Re: virus: Logic and Purpose

David McFadzean (
Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:08:45 -0600

At 01:06 PM 10/23/97 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>The question is not whether it is possible to survive with false beliefs.
>>Obviously it is. The question is whether it is possible to do better
>>with true beliefs. Maybe there would be less violence in the world
>>for instance (I'm assuming that would be a good thing).
>David, that's what I BELIEVE, too. I have FAITH that trying to
>know the truth will bring a "better" world. I operate under that
>ASSUMPTION. I'm not interested in proving that and I don't

I'm willing to adopt your definition of the f-word long enough
to agree.

>think it is possible. I think it is important that people have the

No one is trying to prove it. Strawman.

>right to choose their own assumptions and I think it is honest
>to admit that we don't know that discovering an objective
>truth makes our lives, or the world, better. We believe that it

I don't think it is impossible to try to figure out whether
or not true beliefs can make our lives better.

>is true, and we will claim positive results as evidence and set
>aside negative results as anomalous or necessary for the greater

Yes it is possible practice skepticism badly. So what?
Is that a good reason to give up on it?

>What all humans (I hope) have in common is that they want to
>see the world "better". It is that desire to make more "good"
>which is our bond, and both reason and faith serve the end
>of making a "better world". When faith seems to contradict
>that in the ought to be criticized.

When faith seems to contradict the goal more often than not,
maybe faith itself should be criticized.

>When reason seems to contradict that in the
>Prisonner's also ought to be criticized.

That's an interesting example. (Worth exploring, I mean.)

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus