For starters, there is no such thing as a non-believer. Everyone believes in something. There are no exceptions.There are indeed exceptions: me, for one. I don't believe in anything. I SUSPECT a great many things, but I don't believe in any of them. Some things seem, to me, to be more, or less, probable than other things - i.e. more, or less, congruent with the way things actually are - but that's as far as I go. For example, I suspect that evolutionary theory has a much higher probability of being "congruent with the way things actually are" than, say, the story that some entity called "God" created the entire Universe in six days, just a few thousand years ago. Then there are some things that are perhaps not scientifically "congruent..." - oh hell, let's stick our necks out and replace "congruent...." with "true" - or, at least, they don't have a reasonably high probability of being scientifically "true", but do approximate to a different kind of "truth" - let's call it "poetic truth" - ideas around moral behaviour, how to deal with ethical dilemmas, that sort of thing. "Believers" will immediately jump up at this point and start waving their Bibles around; well, I've read the Bible - yes, all of it, every last "begat...." - and I confess I haven't been able to find very much of what I would call "poetic truth" in there. No ethical or moral guidance; nothing, nada. Lots of advice on how to sacrifice animals and destroy rival civilizations and slaughter entire populations and steal all their land and property...... what? Oh, the Ten Commandments? Well, four of them are strictly about religious observance, so that leaves six; of those, anyone can point to Bible passages where every one of them is broken, evidently with God's approval or even connivance; and there are glaring omissions. Where, for example, is the commandment "thou shalt not rape"? Or "thou shalt not abuse children"? No: if you're looking for the other kind of "truth", poetic "truth" - go to the poets; Shakespeare, Shelley, Goethe, Dostoievsky, Tolkein, Eco, Coelho...... TFS
by rodin46, Godless people and morality. F. Dostoyevsky said “without God all is permissible" What do you think he meant? Can there be a moral standard without God? Onto…Well Dostoyevsky had that one wrong. I would argue the opposite. If God is the creator of the universe "all is permissible" because God is Amoral (neither morally good nor bad), it is an implaccable force which "by laws of nature" only creates change from one form into another. IOW, for something to live, something else has to die (Law of conservation of energy). The earth was created from the destruction of a star, man was able to emerge from the destruction of the dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs lived on earth for over 160 million years. They were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates from the late Triassic period (around 230 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous period (around 65 million years ago). After the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event all but a few species of birds became extinct.Do you believe it was moral for God to wipe out this magnificent creation? You believe in a story which does not explain the true nature of God. But the recognition that "not everything is permissible for living things" started very early after the creation of life itself. Pobably during the evolution of amoebas. We just wrote it down and even here there is no agreement. If you are so familiar with the bible you should remember God's promise to "confound man's language". What is the morality in that, pray tell? http://listverse.com/2007/09/19/10-religious-scriptures-explained/
For starters, there is no such thing as a non-believer. Everyone believes in something. There are no exceptions.There are indeed exceptions: me, for one. I don't believe in anything. I SUSPECT a great many things, but I don't believe in any of them. Some things seem, to me, to be more, or less, probable than other things - i.e. more, or less, congruent with the way things actually are - but that's as far as I go. For example, I suspect that evolutionary theory has a much higher probability of being "congruent with the way things actually are" than, say, the story that some entity called "God" created the entire Universe in six days, just a few thousand years ago. Then there are some things that are perhaps not scientifically "congruent..." - oh hell, let's stick our necks out and replace "congruent...." with "true" - or, at least, they don't have a reasonably high probability of being scientifically "true", but do approximate to a different kind of "truth" - let's call it "poetic truth" - ideas around moral behaviour, how to deal with ethical