virus: Re: virus-digest V2 #282

Reed Konsler (
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:41:24 -0400 (EDT)

>>Oh, you also would have to provide a feasible alternative to living without
>>unreasoned beliefs. I can think of no current examples.

>Whoa, I never said "unreasoned" beliefs. I said unreasonable. Huge difference.
>For example, I think loving one's child is perfectly reasonable, even
>though there may be no conscious thought or formal logic involved.
>So endangering oneself in order to save a child would be considered
>a decision based on a reasonable belief in my view.

Yes, David this gets at the crux of what I (and I assume Richard) find
wrong with your definition of faith.

I see faith as extra-reason where you define it as contra-reason.

So "faith" is unreasonable to you. I am asserting that faith is unreasoned,
exactly like the example you have given above and exactly as potentially
useful. But you find the construction "resonable faith" meaningless or

In essence I think you are trying to divide beliefs into reasonable ones
and unreasonable ones. I agree that unreasonable beliefs are to be avoided.

What I disagree with is the labeling of unreasonable beliefs as "faith".
It is the conflation of the two categories that I disagree with.

Here is a different question:
Do you think that there are any elements of faith that are reasonable?


Reed Konsler