From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 26 Sep 1992 22:05:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <Bv5IE2.Lrv@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com
(Paul Harvey) writes:

>>Because I find that believing in things that *are* sufficiently
>>evidenced is in fact "of value" and "useful".
>
>Ah, and who is the judge of "sufficiently evidenced"?

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.

>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.

>>For one thing, some god could conceivably exist and could have
>>constructed this universe expressly to make me believe that she
>>doesn't exist.
>
>Do you have faith in this belief?

Of course not.  There is no authority whose pronouncements I hold to
be beyond doubt, so I have do not have faith in this proposition or
any other.

>>I believe in that which is sufficiently evidenced.
>
>And how do you determine something to be sufficiently evidenced?

Scientifically.  Philosophically.  Very carefully.

>What authority do you trust?

There is no authority whose pronouncements I hold to be beyond doubt.

>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.

>>1. Choose beliefs by evidence.
>
>What kind of evidence? Scientific? Visual? Authority?

There are all kinds of evidence, including the pronouncements of
authority.  But I never hold the pronouncements of any authority to be
beyond doubt.

>>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.

>>>It is quite likely that the sun will come up tommorow
>
>>And that's all I require in order to believe it.
>
>Then you have faith, right?

No.  There is no authority whose pronouncements I hold to be beyond
doubt.

>Faith that what has happened before will happen
>again and faith that the scientific model of the solar system is correct.

No.  There is no authority whose pronouncement of these two
propositions I would take as placing them beyond doubt.

>>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".

>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.

>>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?

>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]"?

>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?)

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>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."

>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 suppose there are some Eastern religions that eschew faith for
>>mere superstition and irrationality.
>
>No, for the purpose of seeing that which can not be seen.

Right.  Irrationality.

>Transcendence beyond
>the world of strict truth and falsehood.

Who said anything about "strict truth and falsehood"?  One needn't be
a mysticist to believe in provisional truths.

>The world of myth, metaphor, poetry.

I've studied and practiced all three, without ever having to adopt
superstition or orphan rationality.
--
Brian Holtz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc