Author
|
Topic: Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology) (Read 5705 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #15 on: 2007-05-09 18:50:35 » |
 |
It seems that I not only spend more time dealing with the insane rantings of the delusional than Lucifer, but that I have not communicated this particularly well.
Let me reiterate, that while I attempt to avoid this class of futility today except when religion is thrust at me, I have repeatedly had the "fact" that "atheists believe and scientists believe; so why should their beliefs be accorded more respect than those of other believers?" thrust at me in one form or another, usually more strongly than this, by baffled but beligent believers (a synonym hardly calculated to persuade one of the person thus referenced tendency to rational thought and behavior). Once an assertion of this nature is made, I have found that for so long as I am prepared to play, I am thrust into the discussion of the merits of evidence, epistemology and logic in an environment offering minimum support for any form of cognitive exercise, never mind the extraction of rational conclusions.
In my opinion this is a self-inflicted injury on the part of those using the same word for "rational belief" (which, given that I know the origin and OED definition of the word, looks like a complete oxymoron to me) as that which religious and other dangerous lunatics use to attempt to justify their delusions. Which is why I eschew not only belief (give me the evidence and I will accede to it) but the word - which outside of deliberate redefinition in America means to accept as true through trust, confidence or faith with insufficient evidence (or in the face of the evidence) to draw a valid conclusion. A brief examination of the etymology and current meanings of the word at dictionary.com should suffice to convince you that it is apparently a shortage of non-technical reading or perhaps a limited selection of dictionaries and ignorance of the etymology and early usage on your part, rather than any "reading in of inflection" on mine that leads me to my understanding of the word, which is based on etymology and definition as well as on usage.
From the above source, looking at origins, Online Etymology Dictionary: believe
O.E. belyfan, earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love," from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. As a synonym for "Christian," believer is attested from 1549. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.
And from the first definitions:
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
[Hermit: Specifically in a form similar to my preferred definition]
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
[Hermit: With the concept of accepting something because you trust the source]
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
[Hermit: As for 2 even in the absence of any evidence or in the face of negative influence]
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
[Hermit: This necessarily includes the Insufficient grounds of 1]
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
[Hermit: Again, supposition in the absence of compelling evidence]
—Verb phrase
6. believe in,
a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.
[Hermit: Closest of all to the origin - geloof - of accepting through love or worship of the source despite a lack of, or in spite contrary evidence for something - or why it was a synonym for Christianity]
—Idiom
7. make believe. make (def. 46).
[Hermit: Without any evidence or merely a pretence to truth]
Far from my needing to show cause for my opinion in this matter, I think that the onus is on you to show me which of the above definitions you think supports the concept of assigning a truth value to a rational conclusion based upon evidence and cognition?
As I said once before, the OED which I take as the horse's mouth in questions of English usage (though not always current and definitely tending to discount American reinterpretations) appears to me to support my position as well. So the question you might ask yourself is whether it is really me and the dictionaries which are so very wrong, or perhaps your interpretation of belief?
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #16 on: 2007-05-10 12:40:08 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-05-09 18:50:35
Far from my needing to show cause for my opinion in this matter, I think that the onus is on you to show me which of the above definitions you think supports the concept of assigning a truth value to a rational conclusion based upon evidence and cognition?
|
All of them.
Quote:| As I said once before, the OED which I take as the horse's mouth in questions of English usage (though not always current and definitely tending to discount American reinterpretations) appears to me to support my position as well. So the question you might ask yourself is whether it is really me and the dictionaries which are so very wrong, or perhaps your interpretation of belief? |
I only have to point out that not a single one of the definitions you quoted mentions evidence or lack of evidence so they are all consistent with my usage of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.44
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #17 on: 2007-05-10 14:34:49 » |
|
The advantage of using "Weyken" (outside of the CoV forum, of course) is the immediate "what the fuck does that mean" response it produces.
The opportunity for infection is ripe. Very enjoyable IMHO.
-iolo
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #18 on: 2007-05-10 17:43:04 » |
|
Lucifer: My understanding of your (Hermit's) position is that we need a new word (weyken) because the influence of religion has caused the vast majority of english speakers to associate the word "belief" with irrational origins (i.e. unfounded, unverified, unvalidated acceptance). I have seen no evidence that this is true. [Hermit: Emphasis added] I could point to dictionaries that have definitions without this association. I have read scores of books, and talked to hundreds of people and as far as I can tell honestly, this association is only a possibility, definitely not a necessary part of the definition. Most references of "belief" I have read in a scientific or technical context would not make sense if the association was necessary. My evidence is that when the origin of the belief is important it is always qualified so the reader understands.
