To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Dictionaries are really just records of words created by humans and are not in themselves any authority on why language is used the way it is.

Defintion
: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
: a statement that describes what something is

There is a difference between those 2 or it would be true that an atheist is immoral or amoral. Can't remember which one it is.

 

[tsig]

Yes. That is exactly the truth of the matter, and why such arguments continue from ancient times.

Language being used - not to get on the same page - but specifically to muddy the waters.

I realize that you don't mean this at all tsig, and that you are claiming that "believe think and know" have been recognized as legitimate and thus are able to be used as equivalents 'depending on context' - but if you care to supply examples we can take a closer look at whether such legitimacy is actually necessary in the first place.

I suspect that perhaps such things were legitimized because they help keep groups of people arguing and never getting on the same page.
Even if that isn't the case, the affect is the same.

If common language is able to be used this way, then saying language is a means of communication is a type of oxymoron. People need to be on the same page to a point where they can be directed, but lets not have them getting on the same page to the point where they can work things out together without that direction.

Belief is surplus to requirement, so can be set aside. Know and think are still relevant.

I know what I believe and think I am perfectly right.

 

[ynot]

Dictionaries are really just records of words created by humans and are not in themselves any authority on why language is used the way it is.

Dictionaries are created by humans. They have the authority on why language is used the way it is that humans give them.

Dictionaries are not merely a record of words. They are also a record of definitions and meanings of words.

 

[bruto]

Now bruto, I will treat you like a skeptic in the most positive sense possible and ask you to apply skepticism, critical thinking and all your knowledge of evidence and consider how and why you used think.

With regards and the most sincere wishes of a long and happy life for your time remaining.

I suppose I used the word "think" because that's what I'm doing. I'm applying thought to how I understand the meaning of a word. I consider the word 'agnostic' to be sufficiently broad that it can mean two things that I would consider different. I don't think that arguing about the meaning of a word requires a scientific level of evidence. I do think that although the word "agnostic" can be applied in both cases, a lack of understanding of the universe can be due to quite different causes.

If I look at a complicated object and do not understand how it works, I am, by some definitions, agnostic regarding it. But I think (and that will just have to do at least for today, because this seems more like a philosophical argument than a scientific one) that there is a difference between saying "I'm not smart enough to understand how this thing works, and maybe nobody is" and "maybe this thing is supernatural."

I don't know how one might apply evidence to an argument about what a belief means. If you believe a problem may be inherently insoluble, I "think" that this differs from believing that a thing is inherently soluble.

 

[Navigator]

I know what I believe and think I am perfectly right.

That is a great description of how belief is.

It uses all three words but not interchangeably. The words retain their common meaning.

The same thing could be said this way;

"What I believe is perfectly right."

Using 'know' and 'think' don't change the essence of what is being said, and what is being said is belief based and irrelevant.

 

[Navigator]

There is a difference between those 2 or it would be true that an atheist is immoral or amoral. Can't remember which one it is.

Defintion
: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
: a statement that describes what something is

Yes dictionaries do define words. that is why they are so thick.



dictionary [díksh'nəri]
(plural dictionaries)
n
1. book of word meanings: a reference book that contains alphabetically ordered words, with explanations of their meanings, often with information about grammar, pronunciation, and etymology

But again, they are dealing with records. How people chose to use language has nothing else to do with dictionaries. Dictionaries simply record how people chose to use language.

Proper use of language according to those who use it properly. Warning: Attempting to step out of the word parameters or question the use of words already authorized as acceptable or using words improperly as defined by those who use words properly, is likely to be regarded as non sheepish.

(One might risk being kicked from the mob and regarded as being 'black' if indeed one is still regarded as being 'family'.)

Maybe agnostics prefer to think with words in ways which don't define them by the same parameters as external opinions often like to do ?

"You are an atheist!"

"Nope. I am whoever I choose to think I am! Not who you choose to think I am!"

"That is baloney crackpot! - The dictionary clearly states what you are!"

"The dictionary is incorrect. The dictionary does not know me!."

"Don't play word games! You lack belief in god(s) therefore you are an atheist!"

"You cook the numbers to suit. I am who say I am, not who you say I am. I lack knowledge of god(s)"

"You can't say that! You are changing the description to suit your self!"

"Finally! You have said something true! I AM changing the description to suit myself!"

"That's not allowed!"

"Here are my shorts. Eat them!""Talk to the hand."

(well this isn't getting the housework done)

 

[Navigator]

Housekeeping

Link to something I posted relative to this thread subject and posted in the thread "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial"

 

[MontagK505]

On that note, I was reminded of this:

"Everybody should believe in something -- I believe I'll have another drink!"

Source unknown, but a good sentiment nonetheless!

I've heard the quote attributed to W.C. Fields, although he used the word beer instead of drink.

