[extropy-chat] Re: Faith-based thought vs thinkers
Damien Broderick
thespike at satx.rr.com
Tue Jan 31 00:07:42 UTC 2006
At 11:30 PM 1/30/2006 +0000, Russell W wrote:
>The definition I said I was using is "belief in the absence of evidence",
>which my comments fit by the normal use of the English word "belief".
Well, no. That's a preposterously partisan definition. The normal use of
the English word is something like "that which I hold to be the case",
generally something held with less absolute conviction than if it was said
to be "known"; while "faith" is the state or condition of believing
something. People who say for example that they believe in God therefore
would generally deny that they are holding this conviction *in the absence
of evidence*. Christians and Muslims, for example, will point to sacred
Scriptures that they regard as historical documents supporting their
beliefs. What's more, many will refer to experiences of a powerful kind
linked to states of prayer, contemplation, even desperation, etc. Other
believers will nod in recognition at the descriptions provided. So to that
extent there is even a quasi-public character to belief. What is at issue
is surely the general acceptability of the proffered evidence, not its absence.
Damien Broderick
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list