Jake wrote:
>Rationally scrutinizing my justifications is not
>something that I have to force myself to
>do. In fact to me, faith is a deliberate effort
>to stop people from doing something which they
>would naturally want to do without it - that is
>rationally scrutinize their justifications. People
>generally have to be *taught* aversion to this.
Do you have anything to back up those last two sentences? (And no, I'm not just being a smart-ass here.) I want to know: Do you have any actual data, data that has been rationally scrutized by wide body of experts, to support this assertion that "people naturally want to scrutinize their justifications"?
This is in stark contrast to all my life experience with other human beings, so I would like to be pointed to the data that you have on the subject.
And, (now just to be a smart-ass) I would also ask you, Jake: Do you *really* want to rationally scrutinize your assumption that faith is bad? I mean, _really?!?_
Bill was able to scrutinize his assumption that "faith must be based in fear" and as a result he netted a better and more complete understanding of religion and how it fits into the puzzle that is human nature. Do you understand what it would really entail for you (and what it would show to all of us), if at this point in the conversation you were actually serious about scrutinizing your own working assumptions--the ones that brought you into conflict with Reed--and truly did so right here right now, before us?
-Prof. Tim