David McFadzean wrote:
> Here's my simplistic analysis of
> the great faith debate so far:
>
> Pro-side: "It is counter-productive to denigrate faith in general
> because the word has many meanings, some bad (and admittedly
> irrational) and some good, even necessary. If we want the CoV
> to appeal to a majority of the population, we have to accept
> faith."
> Have I misrepresented either position?
I can't speak for the con-side, but I'd add a couple of qualifiers to the pro-side:
It is counter-productive to denigrate faith in general because the word has many meanings, some bad (and admittedly irrational) and some good, POSSIBLY even necessary. If we want the CoV to appeal to a majority of the population, we have to ACCOMMODATE faith.
I realize that the "possibly" is implied in your original formulation, but I'm more comfortable with it being explicit.
> Are there any others?
I'd be pretty surprised to learn that there were only two positions being advocated in a debate that involves more than two people. I'm pretty sure that Kingsxfan wouldn't want to throw his lot in with either of the camps as you've defined them.
Also, much as I like and admire Reed, I sometimes get the impression that he values faith, qua unconditional belief in potentially falsifiable propositions, and I think his position is distinct from Kingsxfan's, so we're probably looking at at least four camps.
And then there's Carl. Some of his comments in response to the passage from Stanislov Grof's book that I posted last week lead me to believe (oh so very tentatively) that he would consider phaith a potentially dangerous perceptual distortion and imparment to good judgement, in which case blanket condemnations of faith, in all it's rich variety, are still appropriate.
Of course, if I've misrepresented anyone's position, please accept my apology and assurance that the misrepresentation is unintential and devoid of malice.
Take care.
-KMO