> Hi Platt
> 
> Sorry Platt - I wasn't sufficiently clear about how I see faith in 
> science. I don't see that there is any need for faith in science. In 
> fact, as I see it, faith within science would be entirely 
> counter-productive to the process of science. Belief in nonsense for the
> sake of convenience (faith) is not a good way forward.
> 
> The point I was making is that when religion tries to reduce science to 
> mere faith for it's own purposes it is  acting immorally.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Horse


Hi Horse,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your last sentence. But I would
also argue that a scientific intellectual pattern that doesn't acknowledge 
its
faith-based assumptions is acting immorally. For example:

"There's this pseudo-science myth that when you're 'objective' you just
disappear from the face of the earth and see everything undistorted, as it
really is, like God from heaven. But that's rubbish." (Lila, 3)

Or this:

"Science and reason, this myth goes, come only from the objective world,
never from the social world. The world of objects imposes itself upon the
mind with no social mediation whatsoever. It is easy to see the historic
reasons for this myth of independence. Science might never have survived
without it. But a close examination shows it isn't so." (Lila, 12) 

Just a couple of assumptions science fails to acknowledge as 
faith-based. Previously I listed a bunch of others such as empiricism,
determinism, rationalism, reductionism, etc. .  

Perhaps our difference is in the meaning of faith. For you it's belief in 
nonsense. For me it's belief in assumptions that can't be proved. 

Regards,
Platt

 
> Platt Holden wrote:
> > [Horse]
> >   
> >> Interesting the way this "all is faith" stuff is likely to go - once
> you
> >> can get enough mugs to believe that there's no difference between 
> >> religion as faith and science as faith it's only a small step to show
> >> that religion is so much better than science because of the strength of
> >> faith needed to sustain the belief. After all science needs very little
> >> faith so it's all a bit wimpy really. Strength obviously trumps
> weakness
> >> so religious faith is best. It's so obvious now!! I've seen the
> light!
> >>     
> >
> > Hey Horse,
> >
> > Science needs faith? At least you admit it which is more than some do.
> How 
> > much faith is needed is not an issue. To require any at all is like a
> being 
> > little bit pregnant.
> >
> > Great to see your here again.
> >
> > 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/

Reply via email to