Sodom:
>Also, why must "reason" be held to the same adjectives. They are not
>even remotely similar words or meanings. In fact, "reason" can exist
>without "faith" but the reverse is not possible.
Let me, for a moment, suspend judgement as to whether I believe that
statement or not. What do you mean, in this instance, by "in fact"
when dealing with completely abstract concepts like faith and reason?
>If you believe what you are told by your priests and leaders, then
>you can reason that "Faith" is viable.
Viable?
>"Reason" is a function and "faith" is a choice.
I don't disagree with that sentence, unless you hold the position that one
can avoid a choice. As several wise people have independtly
discovered: even the act of not chosing is itself a choice...this is a
consequence of consciousness.
>Even the most zealous can reason that without water, they will
>die, regardless of the power of their faith.
Even the most logical have faith in their own senses. Furthermore,
there is no rule requiring that the person of greatest faith be the
least rational; The two are not opposites. The opposite of rational
is irrational. The opposite of faith is non-existence. [ducking! :-) ]
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------