>The point wasn't to redefine "faith", the point was to
>give a name to the concept of <belief without/despite
>evidence>. I thought calling it "faith" was reasonably
>accurate, given popular usage. I don't recall anyone
>coming up with a better name.
You didn't like "insanity"? ;-)
Seriously, IF you accept a worldview (a collection
of evidence) THEN it is is "insane" WITHIN that
worldview to believe something DESPITE conflicting
evidence.
But "faith" is not WITHIN the worldview of evidence
created by logic/reason. From WITHIN that worldview
it APPEARS "insane".
>I was hoping to get readers to question their assumptions
>and engage their interest. If I only make them angry,
>then I will have to change it.
Sure, and I'm disagreeing with you in order to get
you to question your assumptions and engage your
interest. From a certian perspective, this is all
a high-tech grooming-behavior.
>I don't understand. You say you agree that "belief despite
>evidence" is insane, but my construction "To hold an idea as
>true despite all evidence to the contrary is an abdication of
>reason." is not true or useful. I'm afraid that doesn't make
>much sense.
That statement:
"To hold an idea as true despite all [reasonable] evidence to
the contrary is an abdication of reason." (I made the insertion)
Is true and useful.
The categorization of the abdication of reason as:
1) Sinful
2) Counterproductive
Is not true or useful
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------