>Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:32:23 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
>Subject: virus: Faith vs. Reason (continued)
>
>Actions based on these emotions tend to look bad/evil from
>the observers point of view. These negative emotions are
>intellectualized (transformed into beliefs) and justified by
>faith and reason alike. The main difference (I propose) is that
>if the justification is based on reason, then there is a recourse
>other than violence.
>At 09:52 AM 3/11/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>>You are claiming that you can check fundamentals for
>>>consistency even when you may not have a consistent
>>>interpretation of those same fundamentals?
>>
>>I don't understand what you mean. I think one checks
>>against premises or fundamentals. Verification of them
>>is impossible. So Kuhn says, anyway. As for inconsistency,
>>I stand as an example that what may seem inconsistent on
>>one level is not on another. Given this, I don't see the
>>problem. Could you give an example?
>
>As long as the inconsistencies are only apparent, I have
>no argument.
>>I'm not sure what to say next. What do you think?
>
>I'd like to hear what you think the salient differences
>are between faith and reason.
What is the difference between synthesis and analysis? ...between constructivism and postmodernism?
Every coin has two sides. Reason is the interrogator, the shuffler, the hybridizer, the thinker. Faith is the advocator, the defender, and the delineator. Since we cannot know anything for certian every exposition, even Richard Dawkins's is an expression of faith...in the power of human reason if not in the power if God. When we deliniate, defend, advocate...when we stand resolute...these are all acts of faith.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------