This discussion, and the language policing that goes along with it, became tedious decades ago. The simple fact is that you guys are the ones arguing for narrow definitions of words that in fact are not defined narrowly in common usage. There's no consistency in it, and it has nothing to do with clarity. The organizing principle is that if you associate a word with religion, you don't want to use it, and you don't like when anyone else does either. You can ignore that obvious reality but I promise you, most people see it.So if I say I prefer not to use a word because I find it ambiguous, that equates to "language police." No overreacting there! if you maintain that there is no need to avoid it and it is not ambiguous to you, is that you acting as the language police?
But scientists DO experiment on drugs before they reach clinical trials and that takes hope. . . . LoisYes but not on humans. By the time they get to humans, they have some data to suggest that the drug is promising. Who said anything about experimenting on humans? Now you've brought in a whole new aspect to the debate that was not there to begin with. Why? Because you were on the losing side of the debate?
What is the semantic problem if used in proper context? If that is misunderstood the fault lies not with the user. To automatically attach any other weight or meaning to perfectly good verbs or nouns is understandable but not logically permitted. We have these words in order to communicate, not to quibble about subtle implications or hidden agendas, unless that is the subject of the conversation. Is it?Yes, I agree with you on all points. What I thought was interesting to me was that I could replace the word “Belief" with the lack of “Knowledge" and keep the idea or thought of the commutation. And by doing this it seemed obvious that the root meaning for “Belief" may be the lack of “knowledge". So it seemed to me that using the word “Belief" is referring to a lack of “knowledge" and when there is a disagreement about “Belief" it is a disagreement about the “knowledge" of the thought or subject. When used in the following way. “I believe you look better in a red dress than the yellow one." It sounds better than “I know you look better in a red dress than the yellow one." That’s the same when used in religion. “I believe……. “I know…… Do you see where I am headed? A person is more likely to say “I believe" because it is a softer meaning and it is ok to use even if it is untrue. So the comparison would be, “I believe god exists." For some people it is the same as “I am not sure but I think and hope that god exists?" In other words, take way the use of the word “belief". And tell the people that they have to use “know" when talking about god. And you may have a lot of people realizing that they really don’t know if god does exist. Which shows a lack of “knowledge" when they begin questioning themselves. Yet, they do not question themselves when using the word “Belief". "Belief" is weak and without authority. Point being, a god that requires "Belief" is a weak god and lacking in "Knowledge".
Mike, I agree with the thrust of your post, but I believe that “belief” is an assessment of a probability based on persuasive but incomplete knowledge, i.e. “it has always been true in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future.” We believe in the “constancy” of universall laws, but we also believe in the “uncertainty effect” in quantum.
IMO, the Root Meaning of “belief” is placing a high confidence in a probability based on sufficient evidence or prior knowledge, whereas “faith” is an acceptance (unquestioned confidence) in a probability without sufficient prior evidence or knowledge.
Mike, I agree with the thrust of your post, but I believe that "belief" is an assessment of a probability based on persuasive but incomplete knowledge, i.e. "it has always been true in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future." We believe in the "constancy" of universall laws, but we also believe in the "uncertainty effect" in quantum. IMO, the Root Meaning of "belief" is placing a high confidence in a probability based on sufficient evidence or prior knowledge, whereas "faith" is an acceptance (unquestioned confidence) in a probability without sufficient prior evidence or knowledge.I refer to things like "it has always been true in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future" and the "constancy" of universal laws and the "uncertainty effect" in quantum mechanics, as reasonable expectations based on known factors. It doesn't rise to "belief" in my mind. Besides that, I try to avoid the word belief wherever I can. "Reasonable expectations" comes in handy where there is some objective evidence for a claim. Lois
Who said anything about experimenting on humans?You did, in post 39, where you discussed experimental treatments on "a loved one who is suffering from an incurable disease." Lois, you're so pissed off about this, and so hell-bent on "winning" the "debate" that you can't even remember that we've been having this discussion, beginning two days ago, at posts 38-41. What will it take for you to admit that you're reacting emotionally on this subject to such an extent that you can't think straight? If your thoughts were coherent on this subject, which obviously matters to you, you wouldn't ask me who "said anything about" a subject that we've been discussing for the past two days. And if incoherence in your thinking as a result of reacting emotionally is not the explanation, then what is?
Mike, I agree with the thrust of your post, but I believe that "belief" is an assessment of a probability based on persuasive but incomplete knowledge, i.e. "it has always been true in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future." We believe in the "constancy" of universall laws, but we also believe in the "uncertainty effect" in quantum.I got to disagree with the use in that method because you could delete the word "believe" all together. "it has always been true in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be different in the future." "it has always been true in the past and there is no reason it will be different in the future." See how the use of "Belief" makes the sentence weaker? Replace with "knowledge". "it has always been true in the past and there is no knowledge to the contrary that it will be different in the future." In the wording "We believe in the "constancy"... Do you think it is stronger or weaker than "There is "constancy" in universal laws where there is "uncertainty effect" in quantum?
