[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[david buchanan]

Somebody? looked up the word "faith" in the Merriam-Webster Online 
Dictionary: 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in 
the  traditional doctrines of a religion  b (1) : firm belief in something 
for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust (3) : something that is 
believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of 
religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> synonym see BELIEF (3) - on faith : 
without question <took everything he said on faith.

dmb said:
See? Was that so hard? That's all I'm talking about. I'm just using standard 
definitions.

ian replied:
...Given that understanding of "faith" what is it that actually 
distinguishes faith from scientific beliefs? What make a good "reason" to 
believe as you put it elsewhere?

dmb says:
Are you kidding? Scientific beliefs would be approxiately the opposite of 
these definitions, the belief in things for which there is something like 
proof, something that is believed provisionally until a better explanation 
comes along, its skeptical rather than trusting, it asks lots of questions, 
is in the business of asking questions. I mean, how can you possbily fail to 
see the difference? I really don't get it.

ian continued:
Why am I asking such banal questions? Because they also seem to be at the 
root of whatever it is that distinguishes social from intellectual ... 
leaving aside the religious language baggage (from this discussion, for now) 
the key words in the dictionary quotes seem to me to be "traditional" and 
"question".

dmb says:
Huh? Look, the dictionary give us shades and varations on a basic theme. 
Faith based beliefs are held regardless of the evidence. They are held 
firmly and with conviction on the basis of tradition and loyalty rather than 
evidence or inquiry. Why should this be a mystery. There are millions of 
people who could serve as an concrete real-world example of what the 
dictionary refers to. What kind of crazy blindness can be responsible for 
the apparent difficulty of grasping this? A child could understand this. 
Seriously. The most basic forms of rational cognition can grasp this concept 
so that it would be easy for any 12 year-old to get it.

ian said:
Oh, and whilst I've got your attention, talking about straw men, as you 
were, you attributed this dumb syllogism to some of your chosen adversaries. 
"Traditional religion is a belief system and Science is a belief system, 
therefore they are the same." Again I ask who?

dmb says:
You.  That syllogism might not be very generous or flattering, but I think 
it pretty well captures your "logic" on the issue. You know, equating 
assumptions and starting points with faith-based convictions and such. 
Saying that assumptions are believed on the basis of faith rather than 
evidence, logic or reason, etc.

_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get 
it now 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview