David H. Burns wrote:
>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)

Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these 
terms in opposite ways.

The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As long 
as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.

The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I think 
this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually certain 
this is the truth."

So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what 
attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in 
god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a convincing 
reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know why."



-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but at 
> the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist.
> An outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify 
> it as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge.
> So whether it are synonyms or not depends on the observer.

Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
  to be understood .... :)

> (I am aware of the parallels with the evolution as (merely) a theory).

??

David :)

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> It's prejudice I take offense at 

What prejudice do you think I'm exhibiting? That's the question I asked.

> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no 
> descriptive value.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abible+belt

Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

http://images.google.com/images?q=bible+belt
It sure looks like a pretty well-defined area, with five or six different 
but substantially similar maps showing the american bible belt, as well as a 
couple of Dutch bible belt maps.

As I said, if you're taking offense at the truth, you're doing it wrong.

> My experience leads me to doubt both of these statements. I've never 
> seen such
> discrimination.

Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. Yet 
I don't doubt it happens.

However, don't attribute to my prejudice what you can attribute to your 
ignorance. A better response would be evidence that a wide-spread prejudice 
is wrong, rather than simply calling someone names who hasn't said anything 
bad about you.

> What one reads in the "news" depends on what news one chooses to read.

Certainly. But it's not like I go out picking news sources that reinforce my 
beliefs. Quite the opposite, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>>  "Believe" and "know" are not synonyms. :)
> 
> Part of the problem is that the faithful and the non-faithful use these 
> terms in opposite ways.
> 
> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As 
> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.
> 

Are you speaking from experience?

> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what 
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in 
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a 
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know 
> why."

It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has 
actually said.
Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we 
mean. You use of the
terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)

David

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Fair enough. Myself, I've never seen black people discriminated against. 
> Yet I don't doubt it happens.

I, too, have seen little serious discrimination against black people, 
but it certainly
happened, lot lot more in the past than in present, I'm glad to say. I 
don't doubt either
that real a brutal acts of violence were perpetrated against black 
people by non-blacks.
You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated 
against" in their
modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in 
themselves have little
emotive content. "Mistreatment" might be a more concrete, though perhaps 
less
impressive term. Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by 
"discrimination" in the context
we're using it here. Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing 
a person which
might not be describe by either term. An these are possibly the most 
damaging in the long
run -- and, of course, I've seen that against black people, and about 
any "kind" of people
you might name.


>> "Bible Belt" is a media term, pejorative and emotive, with no descriptive value.

> Google, Princeton, and wikipedia all disagree. As do the Dutch, apparently.

OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:07:05 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

> andrel wrote:
> A believer "knows", he/she will often deny believing as that
>> suggests that there is another option. I know that no god exists, but
>> at the same time acknowledge that others know that God does exist. An
>> outsider who does not share the same believe/knowledge may classify it
>> as (merely) a believe, for the believer it is knowledge. So whether it
>> are synonyms or not depends on the observer.
> 
> Well, of course one is free to use any word to mean anything one likes,
> and if it comforts one in one's faith to use "know" to mean "believe",
> one is free to do so. But if one wants what he says or writes
>   to be understood .... :)

Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty.  I've 
always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
do in your life".  I've not completed my own pontifications on this 
definition, but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
it "knowledge" from their point of view.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:00:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> The non-faithful say "I believe X", meaning "I might be wrong, but I
> think this is the truth", while saying "I know X" means "I'm virtually
> certain this is the truth."
> 
> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a
> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know what
> attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't believe in
> god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually give me a
> convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I would know
> why."

This is a much better way of saying what I just tried to say....Thanks!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first, through 
> the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive certainty. 

I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty 
gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you can 
know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how the 
universe started.

> I've 
> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained 
> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you 
> do in your life".  

I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is defined.

The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without the 
justification, you just have a "good guess".

> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to 
> have this kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes 
> it "knowledge" from their point of view.

I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just diluting 
the term.

What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent with 
the real world?  I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
>> The faithful think that believing is more "complete" thank knowing. As 
>> long as you believe, it overrides whatever you might know.

> Are you speaking from experience?

To some extent, yes.

>> So when the faithful person says "I believe in God," they mean what a 
>> non-faithful person would mean by "I know there is a god and I know 
>> what attributes that god has". When the non-faithful says "I don't 
>> believe in god", they (generally) mean "you would have to actually 
>> give me a convincing reason for me to believe in god, at which point I 
>> would know why."
> 
> It's unwise to attribute to someone a meaning different from what he has 
> actually said.

I wasn't talking about what he said. I was talking about my experiences in 
general discussing this sort of stuff. Jim just gave another good example: 
"I know *instinctively* that it's true."

> Of few of us, in ordinary conversation anyway, say precisely what we 
> mean. You use of the
> terms "faithful" and "non-faithful" are "interesting." :)

I was saying precisely what I meant. ;-)  Faith is that which turns belief 
into "knowledge", altho I obviously use that latter term losely.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

David H. Burns wrote:
> You may tired of this theme, but "discrimination" and "discriminated 
> against" in their
> modern usages are the creation of politicians and the media and in 
> themselves have little
> emotive content. 

Have you any evidence to back this assertion up?

> Generally, that's what I, at any rate mean, by 
> "discrimination" in the context
> we're using it here. 

Sure, as long as it includes (for example) not selling houses to people, or 
not giving them jobs, or things like that, even when it doesn't involve 
violence.

> Of course there are many subtle ways of ostracizing 
> a person which
> might not be describe by either term.

Sure. And when the president of the US gets up and says atheists shouldn't 
be considered citizens, it's pretty blatant there *is* prejudice going on.

> OK, if the term has a descriptive meaning what does it mean to you? :)

Did you look at the maps I posted, and the links to definitions? I thought
"southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is 
dominant" was pretty descriptive, didn't you?


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message