dilemmas, that sort of thing. "Believers" will immediately jump up at this point and start waving their Bibles around; well, I've read the Bible - yes, all of it, every last "begat...." - and I confess I haven't been able to find very much of what I would call "poetic truth" in there. No ethical or moral guidance; nothing, nada. Lots of advice on how to sacrifice animals and destroy rival civilizations and slaughter entire populations and steal all their land and property...... what? Oh, the Ten Commandments? Well, four of them are strictly about religious observance, so that leaves six; of those, anyone can point to Bible passages where every one of them is broken, evidently with God's approval or even connivance; and there are glaring omissions. Where, for example, is the commandment "thou shalt not rape"? Or "thou shalt not abuse children"? No: if you're looking for the other kind of "truth", poetic "truth" - go to the poets; Shakespeare, Shelley, Goethe, Dostoievsky, Tolkein, Eco, Coelho...... TFS Not buying it for one second. You can't live without believing things. You drink water because you believe you need it (you're right), and because you believe it's safe to drink. You eat or don't eat food because of what you believe about whether it is fit for consumption. Most people will laugh at you if you say your behavior is the product of no more than suspicions, and that means that you're using the word idiosyncratically, which is another thing people in our movements say we don't want to do. A few months ago, we had an extended discussion on this subject. A little research revealed that practically every leading humanist has used the word "believe" or "belief" in an affirmative way. It didn't connote or even suggest theistic or religious ideation, and the usages were so natural that most people wouldn't have paid any particular attention to the word. I posted a lengthy list of links to their writings, to which there was no response. The distinctions you're trying to draw are just word games, which is not to say you aren't serious about them. To believe something is to judge it probably to be true, which is exactly what you say you do. You are free to avoid a word like Dracula avoids a cross but I thought humanists didn't believe in magic, or in Dracula. In the way the word "believe/belief" is generally used, you are no an exception to the rule. If I followed you around for a day, I would be able to point out hundreds of things you did that would demonstrate to pretty much everyone that you do believe things, no matter how much you say you don't. So here we go again, for the umpteenth time, with "humanist" bug-up-the-arse number 52. There is a self-defeating tendency in our movements to react, knee-jerk style, to anything that may be associated with theism, or even religion. In this case, believing is what theists do, so we can't. That's irrational, so you would think that people who are committed to reason wouldn't do it; but with some of our members, emotion trumps reason to the point that rationality jumps right out the window. If you say you don't believe in anything, people will think you're being ridiculous, and they'll be right. And if this comes to be seen as representing humanism, we'll never gain any respect from society at large, and we'll have done it to ourselves. In fact, this is one of our biggest problems in attracting members. We say we are all about reason, then we say ridiculous things (sorry but it's true), solely because we react emotionally to a mere word. Einstein wouldn't call himself an atheist for partly this reason, even though he was one. There are many other fine minds who won't have anything to do with us, and this is one reason why they won't.
I really don’t think it is that complicated Paul. People are pretty familiar with the concept of different definitions for one word. A simple statement like “I don’t believe like ‘religiously believe’” would not be beyond the average person.
Do you remember the title of the discussion where you listed the writings?
I really don't think it is that complicated Paul. People are pretty familiar with the concept of different definitions for one word. A simple statement like "I don't believe like 'religiously believe'" would not be beyond the average person. Do you remember the title of the discussion where you listed the writings?What's complicated about it, Lausten? You're right, people can accommodate different definitions of a word but that's not the point at hand here. Look at the topic entitled "Should theistic fact claims be subjected . . ." (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16167/) at posts 50, 167, 190 and 191, at least. I had forgotten that I couldn't post links, so these are references.
