A Guide to Creationist Tactics

I agree with you to a point.I think one either believes in something, or doesn't believe in something to a certain level of certainty; but I have to allow for a third mindset-one in which people basically just say "I have no idea."Its hard to call that thinking a belief or rejection of either. I guess it is sort of like saying I just can't decide. I suspect there are a lot of people who think like that.

But this is a special case - which is why I prefer the word 'faith'.
Faith is clear to me - it means belief without or even in spite of evidence.
Belief on the other hand is way too vague - any scientist would have to say that everything they understand to be true is a belief.
So we then use the same word for belief in the sky fairy as we do for acceptance of gravity...Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Of course. I don't think many would argue that belief in a faith is the same as belief in things you experience with your senses. Well, some may claim that, but I don't go along with that.However, for many its more than just an illogical, half thought out whim. It is a combination of observing the world around them, and seeing evidence for a synchronicity that goes beyond what chaos could be imagined to create, as well as an evaluation of life's experiences. A thinking person can draw conclusions of what they experience in their daily life-of consequences for our actions beyond the naturalistic means, of coincidence, and karma and externally derived insight.Heck, you know it yourself intuitively I think-even if you don't like to admit it. The laws of nature themselves, of QM and relativity and the machine that is the universe, defy a belief in chaotic and intervention-less matter.

quote:

---

Persons who do not believe in the existence of Zeus and Ares must necessarily be people who believe in the non-existence of Zeus and Ares.

---

Tut! If you are going to pick me up on a tautology then make sure it wasn't your selective quote that introduced it, eh?

quote:

---

Heck, you know it yourself intuitively I think-even if you don't like to admit it. The laws of nature themselves, of QM and relativity and the machine that is the universe, defy a belief in chaotic and intervention-less matter.

---

Sorry but this is nonsense. It is best not to talk about QM unless you have a vague understanding of it. QM tells us precisely that the world is random (not chaotic - different thing).
This is not even close to analogous to religious faith for reasons you must have been given many times and yet chosen to regard as not worth mentioning.....evidence? Repeatability?
What you perceive as a logically thought out belief system could well be a psychotic irrational hallucination. How would you know?
I know that QM and relativity are nothing of the sort because other people can check my workings and I can check theirs. There is no chance of it being just wishful thinking or a delusion because we insist on repeatability wherever possible, as well as evidence.

Sure, but as soon as we inquire as to their position, and explain to them exactly what we're talking about, they're by definition now someone who has heard of God B.So the case where someone has no conception of what we're talking about is really very much a corner case. Anyone actually participating in the discussion can't be described by that case; certainly anyone who says "I don't believe in the non-existence of God; I just don't believe in the existence of God" is someone for whom, logically, that statement can't be true. True. Of course, one of the privileges of parenthood is the right and ability to instruct your child in whatever you think is right. As long as atheists are a minority, working to end that privilege is far more likely to be harmful to our children than helpful to theirs. Neither would it be contentious to say that he was white (assuming you are), or that he was British. If you ask me it's largely the result of the fact that we allow positions on matters of fact to be considered issues of personal identity.

Again I continue to be of the position that this is a result of someone's position on certainty, not their position on God.

I apologize if you feel that you've been misleadingly quoted. Perhaps I just didn't understand what that example was meant to get at.

quote:

---

It is a combination of observing the world around them, and seeing evidence for a synchronicity that goes beyond what chaos could be imagined to create, as well as an evaluation of life's experiences. A thinking person can draw conclusions of what they experience in their daily life-of consequences for our actions beyond the naturalistic means, of coincidence, and karma and externally derived insight.

---

Nononono. Evidence is more than personal conviction. What you call evidence I call belief. Evidence that you cannot test is little better than hearsay (and yes, I include eye witness testimony in that - horribly unreliable as has been comprehensively shown many times).
Chaos has a particular meaning which is not what you intend to say, so perhaps better to use 'meaningless' or 'uncaring'.
We know what can be produced by mindless systems - we are examples.

The word God was key. I asked if she believed in the Gods x and y. The existence of the people x and y is distinct from that - particularly chosen because the romans in particular had a habbit of deifying people (and the odd horse) :-)

I changed the names to their Greek equivalents because I didn't want to have to say "the Gods" to distinguish them from the planets. It wasn't my intent to engage in shenanigans, I promise.

quote:

---

Again I continue to be of the position that this is a result of someone's position on certainty, not their position on God.

---

Only to a limited extent.
Yes, a true scientist has a distinct position on certainty, I agree. But for all practical purposes we all have degrees of certainty and uncertainty so there is no principled difference. I know the difference between something highly probable and something with no evidential basis that might nontheless be true. I don't think the difference is in the understanding of certainty - although I would agree that many people are far too ready to use the word for things that are anything but. My take is that the important difference is in the meaning and usage of the words - particularly belief.

Hey no problemo - I was just mildly rebuking a mild rebuke - let's not fall out over such a minor thing :-)

Forgotten!

Likewise :-)
Now, on the main point, I think that if our vocab distinguished lets say 10 different levels of certainty, starting with wo-faith* for something with evidence against it and ending with anbelief* for something which to all intents and purposes is a fact, then we would be on much firmer ground and the wriggle-room exploited by many of the faithful would be severely restricted.*obviously silly examples but a serious point :-)