From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<lc9isbINN7hr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <Bv5IE2.Lrv@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
	<lc9nklINN7t4@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:50:17 GMT

holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>>>For our purposes, take "X is bad" to mean "I don't like X, it's
>>>distasteful, I think it's a natural distaste, a lot of people share
>>>it, and I think you should, too."

In article <Bv5G5s.LHB@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Hmm, so I should be like you and everyone else?

In article <lc9isbINN7hr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>Did I say you should?  No.  You asked what "bad" meant.  I said that
>"X is bad" can be taken to mean that the speaker has a distaste that
>she believes is or should be shared.
>That Bob believes his taste T is or should be shared does not mean
>that Bob beleives all of his tastes is or should be shared.
>That Bob believes his taste T is or should be shared does not mean Bob
>believes there exists a logical proof that T is or should be shared.

But, now let me see if I get this straight, if you say that X is bad,
that is that you don't like X and your dislike is natural, whatever
that's supposed to mean, and a lot of people agree with you, then you
think that I should agree also that X is bad. Do I interpret you
correctly here? Strikes me as somewhat self-delusional. Let me explain
how I am different. When I say that X is bad, I mean that X is bad from
my perspective. I don't expect you to share my value judgement, even if
it is "natural?" or shared by most people.

>>>I defy you to cite a single proposition (from mathematics or
>>>elsewhere) that "many scientists" hold to be beyond doubt because it
>>>issues from some authority.  (Tautologies don't count.)

>>1 + 1 = 2

>Bzzt.  Tautology.  The truth of this statement can be derived directly
>from the definitions of "1", "+", "=", and "2".  Try again.

Oh really?
 
>>Or, do you have blind faith that this is correct? In other words, you KNOW it
>>to be TRUE beyond ANY doubt.

>Get your definitions straight.  Faith (what you call blind faith) is
>not just about certitude; it's about unquestioning certitude based on
>authority.  The truth of "1 + 1 = 2" has nothing to do with authority.

I see, then blind faith is your answer.

>>You see, faith means some doubt, blind faith
>>means absolutely NO doubt.

>Yes, I'm quite aware that, by your idiosyncratic definitions, "faith"
>means nothing more than "less-that-certain belief".  Are you a native
>speaker of English?

A bit condescending, don't you think? Would a bit of decorum be too much
to ask for?

>>I accept it as true because I have faith that mathematicians know
>>more about Math than I.

>You mean, you have a LESS-THAN-CERTAIN BELIEF that mathematicians know
>more about Math than you.

Yes.

>But you would not deny, would you, that
>nothing in mathematics depends ultimately on authority or revelation.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my skills are limited, I'm only an
engineer. To me, mathematics depends ultimately on the authority of
mathematicians and what they chose to reveal to me. As I said, I don't
have blind faith in mathematics, but what seems to work for me I assume
to be correct. I don't KNOW these mathematical things to actually BE
correct, I assume that the mathematicians know what they are doing. I
believe that mathematicians have authority over me, when it comes to
math and whatever they chose to reveal to me I am most grateful for. I
have faith in math, but not blind faith. Faith means some doubt of
truth, blind faith means absolutely no doubt of truth. I think you have
blind faith that math is true.

>>>But I don't think your definition reflects common usage.  Who would
>>>really say, "Scientists have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow"?

>>Somebody better!

>Thanks for not answering my question about common usage of the word
>"faith"...

Common usage of the word faith? How is such a thing determined? Do you
have a poll? Or are you perhaps assuming that your definition of faith
is the common usage of the word? I hear engineers say all the time that
they have faith that the models are correct, or faith in the predicted
simulation results, or faith that the schedule will be met. I hear
"ordinary" people all the time tell me they have faith that they won't
get towed or that there isn't a cop looking or that it will or won't
rain. But, you won't hear me trying to argue from authority like you are. I
am under no delusion that what I perceive as common or ordinary or
natural or held by the majority holds any real weight. I suppose that is
one concept I have very little faith in. I have minimal faith in the
mainstream. 

