Bernadette Soubirous and Talk:Belief: Difference between pages

Revision as of 00:48, 8 May 2006

Revision as of 18:19, 22 July 2007

Line 1:

{{npovtalkheader}}

{{philosophy|class=start|importance=}}

{{WikiProject Psychology|class=start|importance=Mid}}

{{WP1.0|class=Start|category=category|VA=yes}}

Hmm. Im wondering, how come Hume and Kant seem to be quoted so often here in WP.

Certainly they are [[pillar]]s of western thought, but they do have some [[holes]] in their ideas, and besides, I thought we had long ago begun the process of [[weening]] ourselves off of our [[sacred cow]]s of [[westernism]].

----

"Westernism"? What's that? If you mean Western culture generally, um, no, I'm not aware that anyone other than some "postmodern" and extremely politically correct types are making a move to "weaning ourselves" off of this material. We've got to have a huge amount of such material on Wikipedia if it's going to be complete. But this doesn't stop you from adding as much "non-Western" (whatever that means) type material as you like. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

----

Not again... More silly resentment towards "postmodernism" and "politically correct types".... they're not out to kill you. So you disagree with them, get over it. I'd be willing to bet that you (yes, you, Larry Sanger) will be dwelling on this absurd cynicism for a very long time. Postmodernism is just a catch-all phrase for something easy to criticise; the fact is that there is no such thing as a postmodern "movement" or "school of thought" or "belief system"... The obsession with postmodernism is simply a phenomenon among critics who are desperate for a board to throw darts at.

----

[[Image:bernadette.gif|right]]

Would it be relevant (or interesting) to mention the logical convolutions of [[Raymond Smullyan]], eg characters who believe one thing, but consistently lie, so say the opposite, etc?

----

I'm not sure--why would it (on this page)? Wouldn't that belong on [[lying]] or something like that? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

'''Saint''' '''Bernadette Soubirous''' ([[January 7]] [[1844]] - [[April 16]] [[1879]]) was a [[shepherd]] girl from the town of [[Lourdes]] in southern [[France]]. From February to July [[1858]], she reported eighteen [[Marian apparitions|apparitions]] of "a lady", presumably the [[Virgin Mary]]. These claims have been approved -- declared "worthy of belief" -- by the [[Catholic Church]] in a canonical investigation. The reported phenomena made the town a major site for [[pilgrimage]]s which now attracts millions of Catholics each year. In [[1933]] she was [[canonization|canonized]] as a Roman Catholic [[saint]].

: Just a thought (I'll crib what I've typed here to pad out the stub on Smulllyan, at any rate). At one point he introduces characters who only believe only false things, yet lie: hence all their statements are true. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]]

==Bernadette's early life==

Bernadette was the daughter of François Soubirous, a [[miller]], and his wife Louise, a [[laundry|laundress]]. She was the eldest of six children. Hard times had fallen on rural France and the family lived in extreme poverty. Neighbors reported that the family lived in unusual harmony, apparently relying on their love and support for one another and their religious devotion. All the family members sought what employment they could. Bernadette did farm work, notably [[sheep]] herding, for a family friend in nearby [[Bartrès]], and also waited tables in her Aunt Bernarde's tavern. She returned to Lourdes in January [[1858]] to attend the free school run by the [[Sisters of Charity and Christian Instruction]] so she could finish learning the [[Catechism]] so as to receive her first [[Holy Communion]]. Her difficulties in school were attributed at the time to simple-mindedness, and in later hagiographies used to illustrate her innocence; but since all classes were taught in classic [[French language|French]] rather than the local dialect, which is closer to [[Basque]], it is likely Bernadette was not the only student with learning problems.

I wonder what point he was making with that. Sounds interesting...

==Visions and Miracles==

==Is belief voluntary?==

Actually, there is something interestingly relevant we could add from the literature in epistemology: it's widely held that most people have no control over most of what they believe... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]

: I made a stub section on this matter. Please expand and improve. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 11:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I may add my own experience (and I am quite sure many people would recognize a pattern here)...

I have a firm belief that reincarnation exists because instinctively I can't imagine I could stop being conscious after death, but I also admit I can't live forever. But by rational thinking I also know that nothing to my knowledge can justify reincarnation. This is only one example among others where belief seems to oppose knowledge. I think there are many other such examples, essentially about concepts difficult or impossible to prove, for example involving the existence or non-existance of God.