I have no objections to any form of expression which is appropriate for the occasion, even if it is used to weaken or strengthen the posit. The use of the words “belief” and “believe” is appropriate on many occasions and I see no reason NOT to use them, when appropriate.
I have no objections to any form of expression which is appropriate for the occasion, even if it is used to weaken or strengthen the posit. The use of the words "belief" and "believe" is appropriate on many occasions and I see no reason NOT to use them, when appropriate.Me too. But the meanings of some words have changed with me, mainly from my new understanding of past history. Words like Pagan use to be bad, now it is good. “Land of Milk and Honey" use to be good land, now I understand that it refers to not so good land. The “Ten Commandments" I now understand are very Egyptian in every aspect, so if they came for “God", then god was Egyptian. Point being, you can go back in time with certain words or method of thoughts. With these posts, I now see the word “Belief" differently, weak and lacking in knowledge.
I have no objections to any form of expression which is appropriate for the occasion, even if it is used to weaken or strengthen the posit. The use of the words "belief" and "believe" is appropriate on many occasions and I see no reason NOT to use them, when appropriate.Me too. But the meanings of some words have changed with me, mainly from my new understanding of past history. Words like Pagan use to be bad, now it is good. “Land of Milk and Honey" use to be good land, now I understand that it refers to not so good land. The “Ten Commandments" I now understand are very Egyptian in every aspect, so if they came for “God", then god was Egyptian. Point being, you can go back in time with certain words or method of thoughts. With these posts, I now see the word “Belief" differently, weak and lacking in knowledge. I can see where this is important when the argument calls for a precise description of the person's "state of mind" . But when the term is incidental to the topic, It is good to have a simple word which still conveys a general state of mind. If we drop "belief" from the general vocabulary, what do we do with a word like "conviction" which normally is based on a strong belief, but in court is used only when found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." What do we do with the word "doubt"? "we doubted his veracity", and is reasonable doubt the antonym of reasonable belief? IMO, they all belong to the same family of "mindset" without absolute cerainty. But IMO, when a word or statement is incidental to the thrust of the argument, I see no problem in the succinctness of a generality. As Occam is fond of saying: "succinctness, clarity's core".
Who said anything about experimenting on humans?You did, in post 39, where you discussed experimental treatments on "a loved one who is suffering from an incurable disease." Lois, you're so pissed off about this, and so hell-bent on "winning" the "debate" that you can't even remember that we've been having this discussion, beginning two days ago, at posts 38-41. What will it take for you to admit that you're reacting emotionally on this subject to such an extent that you can't think straight? If your thoughts were coherent on this subject, which obviously matters to you, you wouldn't ask me who "said anything about" a subject that we've been discussing for the past two days. And if incoherence in your thinking as a result of reacting emotionally is not the explanation, then what is? I will admit that I'm acting emotionally, etc. one minute after you do. Loid
I have no objections to any form of expression which is appropriate for the occasion, even if it is used to weaken or strengthen the posit. The use of the words "belief" and "believe" is appropriate on many occasions and I see no reason NOT to use them, when appropriate.Me too. But the meanings of some words have changed with me, mainly from my new understanding of past history. Words like Pagan use to be bad, now it is good. “Land of Milk and Honey" use to be good land, now I understand that it refers to not so good land. The “Ten Commandments" I now understand are very Egyptian in every aspect, so if they came for “God", then god was Egyptian. Point being, you can go back in time with certain words or method of thoughts. With these posts, I now see the word “Belief" differently, weak and lacking in knowledge. I can see where this is important when the argument calls for a precise description of the person's "state of mind" . But when the term is incidental to the topic, It is good to have a simple word which still conveys a general state of mind. If we drop "belief" from the general vocabulary, what do we do with a word like "conviction" which normally is based on a strong belief, but in court is used only when found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." What do we do with the word "doubt"? "we doubted his veracity", and is reasonable doubt the antonym of reasonable belief? IMO, they all belong to the same family of "mindset" without absolute cerainty. But IMO, when a word or statement is incidental to the thrust of the argument, I see no problem in the succinctness of a generality. As Occam is fond of saying: "succinctness, clarity's core". I have been able to avoid using the word "belief" for years. I have not found a situation where I ran into a brick wall and couldn't find a way around it. If I can do it you can do it. It isn't that hard.
There’s an emotional component to what I do, Lois, so if that’s the admission you want, there it is. I get very upset when I look at the endless arguments about which words we should use. They lead nowhere. They damage our movement, divide us and make us look foolish.
The difference is that I think things through and do not allow my emotions to dominate where reason should dominate. There’s nothing wrong with emotion, unless it goes unchecked and interferes with reason.
What I don’t understand is why you do not acknowledge that you just walked yourself into a very embarrassing situation. For two days we were discussing experimental treatments on humans vis-a-vis belief. You were right in the middle of those discussions, commenting on that very subject. Yet yesterday you asked “who said anything about experimenting on humans,” as though none of that had taken place. But it’s all right here, for everyone to read. My purpose isn’t to beat you up or win a “debate.” If I got caught the way you did, I’d be embarrassed, and I’d acknowledge that I had just made myself look pretty foolish. I wouldn’t need you to make an admission of your own first, because I am 100% responsible for what I post here, and so are you. And I sure as hell wouldn’t invite yet another set of comments like the one I’m writing right now.
