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'.
	<mhgnsnd@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:05:08 GMT

me writes:
Faith is believing something as possibly true, but always questioning its
validity and not following it blindly. 

In article <mhgnsnd@lynx.unm.edu> 
bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>I think we're arguing semanitcs, Graham.
>What Paul would call "faith," you might call "assumptions."

That is probably correct. I have faith in my assumptions, but never
blind faith. I realize that I learn as a function of time, so I am
always adjusting my assumptions, my core faith. It is my impression that
this is what most people mean when they say they have faith in
something, but maybe it is just me. I have faith that I hardly ever get
a flat tire on my car, but not blind faith as I carry a spare just in
case. Is that too obvious? I have faith that I understand a great deal
of the workings of the world, but not blind faith, I know I have much
yet to learn. The best have all been humbled and I am not as enlightened
as the best. Sound familiar? In that I have faith.

>The thing is, all assumptions are, essentially, "belief in the
>[absolute] truth of something without justification."  We might claim
>that the "justification" is that our assumptions seem to be
>consistent, but that really isn't much of a justification that they
>are true.

Right. In the real world, things are not true and false and absolute.
I know that some people can not handle that and are in denial.
There is one absolute and that is change. However I do have faith that
certain things tend to happen in cycles of causality. I see that summer
follows spring and I have faith that this is usually true, yet I have
seen that this is not always the case, the most obvious example being
the year without summer back in the 1700's or so.

>I think the problem is over the word "absolute."  That is, Paul seems
>to be defining "blind faith" as "belief in the *absolute* truth" while
>defining "faith" as "belief in the truth."

Well, kind of. How about this: Blind faith is the belief that there is
such a thing as absolute truth and that it is this absolute that is
leading you blindly. Faith is the belief that one's beliefs are true
until proven false or faulty. Faith does not require a dogmatic
adherence to absolutes or even true and false.

>We all carry a certain set of "assumptions" or "axioms" with us.  That
>we believe these things to be true indicates some flavor of "faith."
>That is, we don't have a deductive reason for believing them to be
>true...but they seem to work, so we accept them as true.

Right, but not blindly. There are always exceptions, everyday is a brand
new day. What works today may not tomorrow. I have faith that my money
in the bank is safe for now, but this may not always be true. Faith
allows me the flexibility to adjust and to learn and yet make it through
this world on a day to day basis. Blind faith may work today, but being
inflexible will one day fail. I can walk blindly for a long time, but
one day I will fall into the Grand Canyon. Faith allows me to adjust to
an always changing world and survive the adjustment.

>I think Paul is defining "blind faith" to mean that if something were
>to show one of those assumptions to be wrong, a person with blind
>faith in that assumption would try to modify the conflicting data
>("It's a lie!"  "It's misinterpreted!") rather than adjust the
>assumption.

Exactly. And that person would be led astray. So many people seem to
aspire to some constancy of knowledge which does not exist. There is
only one constant and that is change. Faith allows one to adapt and
learn, blind faith is the way of brain death and being misled. The
creator created humans with a brain and in an image of high standard. 
To have blind faith in something is to insult the creation and the
creator.

>I think Paul is defining "faith" as simply "something that is assumed
>true only because it appears to be true...not because it can be proven
>so."

Yeah, I'll go for that. If something can be proven true it is a fact, if
something can be proven false it is fiction. In between is the vast
ground of things that can not be proven true or false and it is in some
of these that one must have faith if one is to learn. But not blind
faith, that is a roadblock to learning. This is pretty straightforward
stuff though, isn't it? Don't we learn this as children?