[MD] Faith

[ian glendinning]

Happy to take sides DMB ... I'm definitey much much closer to the end
that says belief requires quality evidence rather than not. I think I
closed this line better in another thread - where I think we agreed it
was a matter of superior (more evidence-based) / inferior (more
faith-based) basis of belief.

All I was ever pointing out was that this is a relative scale - not a
matter of two fixed points - watertight objective "evidence" and
totally goundless "faith".

I said it more poetically when I said earlier that "scientists in
glass houses shouldn't throw stones at the faithful behind their
stained glass windows" because even scientists need to have faith in
consistency and elegance of their constructions, where their empirical
experience is lacking.

I'm in no way casting doubt on the validity of good science. The open
ended contingent nature is indeed part of its good qualities. (I've
spent 1000's of words arguing against creationists elsewhere). I'm
just saying that as science approaches the edges of what is
demonstrable - provisonal or otherwise - its is less "certain" and
requires imagination and suspension of disbelief to make any arguments
or metaphorical explanations.

I may be blurring the black and white nature of the definitions, but
not their relative positions on the grey scale. The objective was to
avoid pointless binary debate (not between me and you, cos as far as
I'm concerned we agree here, but) between others who might object to
your characterization of most religious / theist beliefs as (totally)
goundless, (blind) faith. That might apply to a few extremists, but
not the majority of intelligent "believers".

I needn't have bothered :-)
I have no argument with you.
Ian