[MD] Faith

[Stephen Hannon]

[dmb]
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?

[Steve H]
Is there any evidence that there is an afterlife once we die?  No.
However, people still believe in one.  It may even be beneficial to
express such a hope as it gives meaning, perspective to life.  Is
there any evidence that our life has a meaning in the first place?
No.  However, people still believe in a meaning to life.  This is also
beneficial because people have more self-esteem, motivation, etc...
when their life has a meaning.  This makes religion, beliefs, etc... a
personal issue.  They should not affect public policy at all.  Beliefs
would deal with questions like: Why am I here?  What is the purpose of
my life?  When will I achieve this purpose?  Where will I go to
achieve this purpose?  Who will help me?  The MOQ deals with questions
such as this:  What is the moral way to achieve my purpose in life?
How shall I make moral decisons?

Beliefs are personal, the MOQ is universal.  The MOQ describes
everything we know, beliefs attempt to explain the things we don't
know.  The people who believe that their beliefs are the only
acceptable beliefs simply create more intolerance and more hatred.
Just look at the current world situation (although economics plays
arguably a larger role than religion or national security in both
Israel/Lebanon and Iraq/USA).

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that eligion/beliefs influence personal
decisions mostly (give to charity, Is there any evidence that I should
give to charity?) and that they should not influence public policy.
That would be against freedom of religion in our first amendment.

Regards,
Steve H

On 8/1/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
> 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/
>