some kind of edifice of certainty. Rather, Religious Knowledge reflecting a biblical scale is knowledge that is modeled better, I think, by a model of Organic Growth, a process that is not merely left up to an individual person to care for on a human scale (as one does in 'building' a foundational structure bottom up), but one that is also supplemented by God at some level in each person's life.

So, elopez...this is the 'short' of my Coherentist approach. Obviously, much more can be said and/or explored. If you have criticisms or questions, then fire away!

2PhiloVoid

 

[elopez]

It does not need to be justified. That's the nature of a properly basic belief. It is justified by other facts, but it doesn't need to be.

Basic beliefs need no justification in the sense of DB and EB. That does not mean there cannot or should not be justification for them. Indeed, under DB for example, there might be some other item which a basic belief is justified on yet that item would not be another belief. One would have to be careful what he says that other justification is, as it is there, and still must be accounted for.

As to the rest of what you've said, it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind on coherentism. I'm not going to try to argue you out of it. That would inevitably turn out to be a waste of my time.

Well I haven't I'm just trying to gain a better perspective of what we can say a basic belief is. So far no one has been able to supply much except for "I exist", which has been questionted as to whether it is basic, and your claim that "God exists" is basic, which has not been explained very well. Other posters are claiming you cannot be specifc with basic beliefs, and others saying even a belief of another's existence is not basic.

 

[elopez]

Please use this example "I exists" to explain the difference between DB and EB.

"I exist" (call this E) according to DB cannot be based on another belief. It can be based on something, but not a belief. I am simply saying E seems justified on another belief of what existence is.

EB is more exclusive as to what a basic belief can be, as even if E is based another proposition it i not basic. E seems non-basic in this sense as well since it is based on other propositions pertaining to existence.

I'm just wondering if that is the case.

 

[juvenissun]

"I exist" (call this E) according to DB cannot be based on another belief. It can be based on something, but not a belief. I am simply saying E seems justified on another belief of what existence is.

EB is more exclusive as to what a basic belief can be, as even if E is based another proposition it i not basic. E seems non-basic in this sense as well since it is based on other propositions pertaining to existence.

I'm just wondering if that is the case.

I see. You interpreted my "definition" as a "belief". I am not sure it is right.
Definition is something you accept by default. It is not a belief. And it is temporary and could be changed. A "belief" is a concept which should not be changed.

So, if I define "exist" is (having a function of) breathing.
Then, I exist because I breath.
Then it is a basic belief.
One may build other things upon this basic belief, which is based on the definition of "exist".

In the case of "God exists". Then the above definition of "exist" is not proper and needs to be changed. Once changed, then "God exists" will become a basic belief.

According to this, the differential of DB or EB seems to be not necessary. A basic belief is something which is simple and clear, no complexity and no ambiguity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've given you a great reason to. I said that a naturalistic conceptual framework is self-refuting. Obviously I'm a theist and I don't believe that my framework has any inherent issues of its own. Would you like to compare worldviews and see whose comes out on top? lol

Yeah, you said that. You didn't bother to present a reason to think that, hence my question: why should we adopt a theistic framework in the first place?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Obviously I'm a theist and I don't believe that my framework has any inherent issues of its own. Would you like to compare worldviews and see whose comes out on top? lol

Ummm... given your assumption that theism needs no justification, what would be the point of that exercise?

 

[Emmy]

Dear elopez. I know the Bible is God`s Word to Man, written by God-inspired men and women. We know that
Jesus our Saviour lived and died for us, that we might live. John 14: 1-4: tells us: " In my Father`s House are many Mansions: I it were not so, I would have told you. I go and prepare a place for you." Let us follow Jesus in all He tells us. In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: "The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40: we are told: " on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters. in Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " ask and you shall receive," we ask God for Love and Joy, then thank God and share all Love and Joy with our neighbour. ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friends and
not friends)
The Bible tells us: " Repent and be Born Again," we give up all selfish wishes and wants, and start loving and caring.
God will see our loving efforts, and God will approve and bless us. We keep asking and receiving, then thank God and share all Love and Joy with our neighbour. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way. I say this with love, elopez. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Chicken Little]

This dress appears white and gold to me, yet I know that it isn't. Appearances can be misleading.

then a belief based on so called observations can also mislead and go about misleading ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

then a belief based on so called observations can also mislead and go about misleading ?

