ACCONDANCE - A Distinctive Neologism

[StuartJ]

The English language needs a new word.

The word "belief" should be left to the world of gods and angels and talking animals.

I do not "believe" in evolution ...

I conditionally accept theories concerning evolution.

I propose a neologism, a portmanteau of "accept" and "conditional".

Quite simply"

ACCONDANCE

When it comes to scientific considerations, I have accondances.

I accond to theories of evolution.

The conditions under which I accept something will vary, and there is an understanding that my acceptance is indeed conditional.

So while folks of faith will believe that Jesus created Adam from mud, I will accond to the theory that homo sapiens evolved.

I am VERY comfortable distinguishing myself from that dreadful word "belief" and leaving it to the people of faith for their exclusive use.

Do members agree that a distinctive neologism is needed ...?

[Jagella]

Do members agree that a distinctive neologism is needed ...?

That's a good question. I often say "I believe" when I'm not sure. Since I'm sure life evolved, I wouldn't say I believe in it. So I think "belief" might be appropriate when we're not sure about something.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Perhaps it is a better understanding that is required, rather than a new word added to the mix.

Belief is an acceptable word which is not exclusive to faith alone.

There are many things which can be believed which do not require faith.

They are all conditional upon new information, whereas faith-based beliefs are static and are required to be that way in order for faith to exist/operate.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 3 by William]

whereas faith-based beliefs are static and are required to be that way in order for faith to exist/operate.

Which ...

In my view ...

Is PRECISELY why we need a new word.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 3 by William]

whereas faith-based beliefs are static and are required to be that way in order for faith to exist/operate.

Which ...

In my view ...

Is PRECISELY why we need a new word.

So don't use the word 'faith' to describe your beliefs then. I mean, maybe I'm just stating the obvious here...?

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by StuartJ]

There are many things which can be believed which do not require faith.

They are all conditional upon new information, whereas faith-based beliefs are static and are required to be that way in order for faith to exist/operate.

Which ...

In my view ...

Is PRECISELY why we need a new word.

On the contrary. I clearly wrote [in context], that what is really required is the ability for the individual to determine the type of belief one is dealing with.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 4 by StuartJ]

There are many things which can be believed which do not require faith.

They are all conditional upon new information, whereas faith-based beliefs are static and are required to be that way in order for faith to exist/operate.

Which ...

In my view ...

Is PRECISELY why we need a new word.

On the contrary. I clearly wrote [in context], that what is really required is the ability for the individual to determine the type of belief one is dealing with.

What is REALLY required ...

Is a new word to DISTINGUISH ...

Between ANY type of belief ...

And hypotheses and theories.

I have made it very clear that I make a clear distinction.

People "believe" Jesus was sired by Yahweh.

People should not "believe" in gravity ... we should accond to the theory: we should conditionally accept it (if indeed that is what we do).

It suits people of faith if the word "believe" is used in science ...

It legitimises the biblical talking donkeys and such.

For me, an hypothesis is NOT a type of belief ... it's an accondance.

"Jesus is God" is not an hypothesis, it's a belief ... and one certainly does not accond to it.

[The Tanager]

I do not think we need this new word. What it SEEMS to me to be is scientism in disguise. Science gives us truth, other things can't. That statement itself is not a scientific one, which makes it self-defeating. We should conditionally accept all of our beliefs (except maybe in pure mathematics).

[Mithrae]

We should conditionally accept all of our beliefs...

How could you speak such words!? So rude coming in and suggesting that religious folk can, should and sometimes do treat religious beliefs almost like any beliefs, when Stuart is trying so hard to define such a thing out of existence. For shame!

[StuartJ]

I do not think we need this new word. What it SEEMS to me to be is scientism in disguise. Science gives us truth, other things can't. That statement itself is not a scientific one, which makes it self-defeating. We should conditionally accept all of our beliefs (except maybe in pure mathematics).

That would mean conditionally accepting the belief that Yahweh is "God", for example.

To do that, would mean one is admitting the possibility that Yahweh is NOT "God"

... and Yahweh is as false and mythological as every other deity that humans have imagined.

I have yet to see a Christian conditionally accept such a fundamental belief.

Please let us know if there are any Christians who acknowledge that Yahweh could be make-believe

I accond (accept conditionally) to the theories of evolution - I know little about them (intentionally) - but they appear reasonable and are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and so forth.

I will move my accondance in line with those who DO know of such things.

I find a need to clearly distinguish between accepting mythological mud-men (conditionally or otherwise) as reality and conditionally accepting evolutionary theory as reality, for example.

Folks of faith - I suggest - resist such a distinction because it exposes their beliefs as being how the Roman Catholic Church defines them in my signature.