[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Michael Poloukhine]

> MP: Thanks Andre, that quote explains a lot to me about the fanatic
> responses I see here to my rather mildly heretical suggestions about
> MoQ.
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Michael. A bit of reverse psychology has never gone astray. In all
> honesty I haven't been following this thread in detail so leave the
> 'fanatical' interpretation to you.
> Why the 'fanatical' reactions? I really do not know, maybe we care about the
> MoQ (I include myself in this one). I suggest you ask the others.
> You know my stance on theism. Take it away from the world and I think the
> world will be a little safer and honest. Take Quality away and it will be
> very dull. Strictly speaking, of course, the world would not exist.
> Faith I simply call: blind belief in something, and I have very little time
> for that.

MP: A few comments; 

- Fanatical reactions imply fanaticism, nothing more. I care about a lot of things, 
but I am not fanatical in my response. I am measured, firm, committed, etc. but 
not fanatical. Fanaticism is blind. More blind than faith can ever be. Faith may 
be blind to arguments of reason, but it is not blind to itself; it admits as much, in 
fact is defined as such *by* reason. Fanaticism on the other hand is by 
definition blind to itself; not only is it blind to reason, it is blind to its own 
blindness.

- Take away theism and you will lose much good, and will not by default rid 
culture or society of the things which make it bad. Religion does not need 
theism, theism does not need religion. Religion is the greater culprit here being 
the static latching of what ultimately (by definition of the MoQ and RMP's own 
arguments) is a Dynamic social/cultural phenomenon; theism (in the inclusive 
definition some here seem incapable of accepting for what it is.)

- Take away Quality? Um.. how many people in the world affirm Quality (capital 
Q, as defined in the MoQ) What... like ... 20? You can't take Quality out of the 
world when its not even really "there" in the first place. You may be suggesting 
taking away quality (lower case q) but they are not the same thing no matter 
how hard Arlo tries to argue it without arguing it. And it is arguable as much a 
source of bad things as theism when individual and personal decisions are 
made for quality reasons without regard to the greater good (greed for 
instance.)

- Word weasel alert. Faith, as I have been using it in my point is "affirmation 
absent proof." "Proof" is a term defined by reason, science. That reason and 
science can be argued to also rely on "faith" is to redefine "faith" as you can't 
define a word using itself. Ergo the "faith" needed for science is *not* the "faith" 
in the definition I am using in my argument where it is in contrast to "proof." As 
such this argument against my point is void; it is nothing more than an attempt 
to surreptitiously redefine the word "faith" to try to discredit the argument that 
uses it in its original definition. The result is a criticism of a non-existent 
argument, some other argument, not my argument.

Similarly "Faith", the word, is not by (commonly accepted) definition "blind" in 
my arguments. I have been quite clear what I mean by "faith." That to you faith 
as necessarily blind is due to your insertion of that subjective term into the 
definition where I have quite consistently noted it does not exist. "Blindness" is 
a subjective term you are inserting into my argument in that it is a term based 
on a necessarily different perspective which by definition is contrary to "faith" 
and presumed to be superior in "vision" (nb: "reason.") This brings us right back 
to the logical dismantling of the criticism I have shown with respect to "proof" 
above. Its a self serving linguistic loop, using a bootstrap argument and as such 
not a valid criticism of my point; it does not criticize my point, rather it seeks to 
redefine the terms I use in my point to do the discrediting.

If someone here is willing to actually argue against my point about Arlo's 
criticism of theism (due to its reliance on "faith" = "affirmation absent proof")  in 
defense of my suggestion that MoQ is relying on such faith using the (again, 
same commonly accepted) definition of faith I have been clear I'm using, I'm 
willing to hear it. But so far, its just been reactionary MoQ static defense using 
deflection, self-serving redefinition of terms and self defeating reductionism. 

So far, all I've seen proven is that adherents of MoQ are no less susceptible to 
the vagaries of religious fanaticism that the theists they so actively attack for 
this very fault. IMO, MoQ is far better than that, is ill-served by such "defense" 
and ultimately would be better served by addressing my point head on in a 
constructive fashion. What I see in response to my suggestion is IMO as low 
quality as any religious reactionism.

(And before anyone thinks to take this approach again; I do NOT pretend to use 
this as an argument *for* theism. This is merely a precise argument I have 
against a very specific approach being taken to support MoQ, notably as 
contrasting it to theism. Nothing more.)

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."