Hi Ian Yes faith should be what it says: faith implies not knowing. Where this is what someone means by faith then it should be the opposite of dogmatism.
When we claim to know we should have good reasons that we can explain. Never been one for accepting something as true because someone has written it in a book, not matter how old, or because someone is telling me it is true. If the Enlightenment stands for anything it should be thinking for yourself. But if some book or some prophet or thinker has a good idea let's hear what they have to say. If they think they have special authority from god I always tell them god is telling me something different. David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [MD] The End of Faith > SA, Ron, Steve, and picking up on DMB's points ... > > Agreed ... it's "blind (unquestioning / literal) faith" that we all see as > dumb. > > I think the valid warning is that despite being 99.9% based on > anything-but-faith, even science is nevertheless blind to its own > implicit faith in a few key - value-laden, untestable - tenets. > > The real problem is not just being blind, but being blind by choice. > Ian > 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/
