Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past them, the elders at the suggestion of the WTBTS, to pat down potential DFs before going in front of the committee. I image that, remaining typical, they will never announce that patting someone down will become part of their modus operandi in a judicial hearing. Hmmm..."Judicial Hearing" -- Do they call it that?
Posts by Etude
-
-
-
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Etude
I'm glad if I can help. I can only imagine the burst of ideas going on inside you. I think that that overabundance is what drives some of us to tell the rest of the world, to be heard and considered. Do I have it right? Just remember that our reality in this respect is similar to a child learning to walk. You're going to fall and get hurt.
I suppose we could characterize that as bad. I, on the other hand, consider it necessary and an important part of the learning process. When I was a snot-nosed-know-it-all JW, my biggest fall was the deception I felt having lost my faith, my ideals, my family, my hope and my friends in a short span of time. I was alone and devastated, but I said: "Bring it on!" I had to not just explore other ways of thinking but I also had to live them and experience them (my "wild" days) in order to decide if they were right for me.
It took a while before I let myself question the only thing I had left, my belief in God. It took a while longer to do my own personal exploration regarding what I could and could not know. I was humbled by two things: Descartes "Discourse on the Method" and Einstein's "Theory of relativity" (Bantam 1964). Since then, I have not looked at the world the same way.
For me the profundity of it is that when I usually touch something or see a great sunset, I realize that I'm not touching anything (because atoms don't really touch) and I'm not seeing all there is (because I can't detect ultraviolet or infrared light with my eyes. That is present with me every single day. I also realized that we are prisoners of our own minds. That our perceptions, not just of our senses but also of what we interpret, can betray us; that there are limitations between what we hear from others and what others hear from us; that we could well be living in a dream that we must nevertheless assume is our reality. Cogito ergo sum. That's it. We can't really conclude much beyond that.
Up to then, my certainty about the world and about god was immutable. But after I was knocked on my ass when the carpet pulled from under my feet, I vowed to forever question everything, never be absolutely sure of anything and always leave room for a different explanation or a different understanding of reality. To say that I can now live with uncertainty is a very liberating thing indeed.
I hope that in your efforts to do for yourself (" This is all for me, not anyone else "), as it spills onto others, your thoughts will inevitably come under scrutiny. Be prepared. How do you do that? By using the tools that others can agree upon. Critical Thinking is more than an ability. It is discipline going back to Socrates; it uses reason and goes beyond an examination of facts; it also examines HOW we think; it involves thinking about thinking; it's methodological (explores discrete steps); it's self-critical (doubts to test). Think about that next time you present a topic.
Best wishes,
Etude.
-
13
Just saying hello
by AllTimeJeff ini'm still around.
i'm waiting to post till after the election because i don't want to waste my energy arguing politics, and i know i'm still not mature enough to ignore the bullshit.
hello to old friends.
-
-
Etude
Hello.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Etude
" I have methods to personally validate my own observations. "
Exactly. That's what I was alluding to. It's like determining distance with your own measuring stick instead of using a yard like everybody else. It's like creating your own calendar and time keeping while everyone is on a 24-hour clock, 7-days per week and 365 or so days per year. YOU HAVE TO USE THE SAME TOOLS AS EVERYONE ELSE! Sorry for raising my voice. What that entails is a logical set of steps and a recognition or at least an acknowledgment of fundamental concepts.
Every scientist is different and a unique individual. If they happen to agree on the same rules (from fundamental laws to the procedure of peer review), they don't cease to be unique in personality. Believe me, just because I want to be in a consensus regarding what we're talking about doesn't mean I want to be like you or anyone else.
" I very well could be operating with a sense that you not unaware of the existence of ." OK. So you're saying that you have an extra or unique sense that nobody else can detect and perhaps that's what gives you special insight. Yeah, it could be. But if you want to discuss the things that such a sense provide for you with others, you either have to explain it or explain how it works (the mechanism of it) so that other's can see how it advances truth or discovery. If people can't relate to it, all hope is lost in a conversation. Meantime, it seems to me that this whole exercise started by your post must have been prompted by your need for validation. Otherwise, why even bother posting. You could and will continue to exist without this conversation.
