The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:57:18 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:43:50 -0600
>From: David McFadzean <>

>The point wasn't to redefine "faith", the point was to
>give a name to the concept of <belief without/despite
>evidence>. I thought calling it "faith" was reasonably
>accurate, given popular usage. I don't recall anyone
>coming up with a better name.

You didn't like "insanity"? ;-)

Seriously, IF you accept a worldview (a collection
of evidence) THEN it is is "insane" WITHIN that
worldview to believe something DESPITE conflicting

But "faith" is not WITHIN the worldview of evidence
created by logic/reason. From WITHIN that worldview
it APPEARS "insane".

>I was hoping to get readers to question their assumptions
>and engage their interest. If I only make them angry,
>then I will have to change it.

Sure, and I'm disagreeing with you in order to get
you to question your assumptions and engage your
interest. From a certian perspective, this is all
a high-tech grooming-behavior.

>I don't understand. You say you agree that "belief despite
>evidence" is insane, but my construction "To hold an idea as
>true despite all evidence to the contrary is an abdication of
>reason." is not true or useful. I'm afraid that doesn't make
>much sense.

That statement:

"To hold an idea as true despite all [reasonable] evidence to
the contrary is an abdication of reason." (I made the insertion)

Is true and useful.

The categorization of the abdication of reason as:
1) Sinful
2) Counterproductive

Is not true or useful


Reed Konsler