From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 14:26:24 BST
Hi Mark,
Time to catch up on this one.
> 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.
OK. How would you classify the belief in causation (given your reference to
Hume in the other thread)? Second, are you content for faith-based to mean
'in the absence of empirical evidence' rather than 'contrary to empirical
evidence'? (That would distinguish you from Dawkins).
Now, beyond that, are you familiar with the notion that 'there are no
uninterpreted facts'? And if so, would you agree? In other words, for any
particular given phenomenon, there are a multitude of explanations, and the
choice between the explanations is not driven by the nature of the 'facts'
themselves - there is, instead, a dialectic between fact and interpretation
which is continuously evolving. So there are no naked facts waiting to be
assessed, there is always 'fact + interpretation', which fits in with the
wider understandings how they may.
So when, in your definition, a faith is held in the absence of supporting
empirical evidence, is there an assumption there about the nature of what
'evidence' consists in? (or, if it is not an assumption, would you like to
defend it?)
> By this definition, a child's belief in Santa or the
> Tooth Fairy is faith-based.
Denys Turner has interesting things to say about this canard: "I am not very
sure what Dawkins does understand, but he clearly does not understand
children if he thinks that the childishness of theism makes theism like
belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. For Santa Claus and the Tooth
Fairy are adult stories and children do not spontaneously believe in them.
Children only believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy because adults
persuade them to, and often for unimpressive reasons of their own, like
contriving cover for the choice of inappropriate presents; whereas theism is
closely connected not with adult myths foisted upon children, but with more
spontaneous forms of thought which are natural to children's own minds; and
adults seem often to want to suppress such childish thoughts, seeing that
they energetically set about systematically destroying a child's capacity
for them by means, principally, of compulsory education in properly ordered
questions which you can answer in accordance with teachable methodological
routines. This is nowadays called the 'core curriculum'...."
(The spontaneous forms of thought he refers to are akin to the idea that
philosophy begins in wonder, hence the persistent question 'why'?)
> As is a Christian's belief in the
> divinity of Jesus, as is a Catholic's belief in transubstantiation.
Well, they're not directly comparable. The belief in the divinity of Jesus
is not something that can be established to the satisfaction of an
empirically-based world-view. But to say there is no 'evidence' of it is
automatically to discount any and all 'evidence' given through the lives of
Christians. In other words, it is part and parcel of how a Christian will
*interpret* their experience.
> 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.
I could quibble (especially about the emotional bit) but it would be a
distraction, as I mostly agree with that.
<snip the political bit which we can return to another time>
> 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?
I think the agreement on word definitions is sometimes the outcome of
meaningful conversation, not the presupposition for it. But more
importantly, the OED is secular, and I won't (automatically) accept its
authority.
> 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"?
All of us, not just Christians. It's one of the main points I take
Wittgenstein to have established in his 'On Certainty'.
> 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...
I don't think faith is the reverse-image of science, where science is that
which is based on evidence, and faith is that which is not. I still think
that is your assumption in this discussion. But I could easily be wrong -
that's why I'm trying to make it explicit.
> 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.
This, I think, is the most fundamental difference between us. I don't think
it's possible to 'create our own purposes'. I may have quoted this before,
in discussion with DMB, but I still think it important (Iris Murdoch, quoted
in Fergus Kerr's 'Theology After Wittgenstein'):
"How recognisable, how familiar to us, is the man so beautifully portrayed
[by Kant] who confronted even with Christ turns away to consider the
judgement of his own conscience and to hear the voice of his own reason.
Stripped of the exiguous metaphysical background which Kant was prepared to
allow him, this man is with us still, free, independent, lonely, powerful,
rational, responsible, brave, the hero of so many novels and books of moral
philosophy."
Kerr goes on to say "...the picture of the self-conscious and self-reliant,
self-transparent and all-responsible individual which Descartes and Kant
between them imposed upon modern philosophy.... is a picture of the self
that many modern philosophers, Wittgenstein certainly among them, have
striven to revise, incorporate into a larger design, or simply obliterate."
Is it not at all disquieting that this ideology (the glorification of human
choice) should a) be born at the same time as SOM, b) be the dominant
ideology of US/Western culture and therefore, c) be a very good example of a
socially reinforced pattern of thought?
Just wondering :o)
Regards
Sam
'What is the use of studying philosophy if it does not improve your thinking
about the important questions of everyday life?' (Wittgenstein)
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 May 02 2005 - 20:57:54 BST