As an Atheist - Can I find morality through science?

[Russell_SA]

The opposite conclusion could be made from science as well. A 15 year old has a functioning reproductive system, sex is a reproductive act; therefore sex with a 15 year old is moral.

There is Science, Reason, and Faith. Science and Reason can share information to make conclusions, and Reason and Faith can share information to make conclusions, but science and faith have nothing to say to each other. Any one of the three cannot conflict with the others.

My conclusions is consistent with natural (hard) science. Soft sciences can be so soft they can only support a preconceived belief, which makes them pure reason.

A foot note: I never said the 15 year old was a female.

Well if the 15 year old is male, then the rest of his life is all down hill from there. Ha. Mozel Tov. What freshman hasn’t fantasized about their hot teachers? You seem to be using science as to explain the mechanics; that it is feasibly correct that biological reproduction could take place, but ignoring the psychological well being of both parties. The psychology of the biological creature involved is also part of that entity. Which is more accurate, scientifically, to describe the full impact of a sexual encounter for the 15 year old human and the 35 year old adult. This is where peer review of studies in science come into play. Perfect example. The peers would review a scientist’s study and note that they did not take into account the psychology of the individuals involved if the purpose of the study is to look at how this activity affects the well-being of the individuals involved. In that frame of reference, reproduction is not even at the top of the list for partaking in that activity within the context of the human experience.

See science will pick a target to explore and restrict their parameters to that target. So if the target to understand would be reproduction, then your discussion would be correct. But if the target, as I have presented, is human well-being, then there was very much left out of your analysis that looked at that. Reproduction is part of that action as a possible out come, it may have even been the purpose for that specific instance of sexual encounter, but for well-being of the humans in that experience, there needs to be further exploration of their psyche, how each one understands the situation of the relationship, etc. Science is not only test tubes and beakers, there is psychology, anthropology, sociology, all sciences that do not study physics of the human existence. Why does that science always get dismissed and not included in the idea of science?

 

[Stephen168]

Well if the 15 year old is male, then the rest of his life is all down hill from there. Ha. Mozel Tov. You seem to be using science as to explain the mechanics; that it is feasibly correct that biological reproduction could take place, but ignoring the psychological well being of both parties. The psychology of the biological creature involved is also part of that entity. Which is more accurate, scientifically, to describe the full impact of a sexual encounter for the 15 year old human and the 35 year old adult. This is where peer review of studies in science come into play. Perfect example. The peers would review a scientist’s study and note that they did not take into account the psychology of the individuals involved if the purpose of the study is to look at how this activity affects the well-being of the individuals involved. In that frame of reference, reproduction is not even at the top of the list for partaking in that activity within the context of the human experience.

See science will pick a target to explore and restrict their parameters to that target. So if the target to understand would be reproduction, then your discussion would be correct. But if the target, as I have presented, is human well-being, then there was very much left out of your analysis that looked at that. Reproduction is part of that action as a possible out come, it may have even been the purpose for that specific instance of sexual encounter, but for well-being of the humans in that experience, there needs to be further exploration of their psyche, how each one understands the situation of the relationship, etc. Science is not only test tubes and beakers, there is psychology, anthropology, sociology, all sciences that do not study physics of the human existence. Why does that science always get dismissed and not included in the idea of science?

As I said, I could claim that you use soft science to prove a preconceived belief which means it isn’t science at all. And I used science to arrive at just the opposite conclusion you did. Therefore, morals are not science.

Another example:
Children are best raised by their biological parents (soft science)
A 15 year old has a functioning reproductive system (hard science)
Sex is a reproductive act (hard science)
Therefore, sex is only moral with a 15 year within the institution of marriage.

 

[DebChris]

Morality cannot be determined by science. I like to use abortion as an example. You can use science to determine when it starts dividing, when it has a heartbeat, when it has brain activity, when it feels pain, when it is aware, but science cannot tell you these things are of any value or meaning. “It is a person when it has brain activity.” Science can answer when it has brain activity, but science can’t tell you that your definition of person is correct. Science can’t determine that type of value.

“X is good.” Science can test for X, but it can’t verify the statement “X is good.” Same with “Y is ______.” Science can test for Y, but it alone can’t verify the actual statement in at least some situations.

