[MD] Are theists irrational?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
If you are going to include all psuedo-science in there too I'd have 
to drop the % to something like 60% or 70%...

[Arlo]
Well, you had said that intellectual patterns were morally superior 
IF they truly were intellectual patterns. This I agree with. But this 
is not the same as what you say next.

[Ian]
... what I mean is even in the "good science" accepted as such by 
scientific "received wisdom" there is still an important residual 
element of "faith" in the untestable basics.

[Arlo]
See, this is IMO a quite horrible use of the word "faith". It reduces 
"intellectual patterns" to just another "theism", which is precisely 
what Mark is arguing. Is there an essential incompleteness in all 
intellectual systems? Yes. But this does not translate into saying 
"science is just as faith-based as theism". Indeed, saying as much 
simply reduces ALL socio-intellectual patterns to competing theisms 
and dogmas. Hardly, I would argue, what Pirsig had in mind.

Indeed, such abysmal thinking is what has Mark unable to see the 
moral distinction between understanding the Haitian earthquake as the 
result of geological forces and plate tectonics and proclaiming it to 
be the result of an angry god punishing infidels for voodoo workship.

You used a word the other day that, I think, captures part of this 
and that is "contingence". Scientists do not operate on "faith", they 
operate on "contingence". They accept a premise conditionally to 
validate it in congruence with experience, and even the most proven, 
tested, repeated seemingly "undeniable" scientific "truths" are being 
constantly overturned. If you, or anyone, disagrees with a scientific 
conclusion (as Mary says) you are free to go out and find a "better" 
explanation. And while science may appear to move sluggish at times 
(rightfully so), the "best" explanations trickle upwards (even "eventually").

"Faith", on the other hand, works in reverse. It argues a premise 
must be accepted absolutely, despite its congruence with experience, 
and the goal is to preserve this idea in the face of evidence to the 
contrary. On one of the radio programs the other night, talking about 
Pat Robertson's comments regarding god punishing Haiti for voodoo and 
dealing with the devil, a caller asked "isn't he (Pat) aware of how 
many christians were also killed?" The "faithful" would simply 
respond "Gotteswille", who are we to question God's actions, and if a 
few Christians got whacked to punish the hordes of evil voodooers, 
then god must've had a good reason. This is why "creationism" failed 
in its attempt to intellectual validate itself. And its why, now, the 
impetus to reduce everything to "just another theism".






At 09:21 AM 1/18/2010, you wrote:
>I wish Arlo,
>
>If you are going to include all psuedo-science in there too I'd have
>to drop the % to something like 60% or 70% ;-)
>
>No, as I'm sure you knew, what I mean is even in the "good science"
>accepted as such by scientific "received wisdom" there is still an
>important residual element of "faith" in the untestable basics.
>
>Close but no cigar.
>Ian
>
>On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:01 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> > [Ian]
> > You kinda prove my point. I agree it mostly has it (maybe even 99% has it).
> > Science is therefore morally supereior if and only if it really is an
> > intellectual pattern. In practice it operates through many social 
> patterns too.
> > In theory science has the moral high ground ...in practice ...
> >
> > [Arlo]
> > Well, this is asking if there are social patterns masquerading as 
> intellectual
> > patterns, and I'd say of course there are. "Creationism", for 
> example, was a
> > blatant attempt to disguise social patterns as intellectual patterns.
> > "Eugenics" is likely also in that category.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/