This may be semantics. When you say speculation, I think “hypothesis.” That’s the only issue I was addressing. I haven’t been addressing the question of belief.

To address belief briefly: I think you mean “belief” in the sense of “faith.” Here again, if this is the case, I agree with you.

We can, however, believe things in the sense of “strong suspicion that it is so, though lacking evidence to verify it” without being irrational. This is called, again, a “hypothesis.” If we claim our belief/suspicion to be true without the evidence, though, then we tip over into irrationality. If we persist in our hypothesis without critically trying to prove or disprove it, then we are intellectually lazy. If we persist in our hypothesis after a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, then we’re insane or stupidly stubborn.

Finally, to quote myself from earlier, this is my focus: My concern is that we will limit our thinking based on the surety of our present knowledge, rather than recognize the limits of our present knowledge and the possibilities those limitations open for our thinking.

BULL.

If you have a belief in “God” and then *seriously* attempt to define/propose/consider/speculate/believe (whatever word you want to use) what that God is or does, you’re abandoning reason…it matters not if you’re the Dalai Lama, the Pope, or Pat Robertson.

If someone wishes to explain otherwise, please do.

The only suggestion I have is not to use the word “speculate”. I see what Peter means but if he’s going to call it “belief stacking” then just use the word belief to describe the thoughts that describe the original belief in god.

While I don’t know a believer who doesn’t speculate I agree with Peter that the idea of not speculating is intriguing. I also think that saying, “So and so who is a spiritual leader speculates and they are a leader because they do” doesn’t mean anything.

Adrienne, you said it yourself:

“Honestly, I don’t know any believers who don’t speculate”

“Some of the strongest believers out there speculate with logic and reason”

What does reason and logic have to do with describing the particulars of a belief? If I take for granted my unsubstantiated belief, how is it that I am engaging reason and logic when describing its details? If I believe that the earth is flat I may *sound* logical and reasonable when I describe to you how you will fall off when you reach the edge…

You’ve said “However, it’s clear that most don’t tread with reservation.” Where is this clear? how? I respectfully but wholly disagree with this statement, as I disagree that speculation resists reason. Some of the strongest believers out there speculate with logic and reason — and some of them are even spiritual leaders. In fact, I might even argue that the reason they are leaders is because of their reasonable and logical speculation. Have you read any autobiographical work or interviews of people like the Dalai Lama or Mother Teresa? Each of these individuals has speculated, without conjecture, about God’s existence. And, I would probably guess that the Dalai Lama still does from time to time.