Hermit: "the onus is on you to show me which of the above definitions you think supports the concept of assigning a truth value to a rational conclusion based upon evidence and cognition"
Lucifer: "All of them"
Hermit: Would you kindly explain how and why you reached this conclusion. Perhaps you might start by explaining how definition 7, "make believe" can be construed to support "rational belief" (as defined by you as in "founded, verified, validated acceptance").
Lucifer: "I only have to point out that not a single one of the definitions you quoted mentions evidence or lack of evidence so they are all consistent with my usage of the word."
Hermit: Which I understand you to once again mean, "I have seen no evidence that"..."the vast majority of english speakers" ... " associate the word "belief" with irrational origins (i.e. [i]unfounded, unverified, unvalidated acceptance)."
Hermit: Which I see as leading us back to the swings, having fallen off the merry-go-rounds.
[Hermit] Please refer again to the first definition and etymology, noting, "without absolute proof that one is right in doing so." Belief is dependent on acceptance, love or trust of the source and a lack of sufficient (absolute) evidence, else belief (trust, faith, love) is not required, only acceptance of evidence. Belief was introduced as a synonym for Christianity, which required this unchallenged acceptance of the improbable. It was not a word related to reason, but of faith. In its root languages it retains those associations and only those associations.
[Hermit] I suggest that we have to look at words in the context of their derivation and meaning, not isolated from etymology and definition, or we become like Through the Looking Glass' Humpty-Dumpty; when words might mean exactly what we want them to mean, but where they are, absent a seemingly from this discussion non-existent common background (which both of us are aware is not the case), devoid of communicative never mind explicative capacity. Asserting that belief excludes assertions based on evidence seems to me to be irrelevant (just because the definition of "Hydrogen" does not exclude "Lead" does not mean that Hydrogen is the same as Lead; as an important component of rational definition is that including some things automatically means excluding other things), but if it were not irrelevant, then surely this reinforces the need for "Weyken," rather than making it irrelevant by asserting that the word for acceptance of the irrational through faith also includes accepting of the rational from evidence because the latter is not excluded. For if this is the case then insanity also includes accepting the rational from evidence and we are all insane. Particularly me because I cannot fathom what it is I am not succeeding in communicating or why on earth getting to a point of mutual comprehension is proving to be so difficult for two people otherwise so alike, both so smart, and with so much commonality of environment.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #19 on: 2007-05-10 19:38:32 » |
|
Hermit: Would you kindly explain how and why you reached this conclusion. Perhaps you might start by explaining how definition 7, "make believe" can be construed to support "rational belief" (as defined by you as in "founded, verified, validated acceptance").
Lucifer: "make believe" means to pretend to believe something (usually for the sake of play). I can pretend to believe something for any reason I like, including pretending to believe something for rational reasons. For example I can "make believe" to be a sorceror in a magical universe or a scientist in a steampunk universe where my reasons for believing in magic or Victorian-era computers is assumed to be rational.
Lucifer: "I only have to point out that not a single one of the definitions you quoted mentions evidence or lack of evidence so they are all consistent with my usage of the word."
Hermit: Which I understand you to once again mean, "I have seen no evidence that"..."the vast majority of english speakers" ... " associate the word "belief" with irrational origins (i.e. [i]unfounded, unverified, unvalidated acceptance)."
Lucifer: No, I was pointing out that your own arguments support my position, not yours. For example where does the dictionary definition say anything about insufficient grounds or lack of compelling evidence? Obviously it does not.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #20 on: 2007-05-11 07:31:18 » |
|
I've lost one reply. So this is going to be short. Particularly as I am having technical difficulties quoting
I see your replies as horribly non-responsive.
I don't understand how you can perceive that your wriggling on make believe as equivalent to "rational belief" showed that it was "founded, verified or validated acceptance" After all, "assumed to be rational" is not the same thing as "founded, verified, validated acceptance", and simply does not include any evidence, which means that it is irrational to make the claim that make believe is "rationally supported by evidence." Neither do I see how you reached the conclusion that all the possible definitions of a word where the etymology reflects a meaning of love (also faith and acceptance) came to mean to you "accepted through rational evaluation of evidence" when the definitions themselves seem to me to say the opposite. You appear to me to have ignored the highlighted readings I provided based on including the underlying etymology in reading the definitions without attempting to address why you assume this is a valid thing to do, and which you still seem to me to be doing. Why do you think that dictionaries provide the etymologies and examples you seem to be ignoring in stretching for an interpretation supporting your position (though not having seen you articulate your position except in generalities I may be incorrect)? To be ignored? These components are critical to a competent dictionary specifically because they provide the context in which the definitions must be read.
