[Krimel]
We went over all this about two years ago and I tend to side more
with Ian. I do think faith is involved when we face the unknown. To
me the question is how much.
[Arlo]
Well like I said, operating from a certain set of contingent premises
is pretty much unavoidable. I guess for me the issue is with the
notion of "faith". I see it differently, Krimel. "Faith" is held in
spite of contrary evidence. "Contingence" (not to hijack Ian's word
here) is held, well, contingent on a constant re-evaluation with
consistency in experience. I do not have "faith" that when I turn on
the spigot water will flow into my sink. I hold that in contingency,
and if I see a broken pipe in my basement, I will no longer expect
water out of my spigot*.
So to the issue of whether or not people accept provisionally the
experience of others in lieu of their own, of course they do. This is
Mark's issue that because I, Arlo, have not personally been
underneath the earth and with my eyeballs saw plate tectonics then my
belief in "plate tectonics" is simply another theism, no better and
no worse than those who believe the earthquake was the result of a
voodoo-smacking angry deity. But the distinction is that the former
is held provisionally, and experience refines and informs its
evolution, while the latter is held absolutely and in spite of
contrary experience. To use the word "faith" for each is simply
problematic, and it is this misconception that leads Mark to see
science, the MOQ, Christianity and everything else as simply
competing faith-based theisms.
So to me the question is, obviously, not "how much", but a matter of "kind".
[Krimel]
Having said that, I do find it distressing when Mark and Platt and to
a certain extent Marsha use this distinction of degree to claim no
difference at all.
[Arlo]
I get the sense that Marsha disparages "science" as part of a larger
criticizing of both "intellect" and "society" in the face of
immediate, personal experience, and on that note I have much sympathy
for her position. Platt, of course, is simply beating the
anti-intellectual drums of right-wing ideology. Mark I feel is
somehow personally slighted by Pirsig's "anti-theistic" comment and
is trying to validate theism within this context, and is simply
following the same path as other pissed-off theists before him. And
now that I've psycho-analyzed them, I think its time for an ale.
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/