I would disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
Science has already agreed that life begins at conception.
Scientists can and do agree on definitions in order to proceed with research.
There is a group specifically of pro-life Atheists who use the scientific definition of life.
When I argue the pro-life position, I actually begin with the Declaration of Independence. It is generally my opponents who infer rightly that my Catholic upbringing has a major influence on where I stand. I no longer deny this fact since my faith is supported by reason. It was primarily Quakers who conducted the underground railroad. Wilberforce, who was the great abolitionist in England did not undertake his endeavor until his conversion.
That does not mean that I can not begin by stating that there is no person alive today whose life did not begin as a zygote.
A Buddhist may begin with the idea that what happens to a person in this life affects all generations that come it after it. The loss of a child means the loss of a grandchild, a great-grandchild, etc. Can I deny that logic?

 

[Russell_SA]

There is Science, Reason, and Faith. Science and Reason can share information to make conclusions, and Reason and Faith can share information to make conclusions, but science and faith have nothing to say to each other. Any one of the three cannot conflict with the others.

I think you are not using science, but using reason to flush out an answer. While your reasoned answer(s) does not conflict with science, it is not pure science.

I think that many people who reject faith, try to hijack reason to claim people of faith cannot reason.

I had to go back to this previous part of the conversation to address where we are landing now because I was getting confused with the conversation. So to address this point: I am using reason, that is grounded in science by observing reality as a reference point for reason. Reason, as I understand it, is the application of thought based on information about reality to come to conclusions. So we have to first observe what it is to be human and what promotes the flurishment of human well-being before being able to reason out ways to promote human well-being. I don’t use the term “faith” or “supernatural” in my vocabulary. So you’ll have to tell me your definition of “faith” in this statement. It’s been my understanding that “faith” is used in the place of “hope”. Well we have the word “hope”, so just use that if that is its meaning. Another way I see “faith” used is “the belief in something that is unjustified.” Like I have faith that it was grandma’s ghost that saved me from that crash, but since we have not way of determining that grandma’s ghost was even part of that experience, it’s no different than not being there at all, so its unjustified belief to believe that it was grandma’s ghost at all.

 

[Russell_SA]

The opposite conclusion could be made from science as well. A 15 year old has a functioning reproductive system, sex is a reproductive act; therefore sex with a 15 year old is moral.

There is Science, Reason, and Faith. Science and Reason can share information to make conclusions, and Reason and Faith can share information to make conclusions, but science and faith have nothing to say to each other. Any one of the three cannot conflict with the others.

My conclusions is consistent with natural (hard) science. Soft sciences can be so soft they can only support a preconceived belief, which makes them pure reason.

A foot note: I never said the 15 year old was a female.

I believe that science and faith have nothing to do with each other because I see faith used as unjustified reason. If you have a justification for your reason, then its just belief. I believe I will not fall out of this chair in the next 10 seconds because its justified in my understand of reality through physics. I would use the idea that I have faith that I would not fall out of this chair because of grandma’s ghost is going to keep me from falling. Well we can’t tell the difference between an experience with grandma’s ghost being involved or not involved, so we can not conclude that grandma’s ghost is there at all. So its unjustified to believe that I didn’t fall out of the chair because of grandma’s ghost.

 

[Russell_SA]

As I said, I could claim that you use soft science to prove a preconceived belief which means it isn’t science at all. And I used science to arrive at just the opposite conclusion you did. Therefore, morals are not science.

Another example:
Children are best raised by their biological parents (soft science)
A 15 year old has a functioning reproductive system (hard science)
Sex is a reproductive act (hard science)
Therefore, sex is only moral with a 15 year within the institution of marriage.

How is observing certain actions are objectively bad for the betterment of human well-being a preconceived belief? I’m I misunderstanding you here by believing that you are assuming that soft sciences are proposing a truth about the human condition and then adjusting for that preassumed truth, a truth not justified that they just assume? Cart before the horse idea?

I don’t see how you made that moral leap on your statement of sex is moral with a 15 year old? I have been proposing that the morality comes into play based on the psychological well-being of both individuals involved in the activity. This is why its sometimes can work out for a 60 year old to date a 25 year old. The 25 year old is emotionally grounded in their self identity and has resources that allow them to walk away from the relationship any time they want. This is never the case with a 15 year old and as such that is why we’ve created the line as close to that stage of emotional development as possible, at 18.

