[MD] Faith

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB, (and Gene mentioned)

OK argument, and you concluded with answering your own question ....

"Does the absence of absolute truth, whatever that's supposed to be, really
mean that all so-called truths are the same, that we can make no
distinctions between supported and unsupported beliefs? Of course not."

And of course I agree too. All I'm saying is that those distinctions
about the "how well some belief is supported" - the quality of support
- needs at least some basis or rationale. That basis I call MoQ. And
the reason I like it as a basis is that it's consistent with science,
where science has valid things to say (in its own terms), and honest
about the fact that its own bedrock is metaphysical (ie chosen by
nothing more solid than thought) and that its less predictable edges
are about evolutionary psychology - mysteries and mythologies.

It's pointless (a 'tis / 'tisn't argument) to assert that religion
needs faith whereas science doesn't - in any axiomatic sense, as those
of alternative persuasions, like Gene, confirm (even though he was
also trying to make the idea of "proof" less wishy-washy than
"evidence").

Ian



On 7/27/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy MOQers:
>
> Ian said to dmb:
> When you said this (quoted and re-quoted) "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."
> ...The problem is the absoluteness / relativeness of terms like "absence",
> "more", "ample" and "no".
>
> dmb says:
> Absoluteness? Um, I guess you're confusing me with Ham or Platt. As I
> understand it, the "Absolute" is crypto-theological nonsense and there is no
> such thing as an absolute truth. For the gazillionth time, I simply oppose
> the idea that unsupported beliefs are the same as beliefs based on
> experience. In fact, I'm basically saying that there are many good reasons
> to believe that the Sun will come up tomorrow, but belief in things such as
> the absolute and the absoulute truth have no such support.
>
> Ian continued:
> ...The question is how much evidence, how objective or otherwise, how well
> observed, how well founded, and how well argued on top of those selected
> foundations, etc. ie "what counts as sufficient evidence".
>
> dmb says:
> Exactly. That's the question. I'm simply saying that faith based beliefs, by
> definition, are not supported by sufficient evidence, whereas the existence
> of night and day is very well founded in experience. But this is where you
> start to lose me...
>
> Ian said:
> Science is a well argued and well formed process, but you still have to
> believe in that process and you still have to "have faith in" it's
> metaphysical roots, and suspend disbelief where it gets small, large,
> complex, unpredictable, awesome and emergent, simply because its explanatory
> arguments are "good".
>
> dmb says:
> We have to "believe" in the scientific process and "have faith" and "suspend
> disbelief"? I understand that you and others are making this assertion, but
> I fail to see how it works. I mean, so far all I see on this question is a
> repeated attempt to characterize the scientific process this way but where
> is the actual argument? Where is the answer to my complaint? I mean, if the
> scientific process has been working for hundreds of years, in what sense do
> we have to "believe" in it? How can you sit at a computer and type out the
> idea that mathematical axioms are believed on the basis of faith? Isn't the
> existence of your computer evidence enough that we have good reason think
> math is true? And does the fact that science can't give us perfect knowledge
> or complete knowledge really mean that we have to "suspend disbelief"? I
> mean, you seem to be suggesting that science requires faith because it can't
> give us absolute truth and is not based on an absolute foundation. But I
> don't think that's what I'm talking about at all. Talk about absolutes has
> always struck me as completely ridiculous and I don't understand why such
> fictional nonsense keeps rearing its ugly head. I'm just talking about the
> quality of our beliefs and I'm only saying that science has "explanatory
> argument that are 'good'," as compared to faith-based beliefs.
>
> Ian said:
> Faith (as a word) carries religious baggage, (and no doubt definitions that
> refer to lack of evidence) but I don't think it helps to deny that science
> (including solar astronomy) requires a little faith too.
>
> dmb says:
> How do you fiqure that solar astronomy requires faith? What practices or
> assertions are unsupported by evidence and experience? What part of that
> science rests on faith? What in the world are you talking about? Seriously.
> I can't imagine why we "require a little faith" to do astrophysics. My hunch
> is that you're simply pointing out that science proceeds in the face of many
> uncertainties and just don't that that is the same thing as faith. I don't
> think faith is holding a belief that falls short of perfect or absolute
> knowledge simply because there is no such thing and that would describe all
> beliefs. In fact, I think this impossible and completely fictional standard
> only distorts the real issue, which is much less grandiose. Some beliefs are
> supported by lots of evidence and some are not.
>
> Ian said:
> ....The difference between scientific belief and religious faith is great,
> but not absolute .... it is simply a pragmatic one. (and I'm with you on the
> working defintion) - I just don't think we get anywhere with is /is-not
> debates.
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, the difference is great, but not absoulute. I agree. But aren't you
> equivocating rather wildly here? Maybe that's why you just don't think we
> get anywhere with is/isn't debates?
>
> The the absence of absolute truth, whatever that's supposed to be, really
> mean that all so-called truths are the same, that we can make no
> distinctions between supported and unsupported beliefs?
>
> Of course not.
>
> 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/
>
>