suppose I have a belief X, say: it is categorically wrong to play poker for kittens

now suppose I contradict X repeatedly (shuffling down to the local demon bar on thursday nights with a basketful of baby calicoes)

may I still be said to believe X if I profess to believe X while contradicting it repeatedly?

I should say, this has practical implications and I am not asking for the sake of the question alone. although I also think this is an interesting question. really the root is how you define belief, yes?

If you believe it’s wrong to play poker for kittens but you do it anyway, that doesn’t necessarily have to invalidate your belief… it just makes you a bad person under your particular moral code.

I think you should clarify what you’re asking exactly… your last question is a little vague, and I think the kittens might be a bad example for what I think you’re driving at.

okay, how about this:

I claim to believe with absolute surety that an investment will yield a 30% return annually for the next sixty years, yet I invest in an otherwise identical asset with a guaranteed annual return of 3%. My sole interest is maximizing my investment, and I am risk averse (say, p=1, where u©=[c^(1-p)/(1-p)]; here a higher p means decreasing marginal returns. in ordinary language having $2 will make me less than twice as happy as I was with $1)

I would say that that person does not in fact believe that the investment will yield 30% in that case.

OR, they do, but they acknowledge that their belief might be incorrect (and risky).

See my thinking was this.

People claim all the time to be sure of something: I believe this person loves me, I believe in God, and so on. But then they go and act in a way that directly contradicts their supposed belief!

For example, “God has a plan for me.” Maybe he does! Why do you bother praying for this or that? Either he is going to allow his plan to play out as you claim (in which case your prayers are worthless) or he will respond to your prayers (in which case his plan is much more mutable than you had initially claimed anyway).

On a grander scale it seems that believing in some specific God (say the god of Christianity, that’s the one I’m really most familiar with) would lead to an adherent leading a really religious life. If you are sure that the Biggest Force in the Universe is going to own you for eternity and will treat you for this period of time in a way commensurate with your behavior while alive, why would you even consider earthly things?

On the basis of these examples I find the theology of Augustine much more compelling than that of the later Latins, and fundamentalists are (I think) more rational than evangelicals even though they seem outwardly crazy to an unbeliever.

A nontheistic example: I am sure this woman loves me! Nothing could dissuade me! Yet here I am paranoid and controlling and tracking her every move.

Yes? I do not believe all of this with great surety and could be dissuaded.

I think belief and faith both imply that you’re working with something you can’t ever prove to be true. Maybe you believe that God has a plan for you, but you don’t understand God at all, so maybe prayer can help you out. Or, you might believe in a moral code, but maybe it’s ok to teabag this hooker just this once. I think it sort of comes down to rationalization. If you have a belief system, it isn’t going to be fully fleshed out so every single situation is covered. Additionally, people aren’t robots. “If X is true, do X” won’t result in someone always doing X.

Also, damn you Cameron for 1-upping me. I can’t fit more text into my title!

yes, I thought of the problem of bounded rationality, this is pretty much my favorite topic, and I think it can explain much. for example many people who claim to believe in god do not have a thorough grasp of theology that evolves from biblical texts

however I think there are many situations where a person’s stated beliefs are belied by their actions with a very short logical distance between the two

Who’s messing with the profiles, Andy?