From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Sep 1992 20:43:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord


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

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.

>>"MATH" is not a proposition.  "MATH" does not have a truth-value.
>
>It doesn't? Are you saying that MATH is false? (not valid)

Things that don't have a truth-value cannot be "false".  Is Literature
"false"?  Is Philosophy "false"?

>>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.

>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.

>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?

>>"MATH" is not a proposition.  "MATH" does not have a truth-value.
>
>Why not?

A proposition is a statement about terms.  What statement does "MATH"
make?

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

>>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"...

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>  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".

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

False.  I do not hold it to be beyond doubt that this verification has
been done.

>>  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".

>But for me, calculus is
>something I take from authority as being probably correct,

Good.  Now, compare the meaning of "probably correct" with that of
"beyond doubt".

>I have to, I don't have the time to do it myself, I'm an
>engineer, not a mathematician.

But do you not see the difference between a) not having the time to
re-derive (e.g.) calculus, and b) not having the epistemological
standing to doubt the truthfulness of the pronunciations of (e.g.)
Jesus?
--
Brian Holtz