SA,
I think Steve is railing against blind faith. I was trying to get him to
Come right out and say as much. Faith is trust in a belief, blind faith
Is trust in a belief no matter what experience says to the contrary.
To which I agree with Steve, it is rather a foolish stance to take.
I was stressing that evidence is relative. Evidence is up to
interpretation
And if the only qualifier between faith and reason is the evidence
provided
Then who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Empirical scientific
data
Can be interpreted in many different ways. What makes one interpretation
More viable than another?
Remember the tv program Northern exposure? When Leonard the shaman would
Visit Dr. Fleishman? Fleishman would ridicule leonards methods as
mystic
Faith based mumbo-jumbo but when Leonard cured patients that Fleishman
could not, Joel would be astounded and amazed citing that there was some
scientific explanation that there was no rational, reasonable way
Leonard's methods worked. Yet there was the evidence, but Joel
interpreted it differently chalking it all up to the placebo effect.
Sorta like blind faith. Trust in a belief no matter what experience says
to the contrary.
I was just warning that blind faith falls on both sides of the fence.
-Ron
Ron:
> > When you boil it down there is only a relative
> certainty about any
> > observable phenomena. Science and religion make
> attempts at
> > understanding reality. They both play the same
> role.
> > Simplifying and projecting to grasp and relate,
> this is what we do.
SA: Ron, this is why I find the whole debate about
faith and reason absurd. I agree with you, but
wouldn't mind an expansion on these different kinds of
intellectual patterns that each of you are trying to
point out. See my questions below.
Reason and faith are different patterns. Each
quality in their own right. It's the way these
patterns have been asserted, at times, during this
discussion that I find incapable. It's why I find
Steve's point is good where he asserts faith can't be
deciphered by reasoning, the kind of reasoning that
understands experience and evidence and to rely upon
faith to argue with this kind of reasoning will go
nowhere. If it's about which one is more moral than
the other and which one belongs on what level, if
that's the fight, then maybe one could expand more on
faith-based thoughts, if one finds there to be such
kinds of intellectual patterns, and then do the same
for evidenced-based thoughts. Why would meanings need
to be blurred? Distinct meanings doesn't mean these
meanings don't have ways of connecting themselves
somewhere, as you said Ron.
gray clouds thickening,
SA
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
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/
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/