I do not see how you can possibly construe the meaning of e.g. "although without absolute proof that one is right" which is what sufficient evidence would tend towards with "rationally supported by sufficient evidence"; I do not see how you can ignore the fact that in each and every definition there is the strong implication that it is only through trust, faith, love and acceptance in the source that the believer accepts their statements. To my reading, this is the only possible explicit meaning of e.g. definition 3, without torturing the meaning of the underlying phrasing in a similar fashion to that you used to in your failed attempt to invert the meaning of make believe from fantasy to "rationally supported by evidence" by ignoring the need for "evidence" and playing with the meaning of "rational".
I do not see your construal of the balance of the definitions (the requirement for which can be inferred from the term starting with, which though it does not say so explicitly, does not validly permit the addition of "and ending with" to the request), let alone a construal taking into account the etymology of "love of the source".
I think that the failures above, particularly the failure to address the definition including "without absolute proof" is sufficient to overturn your accusation that my arguments and the dictionary definitions fail to support my position, as well as to, at the least, throw your charge of "obvious" into uncharitable disrepute. I urge you to reevaluate your position through considering whether there really exists sufficient evidence for acceptance of Zoroastrianism and ghosts, or whether these things would really need to be accepted through trust in the proposer by a believer, in your, what seems to me, make believe rationalization for clinging to an ill thought argument, rather than anything approaching the rational.
Regards (quizzically)
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.43
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #21 on: 2007-05-11 17:27:52 » |
|
Walter Watts, there is an issue with that essay you posted which I believe I have addressed before. The essay is defeating dogmatic assertions made by people of certain religions and then using that defeat against the concept of god in general. He says, "that most consider essential to it deserving the deific appellation." This is a problem. A very obvious one, I believe. It is grounded in the idea of using the testable to defeat the untestable. I have heard such arguments before many times.
Agnosticism adheres in a fundamental way to the logic of the scientific method, whether people ("agnostic" or otherwise) realize it or not. It already allows for the non-acceptance of such dogma. That is not a trait exclusive to atheism. Agnosticism, in a very basic way, can be viewed as a series of IF-THEN statements, a form of which would identify such paradoxes. It accepts a way of thinking that does not depend on an assertion of a god in the way that the form of atheism presented in the article does. Having an infinite and inconclusive test is a meaningless thing.
This brings me to Hermits first long post, in response to mine. Hermit, I respect your views. I suppose one can say that I am just as you are when you described to what you are agnostic toward and to what you are atheistic toward and to what extent. The only thing is that I believe the idea of agnosticism is an umbrella that contains all of that without having to make the distinctions.
One cannot argue that assertions about the existence of a god in general are not made in the name of atheism. And sometimes those assumptions just aren't true. This happens when someone tries to be always either an atheist who claims there is no reason to believe in a god (without asserting disbelief) or always an atheist that says any form of a god probably (or certainly) doesn't exist. Hermit, you said that atheism is the rejection of the vesting of a belief in a god. Understandable. In that sense, we may argue that agnosticism is a form of atheism or, better still, non-theism. Or we may argue that part of agnosticism is characterized by what are loosely considered weak atheism and strong atheism -- this would be better since the idea of agnosticism does not depend on the assertion of a god. There is no point in considering oneself an atheist unless one consistently subscribes to either one of those forms of atheism. It's starting to seem like a pointless word.
Maybe the thing to do is get rid of all of these words altogether. They carry too much baggage. Maybe we're all just Scientific Methodists.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #22 on: 2007-05-11 18:53:29 » |
|
Dear ObfuscatoryAlias
My reading is that we agree sufficiently not to need to scrape the flesh off the apparition to analyse the skeleton beneath. As commentary I would offer that:
In my experience and observation, all these issues are really terrifically unimportant in working out how to live a meaningful and enjoyable life. Even when meeting and discussing things with other atheists the exact brand of disbelief is is seldom of importance. After all, today almost everyone disbelieves the stories of Jupiter, Zeus - and the rest of the early Greek and Roman pantheons. So if in that category, we are all atheists together. Particularly the followers of the rather nastier Jewish and Christian gods and their much nastier followers. Perhaps the only place where these nuances have relevance is dealing with argumentative believers - which in my experience usually means you are in the Religious States of America, where even the atheists and agnostics seem to be filled with fervor usually reserved for dictionarians, etymologarians and other passionate believers*.