 

[phil19034]

Yes that was me on last friday’s show. I think it went well, but i caught a bit of exhasperation from Trent i think. I really dont like their format of conversation with noncatholics. Where its about attempting to conclude why catholosism is better than the other world view points instead of having segments about other noncatholics to find the compatability and common ground for empathy and mutual respect. So if they want a show to continue to promote the “Us vs Them” dialog, I’ll try to be their first caller so it will set the standard and tone to go by for logical arguments and why his position fails. I would take a different tone if that wasnt the point of their show. Need an antagonist, well I’m your huckleberry. But i’d prefer not to be.

That’s because the goal of the show is to answer the caller’s objections so they become Catholics.

 

[phil19034]

I find that reason only works when it aligns with reality and as such, you have to start with observing reality for data on the application of your thoughts. You can not have conclusions without first having data. That data comes from reality. So I’m arguing that reasoned ethics and morals first begin by grounding their conclusions of ethics and morality through first observing the human condition in reality. That is from hard science data, then using soft sciences to have the discussion of ethics and morality. The Nutrition example again. Hard sciences show us that apples and oranges sustain life and battery acid does not. That is where you can have objective truths of Nutrition. Soft sciences will help us understand when to eat an apple or a pear or both or some other substitute that promotes Nutrition. The subjectiveness of a nutritious diet. The don’t bother discussing the battery acid as an options because it has already been ruled out as a possibility for nutrition.

This doesn’t make sense. For example: many scientists believed that black holes were reasonable before science could prove them to be correct.

I also think it’s reasonable that faster than light travel (via wormhole, warp bubble, etc) is possible, even though it’s not observable reality.

I think you are conflicting logic with science. Science is logical, but not all logic is science.

For example: it’s logical to believe that murder is bad/evil; but it’s not scientific.

 

[phil19034]

I believe that science and faith have nothing to do with each other because I see faith used as unjustified reason. If you have a justification for your reason, then its just belief. I believe I will not fall out of this chair in the next 10 seconds because its justified in my understand of reality through physics. I would use the idea that I have faith that I would not fall out of this chair because of grandma’s ghost is going to keep me from falling. Well we can’t tell the difference between an experience with grandma’s ghost being involved or not involved, so we can not conclude that grandma’s ghost is there at all. So its unjustified to believe that I didn’t fall out of the chair because of grandma’s ghost.

what you describe here is superstition, not Faith.

 

[Stephen168]

How is observing certain actions are objectively bad for the betterment of human well-being a preconceived belief? I’m I misunderstanding you here by believing that you are assuming that soft sciences are proposing a truth about the human condition and then adjusting for that preassumed truth, a truth not justified that they just assume? Cart before the horse idea?

Exactly, the cart before the horse.

I don’t see how you made that moral leap on your statement of sex is moral with a 15 year old? I have been proposing that the morality comes into play based on the psychological well-being of both individuals involved in the activity. This is why its sometimes can work out for a 60 year old to date a 25 year old. The 25 year old is emotionally grounded in their self identity and has resources that allow them to walk away from the relationship any time they want. This is never the case with a 15 year old and as such that is why we’ve created the line as close to that stage of emotional development as possible, at 18.

As citizens of the United States, we have laws which seem to declare people emotionally developed for different things at different ages. I’m emotionally developed enough to operate an automatic weapon on the field of battle at 18. I’m emotionally developed enough to drink alcohol at 21. I’m sure there is some kind of “science” that would be consistent with that.
There are soft scientists who claim to prove that two lesbians can raise a child as well as their biological parents. But what does ‘well’ or ‘best’ mean?
Why is killing another human being wrong? Or is it?
I don’t see this as creating morals out of science as much as making sure morals do not conflict with science at best; and justifying bad morals at worst.

 

[phil19034]

How is observing certain actions are objectively bad for the betterment of human well-being a preconceived belief? I’m I misunderstanding you here by believing that you are assuming that soft sciences are proposing a truth about the human condition and then adjusting for that preassumed truth, a truth not justified that they just assume? Cart before the horse idea?

I don’t see how you made that moral leap on your statement of sex is moral with a 15 year old? I have been proposing that the morality comes into play based on the psychological well-being of both individuals involved in the activity. This is why its sometimes can work out for a 60 year old to date a 25 year old. The 25 year old is emotionally grounded in their self identity and has resources that allow them to walk away from the relationship any time they want. This is never the case with a 15 year old and as such that is why we’ve created the line as close to that stage of emotional development as possible, at 18.

The 15 year old girl scenario isn’t a good one.

The problem here is that morality cannot be subjective. Ethics are subjective but morals are objective.