Not buying it for one second. You can't live without believing things. You drink water because you believe you need it (you're right), and because you believe it's safe to drink.You can buy it, or not, as you see fit, but I stand by what I wrote - for good and sufficient reasons. And I don't play word games. I drink water (or tea, or juice) because experience has shown me that if I don't I get terribly thirsty. I might believe my water is safe, but it might not be (I live part of each year in Mexico). Really I should get it analyzed for E. Coli, but, just in case, I buy purified water in five gallon jugs while I'm here. At least I accept the high probability that the water I buy is purified, but, again, it might not be. Believing, one way or the other, doesn't help. "Belief" has too much of an association with religion and superstition (which are, I suspect much the same thing) for any intelligent person to use it as a basis for living, it seems to me. What other "leading humanists" think the word means isn't relevant; and I don't accept that I'm being ridiculous by insisting on precise meanings for words. A "belief', to me, is simply an opinion, which might be shared by any number of people, for which no unambiguous evidence exists. I've been taken to task, and misunderstood - deliberately, it seemed - for using the word "believe" in this very forum, so I don't use it any more "in the way the word is generally used", for that exact reason - that it leads to misunderstandings. And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass for the respect of "society at large", mired as it is (in America, at least) in irrational superstition. Nor do I care if people laugh at me; it's their loss. ...... and, incidentally, if you follow me around for a day I'll have you arrested. TFS
Not buying it for one second. You can't live without believing things. You drink water because you believe you need it (you're right), and because you believe it's safe to drink.You can buy it, or not, as you see fit, but I stand by what I wrote - for good and sufficient reasons. And I don't play word games. I drink water (or tea, or juice), not because I believe I need it, but because experience has shown me that if I don't I get terribly thirsty. I might believe my water is safe, but it might not be (I live part of each year in Mexico). Really I should get it analyzed for E. Coli, but, just in case, I buy purified water in five gallon jugs while I'm here. At least I accept the high probability that the water I buy is purified, but, again, it might not be. Believing, one way or the other, doesn't help. "Belief" has too much of an association with religion and superstition (which are, I suspect much the same thing) for any intelligent person to use it as a basis for living, it seems to me. What other "leading humanists" think the word means isn't relevant; and I don't accept that I'm being ridiculous by insisting on precise meanings for words. A "belief', to me, is simply an opinion, which might be shared by any number of people, for which no unambiguous evidence exists. I've been taken to task, and misunderstood - deliberately, it seemed - for using the word "believe" in this very forum, so I don't use it any more "in the way the word is generally used", for that exact reason - that it leads to misunderstandings. And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass for the respect of "society at large", mired as it is (in America, at least) in irrational superstition. Nor do I care if people laugh at me; it's their loss. ...... and, incidentally, if you follow me around for a day I'll have you arrested. TFS
OK some sort of electronic glitch there. Your button said “submit post” when it should have said “update post.” The second post is the full version.
TFS
Not buying it for one second. You can't live without believing things. You drink water because you believe you need it (you're right), and because you believe it's safe to drink.You can buy it, or not, as you see fit, but I stand by what I wrote - for good and sufficient reasons. And I don't play word games. I drink water (or tea, or juice), not because I believe I need it, but because experience has shown me that if I don't I get terribly thirsty. I might believe my water is safe, but it might not be (I live part of each year in Mexico). Really I should get it analyzed for E. Coli, but, just in case, I buy purified water in five gallon jugs while I'm here. At least I accept the high probability that the water I buy is purified, but, again, it might not be. Believing, one way or the other, doesn't help. "Belief" has too much of an association with religion and superstition (which are, I suspect much the same thing) for any intelligent person to use it as a basis for living, it seems to me. What other "leading humanists" think the word means isn't relevant; and I don't accept that I'm being ridiculous by insisting on precise meanings for words. A "belief', to me, is simply an opinion, which might be shared by any number of people, for which no unambiguous evidence exists. I've been taken to task, and misunderstood - deliberately, it seemed - for using the word "believe" in this very forum, so I don't use it any more "in the way the word is generally used", for that exact reason - that it leads to misunderstandings. And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass for the respect of "society at large", mired as it is (in America, at least) in irrational superstition. Nor do I care if people laugh at me; it's their loss. ...... and, incidentally, if you follow me around for a day I'll have you arrested. TFS I have also dropped all forms of the word "belief" from my vocabulary. It's the only rational thing to do. Lois
"Belief" has too much of an association with religion and superstition (which are, I suspect much the same thing) for any intelligent person to use it as a basis for living, it seems to me.Right, exactly as I told you. Our adversaries use the word, so we can't. There's nothing rational about that, it's just a reaction. Not to mention the way you're mixing the word with the res: a word is not a basis for living. You're not going to see this until you can stop reacting. Meanwhile, I'll just ask you to think about the cultural dynamics of language, and the way theists as a group try to gain control. Once they realize that they can control your language by using your words, they can push you where they want you to go.
