Comment 56 by Zeuglodon

My main gripe with Boghossian's definition is that the word "pretend" implies the believer is consciously engaging in denial.

This was a problem for me too. It's very difficult to pin this down as discussions with theists seem to blur this idea. Their claims are attached to words like "faith" and "belief" with liberal sprinklings of IMO. In almost every discussion, they attempt to redefine words like "evidence" as well.

It's difficult to tell when someone uses false models of reality whether they are "pretending" to know things they don't know (fake it 'til you make it), "believing" they know things they don't know, (because it feels right), "assuming" things they don't know (it hasn't occurred to me and/or it makes me uncomfortable to subject my assumptions to the evidence) and all manner of things. We all know how language can be manipulated.

The fact is that beliefs in god(s) will avail themselves of any weakness of language. They have no evidence so they will go around in circles, latching onto any possible interpretation of a word, including one (arbitrarily? based in the 17th century... I meant to ask jimbob what is so special about 1611 in a universe that's 13.7 billion years old... but I'll get back to that)

Underneath the claims, there IS pretending and/or unscrutinized assumptions which form models which fall into a continuum of "belief" and these are all shape-shifting words.

Which is why all we have is evidence.

If you pretend to know, or assume you know, or believe you know, or have faith you know, or in your OPINION know, it doesn't mean anything unless you have evidence. In my experience with theists, they move from position to position on these ideas anyway, whichever position defends their claims.

There is no right way to phrase it. It's impossible to pin down what theists mean by "faith" because it means something different depending on its strategic value. It also means something different depending on their take on it.

"Pretending" to know what you don't know is a pretty solid way of putting it because underneath everything, it's a claim.

I'm not entirely committed to that phrase but it's pretty accurate.

The fact that you and I and others worry about what "pretend" means says a lot about the difference between claiming to know and seeking to understand.

Comment 4 by Zeuglodon

Spitzer made two mistakes: the first was to allow his work to be published without the usual peer review on grounds of his authority in the field; the second was to try and reframe things so that he could distance himself from the political misinterpretations instead of challenging them outright.

I do feel sorry for him, having to face up to the enormity of what his work resulted in. To realize one paper of yours just undid your original work and ruined many lives - that's a horrible thing to have on your conscience. People would be indecently keen to misinterpret his study, so in a sense he couldn't help that. But in the absence of a public reparation or challenge of their interpretations, and by allowing the study to be published in the first place when it was so poorly controlled, he's still responsible for the ensuing ease with which homosexuals were persecuted.

I feel sorry for him too. I agree that one paper in a body of work is a horrible thing to have on your conscience. And I respect him for making a great effort to make it right.

But the deepest consequences were felt by others.

He is responsible. He knew that as well as anyone. And he made an effort to take responsbility and to rectify things to the extent that he could.

Comment 2 by Shannon1981

As someone who was subjected to this stuff, I am not sure I forgive. I mean, sure, he can't undo what he did. However, an I'm sorry does NOT atone for all the suicides and horrible psychological trauma and PTSD ridden, broken people, heterosexual lives ruined because they were tricked into marrying homosexuals...on and on.

If you haven't noticed, I still suffer a lot from that experience.

Shannon, I'm glad you weighed in on this one to remind us all of the real life consequences inflicted by those whose status rode on the tail of science but who circumvented the scientific method. The consequences of this were felt by the victims.

You were eleven or twelve, weren't you, when your parents sent you to camp to be healed of your gayness?

As Michael said, an aplogy is better late than never. It's a step forward away from ignorance.

But an apology doesn't erase anything. The damage is unspeakable.

You don't have to forgive. An apology does not require you to forgive. Forgiveness is a choice. Not an obligation. That is entirely up to you.

jimbob jim

It was a question about your comment 25. in which you said you stopped listening because you didn't agree with Boghossian's definitions of "faith and hope".

He was referring to religious faith, so I have to assume that you rejected his definition of religious faith, not his definition of faith in the likelihood that a chair will support your weight.

I'm asking you what is wrong with his definition of religious faith because that's the topic.

Chatting about chairs and trains and other physics isn't helping as they are not remotely the same, unless you can explain what these things have in common with religious faith.

Comment 50 by jimbobjim

But what you're describing with your wife and the train is what Quine refers to as reasonable expectations based on prior evidence.

And in the case of the Big Bang, we are talking about a model which is the result of rigorous scientific evaluation of mountains and mountains of evidence. Inflation answered questions in that model and there are still many, many questions and they are working on those. Trusting scientific method is not "faith". We know how science is done.

This is not what people mean when they talk about religious faith. There is no legitimate evidence for christian claims and much of the evidence we DO have about reality is contrary to christian claims.

No six day creation. No Adam and Eve. No Exodus. No Jonah. No Flood. No Tower of Babel. No original sin. No soul (whatever, that is). No evidence for the miracles of Jesus or for the resurrection of Jesus.

Believing a myth despite there being no evidence for it and so much evidence going against it is not remotely connected to train schedules or cosmology.

What DO you mean by faith? You haven't answered the question.