It’s not immoral for a 45 year old man to marry & and to have sex with a 15 year old girl. It’s is immoral for a 45 year old man to marry a legal minor without legal permission.

In today’s society it is ethically wrong for a 45 year old man to marry and have sex with a 15 year old girl. But that was not always the case, as 15 year old girls were once considered legal adults.

Biologically, girls typically become adults before boys. In ancient times, the common legal requirements for marriage matched the biology & emotional maturity. It wasn’t until attending high school became the universal norm that adulthood for girls was officially pushed back to match adulthood of boys. So in a way, we changed the legal age of adulthood from something subjective to make it more objective.

Point is, morality is objective (even if one doesn’t recognize it), while ethics are subjective.

 

[Stephen168]

Before I got married, I reasoned that my girlfriend had all the qualities necessary to be a life long companion. I reasoned that she would be a great mother. With the hope of a life long marriage, I asked her to marry me. I have faith in my wife that she will be a good wife and mother. My faith and my hope are based on reason, not science. It would not conflict with science because science had nothing to say about it.

I believe that science and faith have nothing to do with each other because I see faith used as unjustified reason.

Like the secular humanist/skeptic crowd, you are hijacking reason from people with faith.

If you have a justification for your reason, then its just belief.

Yes, like justifying why a 45 year old should not have sex with a 15 year old. Or the opposite.

I believe I will not fall out of this chair in the next 10 seconds because its justified in my understand of reality through physics.

Actually you HOPE you will not fall off that chair because it seems reasonable.

I would use the idea that I have faith that I would not fall out of this chair because of grandma’s ghost is going to keep me from falling.

Does not seem reasonable to have faith in grandma’s ghost, which does seem more like superstition that faith.

Well we can’t tell the difference between an experience with grandma’s ghost being involved or not involved, so we can not conclude that grandma’s ghost is there at all. So its unjustified to believe that I didn’t fall out of the chair because of grandma’s ghost.

It would seem that there are alternatives to your grandmother’s ghost keeping you on a chair. Believing it was your grandmother’s ghost would be irrational.

 

[Russell_SA]

This doesn’t make sense. For example: many scientists believed that black holes were reasonable before science could prove them to be correct.

I also think it’s reasonable that faster than light travel (via wormhole, warp bubble, etc) is possible, even though it’s not observable reality.

I think you are conflicting logic with science. Science is logical, but not all logic is science.

For example: it’s logical to believe that murder is bad/evil; but it’s not scientific.

Science necessarily follows what the data of reality leads them to. There was data to suggest that something was there based on its affects on its surroundings. From that observation and their understanding of physics, they were able to determine the possible characteristics, then when they were given enough data on examining this thing, they then went into justifying that these objects were black holes. Someone may have had a list of ideas that caused the observations in the universe they were studying and black holes were on the list as a possible idea along with many other ideas that were crossed off later on. It was not reasonable to believe in black holes without first observing reality to see if the black hole idea would explain that observation first. It’s fine to list ideas of explanation for observations people make in reality, but until you are able to gain more data and narrow down that list, you are not justified in believing one idea over another and teaching that your favorite one is the truth for explaining reality. They first studied reality for how reality operates, applied logic to create predicable models of reality (ie: mathematics), and then use those models to go look for other areas of reality that they were not able to look at before because they didn’t even know how to look or where to look before gaining that knowledge. That’s all science.

It is logical to conclude, scientifically, that murder is bad/evil because of its observed affects on the human condition. We equate bad/evil by how damaging it is to our psyches and good/awesome by how it improves our psyches. That is why most events that make us belly laugh are good/awesome and events that cause us to cry out in anguish and terror are bad/evil. That feedback is telling you what the true reality is for a human experiencing those events. That is all studied by social sciences of psychology, sociology, etc. Again, why do the soft sciences keep getting removed from the idea that they are sciences as well?

 

[Russell_SA]

what you describe here is superstition, not Faith.

So what is your definition of faith then and how is it different from superstition?

 

[Wesrock]

How is observing the emotional response of a woman going through an abortion not observable by science? If her response is detrimental to her psyche then that experience is detrimental to her well-being and as such falls in to the idea of a moral dilemma. Observing human behavior in situations is always observable in science. This is how we ground our ideas of what is moral or not by understanding how certain choices and actions improve or remove from the well-being of the human experience. I link the idea of human well-being with morality. That is how we know that actions that cause a belly laugh are typically not immoral and actions that cause anguish are typically immoral.

