On a par with dis-belief.
Both are the product of closed minds.
In a small, currently out of print "Glossary of Cognitive Science," Dunlop and Fetzer (Paragon), there is an interesting notion of "propositions."
The mostly supported proposition is "knowledge" and the mostly unsupported proposition is "belief." Imagine a scale, zero to one hundred, some knowledge is more supported than others, and some beliefs have some support to them, yet they are all propositions. One then mounts a defense of a proposition by citing sources, clarifying histories and finding supports which augur well for any debate. One need not close one's mind to belief, anymore than to knowledge, as long as one remains aware that ranges of belief and ranges of knowledge are all propositions.
Oddly, and in spite of the current ballyhoo about artificial intelligence, it seems we will not model the human brain UNTIL we are able to model human belief. The range of current processors manages symbols and symbol manipulation, graphics and mathematics all quite well and speedily, but beliefs? No yet, and the advances in cognitive science don't seem to be getting near to doing so.
The debate game of proving "there is a God" devolves rather easily into its inverse, proving "there isn't." A jolly waste of time may be had, thereby. But, since the UFO is posited to be able to be understood through "knowledge," then well supported argumentation is required. If the UFO is perceived through "belief," then precious little supported argumentation need be given. Mere assertion works quite well. Propositions, well supported and poorly supported, are part of us. We all know something, and we all believe something. Something about self-awareness seems to flummox us mere mortals.
If one can pick up a used copy of the Dunlop-Ftezer glossary, I highly recommend it. Best wishes.
In a small, currently out of print "Glossary of Cognitive Science," Dunlop and Fetzer (Paragon), there is an interesting notion of "propositions."
The mostly supported proposition is "knowledge" and the mostly unsupported proposition is "belief." Imagine a scale, zero to one hundred, some knowledge is more supported than others, and some beliefs have some support to them, yet they are all propositions. One then mounts a defense of a proposition by citing sources, clarifying histories and finding supports which augur well for any debate. One need not close one's mind to belief, anymore than to knowledge, as long as one remains aware that ranges of belief and ranges of knowledge are all propositions.
Oddly, and in spite of the current ballyhoo about artificial intelligence, it seems we will not model the human brain UNTIL we are able to model human belief. The range of current processors manages symbols and symbol manipulation, graphics and mathematics all quite well and speedily, but beliefs? No yet, and the advances in cognitive science don't seem to be getting near to doing so.
The debate game of proving "there is a God" devolves rather easily into its inverse, proving "there isn't." A jolly waste of time may be had, thereby. But, since the UFO is posited to be able to be understood through "knowledge," then well supported argumentation is required. If the UFO is perceived through "belief," then precious little supported argumentation need be given. Mere assertion works quite well. Propositions, well supported and poorly supported, are part of us. We all know something, and we all believe something. Something about self-awareness seems to flummox us mere mortals.
If one can pick up a used copy of the Dunlop-Ftezer glossary, I highly recommend it. Best wishes.