Hi Matt, Horse, Drose, David L. and all,
Matt complained how little response he got to his "Why Science
Discredits Arts" post of 19th March. Personally, I found the science
philosophy he presents to be something of a strawman, though I do agree
with this sentiment:
MATT:
> Pick up a beginning Logic book and read the first page. It will tell
you one
> thing:
> LOGIC IS A PROBLEM SOLVING TOOL.
>
> It says nothing about how it gets the problems or which order we
"should"
> solve them.
Exactly! Matt goes on to say (23rd March)
>Faith another word for SQ.
>Faith is another word for assumption.
>
>Logic has its roots in faith (SQ).
>Religion has its roots in faith (SQ).
That came together with a discussion of Faith between Horse, Drose and
David L. (plus whoever I forgot).
Drose says:
>My Webster's gives "confidence or trust in a person or thing"
>as the primary definition of "faith."
Interesting this Western tendency to faith in THINGS. Where we rely on
faith is as faith in processes, that the sun will rise, that the brakes
on the car will operate, that the train will get us to work on time.
Yet, our dictionary definition is about faith in OBJECTS.
To the Western mind, the Hindu temple makes Hinduism look like idolatry.
However, Hindus will say that those statues are not idols, but physical
reminders of different attributes (of God? of Nature?).
IMHO, the question "Do you believe in XXX?" asked in a religious context
is usually a question that needs to be unasked, and replaced by
questions such as:
"Do you think XXX will happen?", or even, "Do you value XXX?"
So when Horse asks:
>Should people have faith?
I really don't know what question he is really asking.
Furthermore, when Horse says:
>I [snip] disagree that [snip] we cannot live without faith...
I ask him if he really BELIEVES this? This is especially in the light of
his definition of faith as:
>A state of mind that leads people to accept something in the
>total absence of supporting evidence.
I see a gray scale here: The "supporting evidence" is seldom totally
lacking, and seldom absolutely compelling. Then there are those cases
where the "objective" evidence seems so strong, yet some other "sense"
tells us to treat that evidence with the utmost suspicion.
Faithfully,
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:40 BST