I stated that you can test for emotional responses, chemical responses and all kinds of things. These are subject to science.

But you’re taking it as given that harm to a person is bad and that the well being of a person is good. You cannot test for that. That is prior to any scientific investigation. It’s a claim that can’t be subjected to empirical testing. It is a truth determined by reason, not empiricism.

Other claims, such as personhood, are similar. You can’t use empirical science to tell you what personhood is. You arrive at a definition through reason, and then can make use of empirical science to test for the parts of that definition.

My point is that the foundation of ethics is not empirical. There are claims about what is good and what is bad. There are claims about definitions. Once you have that foundation, empirical science can be employed to test for the criteria you’ve determined are necessary, but you can’t employ empirical science prior to that point.

I mean, we could go deeper. You can’t use science to prove that there’s any real causal relationship between the outside world and your experience or if a demon is implanting these experiences in your head. Any empirical science you conduct, all that data, all those observations, could be planted by the demon, so are useless in verifying themselves. But that’s really a whole separate issue. Even assuming the real world is intelligible, you can’t use empirical science to test all claims to it, including claims on good and bad or any such value judgments.

 

[Russell_SA]

The 15 year old girl scenario isn’t a good one.

The problem here is that morality cannot be subjective. Ethics are subjective but morals are objective.

It’s not immoral for a 45 year old man to marry & and to have sex with a 15 year old girl. It’s is immoral for a 45 year old man to marry a legal minor without legal permission.

In today’s society it is ethically wrong for a 45 year old man to marry and have sex with a 15 year old girl. But that was not always the case, as 15 year old girls were once considered legal adults.

Biologically, girls typically become adults before boys. In ancient times, the common legal requirements for marriage matched the biology & emotional maturity. It wasn’t until attending high school became the universal norm that adulthood for girls was officially pushed back to match adulthood of boys. So in a way, we changed the legal age of adulthood from something subjective to make it more objective.

Point is, morality is objective (even if one doesn’t recognize it), while ethics are subjective.

Can you define the difference between morality and ethics? I seem to be using them interchangeably.

Marriage of children was always found in patriarchal societies where men could legally control access to sex objects as soon as possible in that culture. Where they can emotionally manipulate these people into believing that their future is only to be this person’s sex object first, then what ever else their owner would allow them to pursue. It was always about emotional sex slavery. The emotional capability of the woman was not a factor in those laws. The action is neutral though, its its affect on the individuals involved that makes it moral or not, ethical or not, based on its affect on the well-being of the psyche. That is why cutting someone for surgery is not the same ethically and morally as stabbing someone.

The legality of an action still does not make it moral or immoral. We attempt to legislate our morals into law, but that is later down the road once we are able to do that. Sometimes we get it right, other times we dont, other times we remove the moral law for an immoral law. There is no necessary connection between legality and morality.

 

[Russell_SA]

Exactly, the cart before the horse.
As citizens of the United States, we have laws which seem to declare people emotionally developed for different things at different ages. I’m emotionally developed enough to operate an automatic weapon on the field of battle at 18. I’m emotionally developed enough to drink alcohol at 21. I’m sure there is some kind of “science” that would be consistent with that.
There are soft scientists who claim to prove that two lesbians can raise a child as well as their biological parents. But what does ‘well’ or ‘best’ mean?
Why is killing another human being wrong? Or is it?
I don’t see this as creating morals out of science as much as making sure morals do not conflict with science at best; and justifying bad morals at worst.

For legal purposes we have to make a decision on human development for access to that level of responsibility. That is why boys will run around with water guns and play, but we do not allow them to actually use real weapons because of the emotional damage that those actions apply to someone’s psyche. Through observing human emotional development we have determined that around the age of 18, people start to assert their desires to become independent of their parents and become their own person. Not everyone is psychologically ready to take on all the legal allowances they can partake in but we hope that they have developed enough of an identity of self to know what they would be able to take on or not. This is why when boys join into lethal force with other boys and see the true horror of war, they come back emotionally broken. That is a completely observable fact about the human condition when placed in that situation. And as such, we determine those actions to be immoral because of how detrimental it is to the human psyche. It is not subjective but objectively true that a human partaking in the murder of another that it will damage their psyche because we directly observe this every time. Where am I wrong in my logic with this conclusion and observation?

Well or Best would be based on long studies of data that show what conditions promote the healthy well-being and development of a human, I assume. That is why being in a loving stable home is factually been proven to always have better statics for raising children than in unstable broken homes. Regardless of the gender of the family unit. Children need parents, not male and/or female people, but just parents that happen to be male and/or female.

