The Case Against the Existence of God

Is robinrohan having a crisis of non-Faith

A belief is inherently subjective.What it says can be objective, but that it is believed is subjective. Perhaps you are thinking of "proposition" rather than "belief".

I don't have a definition. "Belief" is a term from folk psychology. It isn't well defined. It makes for a poor scientific concept. To a first approximation, a belief is an emotional committment to a statement (the semantic content of the statement, not the syntax). Sure. The theory of evolution is objective. Whether or not you believe it is subjective.

I don't see a difference. Isn't "is convinced that" the same thing as "has a committment to"? Maybe you don't like my use of "emotional", but I see emotions as important in our cognitive judgements. A computer has no emotions, but a computer is never convinced of any statement -- a trivial programming change will cause it to assert the opposite.

As happens with many words, the term "logic" can have multiple meanings. Sometime it is used as synonymous with "reasoning" or "thinking". This makes it subjective, since it is the mental activity of a subject. Others use the term to mean the mechanistic following of fixed rules of inference, and we can treat that as an objective meaning. You are reading too much into this.I am attempting to account for why people can have beliefs, while it is generally agreed that computers cannot have beliefs.Reasoning is done by a subject, so in inherently subjective. However a reasoner (as a subject) can follow objective principles of reasoning. When you use the expression "objective reasoning", are you intending that to single out the principles followed in the reasoning (which can be objective), or are you intending to single out that there is a reasoner (a subject)? Okay, that was a rhetorical question, so no need to answer.I think you are seeing a profound disagreement between us, when it is more likely that I am trying harder to avoid ambiguity by being careful in my use of terminology.

Let's restore the full context. Our disagreement is really about what we mean by "reasoning". You are using the sense in my second sentence (the publically expressible steps taken), while I am using it as the mental activity of the reasoner. The best journalists still believe in, and practice, objectivity.