Re: virus: Belief and Knowledge

David McFadzean (
Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:25:11 -0600

At 02:36 PM 9/16/97 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:

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

You're right about me being stubborn. I think I'm having a memetic
allergic reaction to <faith>.

>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

I think I see where you are coming from now. Would you say that making
a provisional assumption, even just long enough to test whether it is
true, even if you don't really believe the assumption, is a leap of
faith in your view?

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

If you would care to ascribe some properties to the Christian God I could
probably point out some inconsistencies between what the world would be
like if said God existed and what it is actually like.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus