From: holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:01:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: netcord

In article <fTbBxpm@quack.sac.ca.us> pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us
(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."
>
>But, now let me see if I get this straight, if you say that X is bad,
>that is that [repeats what I said]. Do I interpret you
>correctly here?

In the sense that you've typed back what I wrote, yes.

>When I say that X is bad, I mean that X is bad from
>my perspective.

When I want to mean that, I say "X is bad from my perspective".

>I don't expect you to share my value judgement,

I sometimes expect (e.g., anticipate) YOU to share MY value judgement,
e.g. about self-dismemberment, or self-delusion.  Feel free to correct
my expectations.

>>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 nothing.  Your assertion is flatly contradicted by the
excerpted material.  You are blind.

>>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?

"Decorum" includes not deliberately missing the point.

>>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.
>
>To me, mathematics depends ultimately on the authority of
>mathematicians and what they chose to reveal to me.

No.  If it depended "ultimately", then your belief would be not be
less than certain.

>Faith means some doubt of truth, blind faith means absolutely no
>doubt of truth. I think you have blind faith that math is true.

Make up your mind.  Does "blind faith" mean any apodictic certainty, or
does it mean apodictic certainty based on authority?  At any rate, my
apodictic certainty that 1+1=2 is uninteresting, because that truth is
ultimately tautological.

>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?

There is an empirical discipline called "lexicography".  If you're not
familiar with it, then you're simply not equipped to carry out a
discussion at this level.

>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.

It's already been pointed out here that faith in a project is
different from faith in a proposition.  I'm talking about the latter.

>But, you won't hear me trying to argue from authority like you are.

In fact, lexicography SUPPORTS the use you cite.  However,
lexicography does not support a use like "I have faith that the sun
will rise tomorrow."

>>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.

Of course, you have zero basis for this statement.  Of course, that
hasn't stopped you from making such non sequitors in the past...

>>Lexicography is an empirical science.
>
>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.

Only a moron could conclude that the statement "lexicography is an
empirical science" implies "blind faith" in a lexicographical text.

>>No, by anyone who cares to carry out the verification.
>
>Aren't there certain qualifications, certain talents required?

Verification can be done well.  Verification can be done poorly.  It
varies.

>Are you saying that anyone can be a complete Mathematician?

I am saying that no one incapable of being a mathematician merely by
dint of not having received some personal epiphany.

>That anyone can
>prove or disprove all the theories of Math for themselves?

I am saying that there is no theorem in math that one can't (dis)prove
merely by dint of not having received some personal epiphany.

>Do you do this or do you have some trust that Mathematicians know
>what they are doing?

The evidence is that mathematicians know what they're doing, so I
consider it more likely than not that they do.

>>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.

Hey, congratulations!  Except for your continued idiosyncratic use of
"blind faith", you displayed no evidence of misunderstanding what I
wrote!  Of course, you nevertheless showed no evidence of
understanding the distinction I made, but at least this is a start...

>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.

Yes, that is a practice I follow in forming my value-judgements.

>Surely you see this as self-delusion? What makes you think that you are
>judging correctly, that is without self-delusion?

Self-delusion in one's value-judgements is a solecism.  It's like
saying I'm deluding myself into thinking that I value the taste of
chocolate.

Self-delusion means holding an insufficiently-evidenced proposition to
be true.  The mere fact that I *believe* I like chocolate is sufficient
evidence that "I like chocolate" is true..

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

Non sequitor.

>>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.

Non sequitor.

>>>>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".

Goody for you.  Now please explain what "proved correct" has to do
with "quite likely".  They are completely different standards.

>>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.

Another non-sequitor.  Are you going for some kind of record?

>>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.

Ah, so the statement "you believe in a deity" is false.

>How can one believe or not believe in a myth?

Easy.  One either believes or doesn't believe that unicorns used to
walk the earth, or that white-bearded judges sit in the sky.  Are you
really not sure how to believe or not believe in unicorns?

>Myth means a great deal to me. This is kind of a Hindu leaning,

Myth means a great deal to me, too.  This is a kind of a Classicist
leaning.

>>>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?

Hah.  I invite any reader who is dissatisfied with my level of
patience toward you to inform me via private e-mail.

>>Belief in that which is likely is always useful.  (Or do you wish to
>>dispute this?)
>
>It's too conservative for me.

How so?  When is believing-in-that-which-is-likely NOT useful?

>Why do you fear failure?

There is a difference between fearing failure and inviting it.

>>>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?

Hardly.  Let me buy you a clue: I don't count myself in the "smaller
group" that I referred to.

>>Ah, so moderate Christians don't believe that Jesus was God?
>
>They judge there to be sufficient evidence under your own structure of
>rules.

Their judgment is spectacularly wrong.  There isn't enough
signal-to-noise with you to make discussing the evidence worthwhile,
but let me ask you one question.  Even though majority opinion is of
negligable weight in these matters, how do these "moderate Christians"
explain the obstinant refusal to find any widely-shareable common
ground on this allegedly empirical issue?  Do they think that all
non-Christians are part of some conspiracy, or are under the control
of Satan, or what?

>>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".

Utter nonsense.  Jesus, for example, in effect said "follow me and be
free".  He did NOT say "don't believe it simply because it's coming
from me"; in fact, he said the opposite.

>>I learn plenty by observing the faithful, but I do not have faith
>
>I said learn from dogma, not observe the faithful.

I learn plenty from the absurd dogmas peddled by various mystics --
yourself included.
--
Brian Holtz
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc