Re: virus: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:34:14 -0800

Eric Boyd wrote:

> In the proper sense, the beast ("faith") can have it's good sides, or
> it's pretty moods, but I suspect it always... there is a very dark
> side to faith, much more destructive than they dark side of reason (in
> my estimation).

I apologize in advance if this seems picky,

(wait for it)

...buuuuuut, it seems as though you may have used the word "estimation" in a conscious detour around saying that it is your "impression" or your "perception" or (God forbid) your "feeling," that the dark side of faith is more destructive than the dark side of reason. Here's what WWWebsters has to say about what it means to "estimate" something:

Main Entry: 1es·ti·mate
Pronunciation: 'es-t&-"mAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology: Latin aestimatus, past participle of aestimare to value, estimate
Date: circa 1532
1 archaic a : ESTEEM b : APPRAISE
2 a : to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of b : to determine roughly the size, extent, or nature of c : to produce a
statement of the approximate cost of
- es·ti·ma·tive /-"mA-tiv/ adjective

If you have made a tentative judgement that the dark side of faith is more destructive than the dark side of reason, and if making a tentive judgement is to be distinct from simply reporting your expectation-filtered perceptions, then it seems to me as though we should expect you to be able to give an account of how you selected your examples of the dark side of faith to compare to your sample cases of the dark side of reason without allowing your preconcetions to introduce a bias in the example-selection process.

Can you give such an account?