From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:16:00 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <72087@apple.Apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
>In article <dlnnwt+@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>Most people, I have found, assume that everyone has some strong stance
>>upon the subject of the existence of supernatural entities...the
>>concept of "I don't know" doesn't come into play...you either have a
>>penny or a nickel...the concept of not having either doesn't come into
>>play.

[my comment about "not being completely honest" deleted for space]

>This strikes me as a very peculiar rule of thumb, but for all I know it
>may be the one most people use. Past experience suggests to me, though,
>that the normal course of conversation is sufficient to prevent any
>issue of 'dishonesty' in the vast majority of cases.

Well, I'm going a bit from my linguistics training and a bit from
personal experience.

From linguistics, I'm going off of what is often referred to as the
"Maxim of Quantity" which means that speakers expect to receive all
related information (thus, the example of the pets).  If a person is
inquiring as to a person who has the "don't believe either" position,
it is helpful if said person is up front about that.

From personal experience, too many times I have seen the
"theist/agnostic" debate go on as something like this:

"I don't belive god exists."

"So you're saying god doesn't exist."

"No, I'm saying I don't believe god exists...I also don't believe god
doesn't exist."

"But you just said you don't believe in god!"

And the discussion gets bogged down into whether or not it is possible
to not believe in both the existence and non-existence of god.  To the
responder, the concept of not believe in either one is hard to
grasp...they feel that a person must have some "stong" stance on the
subject rather than leaving the question "up in the air."  (Please
note that I am not saying that agnostics can't make up their minds.
I'm using bad vernacular that often exists within the minds of those
who take a "strong" stance by making a definite statement...there's a
difference between being wishy-washy and not being able to come to a
conclusion due to lack of information.)

And I wouldn't necessarily claim that a person who doesn't present
both statements up front is deliberately lying...it's more that said
person knows what he means when he says that, but most of the rest of
us don't because we have certain assumptions he doesn't have.  Thus,
in order to keep things "civil," the speaker should be "up front"
about both sides.

Now, this doesn't mean that the conversation won't bog down into
debating whether or not a person can not believe either one, but it
keeps the person making the firm stance from feeling a bit deceived.
It's a bit like arguing with someone who's playing "Devil's Advocate"
who doesn't let you know that he's doing that beforehand.  The same
arguments will be raised, but the attitude of the people involved will
be different.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc