Science is similar to religion, and scientism is similar to theism.
Because you foresaw that it could be right. It’s not a belief. Perhaps there aren’t infinite hypothesis that they see as viable. Perhaps they only saw one potential viable hypothesis. So as someone who has a scientific like mind in my approach - I know better and I know the damages of what believing a conclusion of an experiment can do to your experiment. It’s called confirmation bias - which " is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities."
Now if a scientist believes their hypothesis and gets it right, that’s on them personally - believing is nowhere a step of science nor is it a necessary step of knowledge. Good science requires belief’s be held at bay, or that belief’s not occur at all.
That is the point in this and similar threads, after all; to declare that one’s own beliefs have a special status prima facie. What ANGRY believes is knowledge, what people who disagree with him believe is mere belief. Once you’ve got that starting point worked into your vernacular, actually doing philosophy becomes almost moot.
Seconded. That’s why I immediately recognized it as New Atheist-inspired tripe. It’s a fairly standard move.
There is a hole in your theory in that you have no concept of what exists in the mind prior to knowledge. Therefore, you are forced to introduce new words to explain it - ‘foresaw’, ‘efficacy’, ‘hope’ - anything just so you don’t use the word ‘belief’.
Why is knowledge considered to be justified true belief? Because it explains the smooth transition from belief to knowledge through a process of greater justification and increasing confidence.
That’s gives your confidence a big boost. You can speak with authority about whatever you know.
What’s the hole? By belief I am straying for that not to conflate all the differing senses of the word belief with words like hope, seeing a possibility. By belief, I mean accepting it is true. So that is why I don’t use the word belief. So where’s the whole? If you want to believe things before you now, nobody’s stopping you. But I don’t think that is an intelligent way to go about thinking. Wisdom is knowing when you do not know. There is no wisdom in thinking something is true without the justification of knowledge.
If you see this as “fairly standard” why would you state in my “is knowledge also a belief” thread that nobody would know what I’m talking about? Well by that, its obviously not true.
In order to claim that I have belief, you’ll have to point it out and how it isn’t justified as knowledge, or where I have knowledge, you’ll have to point out how it is not knowledge but belief. Until them, you’re merely making an assertion with no evidence, no reason.
I am an atheist and I use the word believe but it is synonymous with think since it references on my part some degree of logical deduction
I think scientific knowledge is superior to religious belief but I do not seek to impose this view on others. For everyone has the freedom to
think whatever they want. It makes no difference to me what that is. And I prefer on occasion to engage with those who think differently
to me since that is the best way to find flaws within my own thinking. Even if I find none I am still interested in how others think anyway
“impose” is a harsh word. You can’t force people to think in a certain way. If people want to believe things are true instead of realizing they don’t know, then fine… but purveying a better alternative, a wise alternative, an intelligent alternative, isn’t imposing.
You haven’t said what a person who ‘hopes’ or who is ‘seeing a possibility’ is thinking. They are undefined terms which cloud the issue. If you went into it, you would find that he has a belief in something being true for some reason.
Practical requirements force me to believe before I have knowledge. Most of the stuff that I think, are actually beliefs. I’m just part of the minority which is prepared to openly admit it.
I can act based on knowledge and I can act based on beliefs. How can I act based on “I don’t know”?
They are both religions. But of course to you, “religion” means “Bad” so you couldn’t possibly comprehend the truth of it. You think in terms of good and evil.
And yet you have very clearly demonstrated that you do not “know” one from the other. You believe in a distinction that isn’t factual. You promote the beliefs that you acquired via common media. You acquired the belief that meek minded, foolish old Christian people merely believe in things that younger, smarter, wiser Atheists know to be false. And you promote that belief.
In the extreme, there actually is a distinction between factual and believed beyond the feeling of confidence through complexity. I know what that difference is. But you do not. You only believe in Science being a provider and prophet of factual truths - no different than the Christian believing that the Bible is the source of holy Truth.
Science is your religion - the source of your belief system which in itself you cannot explain other than to say, "THEY provide the Light and proved it to be Truth".
That is only a general direction they strived toward … back when they were inventing “laws of physics”, which later all turned out to be wrong so now they call everything merely a “theory” WHICH MEANS = “WE DO NOT KNOW, only speculate and currently BELIEVE”.
Even scientists believe that it is always only speculation albeit very convincing.
I have yet to meet a scientist to actually “knows” anything at all. And they will generally tell you that themselves (except for their naive youth).
Do you not see that in every generation, what used to be “fact” has become “myth”. Even historians have openly stated that history does not really exist, because none of the remaining “facts” are known to be actually true and very many known to be merely someone’s exaggerated perspective being promoted as factual by the politics of the time.
Politics dictates “Truth” in society. And politics changes its mind around and around to suit the call for power.
What they were certain to be truth at that time, just as what people call “Truth” today … merely the beliefs of the age.
No. The “age of knowing” (aka “enlightenment era”) is coming to an end. You missed breakfast.
Exactly.
There really are such things as “facts”, but science is not the provider. Science provides a means to distinguish what is demonstrably NOT TRUE. Science cannot provide Truth. It takes a very serious and enlightened philosopher for that (but then they immediately stone him for being an unordained prophet - typical Mideastern power mongering).
Not all of science is. Not all of history is either.
If science is so fake how are you on your computer, mobile device, or other piece of technology of which connects to the internet so that you can type here? I’m confused how it’s fake exactly or just “belief”.
Technology and medicines are the proof it isn’t belief. Religious delusions have nothing positive that show from it…
Christianity isn’t truthful at all, they lie about holidays, finding “evidence” of “Jesus” and they lie to their gullible children about fairy tales in order to fit them nicely into sheeple society.
What are sheeple? They are people who believe whatever they are told. If they are told that what they are told is knowledge, then they believe that it is knowledge.
IOW, lots of sheeple have knowledge. 
This expresses the idea that there is a fundamental difference between beliefs and knowledge. There is not. The only difference is in the quality and quantity of justification.
That is why both knowledge and beliefs can both turn out to be wrong.
“Fairly standard” among New Atheist crackpots. I thought the implication was clear.
Only if I’m playing your ridiculous word game where beliefs can’t be justified by definition. God only knows what you mean by ‘justified’; you’ve argued elsewhere that it’s vague and nebulous.
You know about as much about Christianity as you do Affectance Ontology … nothing.
That is pretty easy.
How do you know that the statement you just made isn’t merely something you believe to be true?
If you can’t provide the “justification” to call it “knowing”, even by your own standard, it is merely a belief.
So prove to us that:
“In order to claim that I have a belief” … we “have to” do anything.
And that what we “have to” do is:
“point it out and how it isn’t justified as knowledge”.
If for any reason you cannot prove (aka “justify”) those things, then by your own stated standard, it is merely a belief of yours (like everything else you have been saying). When have you proven/justified ANYthing you have said to be factual?
Yeah, which is christianity. No, lots of sheeple don’t have knowledge… They lack knowledge, which is why they’re ignorant and gullible.
I know more about christianity than what you claim. It’s a tainted religion, built on lies and murder.
If science is just belief, why the need to hang people back in the day for speaking something new and observable?