13 Jan 03
Originally posted by trekkie"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits."
Has anyone heard of the word "FAITH" ? It is not wrong to have a belief system in which to can not prove or disprove its reality.
The blind man was simply trying, rightly, to make his fellow human more comfortable in an time of need.
If I was told those stories I truely would be thankful for the comfort they gave me
mike
😀 🙂 😀
-Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992
14 Jan 03
Originally posted by trekkieFaith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject - otherwise there's no need for faith.
Has anyone heard of the word "FAITH" ? It is not wrong to have a belief system in which to can not prove or disprove its reality...
mike
😀 🙂 😀
14 Jan 03
Originally posted by rwingettHow does this agree with your previous post, that faith is a "cop out" 😲
Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject - otherwise there's no need for faith.
mike
14 Jan 03
Originally posted by trekkieBoth quotes are nearly identical in that they point out that faith requires a suspension of reason in order for someone to believe something which cannot be proven or reliably demonstrated. To say, "I have faith", is to say that you're going to believe something AS A FACT even though there is not a single shred of evidence to support that claim. To fall back on faith is an open admission that your position lacks any logical merit.
How does this agree with your previous post, that faith is a "cop out" 😲
mike
I could claim that I had the power to stop the Earth from rotating if I chose. If I then offered no evidence to support my claim, and instead asked you to "just have faith", would you believe me?
14 Jan 03
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettrwingett, I put it to you that you also have a belief system, or at the very least a basic set of axioms which you would be hard-pressed to abandon. For example, you might assume that the world around you bears some resemblance to your perceptions, but you can't prove you're not in a particularly Byzantine fantasy world. It's impossible to justify any action without any prior assumptions, so in that sense everyone effectively has faith in some things. Mathematics is an obvious example: if you want to be rigorous, even after you've defined your nomenclature and syntax (if that is possible!) you have to state axioms, and proceed on the assumption that they are 'true' in some sense. Even then there are some statements that can neither be proved nor disproved, so must be 'taken on faith' as it were to be of any use. This means that, unless you believe otherwise, mathematics has been invented, not discovered by people. It is not 'true' in any absolute sense.
Both quotes are nearly identical in that they point out that faith requires a suspension of reason in order for someone to believe something which cannot be proven or reliably demonstrated. To say, "I have faith", is to say that you're ...[text shortened]... d instead asked you to "just have faith", would you believe me?
PS In the above I have made countless unspoken and mostly subconscious assumptions, and make no claim as to its veracity. This applies to everything I say, and this disclaimer should be taken as read when it is not stated.
15 Jan 03
Originally posted by AcolyteIt is here that we deal with "probabilities". It may be incorrect, as you point out, to say that some things are absolutely true, or that some things are absolutley false. It would be more correct to say that certain things have a "very high probability" of being true, while others might have a "very low probability".
rwingett, I put it to you that you also have a belief system, or at the very least a basic set of axioms which you would be hard-pressed to abandon. For example, you might assume that the world around you bears some resemblance to your perceptions, but you can't prove you're not in a particularly Byzantine fantasy world. It's impossible to justif ...[text shortened]... applies to everything I say, and this disclaimer should be taken as read when it is not stated.
With that in mind, I would now examine the principal of "Occam's Razor", which states basically that: "the theory which requires the fewest amount of assumptions has the highest probability of being true".
It may be, as you have posited, that mathematics are false and that we are merely inhabitants of "a Byzantine fantasy world". However, the number of assumptions that would have to be made to rationalize such a theory would make its probability so extremely low that it would be unworthy of further consideration. As it requires far fewer assumptions, it is much more probable (and therefore more likely to be true) that two plus two does equal four, that mathematics are correct, and that the world is (more or less) as our senses perceive it to be.
If you would have me believe that we are merely part of a fantasy world (or anything else), you must prove, or demonstrate some degree of probability, that it is in fact true. The degree of belief that I assign to your theory is directly proportional to how successful you are in establishing its probability. No proof equals no belief. If a claim is counter to all "known" axioms and is utterly lacking in proof of any kind, then I have no choice but to disbelieve it. Which is not to say that it would be absolutely false, but rather that I would be unable to assign any degree of belief to it.
16 Jan 03
Originally posted by snlI think the blind man would have done well to have lived from moment to moment. But I don't think he did. I think he was obsessed with wanting to know what was beyond the brick wall. I think he thought long and hard on the question and that he was unable to accept that neither he nor the other patient would ever know the answer. The problem kept him awake at night. So finally he invented the stories which he later told to the other patient so that he could get a good nights sleep. He did not invent those stories for the benifit of the other patient. No, not at all. He invented those stories so that he could explain away the questions which had nagged him for so long. The thought that there was nothing at all beyond the brick wall was intolerable to him, maddening even. So he invented the stories of the green park, the parade, and others which seemed comforting and reassuring. He then passed his vision on to the other patient...and then he died.
funny, it must be a trait among of chess players to try analyzing the impact & motive of the blind man's "move." i won't speculate on motive, but will assume that the blind man was not a chess player, lived moment to moment, did not reflect on future consequences, and created moments of happiness for two lonely people.
😲 SNL
The surviving patient's heart was gladdened by these joyful tidings. For a while. Until the day came when he saw for himself that none of it was true. The veil of deceit was stripped away from his eyes and he saw clearly for himself the imperturbable fact that through the window there was nothing. Nothing but a brick wall. He was angered that he had wasted so much time listening to the blind man's foolish tales. As he lay in his hospital bed he wondered how much time he had left, for he was certain that his disease was terminal (in the end they all are). He began to savor each moment in the hospital room. Each irretrievable, fleeting moment. He no longer concerned himself with what lay beyond the brick wall. He accepted his finite limitations. And in his heart, he was happy.
16 Jan 03
Originally posted by rwingettNice. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the Witnesses come calling at your door.
[The surviving patient's heart was gladdened by these joyful tidings. For a while. Until the day came when he saw for himself that none of it was true. The veil of deceit was stripped away from his eyes and he saw clearly for himself the imperturbable fact that through the window there was nothing. Nothing but a brick wall. He was angered that he had wasted s ...[text shortened]... t lay beyond the brick wall. He accepted his finite limitations. And in his heart, he was happy.[/b]
Three cheers for reason, the last, best dogma.