Creationism and other doctrines. Was Mindforth

Richard Steven Walz rstevew at deeptht.armory.com
Tue Dec 31 00:02:37 EST 2002


In article <9576bbf1.0212291515.24928d9 at posting.google.com>,
William Tanksley Google <wtanksleyjr at cox.net> wrote:
>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?
------------------------------
Belief, IS, and MEANS choosing what you hold as true without yielding
to reason. That's what it means, it has no other meaning. It is untrue,
everyone holds what they hold because of what has happened to them and
they can't change it, they are totally and completely determined by 
their precise life experience. So not only is believe wrong, but it
isn't even true. 


>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.
---------------------------------
Belief warrants nothing, no matter how much assholes want it to.
Belief, by definition, is the absence of reason. If you need or
want to believe, instead of to know, then you DON'T know.


>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
>their reach.
-----------------------------------
Knowledge compels belief beyond the nature of belief, so that you have
valid reason for doing even that you  do NOT prefer to believe, but
belief is still dogshit, and warrants nothing.


>>>I believe that the systematic examination of
>>>observable things, formulation of hypotheses about them, making
>>>predictions based upon those hypotheses, verifying or disproving
>those
>>>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?
>
>>>Jerry
>>--------------------------
>>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.
------------------------------------
What he said was innacurate and ineptly expressed and thought-out.


>>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.
--------------------------------------
Garbage. One need not act on faith, at all.


>>Trying to prove what you already believe is NOT Science.
>
>Of course not -- it's logic. Science knows nothing of proofs.
-------------------------------------
Science need not admit to any proof. Proofs are mathematics.
Science uses reason to decide action.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz  rstevew at armory.com   ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!!  With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list