David:
>Whoa, I never said "unreasoned" beliefs. I said unreasonable. Huge difference.
>For example, I think loving one's child is perfectly reasonable, even
>though there may be no conscious thought or formal logic involved.
>So endangering oneself in order to save a child would be considered
>a decision based on a reasonable belief in my view.
Yes, David this gets at the crux of what I (and I assume Richard) find
wrong with your definition of faith.
I see faith as extra-reason where you define it as contra-reason.
So "faith" is unreasonable to you. I am asserting that faith is unreasoned,
exactly like the example you have given above and exactly as potentially
useful. But you find the construction "resonable faith" meaningless or
contradictory.
In essence I think you are trying to divide beliefs into reasonable ones
and unreasonable ones. I agree that unreasonable beliefs are to be avoided.
What I disagree with is the labeling of unreasonable beliefs as "faith".
It is the conflation of the two categories that I disagree with.
Here is a different question:
Do you think that there are any elements of faith that are reasonable?
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------