Hi Steve,
> 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.
I think he is only talking about religious faith.
> What did you mean by "I place great faith in Beauty."
[Platt]
That Beauty is a meter of Truth, Rightness and Goodness.
> >>> [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]
I disagree with your belief that "all belief is by definition a matter of
intellectual quality." Many beliefs are held in common and thus qualify as
social level phenomena. Pirsig illustrates my point: "Each culture presumes
its beliefs correspond to some sort of external reality, but a geography of
religious belief shows that this external reality can be just about any
damn thing." (Lila, 26)
> > {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.
Well, "Truth" is a tough nut to crack, don't you think? Must it be
intellectual quality, meaning rational? If so, it runs smack into Godel's
Theorem. I believe there is Truth beyond intellectual understanding, for
example, a truth that sees the truth of Godel's Theorem -- a meta Truth if
you will. Already mentioned is the Truth arrived at by elegance and
harmony, an aesthetic Truth. And how about Truth from revelation? Pirsig
says there's a level above intellect where I believe Truth also resides.
What do you think?
Regards,
Platt
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/
