My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« Greta's Podcast Interview with Secular Nation | Main | Abstinence, Birth Control, and the Difference between Theory and Practice »


Cliff O'Neill

Wish I could say more than, well, just random raves.

But you are just brilliant.

I just had to say that.


Believe in has always annoyed me... It doesn't seem to be a useful construction.

"I believe in turtles" - So, you think that they exist? Or you think they're good? Or you feel you can trust them? ...not a useful collection of words.

It annoys me that the English language has so many useful words and helpful ways to construct them... But we got and seize on one particular phrase that sounds good and beat it to death.


I do not believe in God. I do not think that God exists at all. And if God does exist, it certainly isn't good, nor do I trust it.


RE: the abolition of the designated hitter rule

Damn straight! You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. If you don't do all three, you're not a ballplayer.

The Curse of the Bambino used to be the only supernatural thing in which I "believed." Now I'm set adrift.


I agree with Ephemerlis. I don't use the word believe, I use the word think. To me, the term believe means to have faith in something, to think it exists without any basis in fact. So I, actually, do not believe in anything. I think about them and have opinions.

Steve Caldwell

This reminds me of an old punch line that some atheists used when asked if they "believe in the Bible" -- "sure, I believe the Bible exists -- I've got a copy on my bookshelf."


The thing is that I don't need to believe that things exist because I can see them or otherwise test for their existence myself. Belief doesn't come into it at all. Belief implies a conscious decision but my perception of reality that I hold to be true does not require conscious effort.

Even for concepts where I am unable to perform or unwilling the testing myself I don't have to believe in them, I only need to trust that someone else has made that effort and they are correct. I believe them, not the thing they say.

The second approach to believing in a concept is really a conclusion that is reached by applying our understanding of the world and our experiences to an idea. We can all hold true or false beliefs based on our understanding of evidence or on the things that we have been told. Beliefs themselves should be open to challenge as evidence supports or undermines them. Claims of unshakable belief are simply saying that new evidence will automatically be rejected and old evidence will never be re-examined. I would rather people put less stock in beliefs and more in evidence based thinking.


"We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your johnson."

(There is no blog post for which there is not an appropriate quote from The Big Lebowski.)

Jim H

Before my comment, one tangent:

Tommy, the Curse of the Bambino WAS real. If you have any doubt: October 25, 1986.

Now, the comment. Greta, you're my favorite philosopher. You said here something I knew, but hadn't put into words. Thank you!

(And if they keep it, I propose they change the name to the Designated Unable-to-field Hitter, or DUH.)


Well said! I always knew this, and have even attempted to express it, but you put it clearly.

In particular, it's worth pointing out the ambiguity of the expression and the risk when using it of conflating two very different concepts.

I believe (sense 1) in the existence of secret CIA prisons. I also believe they're every bit as evil as the Lubiyanka, Hoa Lo, and Tuol Sleng prisons, and are a affront to the honor of the United States and the constitution that Obama swore (twice!) to defend.

I believe in (sense 2) treating all people as if created equal, even though I know damn well it's not true. Some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and others with a crack pipe. But I take a lesson from _Gattaca_ and think that everyone should have equivalent opportunity.


This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/15/2009, at The Unreligious Right

the chaplain

I like the post, but I agree with hoverFrog that one doesn't "believe" facts, one simply accepts them. Aside from that quibble, I like your distinction between the real and the good. It seems elementary, from one perspective, but sometimes we lose sight of the simple things.


chaplain, I'd like to disagree. There are facts in dispute that one may or may not believe. Do you believe Goldbach's conjecture? is true? Or that there exists a smooth solution to the Navier-Stokes euqations? Or that superstrings exist? How about the Higgs boson? Those aren't ambiguous statements; they're either true or false. But nobody knows for sure which, and can legitimately have different opinions.

Do you believe that Colonel Mustard did it with the lead pipe in the conservatory? Who do you believe was the father of Louis XIV? (Louis XIII, being gay and living apart from his wife, is far from the only candidate.)

What word do you propose, other than "believe", to describe such hypotheses?

Donna Gore

I always ask them to EXPLAIN the question. Usually what it boils down to is, "Don't you believe in anything SUPERNATURAL?" When they say "something greater than yourself" - well sure, there are plenty of things greater than myself. The universe, this planet, the human race. I don't have to "believe in" them, any more than I have to "believe" in gravity. They ARE. I always say that the natural world is enough for me. It is full of wonder and mystery.


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Philip K. Dick (Paris TV interview, 1972)

The Ridger

Back when that guy shot up the Amish school, several reporters said some variant of "The Amish don't believe in cell phones or helicopters, and now they're depending on them."

This neatly illustrates the problem of the word. Of COURSE the Amish "believe in" cell phones and helicopters: they see them pretty much every day. But there is certainly a sense in which they don't "believe in" them: they reject their morality, or usefulness, or something (I'm not entirely clear on their problems with using technology).

To a theist, "I don't believe in God" parses the way "the Amish don't believe in helicopters" does. Of course the atheists know God exists; we simply reject him.

Pierce R. Butler

You missed at least some definitions of "believing" - as illustrated by the top graphic in the post immediately following this one on the flip side.

[ftr: that's a photo of candidate Barack H. Obama amidst a puddle of "CHANGE we can believe in" signs.]

Believing is also a) a vehicle for abstract-unto-meaninglessness slogans; b) a vehicle for social exploitation; c) a vehicle for social-group bonding & identity.

[ftr 2: please read above as an expression of Obamambiguity, not as a threadjacking slur on the regime nouveau.]

[ftr 3: fine post!]


I just found a name for this dichotomy: the Is-ought problem, articulated by David Hume.

From A Treatise on Human Nature book III (1740):

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.


I had a similar argument on the definition of "truth", where the person I was arguing with was unable to distinguish between "truth: fact, evidence, real" and "truth: personal truth, personal experience, personal observation". Where I was arguing about empirical truth, saying that the "truth" does not require anyone to believe in it to be true, it just is whether we like it or know about it or not, she kept insisting that there are different "truths", such as her feelings and her perceptions of things.

Which concepts that we like to wrap up together under a single word in the English language baffle me sometimes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau

  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Powered by Rollyo

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff