Class Warfare Blog

April 8, 2019

Belief in Belief

I am working my way through Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett, one of my favorite philosophers. In that book he discusses “belief in belief” meaning that people exhibit the belief that believing in a god is very important but the details (which god, which way, etc.), not as much. (I always answer the question “Do you believe in god?” with “Which one?” The question “Do you believe in God?” is more often Do you believe in my god? or Do you believe in a god?) And Dennett claims that as time has gone on, more religions are requiring less belief and more professing, that is as a member of a church, you are to profess A, B, C, etc. whether you believe them or not (although they prefer you would believe them). They are requiring belief less and behavior more.

I have been thinking about this damned topic for at least 60 years and I am reaching some interesting positions, namely:

  • Since belief in belief is so important and possibly innate, we have therefore created gods by the bushel, to have foci for our beliefs.
    Joseph Campbell, another of my intellectual heroes, states “The gods are personifications of the energies that inform life—the very energies that are building the trees and moving the animals and whipping up the waves in the ocean. The very energies that are in your body are personified as gods. They are alive and well in everybody’s life. Most traditions realize this—that deities are personifications, not facts. They are metaphors. They are not references to anything you can put your finger on, or your eye on.”
  • People profess a belief in god as a social marker to proclaim “I am a good person, you can trust me.”
    This is why if you do not profess to believe in a god, you are proclaiming that you are not trustworthy (and are therefore scary, and eat babies, etc.).
  • Since people are basically confined in religious geographical regions (your religion is determined by where you were born) most people do not encounter “others” in any quantity, we are “normal” and they are not.
  • Religions have no incentive to help people understand other religions, as it might lose them dues paying members.
    In fact, they have an incentive to demonize, vilify, obfuscate, etc. those other religions. There is, therefore, very little understanding of those “other” religions or even denominations of the same religion (Protestant fundamentalists argue that Catholics are not “true Christians.”)
  • A consequence of science contradicting religious claims from antiquity, is that deities are becoming more and more vague/amorphous.
    Some of the religious-minded claim human minds cannot know their god. (How they can know their god and “all people” so well is not discussed.) Some call their god the “ground of all being” . . . WTF? This is not a drawback for the religions as the “mystery” sells well.
  • Arguing over proofs of the existence of a god or gods (one of my past preoccupations) is futile because almost everyone has their own definition and very, very few of them are well defined.
    There are more people who believe in belief than who believe in a god and the number of gods, historically, is immense. The idea of their god is so amorphous it is hard for any believer to accept that any argument you might make would apply to their god.
  • In the U.S. surveys show that American women are more religious than American men, substantially so.
    Since a simple characterization of a god as someone/something who watches over you and protects you (makes rules protecting you, etc.), this seems a logical consequence. Women are subject to more threats than are men.
  • As the science fiction/fantasy tales portray, we give gods power by believing in them.
    When people stop believing, those gods fade from memory and become “myths.” They sure as hell were not myths when people believed in them, serious actions were made at their “direction.”

As Voltaire is claimed to have said “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” “He” does not, so “we” did . . . over and over and over.

I conclude with another quote from Joseph Campbell “(T)here are only two ways to misunderstand a myth and our civilization has managed to do both. One is to think that the myth refers to a geographical or historical fact—Jesus rose from the dead, Moses got the law at the top of a mountain, that sort of thing. The other is to think that the myth refers to a supernatural fact, or an actual event, that’s going to happen in the future—the resurrection of Jesus, or the second coming. Our whole religious tradition is based upon these two misunderstandings. (. . .) It’s a terrible tragedy. These misunderstandings of our myth have caused us to lose the vocabulary of the spirit.”

I can only add that there is a benefit to this situation to those who wish to enrich themselves alone, to those who think an economic system is a competitive playground, rather than a way to enrich everyone’s lives. People who see trees as something to cut down and sell only or coal as something to dig and burn with no consequences. “It is a terrible tragedy.”


  1. Can’t disagree with most of what you wrote.

    Is there a place for a sense of the sacred or a broad religious sensibility without god(s)?

    Your last paragraph might seem to suggest so.


    Comment by James Cross — April 8, 2019 @ 2:51 pm | Reply

    • I don’t care for the word sacred because it has been co-opted by religions. I do think that there is a feeling or set of feelings that we could pay attention to. I feel a sense of awe quite often just looking out the windows of my apartment. (Today there was a 180 degree rainbow!) I have felt awe looking up at the night sky and at wilderness sites.I am appalled at the attempts to mine in the Grand Canyon, not because they are sacred but why would we defile our most beautiful places? I am offended by lazy architecture and other sources of ugliness. So, having a sense of “sacredness” over the value of other human lives and of the world which provides our food and shelter and energy would be a very good thing I should think. I would just like to use a different word.

      On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:51 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:


      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — April 8, 2019 @ 9:51 pm | Reply

  2. “In that book he discusses “belief in belief” meaning that people exhibit the belief that believing in a god is very important but the details (which god, which way, etc.), not as much.”

    I always answer the question, “Do you believe in New York?” with “Which one?” The question “Do you believe in New York” is most often “Do you believe in MY idea of New York?”


    Comment by John Branyan — April 8, 2019 @ 5:13 pm | Reply

    • I answer “Do you believe in New York?” with “No.” It requires no belief. It demands no belief.

      On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:13 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:



      Comment by Steve Ruis — April 8, 2019 @ 9:53 pm | Reply

    • Gosh, you’re so clever, John. And funny!

      Fictitious stooge: “Do you believe in New York?”
      JB: “Which one?”
      FS: “Er, well…”
      JB: “Do you mean the New York the ancient Greeks believed in? Or the Egyptians? Or maybe the New York the Aztecs believed in? Or the Norse?
      FS: “Yeah, no. I don’t think Bill Bailey humour is your forte, John. Stick to preaching.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by ChrisS — April 9, 2019 @ 12:34 am | Reply

  3. Belief is not important to mankind—it cannot be helped. While the natural man is actually the believing man (nearly everyone wants and has a belief) the problem isn’t really what you believe, it is that you believe. Merely thought convictions that create a tribal, divisive response when challenged.
    Norepinephrine is released on such occasions in the brain creating an argumentative fight or flight—and this is the strength of faith. It demands that no evidence for this errantly used portion of our physiology to take hold. Any reasonably laid fact does not initiate the respond that belief does through this untoward use of our physiology.


    Comment by jim- — April 8, 2019 @ 8:40 pm | Reply

  4. I think many of us have reached the same conclusions at some point. It is I think, the logical outcome of that sort of thought.

    Interestingly, I often answer the “do you believe in god?” question the same as you. “Which one?” 🙂


    Comment by shelldigger — April 9, 2019 @ 11:46 am | Reply

    • Great minds think alike? Um … maybe not …

      On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:46 AM Class Warfare Blog wrote:



      Comment by Steve Ruis — April 9, 2019 @ 12:27 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: