virus: Belief and Knowledge

Reed Konsler (
Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:36:06 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:28:29 -0600
>From: David McFadzean <>
>At 10:32 PM 9/14/97 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>Agreed, but don't waffle away from the point. You cannot adopt an
>>intentional stance towards a phenomena without making THE ASSUMPTION that
>>the phenomena is willful. You can bury that leap of faith in as many
>>layers of philosophical/scientistic double talk as makes you comfortable
>I apologize for being dense but I really don't understand how making an
>assumption *because* of good evidence is a "leap of faith".

:-) Oh, come on David, you aren't're stubborn. I wasn't
criticizing your intellect.

Given that we have invested intentionallity in all kinds of complex
phenomena (volcanoes, hurricanes, the stars, the internet) more or less
incorrectly...what would you propose we use at the "good evidence" for
making the intentional assumption? Doesn't that evaluation criteria become
an axiomatic system which will eventually be demonstrated inconsistent or

Like I said, you can bury it IN AS MANY LAYERS of philosophical and
scientistic double talk as you like. Good evidence makes the assumption of
the intentional stance reasonable. What defines "good evidence" and how do
we veryify THAT axiomatic system...Ad infinitum. At the core is still a

>>Perhaps. What is inconsistent about a belief in God?
>Which God? Brodie's? The Christians'?

Either, both.


Reed Konsler