Not sure why I’m continuing this but here goes.
There are dozens of cat breeds, maybe hundreds. If someone insists that all cats are Abyssinians, and that bobtails, Persians, longhairs, Siamese, etc., are not cats, that is an idiosyncratic definition of “cat,” which excludes most cat breeds and most cats. True, some cats are Abyssinians but one breed does not define or encompass the broader classification of “cat.”
In parallel, there are many varieties of belief, which run on continua-of-sorts from well-reasoned to irrational, well-founded to unfounded, objectively based to subjectively based, and perhaps in other dimensions as well. Defining belief as “accepting as true a claim that has no objective evidence for its veracity” engages in the same fallacy as is at play in defining all cats as Abyssinians. Some propositions are accepted as true for very good reasons, based on a mountain of objective evidence for their veracity. When you not only decline to call those “beliefs,” Lois (which is your prerogative), but go to great lengths to argue your case; and you do it because you object to the way the people who really get under your skin big-time (theists) use the word, then your definition of the word is idiosyncratic, i.e., not to be found in standard dictionaries, not consistent with how the word is customarily used and based solely on your reaction to what the people you like-to-dislike are doing. You’ve hit the trifecta, defining the word the way you want to, even though your definition excludes most beliefs and most varieties of beliefs, excludes most everyday usages of the word and is not found in standard dictionaries. That is the very definition and essence of idiosyncratic. But hey, you can redefine that word, too. Maybe it means a good knock-down, drag-out fight. Lewis Carroll wrote about that. I’d like to know where the hell you think “the real definition” of “believe” or “belief” is to be found and on what basis. As best I can tell, you’re saying it is whatever you say it is. Well, OK, for yourself you get to do that but it makes no sense then to come into a discussion forum and argue your case, expecting people to ignore established etymological criteria.
And I love this one. Lois writes: “in my mind it’s you who is giving it an inflexible meaning it does not deserve.” I could quibble about that word “deserve.” A word doesn’t “deserve” anything; people may or may not deserve to be treated a certain way but a word is inanimate and insentient. But that doesn’t get us anywhere, so let’s discuss the word “inflexible.” My definition is the one that people use every day, and the first definition in every dictionary I could find. Belief is acceptance of a proposition as true. Inflexibility enters in when you insist on limiting it. Which of us is doing that? The one who accepts the broad definition that encompasses how people use the word (me) or the one who insists on narrowing the definition to one aspect of belief, dogmatically insisting, contrary to all the available evidence, that every other use of it is irrational (you)? To be fair, Lois, you did write “in my mind.” Precisely, and what does that tell you? Problem is, it won’t tell you anything. And it’s at this point that . . .
I was interested in trying to have a conversation with you for the same reason as I am interested, sometimes, in trying to talk to a rabid, Bible-thumping fundamentalist: I wonder what it will take to get through, to see some drop of reason in a sea of unreason. Take offense at those comments if you will. And also because you say you are a Humanist, so I care about how you present yourself. How other people who call themselves Humanists present themselves in our larger communities has an effect on the public perception of Humanism, and that concerns me. Of course it is your right to speak however you please and argue for any position you like but I was hoping that two people who say they are Humanists could have a reasoned and intelligent discussion on virtually any subject. I would like to believe that is possible with you but at this point I do not. I’ve seen enough not to have responded any further but . . . call my continued engagement a personal failing of mine, I won’t have much ground to disagree.
There is little point in a game of “I’ll answer your question after you answer mine.” And if you want to know why I come to a Humanist forum, check out my website.