" I do explore other people's ideas or else I couldn't rightly call myself a scientist. " So, are you a scientist or do you merely call yourself a scientist? I you are certified to bear the title, what specific area of Science are you trained in? I don't mean to insinuate that because you don't have the certification that your scientific exploration is bad or inadequate. Nevertheless, the title does come with some pre-requisites. That's why I'm asking. Once the rigor is established, I can ask you things in terms of those disciplines. Otherwise we're right back to your internal interpretations.
" However if you simply say that because I have not yet stated my criteria that I cannot use the results I have obtained from using them, then I will discount what you have to say." Well yeah, I kinda am saying that you can't state a conclusion to anyone unless you have demonstrated legitimate foundations or reasons. I'm further saying in order for your conclusion to be true, your foundations have to also be true. For that, whomever you're trying to persuade has to be able to verify them, not just you. Isn't that why you presented this thread? What you say in your statement above is what is colloquially referred to as putting the cart before the horse. You're saying: "Trust me, I know I'm right because I've done the work." OK. Then show the work and let those who see decide if you did the work correctly.
" what I am asserting is that belief is warranted because of the inability to disprove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe." OK. I mentioned that to you and I would agree that there is an inability to disprove the claim. What you don't agree with is the opposite: that disbelief is warranted because of our inability to prove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe. As it turns out, both conclusions are technically incorrect. The right answer is that there is no conclusion to be made because either case cannot be proven. That is why Agnosticism is a valid stance. I think I know what you're thinking, that since you already have the proof for the first condition (" But you can prove the positive "), the inability to disprove the claim validates your premise and therefore an intelligent being created the universe. The problem is that you're unable to concede or even consider the contrary position, even though you could embark on an exploration of it and challenge it. It seems to me that you may have it backwards:
a. disprove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe."
b. prove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe."
Which is the positive and which is the negative. You said: "But you canprove the positive, you just can't prove the negative". I equate "disprove" with "negate" and equate "prove" with "affirm". Now, look at your original premise and tell me which you think is negative and if perhaps you have a different definition of the polarity of "proof" and "disproof". I think your claim is that you have accomplished b. And the only reasons for it I recall were that our senses tells us (at least yours) this and that ancient history demonstrates that He has endeavored to guide us. That is pretty shaky.
" Those hidden fields of study could easily have rudimentary schemas developed by ancient cultures. " and " something could have CHOSEN that expansion to happen " and " I would say that it could be different and therefore... " Yes indeed. But when there's no proof for that, at least a very substantial indication, it really should not enter into consideration let alone be offered as possibility for concluding the next thing. That is pure speculation on an unknown. Listen to your wording: "could easily have", could have CHOSEN", "could be different" and so on. That is not the scientific method. That is what is called speculation.
Yes, it's nice to have respect for your ideas. But remember, respect is also earned. I guess that's why I was saying that in order to have a meaningful discussion, you need to consider what other's are saying and identify what their saying with accepted norms of logic. If you just use your own senses and your own findings, you'll have a hard time persuading others. It seems to me that's one of your aims otherwise you wouldn't bother posting on this site.
And no, you don't play by the same rules. That thing about Einstein is old hat. He believed in Spinoza's god and Spinoza believed that god is essentially the universe (and vice versa). To Einstein, order did not mean an intelligence. There's evidence that contradicts your findings. That's not playing by the same rules.
You say: "...at a crime scene, you have to establish a motive or else you don't have a case." No. The case is there. A motive establishes which type of case. The case exists even if there was no motive to be found. What you're trying to do is establish a motive as a solution for the case. No. There are details, many details to be worked out even if you know who did it and why they did it. You have to show how and cough up the details and the wherefores.
I think you have hit an impasse and frankly so have I. Unless you address specific question put to you and listen to why a conclusion you make is unfounded, you will simply be spinning your wheels here. I wish you the best of luck.
-
295
Survey: Who here is an atheist? Who here still believes in God?
by Christ Alone ini just wanted to take a survey.
let's not let this get into the same old same old debate of atheism vs belief.
just respond with "atheist" or "believer" or "maybe god exists".
