Re: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

Tim Rhodes (
Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:28:08 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, David McFadzean wrote:

> Reed wrote:
> >"To hold an idea as true despite all evidence to the contrary"
> >is not the definition of faith. The key word here is *despite*.
> That is the definition of faith in the context of this
> statement. If you don't want to read it that way, I have
> no recourse.

Seems like an awful lot of people "don't want to read it that way", David.
At what point do one seek the obvious "recourse" of questioning ones own
clairity in communicating the idea.

> >Is, in my opinion, diametrically in opposition to my understanding.
> >Convictions [assumptions, faith] ARE the beginning of knowledge.
> In the statement above, "conviction" means believing to such
> an extent that no further investigation is pursued.

This isn't clear from your statement. Maybe you could rephrase your Faith
Sin to make that more clear. The "conviction" you speak of is as much of
a sin in science (becoming locked in a paradigm) as in religion.

> That is the end of knowledge. (Again, if you wish to project your own
> definition, then the meaning of the statement will change, and perhaps
> the truth of it.)

Projecting definitions is what readers do. Understanding that and
adjusting the words so that the projection matches the intention is what
good writers do.

> >Are fetuses people?
> It would depend on your definitions. In any case I don't think it
> matters.

Does if your an abortion clinic worker that has to wear a flack jacket to
work every day. A great deal hangs on those definitions. They do matter,
often much more than esoteric clap-trap like this ever will!

-Prof. Tim