From: Mark Steven Heyman (MarkHeyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 03:02:54 BST
Hi Sam,
On 25 Apr 2005 at 20:29, Sam Norton wrote:
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.
sam:
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.
msh:
Well, at this point in my intellectual evolution, I'm a materialist
with a fondness for Pirsigian empircism. That is, I see plenty of
empirical evidence for the existence of apparently non-material
realities such as reason (logic/math) and emotion: love, compassion,
fear and hate, and, of course, Quality. But I see no empirical
evidence to support the belief that these non-material realities
might exist in a universe devoid of material life. Not even Quality.
I ASSUME Quality is the primary reality, but only because I want to
get the MOQ off the ground. If Pirsig believes that Quality really
does create subjects and objects, then his belief is based on some
mystical revelation that, so far, has not happened to me. I offer
this as a preamble to my answer to your next question...
sam:
Yes, but what is the understanding of 'faith' that is being objected
to?
msh:
To me, a belief is faith-based if it is held in the absence of
supporting empirical evidence, using my understanding of empiricism
stated above. By this definition, a child's belief in Santa or the
Tooth Fairy is faith-based. As is a Christian's belief in the
divinity of Jesus, as is a Catholic's belief in transubstantiation.
In contrast, a NASA scientist's belief that he can land a rover on
Pluto (so far not done) is nevertheless not faith-based. Similarly,
the Christian's faith-based belief is CLEARLY different from the
flexible belief of scientific assumptions, which are made for
pragmatic, not emotional, reasons. Please note, cuz I want to say
this only once: This DOES NOT mean that Jesus is not the son of God;
it means only that such a belief is not rational-empirical.
sam:
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).
msh:
In this country there are good constitutional reasons why a Senator
would not openly appeal to God for guidance in passing legislation.
In theory, we are not supposed to mix religious beliefs into the
functions of state. Due to the corrupting influence of wealth, of
course, the reality is quite different.
sam:
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?
msh:
It's more about making a distinction between faith-based belief and
scientific assumption, which, to me, is what this thread has always
been about. Give some thought to what I've said above, and get back
to me.
sam before:
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.
sam now:
Grrrrrr again. Why should the OED be accepted? It's not neutral
msh:
But we have to agree on word definitions if we hope to engage in
meaningful conversation, no?
sam:
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?
msh:
See above and get back to me.
sam:
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.
msh:
Whom do you mean by "our"?
sam:
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.
msh:
Well, let's see what you say, after thinking about what I've said
above...
sam, in closing:
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.
msh says:
I agree completely. But I think we have different ideas about what
is necessary to understand and embrace the "more" you speak of. I
think theists look outward for answers, while existentialists believe
there are no answers "out there" and therefore maximize their freedom
and create their own purposes in life.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." --
Henri Poincare'
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 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 05:40:24 BST