[MD] The End of Faith

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,

Steve:
>> All I'm saying is that if someone would evaluate a claim based on  
>> logical
>> cohesion or evidence or what ever standards he may have normally for
>> intellectual quality, he should apply the same standards to claims  
>> made
>> about, say, the virgin birth of Jesus or Mohammed flying to heaven  
>> on a
>> winged horse.

Platt:
> What I've been trying to get across, apparently without success, is  
> that
> there is more than one standard involved in intellectual quality  
> besides
> reason and the standards of science, including an aesthetic  
> standard and a
> DQ standard (illumination). Also, I've tried to point out that  
> whatever
> standard you choose, it cannot prove its own validity. Thus, faith  
> plays a
> role no matter what your standard is  -- you ultimately accept that
> standard on faith.

Steve:
At least it seems that we understand one another at this point.

I disagree that there is another standard for intellectual quality  
than reason and evidence because all I mean by reason and evidence is  
intellectual quality. I am not presupposing any specific method or  
rules to define what constitutes reason and evidence.

But I agree that science is certainly not the final say on truth. It  
sounds like you are talking about scientism--the claim that only  
scientific claims are meaningful which itself is not a scientific  
claim. I do not have this sort of faith in science. As you point out,  
it is self-defeating.

The basic argument you make is that no matter what your standard is,  
you ultimately accept that standard on faith. I disagree. Pirsig  
illustrates that a taste for evidence and reason is an aesthetic one  
based on analogues upon analogues. There is no accepting a standard  
of truth on faith when you think of truth as that which is good by  
way of belief.

On the basic level you are talking about, truth is sensed or intuited  
rather than consciously held to a specific standard that one has  
chosen. And one person's truth is another's falsehood. Discerning  
truth is a matter of taste not a matter of faith. This is of course  
not true for science where specific standards of truth have been  
established. But for an individual making a valuation of a claim to  
truth, faith is not necessarily required. Reason and evidence is not  
a standard that someone picks. Reason and evidence are just words for  
intellectual quality. It is just judging what is good and bad in  
terms of intellect.

People don't run down a checklist of pre-decided standards for what  
is good by way of belief. Even if I did make a list of standards, it  
would be an attempt to describe this intuitive truth-sense rather  
than a definition of what is true to be accepted on faith. The so- 
called Laws of Logic are descriptions of what people seem to agree  
produce quality intellectual patterns. They are descriptive rather  
than prescriptive. They are not accepted on faith, rather they are  
intuited.


>> Platt:
>>> Science believes the
>>> scientific method is the only reliable method of establishing  
>>> truth and
>>> material entities are the most fundamental things that exist.  
>>> These are
>>> philosophical assumptions. They are not provable by the  
>>> scientific method.
>>
>> Steve:
>> This is true of the SOM scientist. But it is irrelevent to whether  
>> faith in
>> the sense of believing things that run against one's own sense of
>> intellectual quality is good or bad.
>

Platt:
> If one's sense is the determinant of intellectual quality, then my  
> sense of
> such quality is as valid as yours.

Steve:
Yes. I agree.

The sort of faith I'm railing against is the choice to deny one's own  
sense of intellectual quality. As long as people keep talking about  
the intellectual quality of a given claim, conversation about trying  
to agree on what is good to believe can continue. The conversation  
stopper that we are facing in this country is this use of faith. As  
soon as someone appeals to faith to justify a belief, the  
conversation is over. We are not supposed to question someone's  
faith. Use of the term is a signal that means whatever I just said is  
not open for discussion.

For example, if a politician says I oppose such and such legislation  
on the basis of personal faith, there is no way to respond other than  
to vote him out of office. Anyone who appeals to faith as a reason  
for something should be laughed off the podium. Such a use of faith  
is just to say you have no reasons or are simply choosing not to use  
reason. This "laughing off the podium" would certainly occur if a  
politician ever said, "my faith in Zues, the God of Thunder, compels  
me to vote for this proposition," and the same thing should happen to  
any politician who tries to bring faith into a debate.

There are a couple other issues I want to respond to in your last  
post that may be better off in a different thread.

Regards,
Steve