Hi Ron, Platt, DMB, Ham, Bo, everyone else
>>> [Steve]
>>>> Faith requires uncritical loyalty to the truth claims of the
>>>> religion
>>>> (which inhibit the evolution of the intellectual level). Faith
>>>> then is
>>>> the enemy of reason.
>>>
>>> [Platt]
>>> Careful. Some have faith -- as you define it -- in reason.
>>
>> Steve:
>> We have evidence that reason works, so no faith is required.
>
> [Platt]
> Depends on if you consider "what works" to be the criterion of
> goodness. I
> don't. The Holocaust worked well from a Nazi point of view. Also
> reason
> depends on beginning premises that are often faith based. For
> example, the
> premise of science that only propositions that can be empirically
> verified
> are true cannot be empirically verified.
Steve:
It seems like we need to define what faith means to continue this
discussion.
Platt said to Ham:
> Right you are. But it goes beyond spirituality. Scratch the bottom
> of any
> belief and you'll find faith. Personally I place great faith in
> Beauty.
Steve:
I'm not sure what you mean by "faith" here. I see faith used in three
different ways:
1. Belief
2. Trust
3. Loyalty
In Sam Harris' criticism of religious faith. I think he is is only
talking about faith in terms of belief.
What did you mean by "I place great faith in Beauty."
Ham (who should not see my quoting him as an invitation to tell me
more about Essentialism) said:
> Faith is belief in anything without empirical evidence, and that
> includes
> the MoQ which carries its own baggage of dogma.
Steve:
I ran into trouble with Platt defining faith in terms of empirical
evidence. This sort of faith would seem to be unavoidable.
DMB said:
He's (Sam Harris) saying that our beliefs should be measured in terms
of their intellectual quality. And he asserts this for moral reasons.
Steve:
I think DMB is getting to a useful MOQ definition of faith. Faith (in
the belief sense rather than truth or loyalty) may be defined as
holding beliefs without regard to their intellectual quality.
>>> [Steve]
>>>
>>>> Does tolerance and respect for people's beliefs mean that we
>>>> shouldn't question people's beliefs? We want evidence or at least
>>>> logical cohesion before we "respect" beliefs on any other topic but
>>>> religion. It's considered in poor taste to question religious
>>>> beliefs. Isn't this social pattern of "respecting people's
>>>> belief's" by
>>>> not questioning them a social pattern that inhibits intellectual
>>>> evolution?
>>>
>>> [Platt]
>>> I think you can question anyone's beliefs including those who
>>> believe that
>>> science is the final arbiter "Truth." Respecting other people's
>>> beliefs is
>>> an intellectual level moral stance against bigotry.
>>
>>
>> Steve:
>> Respecting beliefs in the way that you described is moral. The
>> pattern not questioning beliefs that are religious in nature is
>> immoral. Why is this the one area where evidence and reason are not
>> welcome?
>
> [Platt]
> Because not all belief is a matter of evidence and reason,
> including the
> belief that evidence and reason is the only arbiter of Truth.
Steve:
But all belief is by definition a matter of intellectual quality.
People in effect say, "yeah, I know this belief has low intellectual
quality, but you have to believe it anyway. You just have to have
faith."
Faith is put forth as a virtue, but believing things of low
intellectual quality is immoral. We say the result on 9/11.
> {Platt]
> Does religion make a claim for intellectual quality? I don't think
> so, but
> I could be wrong.
Steve:
The Catholic Church loves to say that since God is Truth there is no
possibility of conflict between reason and faith.
Regards,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
