Belief is the active mental state in which a person attaches some level of positively orientated acceptance towards thinking something to be the case, has an amount of what is thought of as conformation, that is value judged to be accurate or when someone considers something is reality, true, even though such belief alone is not an absolute verified foundation for certainty of the accuracy, realness, or truth of something nor is belief of something even amount support towards the likelihood of something being true or being the case at all.
Therefore, beliefs always need extra assurances that they are so or have a higher likelihood of being so beyond just them being accepted, which is why I feel there is a need to have justified true beliefs backed up with valid and reliable reason and evidence. The Justified True Belief can be roughly seen as knowledge, that one can claim they know that a proposition is true thus knowledge, if and only if, one believes that a proposition has justified warrants to it being a true belief, then, and only then, can one feel justified in believing that proposition is worthy to call knowledge.
Likewise, a justified true belief reached knowledge can lead to a justified certainty, if and only if, one believes that specific knowledge has justified warrants to it being confirmed as true knowledge, then, and only then, can one feel justified in believing that specific knowledge is worthy to verify a justified knowledge certainty. Motivations for belief should be that a thing is accurate and consistently definable as true not just highly favored or comfortable to believe.
Some religionists or theists will say you atheists have faith in science.
This is completely wrong as faith is strong belief without or contrary to evidence and a belief in science is founded on almost nothing but the evidence.
Some atheists or sceptics will say I don’t believe science I trust science.
The problem I have with this is the meaning of trust is a belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.

Think of it like this I trust science because? Science is a completely trustworthy source for gaining knowledge.

Well there to at least one belief is involved and Knowledge itself is a epistemic property of belief.

And then the problem is people view scientists who are seeking grant money or who push their research findings with extra suspicion, the researchers found. Many Americans view such characters as downright untrustworthy.The lesson for all scientists, the researchers say, is:”Just like other communication, science communication needs to continue to convey warmth and trustworthiness, along with competence and expertise.” In other words, convincing others of the importance of what you’re working on depends not only on being smart and competent, but also on connecting and resonating with people.

We’ve actually known that for years. As the study authors write, “Long ago, Aristotle knew that communication is not just about logic and knowledge, but also about emotions and values.” The challenge, it seems, is actually putting that knowledge into practice.

Some atheists or sceptics will say I don’t believe science I accept science as fact!
Well a question of fact hinges on evidence and accept is involved in recognizing a thing as true which is to “believe”
it is a fact because of the quality of the evidence supporting it.
To me its the atheists or sceptics stance against faith belief that is the issue. One has all kinds of beliefs that actually is not the issue, what is of concern is are they beliefs that hold enough warrant in there reason and evidence to justify the belief as true. To say one believes in science is a very reasonable valid belief. I actually think it’s the most reasonable thing to believe in science as it is one of the greatest instruments ever devised for understanding the world.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: If You Don’t Believe in Science, ‘Just Move Back to the Cave’
What I am against is the word faith as its useless to know anything. Faith is not belief in a religious thinking its faith that is offered as the evidence or reason for belief. Such them saying I believe in god Xyz because I have faith. So beliefs are nothing in themselves without valid and reliable supporting reason and evidence.
In the book The Believing Brain, Michael Shermer has written a wonderfully lucid, accessible, and wide-ranging account of the boundary between justified and unjustified belief.

What makes some believed Truth actually True?

To me truth is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is is evidence. Therefore, the rational imperative on us is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”.

Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge, validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.

There is much philosophical debate about knowledge. However, for the sake of most arguments, I’m fine working from the definition of “justified true beliefs”. But I always do so tentatively as problems could come up (the Gettier problem, etc.).

Therefore, I follow the standard in philosophy Justified True Beliefs = knowledge and when such knowledge reaches a high or the highest epistemic standard it can be dubbed epistemically certain.

To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.

Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.

For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.

The “ethics of belief” refers to a cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence? Is it ever or always morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of it? Is it ever or always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief? Are there some ways of obtaining evidence that are themselves immoral or imprudent? 


By Damien Marie AtHope
Reference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12