That said, for those who found this useful enough to drop me a note, my opinion is that strong atheism towards god thingies with identified characteristics is not incompatible with a generally agnostic stance or weak atheism based stance.
Certainly I would class almost all of the self-styled agnostics I have met as weak atheists, and in my opinion, relatively few of the self-styled atheists I have met seemed to have reached their position through agnosticism - or scientific Methodism (a term I rather like though the Methodists tend to be one of the nastier sects in the USA, so I probably won't be using the phrase except in appropriate company and fun) but rather is attained either through environment (their family wasn't religious) or from revulsion at the gods or their followers, what we might descriptively term "aesthetic atheism". As for agnostics, I have met only one who was as passionate about the label as any believer (but misunderstood almost everything about it), but most of the self styled agnostics I have met, have in reality been poorly educated atheists who had simply decided that agnosticism was more socially tolerated - or had bought into the popular American perspective that to be an atheist requires faith.
Kind Regards
Hermit
* Humour alert. Please ignore the last sentence if your sense of humour is broken or missing.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #23 on: 2007-05-11 19:08:46 » |
|
Quote from: ObfuscatoryAlias on 2007-05-11 17:27:52
...The essay is defeating dogmatic assertions made by people of certain religions and then using that defeat against the concept of god in general... |
[Blunderov] So what exactly is this god thingy then? What is its nature?
(Sometimes people tell me it is "ineffable" but anything ineffable has eff-all to do with me!)
|
|
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.43
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #24 on: 2007-05-11 19:20:18 » |
|
Hermit:
Humor systems in place and functioning at nominal levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #25 on: 2007-05-11 21:20:46 » |
|
Quote from: ObfuscatoryAlias on 2007-05-11 17:27:52
<snip>
Maybe the thing to do is get rid of all of these words altogether. They carry too much baggage. Maybe we're all just Scientific Methodists.
<snip>
|
Now whoaaaaaa there just a doll-garn minute!
Speak for yourself there ObiWanAlias!
I ain't no freeeegin Scientific Methodist!
Those freaks let women in the laboratory.
They're all goin stee-raight to hell.
I'm a Scientific Baptist.
It's the ONLY way man!
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #26 on: 2007-05-11 21:36:02 » |
|
Quote from: ObfuscatoryAlias on 2007-05-11 17:27:52
<snip>
The essay is defeating dogmatic assertions made by people of certain religions and then using that defeat against the concept of god in general.
<snip>
|
And appropriately so, considering that the "concept of god in general" has been created and defined through the ages by those "people of certain religions".
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
ObfuscatoryAlias
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 59
Reputation: 5.43
Rate ObfuscatoryAlias
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #27 on: 2007-05-12 14:32:02 » |
|
Quote from: Walter Watts on 2007-05-11 21:20:46
Quote from: ObfuscatoryAlias on 2007-05-11 17:27:52
<snip>
Maybe the thing to do is get rid of all of these words altogether. They carry too much baggage. Maybe we're all just Scientific Methodists.
<snip>
|
Now whoaaaaaa there just a doll-garn minute!
Speak for yourself there ObiWanAlias!
I ain't no freeeegin Scientific Methodist!
Those freaks let women in the laboratory.
They're all goin stee-raight to hell.
I'm a Scientific Baptist.
It's the ONLY way man!
Walter
|
I think a Scientific Baptist is too hardcore for me. Aren't they against gay genes?
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #28 on: 2007-05-12 17:32:12 » |
|
[Hermit] I don't understand how you can perceive that your wriggling on make believe as equivalent to "rational belief" showed that it was "founded, verified or validated acceptance" After all, "assumed to be rational" is not the same thing as "founded, verified, validated acceptance", and simply does
[Lucifer] I didn't say "make believe" is equivalent to "rational belief". It is an idiom which describes a certain kind of belief (pretend). In case it isn't clear, "make belief" is not actual belief. By focusing on this idiom you are only obscuring the issue.
[Hermit] I do not see how you can possibly construe the meaning of e.g. "although without absolute proof that one is right" which is what sufficient evidence would tend towards with "rationally supported by sufficient evidence";
[Lucifer] Really? I believe my great aunt is alive as I write this without having absolute proof. I believe you wrote what I quoted though I don't have absolute proof. I believe I don't have cancer though I don't have absolute proof. In fact I don't have absolute proof for the vast majority of the things that I accept as true. *I* don't see how *you* can possibly construe the definition of belief in the way that you do.
[Hermit] I do not see how you can ignore the fact that in each and every definition there is the strong implication that it is only through trust, faith, love and acceptance in the source that the believer accepts their statements.
[Lucifer] Maybe you should read them again. There is no mention of that in the definitions.
[Hermit] To my reading, this is the only possible explicit meaning of e.g. definition 3, without torturing the meaning of the underlying phrasing in a similar fashion to that you used to in your failed attempt to invert the meaning of make believe from fantasy to "rationally supported by evidence" by ignoring the need for "evidence" and playing with the meaning of "rational".
[Lucifer] Once again, I never said that. I said that one *could* pretend to believe something for rational reasons. Once again, the reason why someone believes something is not part of the definition of belief (or the idiom "make believe").
[Hermit] I do not see your construal of the balance of the definitions (the requirement for which can be inferred from the term starting with, which though it does not say so explicitly, does not validly permit the addition of "and ending with" to the request), let alone a construal taking into account the etymology of "love of the source".
[Lucifer] I do not see why you keep bringing up the etymology. It is a red herring. Does awful still mean "full of awe"? Does tremendous still mean "dreadful and terrible"? Absolutely not.
[Hermit] I think that the failures above, particularly the failure to address the definition including "without absolute proof" is sufficient to overturn your accusation that my arguments and the
[Lucifer] I think you have failed to show that "without absolute proof" is the same as unfounded.
[Hermit] dictionary definitions fail to support my position, as well as to, at the least, throw your charge of "obvious" into uncharitable disrepute. I urge you to reevaluate your position through
[Lucifer] It is obvious that your definitions don't mention "evidence" or "unfounded". I checked, did you? The definitions *you* quoted support my position and refute yours. Etymology is a red herring. Idioms are a red herring.
Regards (increasingly frustrated)
Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Is agnosticism more "defendable" than atheism (epistemology)
« Reply #29 on: 2007-05-12 17:45:37 » |
|
"I believe that an orderly universe, one indifferent to human
preoccupations, in which everything has an explanation even if we
still have a long way to go before we find it, is a more beautiful,
more wonderful place than a universe tricked out with capricious ad
hoc magic."
-- Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm
"Even after recognizing the great differences between the circumstances
of 1945 and 2001, I believe that the kamikaze diaries give us our best
insight into the state of mind of the young men who caused us such
grievous harm in 2001."
-- Freeman Dyson
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19090
"Among those who contribute to this problem, I am sorry to say, is, my
good friend Dick Rorty. Richard Rorty and I have been constructively
disagreeing with each other for over a quarter of a century now. Each
of us has taught the other a great deal, I believe, in the reciprocal
process of chipping away at our residual points of disagreement."
-- Daniel Dennett
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/postmod.tru.htm
"Here's what Darwin said (as I noted, when I introduced the term): "It
is an awful stretcher to believe that a peacock's tail was thus
formed; but, believing it, I believe in the same principle somewhat
modified applied to man." Surely Darwin would have agreed, if asked,
that natural selection was another awful stretcher he believed in."
-- Dennett quoting Darwin
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/orr.htm
"I believe that the horrifying deterioration In the ethical conduct of people today stems primarily from the mechanization and dehumanization of our lives." -- Albert Eistein
"I believe that this phenomenon does represent a reason for considering the question of whether the energy of electromagnetic radiation should not be ." -- Albert Einstein
"Although I believe that uploading as in the sudden scan- and-transfer scenario discussed in this section will be a feature of our future world, ..." -- Ray Kurzweil
"When I say I believe this but cannot prove it, I don't mean that it's
a matter of raw faith or even an idiosyncratic hunch. In each case I
can provide reasons for my belief, both empirical and theoretical."
-- Steven Pinker
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html#pinker
"Are there any good reasons for supposing our species to be unique? I believe the answer is yes".
-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Emphasis added in every case. I suggest that every one of these authors was communicating what they accept as true, and none of them was implying that their articulated belief was in any way unfounded.
I may be wrong about how to use the word "believe", but if so I'm in good company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
