Hi Steve, [Steve] > Please keep in mind that I am not talking about faith as an attitude as in > "have faith in your self" or faithfulness as in loyalty. I'm talking about > faith as a justification for belief as in... > > "what you are saying about prayer and the resurrection, etc doesn't make > sense to me." > > "well, you just have to have faith."
Some people believe in prayer because of the evidence that their prayers were answered. Some people believe in the resurrection on the authority of the New Testament. We justify many of our beliefs on the same grounds -- experiential evidence and reliance on authorities. > >[Steve] > >> Harris doesn't say that reason is how we "gain" knowledge, he just says > >> that our knowledge should stand to reason. In MOQ terms reason is just a > >> synonym for intellectual quality. > >> > >> In evaluating whether faith is a good or bad thing we don't need to > >> define what intellectual quality is or prove the "validity of reason." We > >> only need to say that it is bad to believe things that are of low > >> intellectual quality which in MOQ terms is obvious. > > Platt: > >Seems you have defined intellectual quality by saying it and reason are > >synonyms. > > Steve: > I see words like "true" "reasonable" "rational" "makes sense" to be words we > use to talk about intellectual quality. I don't think that is a definition > of intellectual quality. > > I'm also not saying that intellectual quality can't be defined. It's just > that the definition of intellectual quality is not at issue in discussing > the morality of "faith." Oh but I think it is. One who justifies his beliefs by its intellectual quality expresses great faith in intellect. We have seen from the MOQ that faith in scientific SO-based intellect is misplaced and found wanting in one important area -- morality. > Platt: > >I don't see how you can judge something is of low intellectual > >quality if you can't define what intellectual quality is or, after defining > > it, showing why it's valid. > > Steve: > People will often disagree as to what has quality and that includes > intellectual patterns. But the issue of faith isn't about disagreements > about what has intellectual quality. People appeal to faith when they > themselves recognize that what they are saying does not hold up to their own > ideas of what is rational (what has intellectual quality). Most who believe in resurrection, for example, don't consider themselves irrational. In fact they reasonably believe that science doesn't cover all there is to know about reality. For example, that Jesus rose from the dead is more believable to many than the notion that mind rose by accident from a random hodgepodge of mindless particles. > Platt: > >Finally, do we accept MOQ terms on faith? I > >would say, "Yes." It's basic premise -- the world is a moral order -- is > >hardly rational or empirical, i.e., subject to scientific confirmation. > > Steve: > The MOQ seems rational to me. I suspect it seems rational to you as well or > you wouldn't be such a proponent of the MOQ. If I met someone else who > didn't think the MOQ made sense I certainly wouldn't advise, "well, you just > need to have faith." I put a lot of faith in the MOQ's basic premise and in rationality. I presume you do, too. But I'm aware that I could be wrong, that reason cannot prove its own validity, and that my support of the MOQ is subject to change. 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/