-
-
Etude
Christ Alone: "Yeah, I guess most agnostics say that you "can't" know, but there "may" be something out there."
In essence, you are right. Technically, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves the existence of God (and a few other things) because there is an inherent impediment that keeps us from conclusively determining that existence or non-existence. Consequently, some agnostics will leave the possibility open for the existence of a supreme being and other agnostics discount it all-together with the caveat that we can't prove it and know for sure.
-
295
Survey: Who here is an atheist? Who here still believes in God?
by Christ Alone ini just wanted to take a survey.
let's not let this get into the same old same old debate of atheism vs belief.
just respond with "atheist" or "believer" or "maybe god exists".
-
-
Etude
Deeply agnostic. Yet, hoping to feel more and more spiritual. But that has nothing to do with God.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Etude
" I do not fail to understand this " that your senses can fool you.
You're saying that somehow you have a way to validate your observations, in spite of the limitations of your (all our) senses. You say you do this because of experience (doing it for so long) and because you see it in others. But this is where you close yourself to ideas and arguments that can affect that perception. You're looking from the inside out at people and determining, using your own internal compass, that they are biased or they are wrong. They may be wrong and biased, but in order to make that determination, you have to explore their ideas (not yours) and then have supporting independent information for why they are wrong (not just your own set of data).
What I had detected in your arguments was a refusal to recognize the logic of what can and cannot be successfully argued. For example, you said: " I do not think that just because creationism cannot be disproved that it's true. I have said, I think serveral times now, that because it cannot be disproved it's not an illogical intellectual pursuit." In the first place, the first sentence confuses me because of the double negative condition ("I do not think that it cannot be disproved"), but I get you. I mentioned this before but let me do it again. From Terry's post:
You said: " what if we COULD know, but are being repelled by forces we don't know exist? " Really? Please think about that. Give it your best self-argument. In high school, we'd argue whether a rock was 'alive' or 'aware' -- By the fact that we cannot detect that a rock 'thinks' doesn't mean it doesn't think. So therefore, not being able to prove it doesn't think does not mean it doesn't think and means it could think and be alive."
I had hoped you understood the fallacy of that argument. What you're asserting to is that because we can't disprove something it means your point that it exists (because it's possible) is just as valid. What you fail to conclude correctly is the opposite: that not being able to prove the positive is just as valid and therefore the thing doesn't exists. What it means is that when it comes to conclusions, we don't have to have a binary state where it either is or it isn't. In logic, it's OK to conclude that we can't make a conclusion either way because either opposite conclusions are possible or because neither conclusion is possible.
So when you fail to understand that point, you are isolating yourself to your observations and rejecting anything else that would adjust your view.
" I established motivation for the search for God "
When I said that you're guilty of the same thing you accuse "classic" scientists by having a preconceived aim (motivation) in your exploration, you replied: "I established motivation for the search for God. If there are facts that disprove that a Creator is possible then there IS NO MOTIVATION ". What I specifically referred to was your claim that some scientists set out with an unproven belief and stop searching as soon as some results match their expectation.
Your reply to the "motivation" aspect doesn't make any sense at all. You set out on an intellectual exploration with a premise: "There is an intelligent creator" or "There is NO intelligent creator". The "facts" that either prove or disprove (according to you) directly apply to the notion of the premise you establish. How does that make motivation go away, prior to the examination of the facts? I think you're very motivated and have an intense need to justify your belief. More power to you. But, I think that understanding how someone else can have a completely different understanding from their own senses would go a long way towards examining your own perceptions.
" Why would I rein in my own valid research? "
I didn't mean to say you should stop seeking. What followed my suggestion to rein in your ideas was not intended for you to end pursuit your passion. What I meant is that if you're going to expose those ideas to others, it must be on an egalitarian plateau. You have to play by the same rules. Otherwise, you are free to live and think within your own realm. What I'm saying is that in the end, failing consider a prevailing set of ideas and reasoning besides what you have already determined is not very productive or conducive to new understanding.
As you can see, even though the discussion has given many of us an opportunity to exercise our brains, the experience was not very satisfying and even wearisome and contentious for many. That's why I recommended that what would help is to settle on a specific point and hammer it out. When making a statement of fact, always show a source or an example. Steer the conversation to stay on a specific point before going to the next. Otherwise, you're not going to get affirmation regarding what you think. That's OK. But then, you'll find that people are less and less willing to engage you. Isn't that what you're here for?
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Etude
sabastious : My first attempt at answering your challenge (my post #241) seems to have gone by the way side. I was merely trying to show how futile your premise is by showing another equally futile but similar premise using the I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours scenario. So, I said to your "The universe was created by an intelligent being", " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. "
I tried to illustrate the principle involved in this argument on a different thread that Terry posted titled " Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?", to which you made a sizable contribution. So now, I felt compelled to read through this entire thread in order to gather as much information about what it is you really intend to establish with your premise.
You spoke of the "scientific method". Since it consists of "systematic observation", then your "vision" must be positively myopic. That is why the data you take in is flawed. Your observations (at least many of the ones you stated here) are not based on testable points. You may fail to understand that your our own "senses" can fool you and that is why you need to not make hasty assumptions or any assumptions at all when none are forthcoming. By your words, your scientific method goes like this:
"Systematic observation" - You listen to your senses telling you there must be an intelligent superior being, which senses are define by an intelligent superior being, namely God. So -- that you have senses must mean there is a God.
"Measurements" - You constantly measure phenomenon (each of all possible phenomena that you ever encounter and compare each to one, many or all possible phenomena that you ever encountered, the process of which (the comparison?) must be logical and consistent. If measurements change, so do your conclusions (even though you and you alone assume your process to be logical and consistent. Sounds like a job for IBM's Watson!
"Experiment, formulation, testing and hypothesis" - This explanation of yours is a rehashing of the previous explanations with the added "unclassic" scientific view you and you alone seem to posses, one contrary to the "classic" scientist who with the scientific method you seem to partially uphold will discover photosynthesis but not electromagnetism and the quantum field and who will stop asking question and testing results when his bias takes him to an expected conclusion.
You suggest that this bias is what hides information of the subject which the very critique by other scientists is trying to uncover via a peer review. And you figured all this out via your trained systematic powers of observation and your careful measurements of not only all of those scientific subjects but also via a thorough investigation of the peer review process.
OK. So if you're going to say to me that that's not how you judge everything but that you merely say that to suggest one possibility, I will agree that there exists such a possibility. But while and until you show some examples that establish a trend, you can't establish that argument as a premise for your next argument, namely that you must be right in whatever you say next because you've suggested a different way things can go.
By your very words: " my goal is to have spiritual ideas that are perfectly compatible with both Religion and Science" you have found yourself guilty of what you say some "classical" scientists do, looking to prove or disprove something and then stopping any further search when they find the answer that suits them. You have preconceptions that cloud your understanding of what others are trying to say to you here.
Earlier I wrote (on my post #241 to your premise "The universe was created by an intelligent being.": " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot." Your reply was: " An intelligent (self-aware) being capable of creating an explosion using Higgs-like quantum particles to create the existence you and I reside within."
OK. So, break down that answer for me, using the scientific method (yours if you like and not the "classic" one) and explain how your response constitute a reasonable answer. If you think that by this exercise we're straying off topic, then at least consider that the topic as you defined it involves many, many, pieces of data derived from "systematic observation", and yes, not just your observation. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: we must have the same common observation in order for all of us to reach the same or any conclusion.
I don't understand why you're hung up on the "Goddamn" particle. Since they sort of cleaned up the name, which was originally intended to ascribe to it its illusiveness, you might not feel or deduce the same if they called it the F*#@ing particle, 'cause it just is so damned stubborn.
You say: " It's not a mistake to make a claim and provide what one feels to be sufficient evidence for belief " Then, in the same post you say: " You are only appealing to the logic you presented in accordance with the evidence provided (which I have not provided ALL evidence I have) ". My systematic observations of many of your statements reveal a noticeable inconsistency in your position. You beg to establish a conclusion, the one about Einstein's religiosity and then tell us that you haven't provided all of the evidence for it.
