> I fully realize that rationality is "just" a world view. It is "only"
> good for understanding the world and making decisions. I also consider
> rationality to be the unspoken rules of the game of mailing list discussions
> (which is why I get rather frustrated when the other side feels free
> to break the rules whenever they find it useful; imagine how long you
> would play chess with someone like that).
Actually, I don't think such a game would last very long. The non rule
bound person would win as soon as s/he chose to. "Check mate" This of
course gets back to the fundamental critisim of Post-Structuralism and
level 3. Why play by /any/ rules?
> If you want to use some other worldview for anything at all, be my guest.
> If you find faith useful, that's fine with me too. If you're insulted because
> I find faith fundamentally flawed and express those opinions (without attacking
> anyone, BTW), then maybe you should ask yourself why you are so defensive.
nasty nasty! Looks like an attack to me! But seriously, I think at
about this point we should invoke the "Reed Principle" and step back...
What is the point of this argument? If you already accept that reason
is "just" a world view, as you say, then the point has already been
won. The only struggle now lies in "faith", which you still reject.
Tell me, if you do think that reason is not the be all and end all, what
other world view /would/ you accept as valid?
ERiC