If you say that *some* of what you know might be wrong...are you
saying that
>some of what you know might be right? And if doubt describes
the first
>case, does faith describe the second? So could the same
information (the
>"more to be learned") be learned using either faith or doubt?
I think this argument only works if you think there is something
such as "absolute right and wrong". I would prefer to say that some of
what I know has worked 100% of the time up until now ... and some of
what I know hasn't been rigorously tested <e.g. life after death>. I
thought we'd been through something like this before ... we can't even
know what we can't know....so faith becomes a shortcut between strong
hypotheses.
>Who is to say that the absolutist is a monster?
All those other scary absolutists. I WILL SAY THE ABSOLUTIST IS
A DEFINATELY A BORE AND PROBABALLY AN ASSHOLE.
>If the absolutist only sticks with what he knows, then he would
only be a monster if what he >knows is monstrous, right?
Wrong. Given two equally valid but incompatible visions there
are three possible postions: Only A, Only B, and Sometimes Only A,
Sometimes Only B. Note that each position is mutually exclusive.
> (or if we begin with the idea that all that there is to
> know is monstrous to some degree) AND why does having nothing
to doubt
> imply having "no beliefs or opinions"?
> If a person had beliefs and/or opinions which contained more
faith than doubt,
More faith then doubt ... is that like more pregnant than not?
> would the best way to present this argument involve using the
greater quantity or the lesser > quantity?
>And, do you believe that it is POSSIBLE to project what one
knows into the
>future?
I think it is possible to project what I know across space ....
ala Killing Schroedinger's Cat. This is certainly faith based ... as I
can't do the math and I've never done the experiments myself. But, if
someone were to discover that "God doesn't play dice with the universe"
and Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose were to tell me "She's
right"...then I guess I'd have to adjust my faith....does that mean I
doubt what little I understand about quantum theory?
>That is, imagine that only those things which objectively
occurred
>were projected into a hypothetical future as a map of the
possible (and how
>could we assume that something else besides what we have
experienced could
>occur...can we postulate colors that we've never witnessed)?
Wouldn't we
>then, choosing from experiences similar to those of our past,
formulate a
>set of "probable" future learning from ONLY the set of that
which is
>possible...being based at some level on only those things which
we have
>experienced? Would faith that this is true or doubt in reality
assist
>internalizing this future learning?
>Finally, do you think that Chartre dispelled doubt--as he said
he did to
>formulate his metaphysic...one based on something other than
doubt (as he
>said it was)?
Who?
Nate