> >Belief without supporting evidence is not faith it is
> >delusion.
>
> On the contrary, that is the precise dictionary definition. You may think
> faith is somewhat different from delusion, as I do not, but it _is_ belief
> without evidence.
1) It is the precise dictionary definition.
2) This definition has nothing to do with what several 'religions' call
faith. [I count various Christian branches as distinct 'religions' here.]
It is advisable to find out what a hyperreligionist's operating
definitions are before proceeding.
> >The religious faithful have a great deal of supporting evidence
> >only it is experiential.
> >John Crooks
>
> As do abductees, astral travelers, psychics, etc., etc. Since I am firmly
> rooted in the natural universe and the observations of calibrated
> instruments, (read science), I still say 'so what?' I do not for a second
> think there is something in the human frame which is superior to sensitive
> instruments or removed from the physical. The religious do, without
> evidence. Whoopee.
The point of the instruments is to bring phenomena beyond the direct reach
of human perception INTO human perception, albeit indirectly. The
advantage of the instruments over the other instances mentioned is that it
is unequivocal what they are reporting.
All evidence is ultimately experiential. The instruments allow a
'stabilization', so to speak.
Has the Strong AI hypothesis been upgraded to theory while I wasn't
looking?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////