[MD] Faith

[david buchanan]

Case and all MOQers:

dmb said:
Faith, by definition, is a belief held in the absence of evidence. The 
amount of evidence supporting the belief in tomorrow's sunrise is more than 
ample and so requires no faith.

Case replied:
...Even establishing what constitutes evidence is an act of faith. ...With 
what word would you describe: belief that a mathematical axiom is true or 
that there are virtual particles? Or that the world is not just ideas? Or 
the there is anything outside of yourself? I think Faith serves pretty well. 
I can think of lots of really high quality ideas that I accept on Faith. 
Like the validity of mathematics and the power of reason.

dmb says:
You accept the validity of mathematics on faith? Dude, that is simply NOT 
what the word means. Just as with tomorrow's sunrise, there is ample 
evidence for the validity of mathematics. People use it successfully every 
day. The "belief" in its validity has nothing to do with faith. Its based on 
experience, on evidence and can be seen in the countless practical 
applications that hold so much of our world together. But now I'm just 
repeating myself. I'm just reasserting the main point of my last post, which 
is the one you're responding to. But this repition is not designed to bore 
you. I guess I'm a little baffled by your response. You seem to be using 
"faith" in such a way as to deliberatly confuse it with its opposite. You 
seem to be saying that experience and evidence do not matter, that all 
beliefs are faith-based.

You really don't see why a guy might have a problem with that? You think the 
distinction between scientific propostions and unsupported beliefs is really 
all that flimsy? See, this is what I meant when I complained that this use 
of the word "faith" is destructive, that it disrespects intellectual 
clarity. I mean, you have to admit that the dictionary makes this 
distinction. Its not like I'm speculating wildly here. I've encountered this 
attitude before and I just don't get it. How can any sane person doubt the 
superiority of beliefs based in experience and evidence as opposed to those 
held in the absence of evidence? How can ignore or erase this distinction 
with entering the realm of bullshit? This is the point I don't get. And the 
defenders of faith never seem to address it. Maybe you'll be the exception, 
Case. Maybe you can explain how trust in mathematical axioms can be equated 
with beliefs held on the basis of faith? How do you dismiss the importance 
and relevance of evidence and experience?

Case said:
I may be wrong but it seems that Peter shows what the real issue is when he 
says: "Faith always stinks of religion to me. Having faith in something is a 
waste of energy." This seems like little more than prejudice. I would be 
interested to know what single word conveys why you think "gathering 
information" or "intellectual clarity and scientific truth" are important if 
not Faith?

dmb says:
You want me to explain the importance of intellectual clarity and scientific 
truth in a SINGLE WORD? As I understand the rules of grammar, that would 
quite impossible. I believe you'll find much to ponder in a branch of 
philosophy called the philosophy of science. Or, more specifically and 
convieniently, Robert Pirsig's MOQ does quite a lot in terms of making 
distinctions between different kinds or levels of belief. Experince, in 
fact, is the MOQ's starting point. Its based on Radical Empiricism, as 
William James called it and I would also describe it as a form of 
epistemological pluralism, both of which are ways of expanding the concept 
of what constitutes evidence. The MOQ is also anti-theistic and views faith 
as a very low quality. So, I'd be baffled at your use of the word faith in 
any context, but it strikes me as especially objectionable in a forum like 
this. We could chat about the philosophy of science or the expansion of 
empiricism later if you like. At this point I'm still hung up on the basic 
issue in terms of conventional dictionary meanings. I mean, if faith is 
belief in the absence of evidence and mathematical axioms are proven true by 
virtue of their use every freakin day of the week, then how in the world can 
we rightly call it faith? Isn't that just bullshit? Seriously. How is that 
NOT bullshit?

Wouldn't the MOQ say this move is anti-intellectual and immoral?

And how is it that this criticism is a form of prejudice? The superiority of 
beliefs based on experience and evidence is asserted on the basis of the 
validity of the beleif itself, not on the ethnicity or race of the person 
who believes it. I mean, rejecting an idea or opinion on the basis of its 
quality and validity is pretty much the opposite of a prejudice, no? That is 
pretty much what it means to make a legitimate judgement as opposed to 
pre-judging, no? I mean, would it really make sense to say that Peter and I 
have an unfair bias against unsupported beliefs? Doesn't make a heckuva lot 
more sense to say we have a justified bias against unsupported beliefs? And 
why is that bias justified? Because they are unsupported.

By the way, Case, are you a religious person?

Thanks.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/