"But there is a huge vast sliding scale of probabilistic hierarchy and ranking of beliefs and disbeliefs."
Excellent addition to the discussion New, probability ranking. That is closer to how we really live with our belief disbelief continuum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > For me,when I adopt a belief, I don't need a proof. Its therefore > > okay, if I'm 'wrong'. > ... > > > > It seems that the main point of a rationalist atheist is, that he will > > not believe what cannot be proven. So his rationale is that he will > > only adopt a belief, if there is a proof. > > There is quite a bit of territory in between these two views. Its > called Probabalistically Qualified Belief (PQB). The extremes of the > two views above (and I think you are not at extreme) is that one will > believe anything with no proof (close to a walking ru ?) aka BA > (believe anything), and a RA (Rational Atheist). Conditions for either > are rarely met. > > A strict RA, if needing 100% proof, will never believe in much of > anything. Science is never proved -- theories are confirmed with some > degree of probabilistic accuracy. And since Godel, logic has its > limits to absolutely prove things. > > And a BA (or TB), has some degree of evidence or logic for most > beliefs. It just may they believe things with 3% confirmation (and > sometimes 80% counter confirmation). That is not something I do (but > perhaps did to a degree in TMO years) > > A PQB doesn't know or believe or disbelieve anything with certainty. > But the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is assessed with a far > higher probability than space aliens landing on the White House lawn > tomorrow. Or a RU flying to Ottumwa. > > I/a PQG believes and disbelieves absolutely nothing. Anything is > possible, nothing is certain. But there is a huge vast sliding scale > of probabilistic hierarchy and ranking of beliefs and disbeliefs. >
