[MD] Faith

[Case]

Peter, dmb, Steve and Ian.

I agree with most of what Ian and Steve said but, surprise I have a couple
of points to add...

[Peter]
Give me a situation where I am forced to decide on a personal standard of
Truth (and explain why the capital T).
I've said before I cannot act otherwise than that my senses correspond to
reality; I need not posit a matrix beyond nor any other kind of hidden
realm.

[Case]
You have to decide what you are willing to consider as evidence. Will you
rely on your head, your heart or your stomach? Do you trust your eyes? You
can discount the Matrix, but on what basis? Rent "The 13th Floor." You can
reject these pictures of reality because they seem silly, but not because
they can be disproven. They do not defy the evidence or rationality.

Truth with a capital "T" refers to questions about life, the universe and
everything.


dmb says:  
You accept the validity of mathematics on faith? Dude, that is simply NOT
what the word means. 

[Case]
Tell that to Russell and Whitehead. They wrote the Principia Mathematica in
an effort establish mathematic on firmly logical ground. Russell almost
halted publication when he discovered Russell's Paradox at the last minute.
But they added a hasty set of notes to cover it. Shortly after its
publication Gödel published his incompleteness theorem proving that any
formal system must contain statements that can not be proven within the
system. You can apply what ever "reason" you want. You can stack and unstack
the nested Russian dolls to your hearts content but in the end that last
doll is irrational. 

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
No problem but let me repeat myself: accepting the evidence of the senses as
a pathway to truth is an act of faith. You have to trust that your senses
are accurate. Most of us agree to do this and we do it in spite of the fact
that we know them to be unreliable.

[dmb]
You seem to be saying that experience and evidence do not matter, that all
beliefs are faith-based.  

[Case]
I am not saying that all beliefs are faith based. I am saying that it takes
a kernel of Faith to get to a point where rationality makes sense, where we
can interpret our perceptions, where we can reason together.
 
[dmb]
How do you dismiss the importance and relevance of evidence and experience? 

[Case]
I don't. I have Faith in them. I am just not kidding myself about why I
think they are important.
  
Case said:  
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? 

[Case]
Yes. 

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
Polanyi, points out that in many instances it is not reason or evidence that
drives science forward. Insight, aesthetics and a host of other processes
come into play. Reason is icing on the cake. It is how we check our work.
Even Russell did not claim that he could disprove the claims of the mystic;
only that claims are irrelevant if they can not be tested. Kuhn showed that
much of what drove the Copernican revolution was mathematical aesthetics not
an appeal to evidence. Or as Karl Popper put it, "...no rational argument
will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational
attitude." Faith is my basis for adopting such an attitude.

People in this discussion group are not driven by reason or evidence. If
they were we would have nothing to disagree about. We all have our private
world views; our reinforcement histories, and we cling to our favorite ways
of thinking about things as much from faith and habit as from reason. Reason
is a tool for rationalizing our prejudices. 

What I have said several times in the past is that I am willing to take a
leap of faith and embrace materialism and reason. This seems more of a hop
over a mud puddle than a drive into an abyss. I share your distain for
"faith in dogma" but I will not pile up words trying to put a rational face
on an irrational act.

[dmb]
Robert Pirsig's MOQ does quite a lot in terms of making distinctions between
different kinds or levels of belief. Experience, in fact, is the MOQ's
starting point. It's 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. 

[Case]
I don't think that Pirsig is anti-theistic at all. In fact he spends most of
his time talking about western philosophy because they are the opponents
that would have anything at all to say about his views. 

"Of the two kinds of hostility to metaphysics he considered the mystics'
hostility the more formidable. Mystics will tell you that once you've opened
the door to metaphysics you can say goodbye to any genuine understanding of
reality. Thought is not a path to reality."

He does not deny this. He can't.

"Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition,
ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior
to intellectual abstractions."

[dmb]
 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? 

[Case]
See above. 
 
[dmb]
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.  

[Case]
I am saying that you and Peter and I hold unsupported beliefs. The belief
that belief requires support, for example. We all hold unsupported or
unsupportable beliefs. What makes sense to me is to figure out which ones
they are and be honest about why we believe them.

[dmb]
By the way, Case, are you a religious person? 

[Case]
How is that relevant?