RE: supernatural observation & faith def.

John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Wed, 11 Sep 1996 19:45:18 -0500

I think your definition of "faith" is akin to "incorrigible subjective =
certainty", which (1) is a non-standard definition (going to Bertrand =
Russell for a definition of "faith" is like going to Jerry Falwell for a =
definition of "disbelief"), and (2) is analytically unrelated to what is =
typically taken as religious faith. (There is some empirical =
relationship, particularly with some fundamentalists, but that is =
defnitely a minority subset of the community of faith.)

More common definitions of faith are centered around (1) belief or trust =
in God, or (more broadly) (2) belief in something that goes beyond =
putative evidence in support of it.

We need to find a good, ideally one-word way to describe what you're =
talking about, but I don't think "faith" will do the job.

BTW, sorry for describing your earlier post as presenting a "caricature" =
of faith. I do think it's seriously mistaken (and I suspect you're =
entirely open to finding a better word, since there are definitely =
people of faith whose faith is characterized by your terms, and we need =
to be able to talk about them even if "faith" is much too broad), but =
"caricature" is too strong, and implied a polemical intent that I don't =
think you have. Sorry about that.

A further explicit question: would you say people should believe things =
only insofar as they are supported by evidence, or by scientific =
evidence, say? A sort of Saganistic (Saganic? :^> ) scientism?

--John

----------
From: Stephen Gooch[SMTP:sgooch@sm10.sciatl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 1996 7:05 AM
To: pdd@gcc.cc.md.us; rylander@prolexia.com
Cc: evolution@Calvin.edu
Subject: supernatural observation & faith def.

I just want to give a terse response to two questions.

> Paul Durham
>
> Do you believe that the experience or observation of the supernatural
> would demonstrate that faith can be based on observation?

Yes I do. But there are two notable problems with supernatural =
observation
First problem is that supernatural observations are not public. If you =
can
write back on some public supernatural observations I would like to read =
about
them. The second problem is that they normally happen only once. They =
can't be
looked at again and again

> John E. Rylander
>
> One quick question: by faith do you mean beliefs that are religious in
nature? > Or beliefs that are not strictly determined by the evidence =
(e.g.,
perhaps not > held in proportion to the independently empirically =
confirming
evidence)? Or > what?

Faith is "a conviction which cannot be shaken by contrary evidence."* =
The
conviction can be religious in nature or not. I am sure many of you =
could name
some in the scientific field who have shown this characteristic.

I think unshakable convictions are strong in 'isms' - liberalism, =
conservatism,
nationalism, Mormonism**, . . .

* Quote from Bertrand Russell
** Not to pick on Mormons - I just picked a religion out of my hat.

--=20
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D--=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-
| Stephen Gooch | stephen.gooch@asu.edu =
|
| 770.903.6778 | =
http://goodnet.com/~ej23298 |
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D--=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-
#!/bin/sh
echo =
'16i[q]sa[ln0=3Daln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D3F204445524F42snlbxq'|dc;exit