>>>I do not hold it to be beyond doubt that the sun will come
>>>up tomorrow, but that doesn't keep me from setting my alarm clock and
>>>planning to go to work.

>>Then why do you?

>Because I am persuaded by THE EVIDENCE that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Persuaded by THE EVIDENCE? That's a very interesting concept. That
sounds like blind faith to me.

>>>By *your* definition of faith (holding a proposition to be true
>>>without personally proving it), this statement is true.  By the proper
>>>definition of faith (what you call "blind faith") [...]

>>Proper? Are you speaking from authority?

>Of course not.  Lexicography is an empirical science.

The dictionary is a place to start, but language is much more complex
and subtle than what you could possibly find there. Speaking of natural
and common, it is generally considered poor practice to use a dictionary
as a source on usenet. It sounds to me like you have blind faith in the
dictionary.

>>>There is a difference between being "certain that science is right"
>>>and choosing not to personally verify the myriad aspects of current
>>>science that are verifiably correct.

>>Verifiably correct? By whom, people of authority?

>No, by anyone who cares to carry out the verification.

Aren't there certain qualifications, certain talents required? Are you
saying that anyone can be a complete Mathematician? That anyone can
prove or disprove all the theories of Math for themselves? Do you do
this or do you have some trust that Mathematicians know what they are
doing? Remember, faith, not BLIND faith. BIG difference.

>I'll type this slowly, so you can understand: in science, there is no
>book or person such that propositions emanating therefrom are taken to
>be beyond doubt.  This is not the case for revelation-based religions.

To be taken beyond doubt would be blind faith. Many scientists have
faith that the revelations of research journals are mostly true. But not
blind faith, mistakes do happen.

>>>  Only a fool, or conversely a genius, would reject calculus as
>>>  something from authority and therefore not useful or worthy of
>>>  being held as true without personal verification.

>>Right, in other words,

>More precisely, in YOUR words.  In case it hasn't soaked through your
>skull yet, what's under dispute here is the proper definition of the
>term "faith".

Again you use proper and yet you claim to not suffer any self delusions?

>>you have faith that people of greater authority,
>>mathematicians, have done this verification for you.

>>>  Only a credulous nitwit would accept calculus as
>>>  something from authority and therefore to be held beyond doubt.

>>Then perhaps I am a credulous nitwit, I'm only an engineer after all. I have
>>faith [...] But not blind faith,
>>I know when to question the mathematical answers.

>Then you are NOT a credulous nitwit, because by this admission you DO
>NOT "accept calculus as something from authority and therefore to be
>held BEYOND DOUBT" [emphasis added].
>However, feel free to label yourself a nitwit for not being able to
>figure out whether or not you hold the pronouncements of
>mathematicians to be "beyond doubt".

Actually, I accept calculus as something from authority but never beyond
doubt. You see, I trust mathematicians know math better than I, I have
faith in mathematicians. Regular old fashioned faith, not blind faith.

holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>>>Because I find that believing in things that *are* sufficiently
>>>evidenced is in fact "of value" and "useful".

In article <Bv5IE2.Lrv@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>Ah, and who is the judge of "sufficiently evidenced"?

In article <lc9nklINN7t4@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> 
holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:
>If by "judge" you mean "one who evaluates", the answer is: everyone.
>If by "judge" you mean "one whose pronouncements are dispositive", the
>answer is: no one.

So, by your definition, anything that you judge to be sufficiently
evidenced as evaluated by you is in fact of value and useful to
you. Surely you see this as self-delusion? What makes you think that you are
judging correctly, that is without self-delusion? How would you know
that you are judging without self-delusion?

>>And do you have faith
>>in the things you judge to be "sufficiently evidenced"?

>By definition, if a proposition is sufficiently evidenced, it can be
>held to be probably true without any faith whatsoever.

