Re: virus: Agnosticism

Chris Schenck (
Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:52:46 -0500

David McFadzean wrote:
> At 01:45 PM 31/03/97 -0500, CHRISTOPHER SCHENCK wrote:
> > The dictionary defines "faith" as a belief or set of beliefs held to be
> >true without proof of its validity. This means that any assertation
> >without proof is an act of faith, which your ideology says is a sin.
> I would say that faith is belief without reasonable evidence which
> is quite different from proof. Reasonable evidence is much easier to
> find than proof. As far as I know nothing empirical has ever been
> proven true, only mathematical theorems.

Hmmm....good point. But why should we aspire to anything less than
Many men have been unjustly led to the gallows by so-called "reasonable
evidence." The problem with reasonable evidence is that the first part
the term (reasonable) is *so* very subjective. What is reasonable to one
might be folly to another. So how are we to determine what is resonable?
Shall we use the method of plurality (if the majority believe it is
reasonable, then it is reasonable)? This seems to be a "might makes
approach to solving the problem. If I manage to convince 51% of the
populace that computers don't exist, does that mean that computers don't
exist? Clearly not, even though most people believe it to be reasonable.
So if not plurality, then what? Should every person have his own
definition of "reasonable evidence"? This seems to be a bit too
anarchistic of an approach. (Dodge City law comes to mind...) :)

   ______   _______   ______ 
  /_____/\ /______/\ /_____/\
  \  ___\/ \  ___ \ \\  ___\/_
   \ \ \    \ \/_\ \ \\ \____/\
    \ \ \____\  ___ \ \\____ \ \
     \ \/___/\\ \/_\ \ \ /__\ \ \
      \_____\/ \______\/ \_____\/