RE: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

David McFadzean (
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:50:24 -0700

At 09:18 PM 11/13/97 -0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
>> From: David McFadzean[]
>> I have no problem with "working hypotheses" so long
>> as there is a good reason to believe them if they
>> are ever called into question.
>But who decides what's a good reason? Do you
>think anyone would cling to a belief for what *they*
>considered to be bad reasons? Isn't the problem

Of course not. But that doesn't mean they have
good reasons. Do you think all reasons are equally

>not that there's this thing called "faith" that you
>think is bad and others think is good, but that
>people disagree on what's a good reason for

Sure. Can we discuss what makes a reason good?

>As so often, eventually you just have to face the
>need to get your hands dirty, by descending
>from generalisation to specifics. You believe
>in accepting what's said on good authority,
>don't you? (You can't check *everything* out!)
>Well, some folk think their local preacher is a
>good authority. Arguing about "faith" won't
>help them. Discussing their preacher, and
>what he says, with them, in depth, just might.
>Get specific!

If they have faith in something there is nothing
I can say that would influence them, by (my) definition.
The only recourse I can see is to attack faith itself.

>> What do you call
>> the category of assumptions for which there is no
>> good reason?
>A matter of opinion.

Are all opinions OK with you no matter what effect
they have? If not, how do you decide? What do you do?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus