virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

Reed Konsler (konsler@ascat.harvard.edu)
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 01:24:16 +0100

>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:57:19 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>

>>>I don't believe the guesses are non-falsifiable. The "lens of
>>>interpretation" you mention is an excellent example of the kind
>>>of faith-based belief I think is avoidable.
>>
>>Completely? Don't you really mean that it can be minimized?
>
>No, I mean completely. It takes only a single doubt to completely
>avoid the "I'm always right and you're misguided" belief.

That would mean that belief is binary...I thought you used a T-table
system of evaluation in which belief ought to vary with evidence.
I'm saying that self-positive and other-negative evaultions tend to
be exagerated. A single doubt is sufficient to mitigate an absolute
belief in such things, but not eliminate an extreme belief.

>I'm saying that I have good reason to believe that <critical analysis>
>is vastly superior to <faith> as an epistemological tool. I think <faith>
>is like <racism> in that it may have been useful many thousands of years ago,
>but its time is long past.

This is your idea of a compromise? Couldn't you think of a less
value-laden comparison to communicate the idea? Certian kinds
of faith may be obsolete, just a certian kinds of reason are. But
you must recognize that, whatever technical defintions you have
used to construct the above paragraph, the CONNOTATION of
the association between <faith> and <racism> is not neutral. You
are still making connections between <faith> and <evil> through
secondary signifiers and implicit association. This association,
explict (as in "Sins and Virtues") or implict (as in the above
paragraph) is spurious and unsupportable.

>><faith> is a tool.

>Can we look at how well the respective tools fulfill their
>purpose?

It's an interesting question. It would be most useful if we
approached the issue from an unprejudiced position, don't
you think? I'd be interested in what you think about the
subject. :-)

>>Humans are above faith. Humans are above reason. It is we who
>>are the users of the tools, not the converse (in an ideal world ;-) ).
>
>And genes are a tool we use for creating the next generation of humans?

I suppose it depends on your perspective. In a sense, yes. If you want
to build a new human being, the only way to do it is to grow one from
those already in existence. What were you getting at?

>>My position is only "fatalistic" if you equate the mitigation of <reason>
>>with death. I have no doubt, based on these conversations, that you
>>hold this bias. I do not.
>
>What if I have faith that you also hold this bias?

Then I expect you will act on that belief.

>Sorry, don't know what a "Javert" is.

A character from Les Misarables. Sort of a personification of the super-ego.

>>>Don't you think people in general can learn to act more intelligently?
>>
>>And with greater kindness! Yes, David, the world can be a better place!
>>But there are many ways of defining intelligent, and none of them are
>>"strictly rational". ;-)
>
>True, but I don't know how to teach people how to be more creative
>and kinder. I can teach them to make better decisions rationally.

Might creativity and kindness come from the same wellspring as faith?
Would you at least entertain it as a hypothesis?

>>>If they can, don't you think that would create a better future?
>>
>>Of course! What makes you think that <faith> isn't a worthy tool
>>in this collective endevour?
>
>Because <faith> will prevent me from having any influence (if I
>only use means that are ethical in my view). <faith> closes the
>channel for constructive criticism. Isn't that reason enough?

For you or for me? I don't accept the premise "<faith> closes the
channel for constructive criticism" unless you mean something very
technical by "constructive criticism". A sophisticated debater
can find support for any position, hense our legal system. In a
sense, then, <logic> also closes the channel.

Reed

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------