In a message dated 2/21/99 1:48:44 PM Central Standard Time, konsler@ascat.harvard.edu writes:
<< >Does that give you some insight about the way some feel >about the word "faith"?
Bingo! It's almost like you're telepathic.
In this case I'm forced to cause those people discomfort in order to help them interact more fully with the vast majority of people, most of whom believe in God or faith of one sort or another.<<
I do very well without your "help", thank you very much. Many of the "faithful" and I have very wonderful friendships and working and business relationships without your volunteering "therapy" sessions.
>> I do this acknowledging
the temporary pain I am causing becuase I know that
there are a great many good, friendly, warm, loving,
courageous, trustworthy, magnificent people who
also claim one sort of faith or another.<<
We never said there weren't.
>> It is my great desire to bring the people here in closer contact with this
community of people, becuase I think both groups have much to learn from one
another.<<
I couldn't be in any "closer contact". They are everywhere, in case you haven't noticed. I am not going to be more inclined to agree with them more just because they are "the vast majority of people".
>>I think such an interaction would be fruitful, and furthermore that the
believers (based on my personal experience) are desperate
to close the gap between reason and faith with us,<<
What universe are you living in? Apparently you confuse their duties to evangelize with "closing the gap." Faith and consistent rationality are inconsistent, unless you wish to pretend that they aren't, which you and many others seem to be wanting to do. The only way "the gap closes" is if I agree with them, or if they agree with me. I personally don't care if it never "closes". I operate, live, and work among them very harmoniously despite these "tragic" gaps that you see. Unlike you, I do not need philosophical union with the whole of humanity.
>> so that we might work together towards the fulfillment of our universal
human goals.<<
And what are those "universal human goals"???
You mean like genetically engineering humans with greater longevity, intelligence, or adaptability to space travel??
he he. I doubt that's universal.
That's what economies are for. Philosophical agreement is not necessary for economies to work. It might come as a shock to you, but there are no "universal human goals", unless you wish to label survival a goal, and I generally don't. There certainly are some lofty and worthwhile human goals, which I expect that I and some portions of humanity will aspire to and achieve. But these are not *universal* human goals. There are many that think indifferetly of them, and some even think them "evil".
>>Can you say the same thing about Nazis?
Reed<< . . . wondering the value of pushing the "nazi" button . . .
Confronting your demons. We've all got 'em. Not healthy to deny 'em.
-Jake