At 10:11 AM 3/28/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Horse and MD,
>
>>From the Horse's mouth:-)
>> Yes I do BELIEVE that faith is unnecessary - at least in the way that I
have
>described it.
>> You're also correct that faith/dogma/belief and the supporting evidence for
>these is a gray (or
>> fuzzy) scaling.
>> At one end of the scale is "...believing in something you know not to be
>true." (thanks Rick)
>> and at the other end is the confirmation and verification (note that I am
>deliberately avoiding
>> the term proof) by scientific method. I would say that this more or less
>equates with a scale
>> starting at the low social level and working through to high up in the
>intellectual level.
>
>Horse brings up the TRUTH word again in its objective sense, to which I must
>give my oft repeated statement that TRUTH and REALITY are not the same. As an
>example, the story of Little Red Riding Hood is REAL (it exists), but probably
>UNTRUE (it didn't happen). However, in answer to Horse, it might be better to
>use more value-laden stories as an example e.g. Aesop's Fables.
>I *believe* in those stories - NO, NO not that the hare and tortoise
really had
>a race, but that the story presents a truth that transcends the plot.
>
>Horse's truth of "confirmation and verification" only applies to a particular
>sort of objectified pattern extracted from the whole. When we objectify
Aesop's
>fables, we end up with childish plots with little truth, but then IMHO what we
>have done is leave behind the real VALUE in those stories.
>
>However, I believe that fables and myths can often be exploited to excuse
>"false" values i.e. values of low quality.
>Thus, what it comes down to is not an issue of True vs. False, but of True
>Values vs. False Values, or to put it another way, Good vs. Bad.
Faith is trust
Complete Faith is Complete trust in something when you have reason to
doubt. But you still trust it because it has quality.
I think that Jon brought up a good point when he said "Of course, you are
required to have faith in reason."
Pure Reason and logic is based entirely on ones experiences. So how do you
trust something if you have not experienced it. The answer is faith. When
you have experienced it you still have to have faith that what you are
experiencing was the same thing you had faith in before.
if I have faith in x
(I trust in x)
and then I experience x (or so I think)
I still have to have faith that x is still x and not really x-1
because there is no why of ever knowing because experience is limited Faith
is not.
It is important to remember that we gain knowledge by trusting (having
faith) in our experiences not through reason or logic.
>
>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
>
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