[MD] Faith

[david buchanan]

Ian, Stephan, Case, Gene and all:

dmb said:
"Does the absence of absolute truth, whatever that's supposed to be, really 
mean that all so-called truths are the same, that we can make no 
distinctions between supported and unsupported beliefs? Of course not."

Ian replied:
And of course I agree too. All I'm saying is that those distinctions about 
the "how well some belief is supported" - the quality of support - needs at 
least some basis or rationale. That basis I call MoQ. And the reason I like 
it as a basis is that it's consistent with science, where science has valid 
things to say (in its own terms), and honest about the fact that its own 
bedrock is metaphysical (ie chosen by nothing more solid than thought) and 
that its less predictable edges are about evolutionary psychology - 
mysteries and mythologies.

dmb says:
Yes, of course we need some basis or rationale. Nobody said otherwise. This 
is the thing that bothers me about this conversation. You and Case are 
disputing points that I have not made and would not make. Case made a case 
by invoking Russel and Godel, which might be relevant if I were a Positivist 
who was asserting the absolute truth as correspondence to objective reality. 
But I'm not a Positivist and have given you no reason to think I'm making a 
case for the absolute truth. In fact, I'm talking about the empiricism of 
the MOQ, which is to be CONTRASTED with the empiricism of the Positivists.

I'm simply saying that a basis or rationale is not the same as faith. I'm 
saying that assumptions and presuppositions are not the same as faith. I'm 
saying that theories are not guesses and hypothesies are not hopes. I'm 
saying that the trust we have in the scientific method is based on evidence, 
not faith. See, I really don't mind if you disagree with what I'm actually 
saying. And what I'm saying has nothing to do with the absolute objective 
truth, whatever that is.

Ian also said:
It's pointless (a 'tis / 'tisn't argument) to assert that religion needs 
faith whereas science doesn't - in any axiomatic sense, as those of 
alternative persuasions, like Gene, confirm (even though he was also trying 
to make the idea of "proof" less wishy-washy than "evidence").

dmb says:
It's pointless to dispute a point nobody made. I'm not saying that "religion 
needs faith whereas science doesn't". I'm saying that faith-based beliefs 
are inferior to beliefs based on evidence. In fact, it  would be helpful to 
leave science out of this issue for a moment and talk about the distinction 
within the domain of religion. I mean, as far as religious beliefs go, some 
are based on experience and some are based on faith. This is where I 
contrasted theism with philosophical mysticism, for example. Like I said, 
the MOQ is pragmatic and empirical and mystical and anti-theistic all at the 
same time.

As for the pragmatic part of it all, I'll remind you that the present war in 
Iraq was predicated on fixing the facts around the policy and that rival 
theisms are tearing the region apart. I'll remind you that the religious 
right in the United States does everything it can to portray science as a 
rival faith and that people with financial interests in the continued flow 
of oil and smoking of cigarettes have spent millions casting doubt on the 
dangers of global warming and lung cancer.

I'm not just talking about harmless bullshit, gents. I'm talking about the 
kind of bullshit that gets people killed. I'm talking about self-serving 
beliefs, intellectual dishonesty and the practical consequences of it. I 
repeat, this is not a case for the absolute truth about anything. I'm 
talking about pragmatic truth. This is why I mention the success of math, 
science and reason in terms of conventional realities like computers. I 
mean, the fact that we can't reach a metaphysical foundation through pure 
mathematical logic does not disappoint me or even surprize me. You guys seem 
to be saying that faith-based beliefs are anything that falls short of the 
impossible standard. And I'm simply saying it ain't so. Faith is not to be 
contrasted with perfect knowledge. That definition hardly makes sense since 
ALL truth is imperfect and so ALL beliefs would be faith-based. And if 
faith-based beliefs can't be distinguished from any other kind of belief, 
then the term is meaningless.

And I hardly think it helps to substitute "trust" or "believe" for faith. 
That just avoids the point, rhetorically sliding that card up your sleave. 
The question remains. Why do you trust science? Why do you believe in 
science? Does its lack of perfection really mean that your trust is based on 
faith or that your belief has no reasonable basis? I think we trust science 
because we have lots of good reasons to do so, not least of all because it 
actually works in countless ways every day. But can we say the same thing 
about the virgin birth or the ressurection? Can we say there are lots of 
good reasons to trust the Bible or believe in a supernatural creator? Case, 
for example, recently made reference to "the living God". What evidence is 
there for such a thing? What reasons can we list? What are the consequences 
of such beliefs in the real world? What are the consequences of fixing any 
kind of facts around any kind of policy?

At the risk of getting all self-righteous on you, gents, I gotta point out 
that this is a moral issue with serious implications. I think a lot of the 
ugliness going on right now in the real world is related to this  sort of 
intellectual dishonesty and so this debate goes way past semantics. Its 
about evolution and devolution, about resolving the political and cultural 
conflicts of our time.

As Ken Wilber points out, postmodernism puts science and religion on the 
same level. It makes them equal, not priviledging one over the other, by 
shooting them both in the head. Bang, you're dead. I think the MOQ is unlike 
postmodernism in this way. It shoots theism in the head, but that not 
exactly the same thing.

Religion and rationality are not at odds, even if faith and rationality are. 
See?

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/