Rage, rage at the dying of the light RE: virus: Miles to go

carlw (carlw@lisco.com)
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 13:03:01 -0600

<Huge Snip>
> >Is faith something that is simply
> >unavoidable, as Reed sometimes seem to suggest? If so, should it
> >be accepted, even cherished? That, to me, is akin to celebrating
> >our most primal instincts over more thoughtful courses of action.
> >
Awesomeness is.

> >Maybe that suggests where the conflict lies: some of us suggest
> >that we can and should be more than animals while others say
> >that we *are* animals and it is great to be animals. My use of
> >the word "animal" in this context is not meant to be derogatory
> >in any sense, and I don't think it really conveys what I'm
> >trying to say. Hopefully it provides enough clues for subscribers
> >willing to give it a charitable reading.

I could not agree more. Anyone claiming "more than animals" needs to do a great deal of justification. I have not seen any believable commentary on this here.

> That was beautiful!

I am agreeing with Reed? I think I had best re-examine my position for any logical inconsistencies I may have inadvertently adopted. ;-)

> What I'm saying is that we must each be who we are...we
> have to revel in being. I had three years of Catholic school,
> which was enough to infect me with faith...innoculation?
> But not long enough to do me in. I live in symbiosis with
> a mild faith. That is who I am and being that has served
> me well. I would question faith, but I wouldn't destroy it.
You can. It takes persistent effort and can be painful, but it is definitely worthwhile. Nobody here has yet advanced a plausible example where reason does not work, never mind reasons why faith might be useful.

> We can't. If we try, the result is simply a naked mind
> ready to be infected with whatever trash the media has
> to offer today. Sure, you can TRY and train people to
> weed the garden of their mind...but the rational person
> would admit that this will never be a complete process.
> Furthermore, by the time any of us will get near it, we
> will already be dozens of years older than innocence.
Nonsense. We can. Mind weeding is also rewarding. You certainly need not be left with a "belief vacuum" waiting to be filled by refusing to accept other peoples beliefs. Goodness gracious me. What a silly argument. Getting rid of belief is a step of growth, you are less likely to be captured by irrationality, not more. Because any faith provides a place where you cannot look - and where other peoples memes can take root and grow and you cannot weed them. May I suggest that some "spice" might be called for. I agree that the eradication of all faith is never a "complete process", but then, I think that life is never complete. Only death is. While I can assure you from personal experience and observation that it becomes easier and easier to spot and remove "faith", "belief" and "irrationality" the longer you work at it. Who wants to be innocent? Innocence, like faith and virginity is a very irritating state. You only realize how irritating it really is after you have lost it.

> We can strive, though. And when I fold the delicate paper
> umbrella of my consciouness closed the last pieces will be
> <faith>, <reason>, <God>, and <I> in, more or less, that
> order. I know this in my soul. But, David, I have miles
> to go before I sleep.
> Reed

Nah. God and faith doesn't have to enter the equation. Be a man, and as Dylan Thomas said (to his dying father), "Rage, rage at the dying of the light. Go not gently into that good night."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Others and I can, and have, given reasons why all of the words spoken thus far about faith here are nonsense. In my opinion undesirable nonsense. Where the faith mongers amongst us are now reduced to personal testimony (very unreliable stuff) and shuffling embarrassedly from foot to foot in the hope that the lack of justification for faith is not noticed, I have now responded on the same level with personal testimony that counters this "trash" delivered to my desk by this electronic media; and now it is the personal testimony of the faithful vs the unbelievers. And whose is more convincing? "Yours" backed by "faith", or "ours" backed by "reason"? And does any of this get us an iota further?

TheHermit (Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! I get words all day through; First from him (Tim), now from you (Reed)! Is that all you blighters can do? Eliza Doolittle)