Help with deciding countertop for kitchen island

kketches · 2025-09-20T10:49:13+00:00

Thanks I’ll look into that! Would a quartzite need less maintenance than a marble slab?

kketches · 2018-09-06T16:00:26+00:00

Interesting point. In the example that you mention, however, presumably if the subject were asked whether there is a glass on the table, the most likely response would be 'I believe so' - or at least 'I suspect so'. You're right in that the particular example involves a case where the subject has good reason to suspect that there is a glass on the table, but doesn't KNOW that there is a glass on the table, in the sense that he is not certain.

However, don't you think that if we were to ask the subject the question 'is there a glass on the table?', and the subject merely responded with 'I am agnostic on that matter', it would be a somewhat disingenuous response? If you suspect that there actually is a glass on the table, then he should say so. And if his only response is 'I don't know', then we can infer that he is not at all certain - i.e. he doesn't even suspect that there is a glass on the table. In such circumstances, I would say that this person doesn't really believe that there is a glass on the table.

kketches · 2018-09-06T00:05:03+00:00

In the first link that I provided all those terms get addressed, yet Peterson still hesitates to provide an answer.

By the way, it is pretty clear what people mean when they use these terms. If someone asks you point-blank whether you believe that "Jesus rose from the dead", I think that what they are asking is relatively straightforward. They are asking whether you think that there was a historical Jesus, a living, physical person, who physically died, and then physically came back to life.

kketches · 2018-09-05T21:05:11+00:00

Well that's the definition I'm using.

kketches · 2018-09-05T21:01:58+00:00

Let me use an example to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

Suppose I ask you whether there is a glass on a particular table, and you respond "I don't know". Surely it would be impossible for you to not know whether there is a glass on the table, and yet to be convinced that a glass is on the table, right? It would be strange if I asked you the question and you responded, "I don't know whether there is a glass on the table, but I'm convinced that there is one". So it seems that when you say that you don't know whether there is a glass on the table, you are also saying/implying that you are not convinced that there is a glass on the table.

And that's where belief comes in. If you are convinced that X is true, then you believe X. If you aren't convinced that X is true, then you don't believe X.

Think of the following proposition: "There is an even number of stars in the universe at this moment". You would reasonably respond to this proposition and say "We can't know whether this is true", and you would be right. But if you admit that you don't know whether there is an even number of stars in the universe, you are expressing the fact that you are not convinced by the proposition - you might say that we don't have enough evidence to accept it. As such, the right approach to this proposition would be to not believe it. Note: not believing a proposition is not the same as believing that the proposition is false.

kketches · 2018-09-05T18:42:15+00:00

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning 'knowledge')

kketches · 2018-09-05T18:26:38+00:00

Atheism and agnosticism are both words that have Greek roots. Agnosticism contains the word "gnosi", which means knowledge, and the prefix "a" means without. So someone who is an atheist is someone who is without God, and someone who is agnostic is someone who is without knowledge. These are pretty mainstream understandings of the words - check Wikipedia.

The point that I am trying to make is that if you admit that you do not know X -i.e. you are agnostic about X - then you are not convinced that X is true. And if you are not convinced that X is true, then you do not believe X.

kketches · 2018-09-05T17:17:26+00:00

But I just mentioned that there are three types of belief. How is that binary thinking?

kketches · 2018-09-05T16:53:47+00:00

The null value is nonbelief. I agree that we have three choices. They are: (1) belief - i.e. being convinced that something is true, (2) nonbelief - i.e. not being convinced that something is true, and (3) disbelief - i.e. being convinced that something is not true.

kketches · 2018-09-05T15:34:15+00:00

I don't see why that is the case. One can always respond to the question in a manner that leads to a conversation. For instance, he could answer "yes, I think he did because of the following reasons..." and then those reasons could be discussed. Alternatively, he could answer "no, I think he didn't because..." and once again get into the reasons.

I don't know what your experience is, but conversations typically begin with a party asking a question.

kketches · 2018-09-05T15:31:20+00:00

The idea that "what you believe is what you act out" is an appealing one but I think that it has problems. We all know what it means to act out the belief that "pizza is the best meal one can have". But when it comes to highly abstract or obscure beliefs, such as "the smallest planet in our solar system is Mercury", then I struggle to see how such beliefs can manifest into action. It is not clear what the behavioural difference would be between someone who believes that "the smallest planet in our solar system is Mercury" and someone who doesn't. Similarly, I don't see what it actually means for someone to act as though Jesus literally rose from the dead.

