[MD] Faith

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tues. July 25 10:49 AM DMB writes to 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.


Hi DMB and all,

Using your definition there is not much to faith. I have read another 
definition by Paul in a letter to Hebrews: "What is faith? It is that which 
gives substance to our hopes, which convinces us of things we cannot see." 
(Hebrews 11:1)

For myself, I am afraid of things that go bump in the night. Yes I have 
hopes and wishes. I hope I express my yearnings in the way I write. I am 
encouraged that Paul also wanted a substance for hope in the things we 
cannot see. If I have no yearning for things I do not know, I don't know how 
I would learn! Yearning and not knowing! What a terrible combination. Sexual 
abuse follows the intimacy of yearning and not knowing. I don't think sex, 
yearning, and knowing are all about the same thing.

Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Faith


> 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/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 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/