>You didn't like "insanity"? ;-)
I did, but thought it was too confrontational :)
>Seriously, IF you accept a worldview (a collection
>of evidence) THEN it is is "insane" WITHIN that
>worldview to believe something DESPITE conflicting
>evidence.
Agreed.
>But "faith" is not WITHIN the worldview of evidence
>created by logic/reason. From WITHIN that worldview
>it APPEARS "insane".
You mean it appears "sane", don't you?
I think this points out another hidden assumption of mine.
That there exist objective standards of evidence, and it
is possible to say that some types of evidence are in
fact better than others. If you don't like "objective"
here, feel free to substitute "intersubjective for all
thinking beings".
Agree or disagree?
>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
If it can be shown that unreasonable beliefs play an important
causal role in virtually all unfortunate and/or regrettable
human decisions (involving, for example, fatal accidents,
torture, oppression, hate crimes, abuse, genocide, etc.), would
you change your position? I'm not saying they do (yet), I'm
asking what if?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/