Why on earth should I drop a perfectly good word from my vocabulary? Because some associate it with spirituality or religion?
What are you going to replace it with?
Definition of belief (n), Bing Dictionary be·lief 1.acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty 2.trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective 3.something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true Synonyms: confidence · trust · certainty · credence · acceptanceThe bolded has the only reference to spirituality and then only as an emotional or spiritual underpinning. Are we also going to drop the word "faith"?
Definition of faith (n), Bing Dictionary faith 1.belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 2.religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it 3.trust in God: belief in and devotion to God Synonyms: confidence · trust · reliance · conviction · belief · assuranceI won't let anyone dictate what words to use, when used appropriately and in context. Least of all a theist!
.
Lois,
If you had read my post a little more carefully you’d have concluded that it was a general statement, based loosely on PLaClair’s post #30.
As a European I have enough trouble expressing myself without having to consider what words “our adversaries” use. I use the dictionary for almost every post in an effort to be precise.
In view of the thread’s Title, I believe it was an appropriate comment and, as I believe that you are also an atheist, I believe that your gratuitous comment about my behavior is misplaced in this particular instance.
Strange, being that I find myself in agreement with your posts most of the time.
p.s. if, on occasion, I sound juvenile, it probably is from early onset dementia…
Lois, If you had read my post a little more carefully you'd have concluded that it was a general statement, based loosely on PLaClair's post #30. As a European I have enough trouble expressing myself without having to consider what words "our adversaries" use. I use the dictionary for almost every post in an effort to be precise. In view of the thread's Title, I believe it was an appropriate comment and, as I believe that you are also an atheist, I believe that your gratuitous comment about my behavior is misplaced in this particular instance. Strange, being that I find myself in agreement with your posts most of the time. p.s. if, on occasion, I sound juvenile, it probably is from early onset dementia......Sorry if I overreacted. It's juat that when I see a defensive reaction to something as benign as a suggestion, fireworks go off. Yes, We do agree on most issues. I did not check to see who I was responding to or I wouldn't have been so aggressive. Just caught me at a bad time. Lois
Lois, If you had read my post a little more carefully you'd have concluded that it was a general statement, based loosely on PLaClair's post #30. As a European I have enough trouble expressing myself without having to consider what words "our adversaries" use. I use the dictionary for almost every post in an effort to be precise. In view of the thread's Title, I believe it was an appropriate comment and, as I believe that you are also an atheist, I believe that your gratuitous comment about my behavior is misplaced in this particular instance. Strange, being that I find myself in agreement with your posts most of the time. p.s. if, on occasion, I sound juvenile, it probably is from early onset dementia......Because I overreacted in my post, I have removed it the only way CFI Forums allows me to remove it, by erasing it and reposting a blank page. Lois
No harm done…
Lois, I don’t agree with you on much. I see you as an absolutist. But you removed a post because you recognized that it wasn’t sound. That takes character, and so I applaud you.
