[MD] Are theists irrational?

[markhsmit]

Hi Arlo,

OK, I am a scientist, and I can tell you that my colleagues and I accept
a lot on faith.  It would be too difficult not to.  Yes, we pick things up in
the middle, and explain a small section of the puzzle to our satisfaction.
But if we are talking philosophically, we start with faith, because we make so
many assumptions to begin with.  We do not have to prove that which
we accept.

I still do not understand your problem with faith and theism.  They are
extremely high level thoughts.  An animal may not be theistic, but
it can reason scientifically that when the rains come, they had better
get away from the river.

And yes, I still do not understand the moral distinction between using 
plate tectonics to explain something, or a benevolent god.  You still
have not explained this.  It is one thing to claim it is true, it is another
to support your contention.

So, call me stupid, explain it to me in moral terms.  Otherwise I have to
assume that you have no idea.

Mark

On Jan 18, 2010, at 7:41:11 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
[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").