From: gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Keywords: anthropics, faith, humor
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:55:37 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <Bz4n8I.CAp@world.std.com> jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:

>>Now let me pick a couple of plums out of the Christmas pie that you
>>people have made of the second question.  Once again Mr Bass:
>>
>>> >(2) Is there an inherent conflict between science as a human activity
>>> >and faith as a human need?  Ans.: Yes, because science entails respect
>>> >for evidence, and faith means contempt for evidence.  A person in whom
>>> >they coexist must either be embattled or have worked out an internal
>>> >truce with well-defended boundaries.
>>>      Observation: Faith does not mean 'contempt for evidence'.  Evidence
>>>      is irrelevant, but that does not imply contempt.   Do you have
>>>      contempt for my opinion on whether you should water your houseplants
>>>      tomorrow, or is it just irrelevant?
>>
>>To say that something is irrelevant, in my book, is to show contempt
>>for it.  I use the word in its literal, neutral sense, not the debased
>>sense in which it is a euphemism for "hate".  True faith involves
>>*serenity* in the face of unpleasant evidence, comparable to the
>>serenity Mr Bass imagines I might feel in the face of his advice about
>>houseplants.

>>
>>>   Your definition reminds me of an old joke.  A Sunday school teacher asks 
>>> what "faith" means, and one child answers "its when you believe something 
>>> even though you know it isn't true".  (At this point everyone, except you, 
>>> laughs because of the subtle misconception the child has picked up.)
>>
>>"Everyone, except you, laughs" is an unlovely & implausible fantasy.
>>I laughed at the joke, in part, because I thought the child had
>>expressed an unsubtle truth.  That is the *humor* in the joke: it

>      Faith is very subtle.  That is the point here.  It is not
>      necessarily doublethink since it is a consistent system.

>                             dale bass

Here is the crux of this stream of discussion. Those that have 
faith cannot understand how it is possible not to have it. Those that 
have no faith are insulted by any implications that they posses it. In 
either case, no matter, it is possible to do science without faith, but 
the converse, in "most" religions is viewed as hypocrisy. 

Note: I am using the generally accepted meaning of the word faith, the 
aggregate meaning used by english speaking people. This can be approximated 
by consulting several dictionaries. I do not claim to have consulted 
every english speaking person, nor could I if I wished. So far I have 
consulted 4 dictionaries. 

It would be interesting if people would post what they think the word
faith means and then a citation from their dictionary with reference. 
Much of this discussion centers around differing definitions. This process
might result in a definition that all would agree reflects the common usage,
like it or not. 

Gene Kochanowsky

-- 
Gene Kochanowsky                           | "And remember ....
Associated Electronic Engineers, Inc.      |       The better you look ... 
(904)893-6741 Voice, (904)893-2758 Fax     |       the more you will see."
gene@aee.com                               |               Miss Lidia
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21276 news.groups:24451