That was kind of the point.

 

[Chicken Little]

there is only one religion that is based on observations of record history but from what it considers the effects of events it thinks it sees . , it calls itself science and pretends it has sole right to and it considers itself the the pope of is the only things which is capable and bale to grasps it sort of logic.

the Christianity of Jesus /Jehovah is bases it beliefs on eye witnesses and records of human experiences first.
then beliefs that mankind has basic needs to record and pass down that history somehow and someway and that our nature is driving us to record it . but not control it now hell does that part.
we have proof . be it rock art or serpent mounds or on paper or todays TV ,mankind finds a way to record events we see and experience as best we can. that is .
once it is seen it is recorded and now interrupting that is for the wise and hell does like to control that part. or as God says it is for the kings to discern and sometimes kings and sometimes just the people wanted for the people to discern it for themselves.
ok i'm done.

 

[elopez]

I see. You interpreted my "definition" as a "belief". I am not sure it is right.

Are you talking about E? I am going by what I thought you were saying in that it can be a basic belief. If that's not what you're talking about, I suppose I am little lost here.

Definition is something you accept by default. It is not a belief. And it is temporary and could be changed. A "belief" is a concept which should not be changed.

All "definition" is, is a formal statement that signifies the meaning of a word. A word that has a definition could be a belief. Again, I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here. A belief can and should be changed if there is conflicting knowledge one has with said belief.

So, if I define "exist" is (having a function of) breathing.
Then, I exist because I breath.
Then it is a basic belief.

I think this is how E becomes non-basic, though. In conjunction with E, you're adding "because I breate" which seems to have further propositions of what it is to breathe (call this B). So on EB I do not think this holds. On DB we just must say E rests on no further beliefs, even though it may rest on something else.

I suppose we could say that if E rests on anything, it does so on the basis of some kind of perceptual or cognitive experience, which may not be a belief itself. However, I am unsure of that (what do ithers think?), and even if that were the case, all that really tells us is that basic beliefs cannot be the drefined in the sense of EB.

Still at that point we have to find a reasonable theory of noninferential justification for basic beliefs. I think that also could mean there aren't too many depending on how we go about that.

In the case of "God exists". Then the above definition of "exist" is not proper and needs to be changed. Once changed, then "God exists" will become a basic belief.

I am still not sure this is true. Surely on EB it is not basic as again we are relying on other propositions of what "existence" then means in reference to God. On DB again we must be careful as to what noninferential justification we use as I have repeatedly said "God exists" is not an infallible or incorrigible belief.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you talking about E? I am going by what I thought you were saying in that it can be a basic belief. If that's not what you're talking about, I suppose I am little lost here.


All "definition" is, is a formal statement that signifies the meaning of a word. A word that has a definition could be a belief. Again, I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here. A belief can and should be changed if there is conflicting knowledge one has with said belief.


I think this is how E becomes non-basic, though. In conjunction with E, you're adding "because I breate" which seems to have further propositions of what it is to breathe (call this B). So on EB I do not think this holds. On DB we just must say E rests on no further beliefs, even though it may rest on something else.

I suppose we could say that if E rests on anything, it does so on the basis of some kind of perceptual or cognitive experience, which may not be a belief itself. However, I am unsure of that (what do ithers think?), and even if that were the case, all that really tells us is that basic beliefs cannot be the drefined in the sense of EB.

Still at that point we have to find a reasonable theory of noninferential justification for basic beliefs. I think that also could mean there aren't too many depending on how we go about that.


I am still not sure this is true. Surely on EB it is not basic as again we are relying on other propositions of what "existence" then means in reference to God. On DB again we must be careful as to what noninferential justification we use as I have repeatedly said "God exists" is not an infallible or incorrigible belief.

OK, I see.
Now, do you have an example of a basic belief? I like to know it.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Ummm... given your assumption that theism needs no justification, what would be the point of that exercise?

That's not an assumption, first and foremost. Secondly, while theism doesn't need to be justified, it certainly can be and is. But by all means, continue wiggling.