 

[Navigator]

More housekeeping

Link to something I posted relative to this thread subject and posted in the thread "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial"

 

[Myriad]

Belief interpreted as a stance on the absolute truth of something is a relatively new notion, and is part of our present rationalist culture. In that sense, "I believe in God because I see the evidence all around me" is just as rationalist as "I believe based on the available evidence that there is no need to invoke any god to explain anything." The underlying rationalist assumption that applies either way is that there is an absolute truth (such as, a true answer to whether there is or is not a god) and that that truth is at least partially accessible to us.

I suspect that most ancient Greeks would find both answers incomprehensible, if applied to belief in Apollo. In fact, the question "Do you believe in Apollo?" (or any similar alternatives such as "Do you know Apollo exists?") would have been confusing to most—not because belief was beyond doubt, but because it wasn't a particularly relevant concept. There were stories about Apollo that everyone knew, and there was no way to know if they were true, and no particular reason to care, because the only alternative explanations for everything were equally fantastic stories from other cultures.

As an imperfect analogy, you'd probably find the question "Do you believe Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father?" to be similarly confusing. At least until it was clarified: am I asking whether the character Darth Vader is the character Luke Skywalker's father in official Star Wars canon, or am I asking whether they both exist and one is really the other's father in real life? But when all you know about the cosmos is what you see, your own culture's mythology, and a few bits and pieces of the neighbors', no such clarification of the question is possible.

Here's the thing: there are still plenty of people who still form their world views that way, but now (as a detail of our current culture) they'll go ahead and use the word "believe" to describe their "well, it makes as much sense to me as anything else I've heard" attitude. For those people, it's not so much, "Yes, I've given it considerable thought and that's the conclusion I've reached" as "It's the story I prefer, and who really knows any better anyhow?"

Neither "belief" nor "knowledge" will get you very far in understanding anyone's religion, no matter how much the adherents natter on about how strongly they believe. Ask about narratives, practices, and experiences instead, and you'll get a lot farther in understanding.

 

[Navigator]

@Myriad

Yes, belief appears to be illogical. Not to say that it doesn't have its function, but once the function has achieved its purpose, belief is best let go of.
I give more detail about belief in this post in the thread titled "Ex-new age believers turned rationalists: Share your stories"

 

[epepke]

I can't figure out what "god" means. I don't think theists can do this, either. They just pretend to. Certainly none of them is able to communicate such figuring-out.

So no question about the existence of "god" makes sense to me.

Since it seems to make sense to others, while they still can't articulate what they are talking about, then maybe it would be more fun to try to figure out how the brain makes up this "belief" and "knowledge" stuff.

 

[Navigator]

More housekeeping

Link to a post I made relative to this thread subject and posted in the thread "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial"

 

[Navigator]

I can't figure out what "god" means. I don't think theists can do this, either. They just pretend to. Certainly none of them is able to communicate such figuring-out.

So no question about the existence of "god" makes sense to me.

Since it seems to make sense to others, while they still can't articulate what they are talking about, then maybe it would be more fun to try to figure out how the brain makes up this "belief" and "knowledge" stuff.

The brain itself doesn't really make up anything. In order to make up anything, consciousness and intelligence have to be involved.

The brain is a meat wagon. It does not think to itself "I will make consciousness and intelligence so then I can make up "belief" and "knowledge" stuff.

The brain is a non entity. It is not an entity.

 

[Myriad]

@Myriad

Yes, belief appears to be illogical. Not to say that it doesn't have its function, but once the function has achieved its purpose, belief is best let go of.

That's one view, one meaning, of belief. There are many people who do what you describe in your personal account, and take on or put aside beliefs like they were articles of clothing, to fit the current conditions. As Zeddemore said in Ghostbusters when asked if he believed in various things including Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster, "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything."

To an (acknowledged or unacknowledged, religious or secular) rationalist, belief, doubt, and disbelief come about only via rational thought processes grounded in fundamental rationalist assumptions (including the existence and accessibility of truth, and the applicability of logic). Zeddemore must be being hypocritical, and ancient peoples who believed in bizarre ancient gods and myths must have been superstitious, and pagans today who deliberately invent deities and then worship them and then claim that that worship is beneficial and to believe in the invented deity must be insane. Because it's difficult to understand that when many people (including Zeddemore, and most ancient people, and those pagans, and lots of other people) aren't using the rationalist standard of what constitutes real belief.

When you make claims about what belief "really" is, you make the same mistake as rationalists do, from the other side, insisting that belief means (or should mean) the same thing to everyone.

 

[Navigator]

That's one view, one meaning, of belief. There are many people who do what you describe in your personal account, and take on or put aside beliefs like they were articles of clothing, to fit the current conditions. As Zeddemore said in Ghostbusters when asked if he believed in various things including Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster, "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything."

To an (acknowledged or unacknowledged, religious or secular) rationalist, belief, doubt, and disbelief come about only via rational thought processes grounded in fundamental rationalist assumptions (including the existence and accessibility of truth, and the applicability of logic). Zeddemore must be being hypocritical, and ancient peoples who believed in bizarre ancient gods and myths must have been superstitious, and pagans today who deliberately invent deities and then worship them and then claim that that worship is beneficial and to believe in the invented deity must be insane. Because it's difficult to understand that when many people (including Zeddemore, and most ancient people, and those pagans, and lots of other people) aren't using the rationalist standard of what constitutes real belief.

When you make claims about what belief "really" is, you make the same mistake as rationalists do, from the other side, insisting that belief means (or should mean) the same thing to everyone.

You are simply arguing that what belief "really" is cannot be pinned down to one meaning.

The belief that the default position of a human baby is that of atheist (all humans are born atheists) and thus the belief is the 'real' one in relation to new born humans because 'what belief is "really" cannot be pinned down', is not rational thinking.

My point about belief is that it really isn't rational. As I said, "Yes, belief appears to be illogical. Not to say that it doesn't have its function, but once the function has achieved its purpose, belief is best let go of."

Therefore anyone claiming to be a rationalist must be free from belief From all forms of belief.

An atheist is not free from belief and thus is not a rationalist.

 

[Manopolus]

Hmm... seems like I answered this one ages ago in that other thread. Why should I have an opinion about something that:

A) I have no knowledge of.
B) Appears to have no direct application in every day life.

I don't call myself agnostic either. I just think that the question itself is totally irrelevant to anything that I give a crap about. Therefore, I reject categorization.

No, "what God do you believe in" doesn't quite work to solidify the category either. One could quite easily conceive of a higher, generally anthropomorphized being without actually accepting any specific existing dogma. It's called deism.

The important thing that I reject is not God, but dogma (the human claim to know something about how god(s) want us to live). That's why I won't often accept the category of "atheist," although I sometimes do accept the category for the sake of simplicity. In my case, I refuse to use agnostic either though, as I consider that a given for any human on the face of the planet that isn't schitzo.

Also, you can add to that another thing I think I've mentioned here before:

The degree to which the term "atheist" applies to me varies from moment to moment, depending upon what I happen to be thinking about at the time. I'm completely okay with that. You'll never catch me accepting someone's made up doctrine willy nilly, but I allow myself the full range of contemplation and see no need to remedy or justify that.

 

[Myriad]

Therefore anyone claiming to be a rationalist must be free from belief From all forms of belief.

What sense does that make? I believe that I will wake up tomorrow morning. I do not know that this is the case (inevitably, it must fail to be so eventually), but I believe it's so nonetheless. As a consequence of that belief, I think and act in all respects as if it were true.

Nothing requires me, nor anyone "rationalist" or otherwise, to be free from such a belief.

 

[Navigator]

What sense does that make? I believe that I will wake up tomorrow morning. I do not know that this is the case (inevitably, it must fail to be so eventually), but I believe it's so nonetheless. As a consequence of that belief, I think and act in all respects as if it were true.

Nothing requires me, nor anyone "rationalist" or otherwise, to be free from such a belief.

That doesn't change the fact that the belief isn't rational.

It may not even be the correct word to use in relation to the example you give here.

You do not know (who does) that you will wake up tomorrow morning.
But...

...what reason would you have to believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning?

You either will or you won't. Since that is the case, under normal rational circumstances, there is not need to believe.

If someone were to ask me if I would still be alive in the morning, the logical rational answer would be "I don't know".
(you are talking about dying in your sleep right? Or are you saying that you might not wake in the morning but at a later time in the day?)

Whatever the case,

Belief - especially in the context of the thread topic - has nothing to do with your argument above.

Lets suppose that your argument is talking about assumption. Assumption can mean:

presume, suppose, take it, take for granted, take as read, take it as given, presuppose, conjecture, surmise, conclude, come to the conclusion, deduce, infer, draw the inference, reckon, reason, guess, imagine, think, fancy, suspect, expect, accept, believe, be of the opinion, understand, be given to understand, gather, glean;

But none of those are rational in relation to your argument above.

Belief is irrational.

You either WILL awake tomorrow morning or you will NOT awake tomorrow morning.
(If you are speaking about dying in your sleep you either WILL awake tomorrow morning or you will be dead.)

You have no reason to bring belief into it...no rational reason anyway.

And that is the context of this thread topic. "To believe or not to believe? (is that the question?) to be asking.



ETA:

When I go to sleep at night, I have no thoughts (ordinarily) on whether I will wake up or die in my sleep. On the odd time I do think about that question, I simply *shrug* and think to myself "Who knows! I certainly don't and there's no use losing sleep over it!."
That to me is the logical, rational way to think about the question.

Belief is irrational.

 

[bruto]

Are you sure the belief you will wake up in the morning is not rational? It is true that you can not know for sure whether you will wake up, but some would consider it inductively rational.