For the idea about whether or not you can have a belief which contradicts what you know :

I say sometimes that I lie to myself. Is it possible to lie to oneself? If that makes sense, what does it mean?

I am looking to challenge the standard notion of the relationship between our beliefs and our reasons.

It is generally accepted that all beliefs have a reason behind them. When someone says they believe something, they usually can immediately provide some reason for their belief.

It would seem to me an almost universal understanding that the reason is the causal force behind a belief: people say "I believe because of this reason". This can be informally reworded: "I observed this (or some other manner in which we gain knowledge), from which I derived this belief."

This view of the matter seems far to blunt at best, completely backwards at worst. Unfortunately, my own view of it is hardly fleshed out, and so I wish to play the role of devil's advocate.

If you accept this common notion, defend it, advocate it, convince me. If you don't accept this notion, please clear my thinking and enlighten me.

Hello FTP,
IMO, belief's can be rational or irrational; true or perceived. Of course if they are rational and true, the are not longer beliefs, they are facts. Belief is something that fits into a persons individual perspective regardless if it is true or false. To the individual who believes it doesn't matter, that belief fits in with that which gives his life purpose, whether it is good or evil. If we believe something, we will seek any corroborating knowledge and the company of others. or just plain common sense that support's that belief or we will rationalize one of our own that gives us reason to believe it. I guess it all depends on how deep seeded the belief is will determine what lengths we will go to defend it. IMO. I hope this is on track with what you meant.
William

If you ask me whether I believe that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, I will certainly say that I do. And if you ask be whether it is a fact that London is the capital of the United Kingdom, I will certainly say that it is a fact. In fact, that is why I believe that London is the capital of the United Kingdom. I believe it because I believe it is a fact. If I did not believe it was a fact, then I would not believe it in the first place.

I am looking to challenge the standard notion of the relationship between our beliefs and our reasons.

It is generally accepted that all beliefs have a reason behind them. When someone says they believe something, they usually can immediately provide some reason for their belief.

It would seem to me an almost universal understanding that the reason is the causal force behind a belief: people say "I believe because of this reason". This can be informally reworded: "I observed this (or some other manner in which we gain knowledge), from which I derived this belief."

This view of the matter seems far to blunt at best, completely backwards at worst. Unfortunately, my own view of it is hardly fleshed out, and so I wish to play the role of devil's advocate.

If you accept this common notion, defend it, advocate it, convince me. If you don't accept this notion, please clear my thinking and enlighten me.

It seems obvious to me that a belief must ALWAYS come before a reason. A reason must only be called a reason if you presuppose a belief that it can be used for reasoning and has authority.

I can believe things for a reason. But I can also believe things for no reason. So, I may have a belief whether or not I have a reason for the belief. But, I think that all beliefs have causes, don't you? So, if there is a belief, then there has to be a cause of that belief. So, I may or may not have a reason for a belief, but I don't see how the belief would have no cause. Everything that happens has some cause.

If I recall, Hume held that beliefs were driven more by imagination than reason. HIs feeling seemed to be that reason might extinguish, rather than cause, belief. Any Hume experts here to validate/correct this, and perhaps shed light on its reception?

A running theme is that reason and the senses cannot be sources for fundamental beliefs like that of an external world or an enduring self. The imagination is responsible for much of our cognitive lives, and reason operating alone would all but extinguish beliefs.

... Hume draws a distinction in the imagination, between the "permanent, irresistable, and universal" principles and the "changeable, weak and irregular". The former seem to be candidates for reason, but without the latter all belief would be extinguished.

EDIT: Above posted before Ken's response read. It still seems to be Hume is arguing that reason alone cannot cause belief. Further, the former type of imagination seems in line with what Ken says, while the latter seems something else. More reading required. Back in a jiffy!

Well, of course, you must desire to believe what it is reasonable to believe. Some people, I suppose do not. So to believe something because it is reasonable to believe it, you also have to want to do so. That certainly is what Hume thought. And so do I.

Yes, I've just read the text online. He speaks of beliefs being driven by passions. But he also does seem to hold that beliefs are subject to an infinite regression of doubt that reason cannot sustain, and in fact would destroy. But this doesn't answer the OP, which asks can we have a belief without a reason, not are our reasons solid.

Ah well. Nowt to gain there. Thanks.

I wonder what would make you think, then, that he knew he had the problem? (People do say things like, "I know that so-and-so is dead, but I don't believe it". But they don't mean it literally. They can be paraphrased as saying something like, "I know so-and-so is dead, but I cannot reconcile myself to it", or, "I keep feeling he is still around", or even, "I miss him so much").

But there are clearly people who believe not only without reason, but contrary to reason. Some people talk about faith, and faith is a kind of belief (a strong belief) for which there is not justification (reason). Tertullian, 1 12th century priest held that he believed that Christ rose from the dead just because it was unreasonable to believe such a thing. His words were, "Credo, quia absurdum est" (I believe because it is absurd). So his reason for believing that Christ rose from the dead was that the belief was absurd, (i.e. contrary to reason). In other words, what caused Tertullian to believe as he did was that what he believed was unreasonable. So, we don't need Hume to tell us whether there are beliefs without reason. Clearly there are. But there are no beliefs without causes, since everything has a cause. It is important to distinguish between causes and reasons. Otherwise, you may think that if a belief does not have a reason, it does not have a cause. But that, of course, would be a mistake.

Sure, that's what I meant by the belief being contradicted by reason (rational thinking) while still being a reason (cause). It is fortunate there are no more definitions of the word 'reason' to make this more convoluted.

A reason may be a response (I believe X because of Y) or a purpose (I believe X for Y). My beliefs seem to fall into one or both categories, at least upon analysis (and I can't analyse them all). I believe in the continuity of objects beyond my perception of them because a) it is the simplest explanation for concurrence of repeated perceptions (a response to apparent continuity) and b) it is more useful to believe it than otherwise (for instance in communication - "Where are the keys?" "On the coffee table!" - less useful is "I don't know, for I do not perceive them.").

From a top-down perspective, I can't conceive of a belief that does not have a reason. a priori I can't conceive of one either, but then one of my beliefs is causality, so...