[[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 09:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

If I find the time... I'll try to add sometime here. Hume (amongst others) noted that we acquire beliefs passively, that the aquisition of them is not subject to the will. Bernard Williams' paper 'Deciding to Believe' investigated this and tries to show that the coneptual relations between belief, truth and evidence rule out voluntary believing. While some have shown that his argument for the incoherence of 'believing at will' is not quite right, most philsophers do believe that decision and belief can't be linked in the same way as, for instance, decision and imagination : I can successfully decide to imagine a scene, but I can't successfullly decide to belief that scene represents truely. However, as Williams noted, this doesn't rule out deciding and influencing our belief by more "roundabout routes". One could embark on a course of action, hypnosis or drugs were his suggestions, such that afterwards you would have brought it about that you belive some proposition or other. Williams remarks that this would make the person "deeply irrational". Some have questioned this but it reamins to be seen whether any convincing account of belief at will can be found. ([[User:Fabulist|Fabulist]] 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

On [chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chickenchicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken[11 February]] [[1858]], aged 14, while she was out gathering firewood with her sister and a friend at the grotto of Massabielle outside Lourdes, Bernadette claimed to see the first of 18 visions of what she termed "a small young lady" standing in a niche in the rock. The other girls stated that they saw nothing. The apparition supposedly did not identify herself until the 17th vision, and until then Bernadette called her simply 'Aquero' ('it' in the local dialect).

==Degree of certainty==

As Bernadette later reported to her family and to church and civil investigators, at the ninth visitation the lady supposedly told Bernadette to drink from the spring that flowed under the rock. Although there was no known spring there, and the ground was hard and dry, Bernadette assumed the "lady" meant that the spring was underground. She did as she was told and dug into the dirt, and a small puddle appeared. The spring began to flow a day or so later. Soon the spring was a recorded twelve feet high. The water of the spring is claimed to have [[Miracles connected with Lourdes|miraculous healing properties]]; in the 145 years since then, about 70 cures have been verified by the Lourdes Bureau as "inexplicable" (not "miraculous"), but only after what the Church claims are "extremely rigorous scientific and medical examinations" fail to find any other explanation.

Why is there no mention of degree of certainty? If I believe something then it means that I think that the chance that something is true is >50%. I can believe something with 51% or 99% certainty. Quite a big difference [[User:Andries|Andries]] 20:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The other contents of Bernadette's claimed visions were simple, and focused on the need for [[prayer]] and [[penance]]. However, at the supposed thirteenth apparition on March 2nd, Bernadette told her family that the lady had said "Please go to the priests and tell them that a chapel is to be built here. Let processions come hither." Accompanied by two of her aunts, Bernadette duly went to parish priest Father Dominique Peyramale with the request. A man with little belief in claims of visions and miracles, Peyramale told Bernadette that the lady must identify herself. Bernadette said that on her next visitation she repeated the Father's words to the lady, but that the lady bowed a little, smiled and said nothing.

---

''Attempted anwer'': Certainty looks like an absolute, and it may be hard to see how something can be 'a bit certain', or 'fairly certain'. Perhaps it can only be 'absolutely certain'. Sceptics seem to have a similar problem over ‘knowledge’ and conclude, rigorously, that it cannot be truly achieved. Anyway, if belief is accepted as ‘a strong feeling’ this confusion as to whether it must entail any particular degree of certainty seems to go away[[User:Yanx|Yanx]] 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Her sixteenth, which she claimed went for over an hour, was supposedly on [[March 25]] [[1858]]. During this supposed vision, the second of two "miracles of the candle" was said to have occurred. Bernadette was holding a lighted candle; during the vision it burned down, and the flame was said to be in direct contact with her skin for over 15 minutes but she supposedly showed no sign of experiencing any pain or injury. This was claimed to be witnessed by many people present, including the town physician, Dr. Pierre Romaine Dozous, who timed and later documented it. According to his report, there was no sign that her skin was in any way affected, so he monitored Bernadette closely but did not intervene. After her "vision" ended, the doctor said that he examined her hand but found no evidence of any burning, and that she was completely unaware of what had been happening. The doctor then said that he briefly applied a lighted candle to her hand, and she reacted immediately.

==Belief system==

==Further Visions and Miracles==

Please help with the [[belief system]] entry at [[Talk:belief system]]. Thanks. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 02:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to Bernadette's account, during that same visitation she'd again asked the lady her name but she just smiled back. She repeated the question a further three times, and finally heard the lady say, in the local dialect, "I am the [[Immaculate Conception]]". Four years earlier, [[Pope Pius IX]] had promulgated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; that of all human beings who have ever lived, Mary the mother of Jesus was born without the stain of [[original sin]]. However this was not well known to Catholics at large at that time, being generally confined to discussion amongst the clergy. It certainly was not an expression known to a simple undereducated peasant girl who could barely read. Her parents, teachers and priests all later testified that she had never previously heard the words 'immaculate conception' from them. One has to take their word for that. She could easily have overheard it from visiting priests or other educated local people or visitors. If Bernadette had heard of the idea at all (she did own a [[Catherine Laboure|Miraculous Medal]]) she probably thought, as most people did and still do, that "conceived without sin" in the Medal's prayer referred to the [[Virgin Birth]]. She may have similarly assumed that the words she heard, "I am the Immaculate Conception", referred to the virgin birth.

:Because that article is on VfD and looks to be deleted due to no content, I am moving the associated talk page, which does have content to here:

=== Moved content from [[Talk:Belief system]], currently on [[WP:VfD|VfD]] ===

Bernadette was a sickly child; she had had [[cholera]] in infancy and suffered most of her life from [[asthma]], and some of the people who interviewed her following her revelation of the visions thought her simple-minded. But despite being rigorously interviewed by officials of both the Catholic Church and the French government, she stuck consistently to her story. Her behavior during this period set the example by which all who claim visions and mystical experiences are now judged by Church authorities.

'''Note:''' This entry needs work. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] 02:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)<br>

A '''belief system''' (also ''system of beliefs'') is...<br>

Here is my small contribution. It will probably need lots of works,

but after all we have to start from somewhere ;-)

I don't know if the comparison has been used somewhere, but a belief

system really looks like a mathematical logical system with a set of

axioms (unproved beliefs) and inferring rules (reasonnings).

Axioms (beliefs) are very debatable since it usually involves beliefs

in God(s), supernatural, or even science after all (how many people

among you has ever ''seen'' and ''verified'' an experiment in quantum

mechanics? probably not the majority, certainly not my case but I

''believe'' in quantum mechanics) ;-)

Inferring rules (reasonnings) are usually common to most people.

Deduction is the most reliable, induction is used to assert probable

conclusions (although I met someone acknowledging ''only'' induction

as reliable and rejecting deduction).

[[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 08:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)<br>

See also

[[belief]],

[[worldview]],

[[paradigm]],

[[model]]<br>

External links

[http://www.general-semantics.org/library/conf-papers/eddy.pdf On Belief and Belief Systems] by the late [[Bob Eddy]] (Institute of [[General Semantics]])<br />

[http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/theory/beliefsystems.html Belief Systems] by [http://www.cognitivebehavior.com/ CognitiveBehavior.com]

[[User:Eric Herboso|Eric]] [[User_talk:Eric_Herboso|Herboso ]] 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Self-consistent sets of beliefs ==

==Bernadette's later years==

Disliking the attention she was attracting, Bernadette went to the [[hospice]] school run by the Sisters of Charity and Christian Instruction, where she finally learned to read and write. She then joined the Sisters of Charity [[abbey|convent]] moving into their motherhouse at [[Nevers]] at the age of 22. She spent the rest of her brief life there, working as an assistant in the infirmary and later as a [[Sacristy|sacristan]], creating beautiful [[embroidery]] for altar cloths and [[vestments]]. During a severe asthma attack, she asked for water from the Lourdes spring, and her symptoms subsided, never to return. However, she did not seek healing in this way when she later contracted [[tuberculosis]] of the bone in the right knee. She had followed the development of Lourdes as a pilgrimage [[shrine]] while she still lived at Lourdes, but was not present for the consecration of the [[basilica]] there in [[1876]]. She eventually died of her illness at the age of thirty-five on [[April 16]] [[1879]].

I seem to recall something about the application of G&ouml;del's proof to beliefs, to demonstrate that one's beliefs cannot, taken as a whole, be logically self-consistent. It seemed very interesting at the time, but I can't pull up a cite -- can anyone help? (Yes, I know that G&ouml;del's proof actually demonstrates "incomplete or inconsistent", but the argument did something plausible at this point...) -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 07:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Bernadette's body exhumed==

Her body was first [[exhumation|exhumed]] on [[September 2]] [[1909]], in the presence of representatives appointed by the postulators of the cause, two doctors, and a sister of the community. Although the [[crucifix]] in her hand and the [[rosary]] had both [[redox|oxidized]], her body was found to be [[Incorruptibility|"incorrupt"]] &mdash; preserved from [[decomposition]]. This was one of the incidents cited for support of her canonization. Her body was washed and reclothed before burial in a new double casket. The corpse was exhumed a second time on [[April 3]] [[1919]]. The body was found to be still preserved. There was slight discoloration of the face which has been explained as being due to the washing process of the first exhumation.

[[Gödel's incompleteness theorem#Misconceptions about Gödel's theorems]]: "The theorem only applies to systems that are used as their own proof systems"; it follows that the theorem might imply that you can't be consistent if you justify your beliefs with other beliefs; on the other hand if, as most people, you justify your beliefs from one or several external referrents, the theorem does not apply. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In [[1925]], [[Relic|relics]] were taken from her body and her face was sprayed with a film of [[wax]]. It is claimed no more than that was done though it cannot be proved that nothing else was done. The remains were then placed in a gold and glass reliquary in the Chapel of Saint Bernadette at the motherhouse in [[Nevers]]. The site is visited by many pilgrims.

== belief is assigning probability greater than 50% ??? ==

She received [[Beatification]] in 1925 and [[Canonization]] in 1933 under [[Pope Pius XI]], not so much for the content of her visions, but rather for her simplicity and holiness of life. She is the patron saint of sick persons and of Lourdes.

Removed from the article: "To believe something can be interpreted as assigning a [[probability]] of more than 50% that something is true."

==Fictional treatment==

Her life was given a fictionalised treatment in [[Franz Werfel]]'s novel ''[[The Song of Bernadette]]'', which was later adapted into a 1943 [[film]] starring [[Jennifer Jones]] as Bernadette (and the uncredited [[Linda Darnell]] as the Immaculate Conception). Jones won her only [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]] [[Academy Award|Oscar]] for this portrayal. A more recent version of Bernadette's life is presented in the [[1988]] film by [[Jean Dellanoy]].

==See also==

* [[Lourdes]]

* [[Miracles connected with Lourdes]]

(also removed "The rule of the thumb from a school of [[epistemology]] that says that certainty should be as big as the corresponding evidence is called [[evidentialism]].", which is useless without the preceding "definition")

==References==

* [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/miracle_lourdes.html The Miracle Joint at Lourdes] From "Essays " by Woolsey Teller, Copyright 1945 by The Truth Seeker Company, Inc. Harshly worded critique of the Lourdes story.

* ''Lourdes: In Bernadette's Footsteps'', by Father Joseph Bordes, Copyright 2005 by MSM Company - Tells Bernadette's Story and about the tourism at Lourdes.

* [http://www.bernadette-of-lourdes.co.uk/ The Song of Bernadette] Franz Werfel's classic abridged by John Martin

This has little to do with [[evidentialism]], which is a [[theory of justification]], in any case.

==External links==

{{commons|Category:Bernadette Soubirous|Bernadette Soubirous}}

*[http://www.marypages.com/bernadetteEng.htm Lourdes and Bernadette] Detailed chronology of the apparitions, with many pictures.

*[http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm Bernadette as she is today]

*[http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/ba_bernadette_intro.htm The Body of St. Bernadette]--Includes reports of her exhumation and photographs of her body and tomb.

*[http://www.sainte-bernadette-nevers.com/anglais/soeurs_soeurs.htm The Sisters of Charity and Christian Instruction]

*[http://www.bernadette-of-lourdes.co.uk/bernadette-of-lourdes.htm Life and Background to Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes]

Who said that? In what book? Is it so widely accepted among scholars that it deserves mentionning so high in the article? This is not only unsourced, it also looks pretty preposterous to me. When you say "X has a probability of more than 50%", you don't believe that "X", you believe that "X is more probable than not"; this is entirely different. [[User:Jules.lt|Jules LT]] 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[[Category:1844 births|Soubirous, Bernadette]]

[[Category:1879 deaths|Soubirous, Bernadette]]

[[Category:Deaths by tuberculosis|Soubirous, Bernadette]]

[[Category:Saints]]

[[Category:Roman Catholic nuns]]

== Definition of Belief ==

[[br:Bernadette Soubirous]]

[[da:Bernadette Soubirous]]

A [http://www.yesselman.com/glosindx.htm#ReligiousBelief belief], in its varying degrees, can be a guess, a dogma, a hope, an intuition, a leap-of-faith. Belief is to make an hypothesis which then must pass the test of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion#Cash_Value Cash Value]—bringing Peace of Mind. [[User:Yesselman|Yesselman]] 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[[de:Bernadette Soubirous]]

[[es:Bernadette Soubirous]]

[[fr:Bernadette Soubirous]]

(edited to correct it in a way)

[[it:Santa Bernadetta Soubirous]]

[[la:Sancta Bernadetta Lapurdensis]]

->

[[hu:Bernadette Soubirous]]

To belief is diffrent from the word believe, believe is to trust and see something in another person.

[[nl:Maria Bernarda (Bernadette van Lourdes)]]

But belief is like to imagen to trust and have faith into a higher being.

[[pl:Bernadette Soubirous]]

Belief can't just be put out in words it comes from you and is within you.

[[pt:Bernadette Soubirous]]

[[sr:Бернадет Субиру]]

I think what you ment was believe and even there is a mistake in that.

[[sv:Bernadette Soubirous]]

If you believe in a person you either do it or not you can not just believe have trust and faith in them her him or what ever just 50% else what kind of person would you be?

== Reasoning?? ==

''Beliefs can be acquired through perception, reasoning, contemplation or communication''

This statement is plain incorrect, How on Earth can resoning be related to 'belief' . Infact they have completely opposite meanings. Obviously if you can reason(or if there is a logical explanation) to something, then there won't be any 'need' to believe because that 'thing' would be undeniable fact(like a maths equation). The point of belief only arises if there is an absence of resoning!!

The only possibility here is if 'resoning' is being referred to as 'bias' dependent on culture/surroundings etc. [[User:Reasonit|Reasonit]] 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this results from a confusion between belief as an unproven fact and belief as a conviction adopted after a reasonning (for example a political position). The difference between the two of them might be thin in some cases. Just a thought... [[User:Fafner|Fafner]] 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A belief can be adopted based on a number of criteria:

- authority

- experience

- perceived phenomena

- reasoning

- discussion (e.g. clarification/debate)

"Beliefs" don't necessarily have any relation to reason. Especially those induced by authority figures. An associated topic might be rigidity of belief systems and conflicts arising therefrom..

== "Is Belief Voluntary?" section ==

"''Most philosophers hold the view that belief formation is to some extent spontaneous and involuntary.''

Most philosophers!? That's a bold and sweeping statement. I'm not sure if to just suggest that is radically POV or ask for some kind of verification. For now I've added a "citeation needed" tag and left it.

Maybe "many philosophers" would be a better choice of words, and easier to add a few references for. The word "most" suggests that nearly all philosophers past-and-present agree about this - somehow, I seriously doubt that... -[[User:Neural|Neural]] 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== Introduction ==

The introduction:

<blockquote>Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification; therefore a belief is a subjective mental interpretation derived from perceptions, contemplation(reasoning), or communication.</blockquote>

is simply wrong. At least, there is no such definition in my SOD, and if it were the case, one would not be able to believe a verified proposition. Nor is "1+1=2" a "subjective mental interpretation" (Can you think of something that is subjective and yet not mental? Interpretation of what?), yet it is something one might believe.