You say: " The scientific method was not created by science, it was refined into the model it is today by scientists. " According to the article in Wikipedia, "The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself ." That is true not because it's in Wikipedia, but because there is evidence of the scientific influences that helped develop it. Then you say: " Many scientists claim that these [inexplicable] feats [from shamans] are frauds " without providing examples or for instances of those scientists to support your statements.
I know you've made your systematic observations and therefore feel free to make such a statement. But you must realize that the rest of us need to examine those observations (consider us your peer review) and test if they are correct or not. Some have been brought to light here, with which you seem to disagree. Well, you should pick one and let us hammer out what does or doesn't make sense about it. I'm sorry, but I don't see you very willing to do that.
You have built quite an edifice inside your head about the "world" and what really lies in it. I see a decided construct where God relates prominently in it. That is perfectly OK. If you must justify it, please understand that other people may not see it or reason it you your way. So, do the arguing for yourself and not for others. That only brings conflict when your world comes clashing with everyone else's (as I'm gathering from this discussion). It would seem that you have a strong sense of the spiritual and need to justify it. Many people just accept it and don't question it. Other can't help but challenge non-logical assumptions about our existence.
I must admit that one reason I kept on reading the thread was to see what picture EntirelyPossible was going to come up with next depicting pants on fire. I was cracking up. I hope you took the jest without insult. Since the subject was brought up about some personal condition you're experiencing, I would like to suggest that (in the most innocuous way and without any disrespect intended), that perhaps your condition is unduly influencing perception.
I also think that it is perfectly OK and that because of your condition your personality can actually result in a very unique individual with an exceptional point of view. But my observation is that you probably need to rein in that point of view because, in my opinion, it really is not representative of what others consider logical and reasonable. I'm not saying we need to put a chill on discourse. What I am saying is that if we're going to engage in discourse, we need to do it using the same set of rules. While you're kinda out-there, using your internal set of rules based on your personal observations, it may not be possible to reason with others on the same level.
Best wishes,
Etude.
-
376
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious init is disproven.
but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.
creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.
-
-
Etude
The universe was created by an intelligent being.
I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that "an intelligent being" capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot.
-
46
Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?
by Terry inbelief is spackle.
you can't see the crack in your thinking when you exercise faith.
consequently, a person of faith can not, must not, will not allow others the option of non-binary references.. .
-
-
Etude
Wow! Everyone here provided a great exchange of opinions. However, it seems to me that the primary poles of discussion are sabastious & Terry. You both present compelling ideas, worthy in their own right.
Although I didn't initially like Terry's "spackle" analogy because, as you sabastious said: " there is no drywall ", I reconsidered and now think that the drywall is reality, and that faith, according to Terry, is what we use to spackle reality. When our drywall-reality continually shows unexplained holes, instead of admitting that we can't find the explanations (answers) for the holes (questions) and that they're going to keep popping up, we spackle them away by "trusting" (exercising faith) that an alternate explanation will make the drywall-reality significant and smooth again. At this point I'm stretching the analogy and not meaning to say that that's what Terry intended to say, in case he didn't. In addition, I believe there are different ways of defining faith, belief, hope, trust and love.
You noticed, sabastious, that I emphasized the word "trusting" above. This is because you used the term "trust" in terms of relationships or friendships. But it seems to me that you're putting what happens in trust out of sequence. We don't decide to trust someone before we know something about that person. While the process is gradual (the more you know about a person, the more you trust them), it seems to have a quid-pro-quo: somebody gives a little of themselves (warmth, private confidences, caring, etc) and we in turn afford more trust to the person.
If a person fails to return a borrowed item we trusted him or her with, what we tend to do is assess whether we will lend that person another thing again, even if we evaluate the number of reasons for their failure to return or replace the item. We can make the same decision if they acted out of simple neglect or because we interpret that they were greedy and never intended to return it in the first place. The level of trust is changed. Yes we trusted, but it was on the basis of social rules and the expectation of everyone's participation that when you borrow, you also return. That is the foundation of that kind of trust. If the item lent is of great value, there are also rules that allow you to take someone to court for compensation.