"Belief" has too much of an association with religion and superstition (which are, I suspect much the same thing) for any intelligent person to use it as a basis for living, it seems to me.Right, exactly as I told you. Our adversaries use the word, so we can't. There's nothing rational about that, it's just a reaction. Not to mention the way you're mixing the word with the res: a word is not a basis for living. You're not going to see this until you can stop reacting. Meanwhile, I'll just ask you to think about the cultural dynamics of language, and the way theists as a group try to gain control. Once they realize that they can control your language by using your words, they can push you where they want you to go. Hi PLaClair. My first impulse was simply to ignore this post of yours, and your previous ones, as simply too ridiculous for words, but being told ""you're not going to see this until you can stop reacting" made me think; however, it seems to me that you've got it just 100% dead wrong. I'm not the one who's reacting and not seeing, it seems to me. And nowhere have I said "our adversaries use the word, so we can't." All I'm saying is that, if we use a word, we should be very conscious of precisely what we mean by it, and try to avoid ambiguity and any potential for misunderstanding. "Belief" is one of those loaded words that means very different things to different people. And how you imagine that the theists are going to take control because I'm proposing that we use words carefully seems, to me, entirely mysterious and illogical. It's mostly a semantic problem. The English language is an unwieldy contraption roughly bolted together from bits and pieces of dozens of European and Asian source languages; it's beautiful - most of the world's greatest poets wrote in English (and before anyone starts screaming, I know all about Dante and Goethe and the rest) - but it tends to lack precision, and as a scientist and an engineer this causes me concern. It's beautiful, but messy, with the result that we have a plethora of synonyms but also, for historical reasons, we tend to attach several wildly different meanings to a single word, and to understand we have to look for context. For example, it's obvious that to say "I believe with all my heart that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour" means something very different than to say "I believe I'll have another beer"; the meanings are obvious from the context, and, granted, these are extremes, but in between is a vast grey area of ambiguity where misunderstandings can too easily arise, as can obfuscation and deliberate misrepresentation. Here's an example from this very forum. Some years ago there was a discussion about sightings of lake monsters, and there was a suggestion originally given by Bob Shaeffer, I think it was, that sightings of a herd (flock? school? - whatever) of otters, swimming in line-ahead formation with only the leader's head out of the water, and all the rest with their heads underwater and backs humped, could be mistaken for a serpentine monster. I replied that I had seen plenty of otters, and they simply don't behave that way. I went on to say (quoting from memory) "I could more easily believe that a large, hitherto unknown creature inhabits Okanagan Lake than that a herd of otters would swim for any length of time as Shaeffer suggests." And sure enough, didn't someone pipe up, "There, you see, you easily believe while Shaeffer looks for evidence!" I mean, was this deliberate misrepresentation, or was the guy just terminally stupid? Shaeffer's suggestion was supposed to be evidence? Your proposal to follow me around for a day was actually quite funny, and I can just imagine how it might have gone; "Aha! You stopped at that red light! That's because you believe that a red light means stop!" "No, actually it's because I know damned well a red light means stop, and I've witnessed the consequences of people ignoring it, many times. Belief has nothing to do with it." But, really, are you so desperate to prove yourself right that you could seriously suggest such a thing? Are you really that unsure of yourself? I've described it as funny, which it is, but it also seems to me to border on the pathological. I'm not sure how much I'll be back here. I came to this forum several years ago expecting intelligent and rational discussion of ideas; instead, it seems that whenever anyone suggests something slightly at odds with the generally accepted status quo, they're subjected to a barrage of ridicule, sneering, pointless jokes, misquotation, misrepresentation and personal insults. I've had more rational discussions on a Witchcraft site I sometimes post to (there, I've given you more stuff for you to misunderstand and throw back at me). I described a UFO sighting I'd had, some years previously, on this CFI forum without any suggestion that it might have been an alien spacecraft; just something a bit unusual that I'd witnessed. Immediately all the other posters to that thread closed ranks; the consensus was that such things don't exist, therefore I hadn't seen anything. Period. Despite the fact, of course, that none of them was there whereas I was; they obviously knew better. This attitude seems to me to be supremely unscientific. Was it not Isaac Asimov, or Martin Gardner, or one of those guys, who said something to the effect that "All real science begins with someone noticeing something and thinking "That's odd......" There's an online site that claims to describe how to recognise a pseudoscientist; one major characteristic, apparently, is that pseudoscientists start with the desired conclusion and work backwards to the evidence. This gave me a chuckle, I can tell you; isn't that precisely what a great many people who call themselves skeptics do? "Alien spacecraft/lake monsters/ghosts don't exist, therefore what you say you witnessed didn't happen....." Allright, this has been a bit of a diatribe - or even a rant, maybe; but it's something I've been thinking about for a while, and you guys just happen to be here so you get the earful intended for perhaps 90% of those who post to this forum. I'll stop now. TFS.
TFS, what about a person who is diagnosed with a potentially fatal cancer, development of treatments is in flux, and his doctor offers him several alternatives? He chooses the one that he believes is best for him. What’s the problem?
A colleague and friend in my law office has a son who suffers from a progressive neurological disease, which has been fatal in most victims. A new drug is in the process of testing, and the boy has been accepted into the test group. If my friend says “I pushed to get my son into this program because I believe it offers him his best chance to survive,” is he being unreasonable? Irrational? Unintelligent? After all, the benefits of the drug haven’t been proved yet, and - who knows - there may be significant side effects that aren’t appreciated yet. What’s wrong with using the word, and for that matter with imagining that his son may survive, as long as he maintains his grounding in reality?
Consider the specific examples in the posts from another topic, which I referenced a week or two ago, in which virtually every leading humanist and non-theist uses the dreaded B-word seamlessly, clearly and to excellent effect. Are they all stupid too?. If you can’t find the quotations, I’ll tell you where you can.
A statement that no intelligent person relies on belief, and that every intelligent person avoids that word, is dogmatic and demonstrably untrue. You’re obviously reacting, it’s obvious from how you’re writing. Believe me or don’t, but you will be well-advised to employ caution in making categorical statements about so many highly intelligent and accomplished people.
TFS, what about a person who is diagnosed with a potentially fatal cancer, development of treatments is in flux, and his doctor offers him several alternatives? He chooses the one that he believes is best for him. What's the problem? A colleague and friend in my law office has a son who suffers from a progressive neurological disease, which has been fatal in most victims. A new drug is in the process of testing, and the boy has been accepted into the test group. If my friend says "I pushed to get my son into this program because I believe it offers him his best chance to survive," is he being unreasonable? Irrational? Unintelligent? After all, the benefits of the drug haven't been proved yet, and - who knows - there may be significant side effects that aren't appreciated yet. What's wrong with using the word, and for that matter with imagining that his son may survive, as long as he maintains his grounding in reality? Consider the specific examples in the posts from another topic, which I referenced a week or two ago, in which virtually every leading humanist and non-theist uses the dreaded B-word seamlessly, clearly and to excellent effect. Are they all stupid too?. If you can't find the quotations, I'll tell you where you can. A statement that no intelligent person relies on belief, and that every intelligent person avoids that word, is dogmatic and demonstrably untrue. You're obviously reacting, it's obvious from how you're writing. Believe me or don't, but you will be well-advised to employ caution in making categorical statements about so many highly intelligent and accomplished people.So much depends on how you define the word "belief". It can mean a closely held opinion that can't be changed no matter what kind of evidence is provided to the contrary, or it can be a temporary acceptance of an idea until further information is presented. That's one reason I don't like to use the word. Belief is a garbage-can word. It can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. It can mean something fervently held despite evidence to the contrary or it can be a passing whim. Long ago I stopped using the word for myself. I do use it when discussing belief with a believer because it can't be avoided. But I am very comfortable saying I don't believe in anything that has no objective evidence that it exists or works the way someone claims it works without evidence. Now in the case of a loved one who is suffering from an incurable disease, I might be persuaded to try a new treatment that has not been scientifically proven to work on the off chance that it might improve my loved one's condition and there is no objective evidence that it does not work or does harm. That is not belief. It is more like hope. Even a person who gives up on belief can hope. As a pragmatist I would not use such an experimental medicine on someone who wasn't likely to die anyway or who was not in intractable pain. But not using the concept of belief does not affect whether I will try something unproven but which has practical applications in the hope that it might have a positive effect. That is not belief. It is experiment and hope. That so many people cannot bring themselves to understand the difference is why I don't use the word "belief." It means nothing that can't be better described in other words.