Letters to the Editor
-
Two thoughts
First, I agree with earlier posts that suggest that it is not appropriate to use the same word "belief" to describe both scientific and religious/spiritual knowledge. The implication is that both systems of thought are on a single continuum, with scientific information earning a higher belief "score" 99.99999% than religious/spiritual knowledge. I am perfectly comfortable talking about the devine in terms of my "beliefs" because this word reflects the fact that there are no data. On the other hand, I am happy to talk about the scientific basis of my work in terms of "knowing" (and also "know" that I may be required to revise what I "know" with the addition of new data). The distinction in language reflects an underlying multidimensionality of the feeling of knowing in a way that saying I realy, realy, realy believe in evolution does not.
Second, I think the fundamental point that Burton was trying to make is that "knowing" is more akin to an emotion (he uses the word feeling) than cognition. This, I think is accurate and indicates (as he aludes to) that the feeling of "knowing" predates the development of language. But, linking back to my original point and after a little introspection, I would assert that belief without evidence carries with it a different feeling (or emotion) than does knowing with evidence or having a hunch or gut feeling. While I agree that it is appropriate to think of all of these as feelings, they are as different as hunger, thirst, elation, anger, contentment, and fear.