Are Factual And Religious Belief The Same?

[Poison Tree]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/10/20/357519777/are-factual-and-religious-belief-the-same?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2044

A new paper by philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen offers a third possibility: That factual belief isn't the same as religious belief. [. . .]
You could imagine that humans were created. You could hypothesize that humans were created. You could assume for the sake of argument that humans were created ... and so on. Each of these "attitudes" toward a proposition is distinct, and Van Leeuwen aims to show that factual and religious beliefs are similarly distinct. [. . .]
But why suspect two meanings when we use a single word?

First, argues Van Leeuwen, factual beliefs seem to influence the way we act and think in pretty much all contexts, whereas religious beliefs have a more circumscribed scope. [. . .]
In these respects (and others that Van Leeuwen describes), religious beliefs are more like fictional imaginings than like factual beliefs.[. . .]
Like fiction or imaginative play, religious beliefs may persist alongside factual beliefs precisely because they operate within restricted contexts and aren't firmly tethered to evidence.

I think that, at least, he is right that we only think of factual and religious beliefs as the same thing because we use the same word to describe them. If instead we said "evidence indicate that evolution is true" and "I hold the faith based position that the bible is the literal word of god" we immediately see them as two vastly different positions. Which is precisely why religious apologists work so hard to turn science into nothing more than a belief; to drag science down to their level.

[Solitary]

True! And they bring science into their faith to give it credibility, not knowing it is a back hand compliment. 

[Drummer Guy]

This seems to beg the question.  It assumes that religious beliefs are not factual, unless I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.

Also, a factual belief doesn't have to be tethered to evidence.  For example, if some crazy old coot that lived in 1500 BCE thought the world was round for no reason other than his own delusions, it would still be a factual belief, even though everyone around him that "knew better" would have thought it was wrong.

Though maybe he's defining a "factual belief" in a different way than we define a fact?

[Poison Tree]

I think he is using "factual belief" to mean "a belief based on fact" not "believing a fact". While, even in 1500 BCE, it is fact that the world is (more or less) round, some crazy coot holding that belief due to a delusion would not have a fact based belief while someone holding to the Ptolemaic Model--while actually incorrect--could be said to still have a "factual belief" if he accepted the model because it was based on the available evidence/facts.

[SGOS]

I think he is using "factual belief" to mean "a belief based on fact" not "believing a fact". While, even in 1500 BCE, it is fact that the world is (more or less) round, some crazy coot holding that belief due to a delusion would not have a fact based belief while someone holding to the Ptolemaic Model--while actually incorrect--could be said to still have a "factual belief" if he accepted the model because it was based on the available evidence/facts.

Yes, I assumed for lack of any other classification, the thread title mean to classify beliefs as those based on religious authority and those based on factual evidence.  It's basically asking if religious beliefs are the same as beliefs based on evidence.  What it carefully avoids is implying that facts are always correct.

Both Religious authority and empirical facts may be incorrect.  The difference is that factual belief is based on something, while religious beliefs are based on religious beliefs.

If a religious sect states that the world is round.  Is this a factual belief or is it a religious belief?  I think it depends on what the belief is based on.  If a religion supports this belief by basing it on current science, it is no longer a religious belief.  Alternately, if science supports a belief by basing it on religious authority, it is no longer science.

1:  Beliefs may be factual or religious

But

2:  Facts may be correct or incorrect

And of course

3:  Beliefs can be correct or incorrect

[josephpalazzo]

The analysis is incomplete. There are observations, which we consider as facts - unless our sensory perceptions is malfunctioning through substance abuse, disease or accidents; there are hypotheses, which are unproven assertions; and there are theories, which are explanations of the facts. Observations, hypothesis and theory have to act together within logical consistency to arrive at a scientific truth, which is always considered as provisional since new observations might compel a revision of the theory.

[the_antithesis]

But why suspect two meanings when we use a single word?

It's call the fallacy of equivocation.

I mean, jesus h crispies.

[Solitary]

How can facts not be correct? What is considered as a fact may be wrong, but a fact is never wrong is it? 

[the_antithesis]

I think this needs some tweaking. Beliefs are not religious. Religious is not a category for a foundation for a belief but a loaded term I'd prefer to not use and just a subcategory for a kind of belief.

So, removing the religious term, what is the basis of such beliefs?

[SGOS]

How can facts not be correct? What is considered as a fact may be wrong, but a fact is never wrong is it? 

I guess it's semantics.  If by definition facts are always correct, then facts would never be wrong.  I was trying to make a distinction between facts and truth.  I don't see them as identical, but maybe I'm wrong.

Having said that, I'd put money on backing a fact, before putting money on something Pat Robertson pulls out of his ass.

[josephpalazzo]

I guess it's semantics.  If by definition facts are always correct, then facts would never be wrong.  I was trying to make a distinction between facts and truth.  I don't see them as identical, but maybe I'm wrong.

Having said that, I'd put money on backing a fact, before putting money on something Pat Robertson pulls out of his ass.

Facts are perceived through our senses and interpret by our brain. You're in the desert, you see a pool of water far way. You walk up to it only to find it was a mirage. So a fact could turn out to be false.