I’ve been telling you for months, at least, that you’re reacting emotionally to certain words. Perhaps I should have been more precise: you’re reacting to such an extent that you’re not thinking. And the proof of that is what you did yesterday. I believe that you are a sincere person, and honestly did not remember that you had been discussing experimental drugs in humans. But how could you not remember something so recent and so extended? What could that mean? It means that your brain did not fully process that sequence of events. If it had, you would have remembered that you said plenty about experimenting on humans, and not just once. That is one of the reasons I say what I say about reacting and not thinking. If your brain had processed that exchange, you wouldn’t have asked that question. The moment I saw your post yesterday I was stunned, because I remembered instantly that we had been discussing that subject for days, and here you were saying that I was changing the subject suddenly. There’s no great humanist equivalent-of-sin in this but when you persist in it despite undeniable evidence that you did it . . .
Come on, Lois. You’re a humanist. I want you to represent our community well to the outside world. You cannot do that the way you’re approaching these issues.
So Lois, instead of responding here, you posted on the same subject on “why belief matters,” which surely is a related topic; in fact, I started it as a spin-off from this one. Your response begins with an idiosyncratic definition of belief that I don’t think you’ll find in standard dictionaries, and only reflects our critique of how our adversaries use the word. And of course, you completely ignore what happened here on this topic.
I’m not questioning your right to believe whatever you like, even to the point of believing with a high degree of fervency that you don’t believe anything. But you’re just reacting to the word, and using it in a way that is far outside of its accepted meaning. Of course, you can define it however you like but giving it an idiosyncratic definition is not at all consistent with your claimed interest in clarity.
I wasn’t going to respond to you any more, which I realize you might not mind at all but I thought I’d at least try to ask you what brings you here to a humanist forum. I thought we were all about reason, among other things of course, but that objectivity and reason were core values. What are your core values, and where do reason and objectivity fit in, if anywhere?
So Lois, instead of responding here, you posted on the same subject on "why belief matters," which surely is a related topic; in fact, I started it as a spin-off from this one. Your response begins with an idiosyncratic definition of belief that I don't think you'll find in standard dictionaries, and only reflects our critique of how our adversaries use the word. And of course, you completely ignore what happened here on this topic.Who's to say who's definition is "idiosyncratic". What appears in dictionaries has nothing to do with the actual definition of a word, it has to do with how many people use it. I'm not questioning your right to believe whatever you like, even to the point of believing with a high degree of fervency that you don't believe anything. But you're just reacting to the word, and using it in a way that is far outside of its accepted meaning. Of course, you can define it however you like but giving it an idiosyncratic definition is not at all consistent with your claimed interest in clarity. in my mind it's you who is giving it an inflexible meaning it does not deserve. I wasn't going to respond to you any more, which I realize you might not mind at all but I thought I'd at least try to ask you what brings you here to a humanist forum. I thought we were all about reason, among other things of course, but that objectivity and reason were core values. What are your core values, and where do reason and objectivity fit in, if anywhere? My view of reason is not yours. What brings YOU to a humanistic forum? Your desire to force your ideas on everyone else because you are convinced you are right and no one who diagrees with you can possibly be right? You might start clarifying this argument, if you have any interest in doing so, by answering my question as to what you think I believe but that I claim I don't. If you think my view of belief is wrong and yours is right, please show where this is the case. What is it about your definition of belief that you think I have wrong? Examples would help.
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.
Back to the original topic, what is the non-believers story? What in our thinking promotes bringing people together and social justice and fairness as well; ensuring that the unfortunate or unlucky have the means to recover or at least exist comfortably in the materially wealthiest society in the history of humankind? How to we organize ourselves to promote the welfare of all humanity without using mythological beings as our reference point?
Back to the original topic, what is the non-believers story? What in our thinking promotes bringing people together and social justice and fairness as well; ensuring that the unfortunate or unlucky have the means to recover or at least exist comfortably in the materially wealthiest society in the history of humankind? How to we organize ourselves to promote the welfare of all humanity without using mythological beings as our reference point?This may sound like a simple solution to a complex problem but we do have IMO one "sacred" document knocked together by Enlightenment philosophers turned politicians, i.e. the Constitution. As the foundation of our society, it protects us from totalitarian thought, religious dogma, Balkanization, and allows us to promote our own general welfare. All without the mythology of an omnipotent being. So far. Cap't Jack
Yeah, well, there was that slavery thing.
Yeah Paul, until that Civil War thing ended what they should have done to begin with but was left up to their grandchildren. And so on with that voting and holding office thing as well. Let’s say that it was improved upon by later generations who interpreted freedom and gender issues more in line with modern concepts. The really one positive thing they did was to keep our options open with the amendment process.
Cap’t Jack