Not really talking about something that requires emotional input, but something that would cause emotional “output” if challenged to be untrue. And mostly pertaining to religious belief. I know it’s not a statement of universal applicability, but just trying to notice a distinction between religious belief and religious working assumption.

Most believers seem to be pretty emotionally attached to their belief, as do many non-believers. But a working assumption of god’s existence or non-existence doesn’t have that emotional baggage riding on it.

@skado Got it, and I now understand where you were heading with this. I too become outraged when my beliefs are challenged.

For example, to say that I'm emotionally attached to my belief that the world is NOT flat would be an understatement. I worked for many years in satellite operations and was once directly challenged by a flat-earther to 'defend' my belief that the world is spherical. Suffice to say, my blood boils when my model of the Earth, which leads inevitably to a faked Apollo program, is even questioned! How these idiot assholes are given a seat at the table can only be explained by the recent popularity to deny facts and the lunacy that is all-too-common on the internet.

On the other hand, my working assumption that all religions are and were fabricated by humans without the aid of a so-called 'supreme being' is always open to new evidence, without prejudice. Bring it on!

@p-nullifidian, @skado
See, I'm still thinking you could switch the phrases 'working assumption' and 'belief' in that comment without it making any difference.

@JeffMurray
You could. Language is flexible like that. I don’t claim there is only one meaning to a given word.
The point I’m clumsily getting at is that there’s a useful difference between absolute certainty and comfortable confidence.

I’m confident enough that the earth is spherical that I spend zero energy trying to verify it, and I live my life in complete confidence that it is true.

But of course, if I saw convincing evidence of a flat earth, I’d accept it, but I don’t feel the least bit agnostic about my current working assumption.

@skado But is there? Per person, these are all relative e.g. if I were a person that was so absolutely certain the Earth was flat that I spend zero energy trying to verify it, and I live my life in complete confidence that it is true. But weren't we taking about emotional attachment being the difference not level of certainty? I think we're losing the thread here.

@JeffMurray
Yes, but I'm saying there's a difference between complete confidence and absolute certainty, and often that difference may be whether a person has an emotional investment.

It's not some grand statement I'm declaring as factual, just a loose idea that crossed my mind that I thought might be worth discussing. And I'm sure I haven't done it justice. The comment about emotional dependency was kind of an afterthought.

So many people on this site seem so very attached to their quite specific understanding of words like atheist, agnostic, etc. But language is just more flexible than that. Those words can mean different things in different contexts, and I just don't see any reason to get so wrapped around the axle about it as some do.

In different contexts I can truthfully refer to myself as an atheist, an agnostic or a theist... or none of the above, all depending on which well-established definitions we use.

Here I may be talking about only one narrow slice of the overall picture, rather than any kind of universal "truth'. But what I'm trying to get at is that one can be completely convinced, for all practical purposes, that no literal gods exist, and still be completely open to new evidence, without any obligation to call oneself an agnostic. I'm completely convinced the sun will rise tomorrow, and while I'm still open to new evidence, I'm not at all agnostic about it.

But what I usually think of as hardcore "belief" is often displayed by people who would be devastated to even confront the possibility that no God might exist. I know that the word "belief" is properly used in many other ways as well; it's just the closest word I can come up with at the moment. I realize some people transition from belief to non-belief without trauma as well.

Maybe I'm just stuck in my old-fashioned sense of the word "agnostic" as someone who isn't sure of how they believe. So I don't identify with that term at all, because I'm not at all unsure of how I believe, even though I'd spin on a dime if I saw convincing evidence. Popular understandings of words change over time, and some words never find universal consensus.

But we all need working assumptions in order to function in the world. We can be emotionally attached to them, or not.

Just rambling.

@skado I'm good with all that, and it did clarify what you were trying to say in the original post. I'm just sad humans don't make more of a concerted effort to make language less of an imprecise, shitty thing.

@JeffMurray
I’m with you on that!

True. I don't mean it categorically, about all kinds of belief. I guess I'm just talking about religious belief mostly. And maybe not always even then. I suppose working assumption is just another level or flavor of belief. Some beliefs have the capacity to destabilize the person emotionally if found to be untrue, whereas if a working assumption is found to be untrue we just revise the assumption and carry on. Semantics I guess.

@powder
Yeah, it was based on a multitude of things for various games, once was based on the number of players for one team that were on the DL for instance. Also, while I said 'believe' a certain team would win not 'feel' a certain team would win, the swapping of those words in your response without really changing it kinda shows how interchangable they are. To be honest, though, I think the phrase 'feeling about something' is a misnomer. Anytime someone says it, it would be more apt to say they think (or believe) it, but again, it's just semantics.

@skado
Ah, I see where you were going now. I think it may have more to do with the person, though, not what the belief/working assumption is about. When I stopped believing in god, it wasn't traumatic for me at all, I simply recognized there was no logical reason to believe and I moved on. I'd be curious to know if there were many others that also lost faith without it being a problem for them.
Also, would it be a belief or a working assumption one's significant other wouldn't cheat on them? Some are devastated not only by the act, but also the realization their beliefs were so wrong, and some, maybe people who cheat/have cheated themselves, don't take it too hard at all.
The more I think about it the less I see a particular characteristic that delineates how these two should be (or are routinely) used.