Re: virus: Belief and Knowledge (was: The truth about faith)

Robin Faichney (
Wed, 2 Jul 1997 10:10:00 +0100

David McF wrote:
[RF wrote]
>>>>"If I have sufficient faith in it, it will come true."
[David wrote]
>>>I would agree with that, but isn't there a tacit admission
>>>that it (whatever "it" is) is not currently true? If so,
>>>then that isn't faith by anyone's definition (is it?).
>> This is a psycho/spiritual operation, not logical/linguistic
>> analysis.
>I'm sure it is, but the only way to tell if faith is reasonable
>is through logical/linguistic analysis.

I think we would have to decide whether this *is* faith,
before questioning whether it was reasonable. But I
say, neither of these is necessary, and either of them
may be positively misleading. Usage comes first, and
analysis comes after the fact. People, as you know,
do not always act or speak in accordance with logic.
To adhere closely to its principles therefore means you
will very often fail to understand people.

>> Not everyone is hung up on definitions.
>Not everyone cares to understand what they do or why
>they do it. So what?

I don't think that focussing on definitions is a very
reliable way to help understand yourself or others. See

>> And: consistency is the bugbear of small minds.
>> (As you know.)
>I know that is a misquote taken out of context and I personally
>assign a large negative truth value to the statement (especially
>since you have escalated the severeness by threefold hitdice :-).
>But let's try out the DoT, why do you think it is true?

That was a throw-away that I'm not going to take the time
to defend. I wish I had as much spare time as some of the
people around here seem to do!