[MD] Faith

[Case]

dmb,
I think one more time around the pole and this tiger will turn to butter.
This has been a discussion of the extremes. I am talking about the very
basis of what we believe. This has been not so much about evidence but what
we make of evidence or what we accept as evidence. When Gödel and Heisenberg
show that uncertainty can not be eliminated even from logic and physics, I
say it is time to take uncertainty seriously. Deciding between materialism
or eastern mysticism or a Creator God as the core of your world view is an
irrational act. There is no rational basis for preferring one over the
other. It requires faith.

But that is a problem for epistemologists. This whole discussion started
because I asserted to Ham that uncertainty is ubiquitous and that big chunks
of our language, habits and economy are based on it. Faith, Hope, Trust,
Belief, Religion and Science are all words that describe attitudes toward
uncertainty.

dmb says:
I'd like to disagree with Kuhn, or rather with your interpretation of what
it means to undergo a scientific paradigm shift, for example. But at this
point in the debate I'm just opposed to the deliberate attempt to erase the
distinction between faith-based beliefs and beliefs based on evidence. 

[Case]
In "The Copernican Revolution", Kuhn laid the foundation for the notion of
the paradigm shift which he developed in "Structure of Scientific
Revolutions". There are other examples of ideas that have been accepted on
other that rational grounds. In "The History of Zero" Robert Kaplan talks
about the discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibniz. In both of their
formulations there was a problem. Their systems involved canceling out
division by zeros. Each used mathematical tricks to make this go away not
sound mathematical reasoning. Kaplan maintains that the calculus was
accepted because it worked and was useful not because it was rational.
Mathematicians of the day accepted it on faith. 

Faith is a measure of our tolerance for uncertainty. It is the point at
which we specify what evidence we will accept and then demand it.

[dmb]
I'd agree that picking one hypothesis over another is not purely rational,
that intuition and creativity play a role even in the hardest of sciences. I
just don't see how this wonderful fact leads you to conclude that the
scientific process requires an act of faith. 

[Case]
I thought we agreed Faith is belief without rational support. So what's the
problem? 

But just because we come to a belief through faith does not mean that we can
not support it with reason or whatever we determine evidence to be. In fact,
faith in the face of evidence to the contrary (whatever one has established
evidence to be) is indeed low Quality.

dmb says:
I'm not even trying to assert reason over faith so much as evidence over the
lack of evidence with respect to any kind of belief - mathematical or
spiritual or emotional or aesthetic or anything else. Sure, the modern
rational mind is where things like logic and evidence begin take on value
for us, but I should like to think our debate is taking place some time
within the last few hundred years.

[Case]
When people pick lottery numbers they offer up all kinds of reasons and
rationales for playing particular numbers. But rationally there is no reason
any set of numbers is more likely to win than a random quick pick. And yet
many persist in the belief that their set of numbers will eventually win. In
the end there is no reason to pick one method over another. One ticket buyer
has faith in lucky numbers, another has confidence in the laws of
probability. 

dmb says:
If we drop the impossible idea that science or reason or evidence can 
be absolute or perfectly complete, then the superiority of "reason" over 
"faith" has to be one of the easiest call in the world.

[Case]
I agree completely. I think I mentioned that it is a skip over a puddle
rather that a dive across a chasm. I frequent judge schools of thought on
the distance they would require me to leap.

dmb says:
Well, first of all Pirsig himself says explicitly that the MOQ is 
anti-theistic and views faith as very low quality in terms of belief. 
Secondly, you've mistaken these Pirsig quotes as supporting theism when in
fact they are in support of philosophical mysticism, which is not theistic.
Notice the phrase "Quality is a direct experience". That little phrase
speaks volumes. Unlike theistic religions, the MOQ does not assert the
existence of a supernatural creator or a divine personality beyond human
experience. In fact, the MOQ equates reality with experience and asserts no
reality beyond experience. There is no absolute reality, no Kantian thing in

itself, no God.

[Case]
So what? Eastern religions do accept the supernatural. This seems an odd
track of a materialist to take. I am a materialist and I wouldn't. So you
close the door on God but roll out a carpet for ideas that turn reality into
a dream and self absorption into a virtue. But you think Faith is silly.

Case said:
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 says:
Seriously. Don't you think the superority of supported beliefs is
demonstrated every day of the week? 

[Case]
Faith is as much about what you would take support to be. You seem to think
that rational consistency is to be desired over emotional satisfaction. But
I have had an excellent reason for nearly every wrong thing I have ever
done. And my emotions would often have been a better guide. I should have
listened to them more.


[dmb]
Don't you think their validity is proven constantly in experience? 

[Case]
No.

[dmb]
I mean, an example would be a lot more convincing if you could come up with
an "unsupported" belief that isn't so obviously, fabulously successful. As
far as unsupported beliefs go, that one has to be near the bottom of the
list, right down there with tomorrow's sunrise.

[Case]
I thought I had given several: 
The acceptance of Euclid's postulates
Acceptance of the physical world
Acceptance of the validity of my senses

Beyond that, Faith is with us every day. I get in my car and turn the key. I
have faith that it will start. I have turned enough keys in enough cars that
did not start, so that my Faith is not absolute. The strength of my faith is
my estimate in the probability of the car starting. 

When I get on the road I have faith that other drivers will obey the rules
of at least act predictably. I have driven enough miles to know this ain't
always so. You can say this is rational, based in experience, supported by
evidence, la, la, la, but in reality my expectations have been violated
enough times that reason is not what gives me the confidence to drive.
Reason would tell me that getting crushed to a bloody pulp is too much to
risk for a Slurpee and a hotdog. I have faith in my vehicle and faith in
other drivers and I am really thirsty.

dmb asked:
By the way, Case, are you a religious person?

Case didn't answer:
How is that relevant?

dmb says:
Well, I don't know how closely you've been following current events for that

last few decades, but there is a movement afoot. There is a 
sociological/culture phenomenon occuring at present which can be 
charcterized as faith-based and anti-intellectual. These reactionary forces 
have been hard at work in trying to undermine scientific truths in favor of 
faith-based believes. I asked if you are a religious person because this 
movement is largely motivated by their religious beliefs and your arguments 
very closely resemble theirs. So, I'd say its extemely relevant to our 
discussion of the meaning of the word "faith". Even if you have no intention

of lending support to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson, that is

the effect. They want people to believe that science is merely a rival faith

too. I think religious beliefs are more than relevant to the problem. I 
think they ARE the problem.

[Case]
I know that this must just light your fuse but the fact is you just don't
like the word Faith and it's stench of religion. You want to bash
Christians. Not just right wing whackos but all Christians. What I am trying
to say here is, Faith is not the stick to bash them with. This is something
people of reason and people of the book have in common.

This is a term that should unite science and religion, not divide them. We
can speak of the measure of our faith or what draws us to faith. If you are
breaking out in a rash over this Faith because of Falwell, Dobson and
Robertson maybe you should check out Borg, Pagels, or Crosson. What makes
the right wing evil is not faith, it is fallacy. They are wrong on their own
terms. Attacking them over the word faith is not going to be effective. It
just diverts attention away from more telling flaws in their beliefs. 

But since you don't like Faith, I asked you to give me a single word that
could replace it. You replied that this was linguistically impossible. How
about "Trust?" You can exchange it for Faith practically everywhere I have
used the term. Does that make you feel better?