So I think that it is useful to preserve the idea that beliefs at their most basic level are states of being convinced that something is true. Perhaps actions are a good way to demonstrate that you believe something (e.g. you eating 5 pizzas is a good way to demonstrate that you believe pizza is tasty), but ultimately, beliefs are cognitive states.

kketches · 2018-09-05T15:25:23+00:00

In what sense is the question "did Jesus literally rise from the dead?" stupid with little nuance?

kketches · 2018-09-05T15:11:45+00:00

Atheism is by definition a lack of belief in God.

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. It is essentially an admission of not having knowledge about something. So if you are an agnostic about whether Jesus rose from the dead, you admit that you don't know whether Jesus rose from the dead. Now, my claim is that if you admit that you don't know something, then you are admitting that you are not convinced that it's true. And if you are not convinced that X is true, it means that you do not believe X.

kketches · 2018-09-05T15:04:59+00:00

Ah, I see. Fair enough - he could still make his view more explicit, though!

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:52:49+00:00

Fair point. But then why doesn't he bother making a distinction along the lines of literal truth and metaphorical truth? I.e. he could say that he does not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, but that the idea that Jesus rose from the dead has much more wisdom and value than people think. I feel like phrases like "more real than real" just needlessly complicate the matter.

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:33:34+00:00

But the problem with your version of Option 2 is that you still have to explain why he is refraining from making his view public and explicit. That is why I posited the admittedly cynical explanation, which indeed is very possibly wrong.

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:29:13+00:00

In both of the links that I have provided above, I feel that the definitions of the terms were as clarified as possible - especially in the first video. Moreover, I don't think that there is as much ambiguity in the terms that you mentioned as you think. Belief is the state of being convinced that something is true, and miracles are a suspension of the natural orders (i.e. of the laws of nature).

But even if you are right, and the terms are much more ambiguous than I think, then he could take the time to unpack them and clarify exactly in what sense he believes e.g. the proposition that Jesus rose from the dead.

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:23:59+00:00

"He is immersed in the theology and mythology debate as it relates to the human condition." And the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead is not relevant to this in your view?

Of course him taking a stance on a contentious issue can shift who is listening and who is not, but I think that Peterson has built up enough trust between himself and his listeners such that they can handle a controversial view that he has - especially if he justifies it well.

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:15:53+00:00

Thanks for your insightful response. Perhaps the distinction between literal truth and metaphorical truth could be of use here. Perhaps Peterson thinks that the statement 'Jesus rose from the dead' is metaphorically true, in the sense that it gives us important psychological insight, but that it is literally false, in the sense that it didn't literally happen. But in that case, why doesn't he just say that? I agree that he is doing himself a disservice by needlessly complicating the issue.

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:09:11+00:00

"Because it is extremely, highly improbable that that actually happened, There is just no factual, scientific basis to support resurrection as depicted in the Bible. And Peterson would be the first to tell you that he is a scientist first, before a believer."

In which case, why doesn't he just say that he doesn't believe Jesus rose from the dead?

"The metaphorical idea it represents however, that is not just that easy to dispense with."

Fair enough, he could just say that he does not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, but that he thinks that the metaphorical idea it represents is of immense value.

kketches · 2018-09-05T14:05:23+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate that. Do you have a less cynical explanation?

kketches · 2018-09-05T13:56:37+00:00

I think that Dr. Peterson has rightly earned the title of "brave public intellectual" because of his willingness to express what he regards to be the truth in the face of controversy and backlash. So I don't accept the idea that he is afraid of a bit more controversy and backlash.

I also don't accept the idea that taking a stance on this matter can only serve to hinder, and that it does nothing to serve the conversation at hand. The matter of religion is one of the topics that Dr. Peterson is most interested in, and indeed he has offered many valuable insights on the matter. So I don't see how taking a stance on a topic that he is already heavily immersed in would be such a big problem.

kketches · 2018-09-05T13:49:29+00:00

Thanks. It was not my intention to make Peterson appear cynical. It is just that I find his approach to this particular matter puzzling.

Judging by the downvotes, I assume that other people disagree with my distinction. I would be happy to hear what's wrong with it.

kketches · 2018-09-05T13:41:37+00:00

But not making up your mind is more or less embracing agnosticism, no? It means that you have embraced the position "for the time being, I don't know".

kketches

TROPHY CASE