RE: Is atheism a belief?
February 26, 2019 at 7:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2019 at 7:59 am by Peebothuhlu.)
At work.
Most definitely about the nuance of language bit.
I think the 'Reject' over 'Not accepting', for me, comes with acknowledging/accepting the "No black swan" fallacy.
I can't, categorically, totally reject the claim of "No black swan/Unicorn/diety" because of the very nature/aspect of magical unicorns and mythical dieties.
While pretty much every one is in agreement that 'Magic' doesn't exist....... Well, we're back to possibly stumbling over black swans of a sort some time in the future again, aren't we?
The side conversation reminds me of a David Brin story where, with the help of a kind of 'Catalyst', people actually can effect quantum wave collapse. To the point of influencing both chance and, through a constant successive build up over time, actuall reality to seemingly create 'Impossible magical' type effects.
So..... of certain swans, unicorns and dieties I categorically reject. The broader, rhetorical, types of such things I must simply not accept at this time.
Cheers.
(February 26, 2019 at 6:20 am)Belaqua Wrote:(February 26, 2019 at 5:41 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Hello Belaqua!
Just a question in passing.
Is,
'Not accepting a proposition.'
The same as,
'Rejecting a proposition.'
?
Such as the afore mentioned 'Unicorn existing proposition.'
I don't accept that Unicorns (Under the classical, mystical, mythical defi ition) exist.
I do not, howevef, actually reject the claim that Unicorns exist.
Hope I'm grokkable to yourself!
Cheers!
I
Interesting question!
My first impulse is to say that for all practical purposes they're the same.
What would be any different in these two dialogues:
Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. B: I don't accept that.
Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. C: I reject that.
The end result is the same. The proposition is deemed to be unpersuasive.
It would be different from this, for example:
Mr. A: Unicorns exist.
Mr. D: Maybe; I don't know. I remain undecided. The criteria by which I could decide this question aren't sufficient yet.
To me, this constitutes "neither accepting nor rejecting."
Or in terms of a speech act which is other than intellectual assent to a proposition: if a girl rejects your marriage proposal, it's the same as if she doesn't accept it. That sort of case is like an on/off light switch; either it's yes or no.
This kind of thing is what language philosophers work on, I guess. There may be cases where there is a significant difference. But I can't think of any off hand.
What do you think? Is "not accept" maybe weaker or more agnostic than "reject"?
Most definitely about the nuance of language bit.
I think the 'Reject' over 'Not accepting', for me, comes with acknowledging/accepting the "No black swan" fallacy.
I can't, categorically, totally reject the claim of "No black swan/Unicorn/diety" because of the very nature/aspect of magical unicorns and mythical dieties.
While pretty much every one is in agreement that 'Magic' doesn't exist....... Well, we're back to possibly stumbling over black swans of a sort some time in the future again, aren't we?
The side conversation reminds me of a David Brin story where, with the help of a kind of 'Catalyst', people actually can effect quantum wave collapse. To the point of influencing both chance and, through a constant successive build up over time, actuall reality to seemingly create 'Impossible magical' type effects.
So..... of certain swans, unicorns and dieties I categorically reject. The broader, rhetorical, types of such things I must simply not accept at this time.
Cheers.