What is it about introductions to philosophical articles that attracts such stuff? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

==Religion==

The paragraph:

<blockquote>In the religious sense, "belief" refers to a part of a wider spiritual or moral foundation — generally called faith. Historically, faiths were generated by groups seeking a functionally valid foundation to sustain them. The generally accepted faiths usually note that, when the exercise of faith leads to oppression, clarification or further revelation is called for.</blockquote>

has been removed. I can;t see a reason to give prominence to religious belief. Someone may wish to insert it into a new section within the article. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

== Deductive vs. Inductive ==

It seems that the epistimology section contradicts itself, saying that belief is a deductive process, but the building of the belief system is an inductive one. Am I missing something? I'm in favor of stating all belief systems are inherently inductive, and that all deductive processes used in the belief system are based off of premises that require induction.

[[User:140.233.44.55|140.233.44.55]]AME 2/21/07

:I'd say rather that the whole section is OR,and should be removed. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

== Belief necessarily True ==

I disagree with the lead sentence "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition." This is easily refuted, I and many others believe in God and would agree with a proposition such as "God exists" but would not necessarily argue that it can be proven as "True". In other words you can recognize that you have a belief, such as religion, or race or sexuality, and know that it not necessarily "True" but that you believe it anyway.[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And does that apply to "2+2=4" or "the sky is blue"? Or is there a difference between mere belief,

and Belief with a capital B?

[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

: Actually I'm not sure what you consider to be Beliefs and/or beliefs, perhaps you could provide some more examples, which category is the "2+2" in? or the sky? The "2+2" one is obviously incorrect as others have stated above "Gödel had shown that mathematics is both incomplete and inconsistent. Mathematics must be incomplete because there will always exist mathematical truths that can’t be demonstrated. Truths exist in mathematics that do not follow from any axiom or theorem."[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::GIT doesn't have the slightest impact on the necessary truth of 2+2=4.

[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Really? Explain how GIT has no influence on elementary math. Here's my rebuttal when you're done. (and thanks for answering all my questions, I can see this will be productive) "Gödel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction." from [http://www.rae.org/godel.html].[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 14:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

rems.[[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/prove.html GIT does not stop you being able to prove individual theorems] [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly my point about beliefs to begin with. Just as belief in God is accepted without proof and those that accept it know it can't be proved. From the page you cited:"So suppose we accept the axioms and methods of proof formalized in T as valid without proof."[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::But '''that''' point has nothing to do with Godel. We don't need GIT to tell us we can't prove every axiom. (And we can adopt the formalist's approach of defining truth only within an axiomatic system). [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If you think "god exists" is not necessarily true, you presumably think there is some evidence or argument which could disprove it. Would you continue to believe in God if the disproof were presented to you? if not, doesn't that show there is ''some'' connection between truth and belief? [[User:Peterdjones|1Z]] 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::That is not true. I do not believe that there is any evidence or argument to disprove it, also no evidence or argument to prove it. Where prove means using empirical, objective evidence and Popperian hypo-thetico-deductive logic. The connection, as you say, between proof and belief is in mine and other believers minds and beyond the reach of scientific inquiry and objective "Truth".[[User:Tstrobaugh|Tstrobaugh]] 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: You can think what you like, Tstrobaugh, but if you can't find your ideas in the literature, then it can't go in the Wiki. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Point 2: The implication of your opening statement is that one can believe something while holding it not to be true; for example, that one could coherently say "I believe god exists , but it is not true that god exists". See [[Moore's paradox]]. You seem simply to have confused truth with proof of truth. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Removed Paragraph, For Now... ==

"If one has an external inducement to belief, such as a prospective marriage partner, he may be unable to drastically change his true belief in order to obtain the desired reward. The best he might do would be to pretend at belief. There is a possibility that with study, he would come to change his belief, depending on his earlier sources and his confidence in the validity of new ones."

I believe this paragraph needs rewritten, because the example is unclear. What I mean is the relevence to the example given in connection with the topic. (Yes, I know the connection is implied. Yet an encyclopedia is meant to give [[information]] and describe, not [[imply]].) The paragraph also did not seem consistent with the section it was previously in and probably needs moved. If no one else does, I hope to rewrite this, but I'll have to research how beliefs play roles in marital relationships (and since I am not married, well, I'll have to trust sources that are plausibly verifiable.) [[User:69.245.172.44|69.245.172.44]] 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)