From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 16:18:26 BST
>> I still don't really feel like I have to say I accept it
>> on fact.
>
>What I'm saying is that the idea of faith is applied in a
>completely different way and under completely different
>circumstances than factual belief. In fact, belief isn't
>necessarily applied at all. A belief is a mental
>construct--a yes or no with some level of probability. One
>can't attach a probablity to faith. It isn't a matter of
>reaching the x% threshold of belief. Faith is a decision to
>live in a certain way and is applied by definition. A
>particular statement of faith isn't something that is true
>or false but something that either guides your actions or
>not.
okay I meant accept it on faith (sorry I really need
to start rereading these posts before sending them)
With your definition of faith I actually can find it
useful. The problem is that I don't think this is the
definition a lot of people use it by.
When I hear the word faith is used it seems to be
implying as 'accept as true without any evidence'.
To me this 'i have faith' is often the conversation stopper.
They don't want to reason about it because it is accepted
on faith.
I haven't read Rorty but it is stuff like this that
makes me think of his vocabulary argument.
I think we are going by different definitions of
faith. If I choose to accept it I still have this nagging
worry that people will interpret it I first did.
This brings a dilemma of do i go by your definition which I like better or
avoid miscommunication by using a different word?
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:51 GMT