Belief!

Warning: Heavy sledding ahead...

Cogito ergo, god? Huh?

 

“You can believe in the unbelievable… I think it’s kind of sad that you people can’t accept that.” - ‘Luther’ calling ‘The Atheist Experience’ (hosts: Dillahunty & Harris; Nov 22, 2014) 

 

“…the standard word "belief" tends to distort and camouflage some of the most interesting features of religion. To put it provocatively, religious belief isn't always belief.” - Dan Dennett; ‘Breaking the Spell’ 

“For many reasons, religious beliefs are usually under-girded by a strong feeling of knowing.” - Valerie Tarico, PhD

“We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.”  – Bertrand Russell

 

 “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” - W.K. Clifford

 

 “it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty”- T.H. Huxley

 

The plea must be made; the plea to tighten up and formalize and limit the use of the words ‘believe’ and ‘belief’. I’ve mentioned it before and seen eyes glaze over and roll back. It’s the same look I give when confronted with an insurance salesman on the make.

 

Which leads me to reveal why I’ve taken up the task to address the problem when discussing science with ‘believers’. That confusion – at least in part – stems from the casual use of the words cited in inverted commas above. Might I suggest the use of deduce or guess or surmise or conjecture or conclude or suspect or speculate or presume in place of ‘believe’; all are wonderful words to use in the place of ‘believe’ for the simple reason that ‘Believers’ (those of Faith) have adopted and utilize a technical use for the word, ‘believe’.

 

Like many words in English, there is more than one meaning for this word. That plurality of meaning stems from context. Consider that the word ‘belief’ has two connotations; one formal and one informal.  If the word is used in an informal conversation, the word 'belief' might only mean ‘notion’ or ‘speculation’. 

 

As in the banal sentence; “I believe it’s going to rain.” 

 

When one says “I believe it’s going to rain”, one senses the moisture in the air, sees low, heavy clouds, feels the cooling breeze and concludes from that evidence that there will be precipitation. This phrasing may sound sophisticated but such informal use of the word in other expressions might well cause confusion when said in the presence of a ‘Believer’ as it is not expressing a ‘belief’ in the more technical sense. Sensing impending rain is not a matter of belief. There is not a deeply held conviction. There is no proclamation of a deeply held, integral tenet. It’s just an opinion based on a commonplace observation regarding an ordinary meteorological event. 

 

(By the way, the term ‘petrichor’ pertains to the smell of rain, impending rainfall and the ‘freshness’ of the air after a rain.)

 

The intention, here, is not to belabor a pedagogic point. The intention is to reveal a common malapropism as a stumbling block to intelligent discourse about science, religion and matters of everyday life with ‘Believers’.

 

The word 'belief' is the sticking point in many discussions between non-believers' and those of faith. I strongly advise the use of 'contend' or 'surmise' or 'accept' in the place of the informal 'belief'. 
To a 'believer', use of the word ‘belief’ indicates blind faith. When a ‘Believer’ asks if atheists 'believe' in science or evolution, the ‘Believer’ is asking if atheists have blind faith in science.

 

It must be clearly understood that a person of Faith (a Believer) has a technical use of the noun, ‘belief,’ and the verb, ‘believe’. The technical aspect of ‘belief/believe’ is as an iron-clad synonym for ‘Blind Faith’. ‘Belief/believe’ are common words with a high rate of usage in informal, colloquial speech. (e.g. ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’ Or ‘Do you believe the luck?’)  Neither of these common examples – like ‘believing it’s going to rain’- deal with the technical term utilized by ‘Believers’ but the ‘non-believer’ must be aware of the technical usage when discussing matters of ‘Faith’ with a Believer.

 

Believers toss the ‘B’ word into conversations to ‘poison the well’ and to muddy already murky waters with questions such as ‘Do you believe that your bank is secure?’ This can be answered as a toss off; one is assured of a banks security based on factors that can be produced as evidence of the bank’s security. This seemingly innocuous question puts ‘belief/believe’ into an informal context. However, if the Believer then asks ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ the connotation of the word belief/believe’ changes to the technical usage. The Believer has surreptitiously introduced the technical aspect of the word ‘belief/believe’ - synonymous with ‘Blind Faith’ – into the conversation. This is a common equivocation used by ‘Believers’ in conversations on matters of ‘Faith’.

 

Apologists such as Ray Comfort assert that confidence and trusts are the very same as ‘Faith’. Under the specific rubric of the ‘Faithful’, the word ‘belief’ is synonymous with ‘Faith’ and therefore belief is synonymous with trust and confidence. This demonstrates an immense arrogance of the apologist; taking the lexicon of a language and hijacking it for your own technical usage while denying (or willfully ignoring) the common usage and understanding of that lexicon. It is a grand display of grasping at straws in an effort to bolster an untenable position. In casual conversation, an individual of ‘Faith’ might conflate ‘faith’ with ‘trust’ but an apologist asserting that the conflation of terms is an argument for the ‘Faith’ is not acceptable.