Self-delusion.

>>Do you believe only in that which can be scientifically
>>proven to be true?

>I believe empirical propositions when they are sufficiently evidenced.
>I believe philosophical propositions when they are validly derived
>from axioms I find useful.  I believe esthetic propositions based on
>my tastes.  Etc.

Self-delusion.

>>>2. Choose practices by utility.

>>Don't we all do this? Even Christians do this don't they?

>Perhaps.  My point is that Christians do *not* follow practice #1.

Anyone who is self-deluded does. We all suffer from self-delusion.

>>>it's extremely useful to follow
>>>the practice of believing in things that are quite likely.

>>Yes, if you want to be always proved correct in your beliefs.

>You clearly do not understand what "faith" means.  Apparently, you
>also do not understand the difference between "quite likely" and
>"proved correct".

I said "want". What you want does not always appear, but if you want
your beliefs to be always proved correct, it is extremely useful to only
believe things that are quite likely, since there are few things that
are always correct.

>>is it safe to try some other more daring and risky beliefs?

>You'll have to evaluate risks for yourself.  Personally, I find it far
>too risky to believe in propositions that are insufficiently evidenced.

Again, more self-delusion.

>>>Are you trying to exempt propositions about deities from analysis of
>>>likelihood?

>>For me? Yes. I don't care if such propositions are found to be
>>scientifically true or false.

>I asked you about "likelihood", not about "scientific truth".  If you
>believe in a deity, then you either believe a diety is likely to
>exist, or you exempt propositions about deities from analysis of
>likelihood.  Which is it?

Neither. I find the belief in a deity to be a non-issue. Something
of little value for theists and atheists to argue about. Religion is
organized mythology. How can one believe or not believe in a myth? It
means nothing and it is of no use, to me. The theist/atheist debate,
that is. Myth means a great deal to me. This is kind of a Hindu leaning,
some Hindus believe in the existance of deity and others do not, that is
there are atheist and theist Hindus and it doesn't seem to make
much of a difference to me.

>>I look for meaning in the metaphors.

>Given your patent unwillingness/inability to spare very much meaning
>for placement into the things you write, can I take it that you don't
>*find* very much meaning in the places that you're currently
>"look[ing]"?

Non sequitur. Decorum please, or is that too much to ask?

>>Even if it was likely, why would this kind of belief be useful?

>Belief in that which is likely is always useful.  (Or do you wish to
>dispute this?)

It's too conservative for me. Why do you fear failure?

>>>the utility of not deluding myself
>>>outweighs the utility of self-delusion.

>>I think we all derive value by deluding ourselves. Think about it.

>I have.  My conclusion is that you are speaking for a smaller group
>than you realize.

I see, so you do admit to self-delusion?

>>>What religion does not involve holding a proposition to be
>>>beyond doubt because it issues from some authority? 

>>Moderate Christians

>Ah, so moderate Christians don't believe that Jesus was God?

They judge there to be sufficient evidence under your own structure of
rules. It may be self-delusion, but don't think you also do not suffer
from your own self-delusion just because you are not Christian.

>>>Certainly all revelation-based religions do. 

>>No, a prophet can reveal and yet not require blind faith.

>A prophet may or may not "require" blind faith, but blind faith is BY
>DEFINITION necessary to believe beyond doubt in the truth of his
>revelation.

Only faith in the revelation of the prophet is required. Not blind
faith. BIG difference!

>>A good teacher does
>>not require blind faith. A good teacher would say, "Follow me and be free".

>No, a good teacher would say "Here is what I have found out.  Don't
>believe it simply because it's coming from me.  And here is how to
>repeat the process by which I found it out."

That is a meaning of: "Follow me and be free". Think about it. It's a
test of the student.

>>Get it? Learn from dogma, but please do not be dogmatic.

>I learn plenty by observing the faithful, but I do not have faith,
>thank you.

I said learn from dogma, not observe the faithful.