From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 20:29:24 BST
Hi Mark,
> On to the Dawkins stuff...
> First, I should say I've never read a word of Dawkins other than
> what's been posted here from time to time. However, it's clear that
> Ian loves him, you tolerate him, and Platt hates him, so that gives
> me a pretty good idea of where he's coming from.
He's probably the most prominent (and aggressive) atheist in England. I
think he's great and fascinating when he talks about biology, and I think
he's incompetent and out of his depth when he talks about religion. So yes,
you probably do have a good idea of where he's coming from :o)
> sam:
> Whereas I think it is in the caring that the truth is found - and I
> think Pirsig makes just this point in ZMM.
> msh says:
> I'm all for truth. As above, I think faith is more often than not
> an impediment to truth. Pirsig makes this point, too.
Grrrr. What is the conception of 'faith' being used? You're still begging
the question, and presuming the answer to our discussion when you say things
like that. BTW I think Pirsig is just as confused as most intellectuals as
to what faith is. Wittgenstein is the great and gleaming exception to that
comment.
> sam:
> Yes, but what is the understanding of 'faith' that is being objected
> to?
>
> msh:
> Somehow, somewhere, several people have gotten the idea that I'm
> against faith. I'm only against faith when people use it to build
> bridges or pass laws, or otherwise attempt to affect the lives of
> people who prefer a more secular approach. <snip>
Funny story about your visitors. Matt and I went several rounds on this
question a while back, but we got distracted by other questions without
resolving it. Matt's phrase was (from memory) that you shouldn't use
religious language on the senate floor. In other words you can't say 'the
bible says...' to justify 'let's pass this legislation'. But I don't think
it's possible to make such a hard and fast distinction - I think it's a
distinction which itself embeds the secular scale of values (which it seems
to me is just as vulnerable to a MoQ critique as the claim that science is
value free).
Is your argument the (classical) liberal one about maximising human
freedom? Or is it more specifically anti-faith? If the latter, can you
expand on how?
> sam:
> I don't think faith has to mean abandoning rational judgement and
> intellectual integrity - rather the reverse -
>
> msh:
> But it at least means suspending rational judgement re the belief in
> question, unless we're gonna leave the OED completely out of the
> picture.
Grrrrrr again. Why should the OED be accepted? It's not neutral. I'm quite
happy to accept that there are elements of faith which qualify as
'revelation', but why assume that this means it is not rational? Our most
fundamental beliefs don't rest on rational grounds - that's the great
Cartesian SOM detour. Aquinas taught that faith was the fulfilment of
reason, not its repudiation, and that is very much my understanding.
Revelation can't _violate_ the canons of reasonability. There is still this
assumption of a contradiction between reason and faith which I don't believe
is legitimate. That's why I keep asking WHAT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF FAITH
being objected to? Because it probably isn't the understanding of faith that
I and the vast majority of the Christian tradition would recognise AS faith.
<snip various quotes from Dawkins coz I think your position is very close to
his>
> msh:
> ... A faith-based
> belief is not open to rational debate not because we somehow forbid
> it, but because if the belief had reasons supporting it, it's not
> faith-based, by definition. ... my
> original, rather straight forward claim [was] that faith-based assumptions
> are not made pragmatically, and scientific assumptions are not faith-
> based. If I can get you to agree with this, then I'm perfectly
> willing to explore the frontier your pushing for, such as whether
> there is reason to believe that the historical Christ was the son of
> God.
I don't think that's actually what I'm pushing for. I'm wanting to clarify
the grammar of the discussion, and make sure that we know what it is that we
are talking about. Two things.
1. There are religious claims which are not derived from experience, which
are called 'revelation'. I think a good example of this is the claim that
Jesus is the Son of God. I don't think that you can get to a point of
believing this on the basis of rational argument. BUT I don't accept that
this means they are 'unreasonable' - and it is here that a) I'm wanting to
make explicit what the criteria are which are being used, and b) I think
there are some parallels with fundamental axioms in science (eg that the
universe is amenable to rational enquiry).
2. There is the question of evidence, and what counts as good evidence.
Because one of the claims made about revelation, viz that it is the
'fulfilment of reason', is that it will allow for a higher Quality
understanding overall. In other words, an outlook which rests purely on
reason alone will be of lower Quality than one which includes elements of
revelation. Which is where Ian's 'quality of explanation' comes in.
Thing is, it seems to me that on a lot of the 'framework' questions, I'm
probably very close to, eg, you and Ian. I just think that there is more to
life than what science can (conceivably) answer, or even address.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 21:05:29 BST