 

[Russell_SA]

Before I got married, I reasoned that my girlfriend had all the qualities necessary to be a life long companion. I reasoned that she would be a great mother. With the hope of a life long marriage, I asked her to marry me. I have faith in my wife that she will be a good wife and mother. My faith and my hope are based on reason, not science. It would not conflict with science because science had nothing to say about it.

You had evidence of her character though, that was observed in reality, that’s justification for your belief. I use belief as in the idea of what I have observed before that has been consistent will be consistent in the future. It’s justified by how many times I have observed this event in its consistency. Someone loving me long enough and through hard times would make me feel justified that I am able to maintain this relationship with that person and they would want to maintain it with me. If I was in an arranged marriage, I could not feel this justification though. That’s how I would conclude that I was justified to believe that someone would be a fit for me in marriage. I wouldn’t have faith because I see faith being used as, believing without that justified data to their conclusion as the same level as someone believing with justified data to back up their conclusion. Where am I wrong here? I believe if you have enough data to justify your conclusion, then its just belief, not faith.

Like the secular humanist/skeptic crowd, you are hijacking reason from people with faith.

I was explaining how I see the difference between the two terms of belief and faith. But you have not defined the differences. You know how I see these words being applied, how is my conclusions wrong? How do you see them as different? I’m not asking you to use them the way that I do or to agree with how I do. I’m telling you my vocabulary so that you can understand what I am attempting to say. That is all.

Actually you HOPE you will not fall off that chair because it seems reasonable.

No I actually mean “believe”. Sorry but don’t change my words. That means you are not listening to what I am saying but what you want to hear. That’s not communication or coming across as wanting to understand and learn about the other person. I say what I mean and if its a term that I am using that is making the point uncommunicable for the idea, then I’ll clarify so you can understand what I am trying to say. I am not going to change my words because you don’t like the way I used them even though you know what I said. That’s all I care about is that you know what I am trying to communicate.

Does not seem reasonable to have faith in grandma’s ghost, which does seem more like superstition that faith.

So you would use superstition here then. So what is the difference to you between these two concepts?

It would seem that there are alternatives to your grandmother’s ghost keeping you on a chair. Believing it was your grandmother’s ghost would be irrational.

I agree that it is irrational to come to conclusions about an action when the data required to come to that conclusion was not detectable in any means in reality.

 

[Russell_SA]

I see the difference between Hope and Believe as:
Hope = the desire for, of all the possible outcomes that could occur, the result would be the one that you would want it to be.

Believe = to predict that the most plausible outcome to occur would be the actual outcome to occur regardless of what you feel about it.

 

[Stephen168]

You had evidence of her character though, that was observed in reality, that’s justification for your belief. **I use **belief as in the idea of what **I have observed before that has been consistent will be consistent in the future. It’s justified by how many times I have observed this event in its consistency. Someone loving me long enough and through hard times would make me feel justified that I am able to maintain this relationship with that person and they would want to maintain it with me. If I was in an arranged marriage, I could not feel this justification though. That’s how I would **conclude that **I was justified to believe that someone would be a fit for me in marriage. I wouldn’t have faith because I see **faith being used as, believing without that justified data to their conclusion as the same level as someone believing with justified data to back up their conclusion. Where am I wrong here? **I believe **if you have enough data to justify your conclusion, then its just belief, not faith.

**I was explaining **how I see the difference between the two terms of belief and faith. But you have not defined the differences. You know how **I see **these words being applied, how is my conclusions wrong? How do you see them as different? I’m not asking you to use them the way that I do or to agree with how I do. ** I’m telling you **my vocabulary so that you can understand what I am attempting to say. That is all.

No I actually mean “believe”. Sorry but don’t change my words. That means you are not listening to what I am saying but what you want to hear. That’s not communication or coming across as wanting to understand and learn about the other person. I say what I mean and if its a term that I am using that is making the point uncommunicable for the idea, then I’ll clarify so you can understand what I am trying to say. I am not going to change my words because you don’t like the way I used them even though you know what I said. That’s all I care about is that you know what I am trying to communicate.

So you would use superstition here then. So what is the difference to you between these two concepts?

I agree that it is irrational to come to conclusions about an action when the data required to come to that conclusion was not detectable in any means in reality.

I defined faith and hope for you, but you would rather show me how smart you are instead of understand what I said.