rstevew at deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) wrote:
>Jerry Avins <jya at ieee.org> wrote:
>>Whatever it may connote, faith is a sufficiently strong belief on an
>>assertion's or view's correctness to warrant using it as a basis for
>>judgment and action.
>That's a circularity, belief warrants nothing.
A non sequitur, you mean?
I think I see what you mean, but I think you're missing what he means.
Belief in the abstract warrants nothing; but a belief in something
concrete not only warrants action but requires it.
Logic is a formal system for checking your beliefs for consistency.
The scientific method is a system which checks your beliefs for their
relationship to the real world. Neither one operates without beliefs,
although of course both are useless if you place your beliefs out of
>>I believe that the systematic examination of
>>observable things, formulation of hypotheses about them, making
>>predictions based upon those hypotheses, verifying or disproving
>>hypotheses and thereby gaining firm grounds for modifying them -- in
>>short, the process of science -- will lead to an understanding of
>>reality. But it's only a belief: acting on it is an act of faith.
An accurate statement, wouldn't you say?
>No, you undertake to determine the truth without a vested interest in
>proving this or that, and that is Science.
Without a capital S, yes. But that doesn't contradict what he said.
>Faith is the antagonist of
>all Science and Truth because it has a bias toward believing what it
>prefers, instead of what is the Truth, no matter how well you show
>that it is.
Faith is the foundation of all science and truth because it acts on
what it believes. Without action, there can be no proof or disproof.
>Trying to prove what you already believe is NOT Science.
Of course not -- it's logic. Science knows nothing of proofs.