If I were to base my faith and trust in God, I wouldn't do it because the U.S. Dollar says so. I would do it for the same reasons I just explained. sabastious you said: " Human antiquity shows that God has tried many different approaches to gaining our trust, because trust is earned, that's how it works. " And herein lies the problem. I can look at history and see what you're saying as well as the human toll "God" has caused not only by his policies (some of the things he commanded in the Bible) but also by the atrocities those who put faith in him have committed. If those acts cancel each other out, then there's no compelling reason to trust or put faith in God. Instead, the basis used for trusting Him are arbitrary and at times contradictory. I don't feel right picking and choosing which one will spackle up the holes.
sabastious stated: " what if we COULD know, but are being repelled by forces we don't know exist? " Really? Please think about that. Give it your best self-argument. In high school, we'd argue whether a rock was "alive" or "aware" -- By the fact that we cannot detect that a rock "thinks" doesn't mean it doesn't think. So therefore, not being able to prove it doesn't think does not mean it doesn't think and means it could think and be alive -- Even though it feels like mental masturbation, there are elements of the argument that can lead us to a conclusion. After further reasoning, I concluded that although the remote possibility of a sentient rock exists, there is no experiment or information available to me to make that deduction and therefore I'm forced to assume (trust or have faith) that rocks are intellectually inert, not alive and not aware of anything. Do you see the foundation for that conclusion?
A similar situation uses the same argument in the rock example: "Prove to me that that invisible man is not there." It sounds like this famous quote:
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." Donald Rumsfeld while explaining the missing WMDs in Iraq.
As others have mentioned here, there are different ideas of what "faith" means. I make a distinction between faith and credulity. A credulous person believes in the face of lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. One dictionary definition of "faith" is "trust". Given my previous explanation of how trust is earned, it seems to me that faith is earned from some foundation while credulity is the spackle Terry is talking about. It seems to me that what makes me agree with Terry is that you both are talking about credulity and not the faith in the sense of "trust" based on some tangible foundation.
I tend to make a similar distinction between love and infatuation. Of course my distinction is subjective, depending on how you define them. But as the phrase goes, when people "learn to love one another", to me love involves the same elements needed for trust. I learned to love my wife, even though I was initially "infatuated" with her. Maybe it's that she was pretty or I was horny or both. But that was infatuation. Love is what I've learn after more than a decade of sex, arguments, joys and sorrows. Love, in this case, is NOT "not logical", as you sabastious put it. It's born out of our common experience and not out of a simple desire to experience it.
Earlier, I posted my definition of "faith" with a profound twist. Even though I find that we shall not have significant answers any time soon about the nature of matter and the foundation of the universe, the faith a scientist must exercise is based on the idea that the laws of Physics which have led us up to this present stage of knowledge have not failed us so far on most things. That they actually fail when we look at matter at the nanoscopic level lets us at least trust that there's another explanation we've yet come to find. In the mean time, it's OK to say "I don't know" and not be forced to assume that God must be there to make sense of it all or that we're decidedly in one of an infinite number of universes. While we're free to consider both of those possibilities, we need to refrain from attesting to one or another for the sake of our own mental or emotional security.
I think many of us also obfuscate belief with hope. Belief to me involves the acceptance of an idea, whether accurate or not. It involves our perception of reality, whether accurate or not. Hope is more nebulous. Hope projects our expectations to a reality that has yet to become. sabastious said: " Without belief we would never have discovered so much about reality. " The reality is that "reality" will happen whether we believe or not, whether we exist or not. I'm speaking of a reality that expands beyond ourselves and beyond what we can immediately perceive. So, our reality is no less real for those who have stopped "believing" because they are dead. There is no further discovery for them to make and "reality" (meaning the world as we perceive it and what we agree upon) continues on!
That reality must include the makeup of the physical world, the laws the govern the universe and the biology of man, and the archeological evidence about us we can uncover. No matter how significant the dead one's influence might have been on our "reality", it's easy to find examples of how they might have made profound influences in spite of their belief.
So, for me, credulity is the arbitrary and unfounded spackle on the drywall of reality. Faith (as well as trust) is an inconclusive but probable belief of or in something based on some previous act or related fact. Belief is what we hold to be true, whether it is true or not. Hope is simply what we wish would happen based on our true or false belief. Infatuation is when our gonads do our thinking and love (if you get it) is what we learn after we spend time with someone.