🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Er9pd.181456$df2.38941@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:WY8pd.181439$df2.145463@edtnps89...
>> In article <qX7pd.181406$df2.17087@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:q9Uod.204942$9b.178450@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <hGQod.309646$Pl.266071@pd7tw1no>, you.dont.get@it.com
>says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Helper Monkey Assault Squad 7 wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:40:51 GMT, DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com
>> >> >> (Danie|_ Swan) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>No, faith is belief in something without proof.  Since proof
>doesn't
>> >exist
>> >> >>>>>faith can be based on a hunch, a "gut feeling", or highly
>developed
>> >tools
>> >> of
>> >> >>>>>reasoning.  Personally, I choose the latter to build my faith on.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Ok. I'll bite. How do your highly developed tools of
>> >> >>>>reasoning lead you to believe in God?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>They don't, they've led me to atheism.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh well, so much for that argument.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, and it's still just a belief. A blind leap of faith,
>> >>
>> >> Wrong, it's a leap of faith but it is not a 'blind' leap of faith
>because,
>> >as I
>> >> said, the leap of faith is based on highly developed tools of
>reasoning.
>> >>
>> >Higly developed tools of reasoning have no place in faith. Faith is a
>belief
>> >or affirmation in the absence proof or reason.
>>
>> Wrong.  Faith is belief in the absence of proof, not reason.  Belief in
>the
>> absenece of reason is superstition.
>>
>Better start teaching yourself a bit of philosophy; which is the study of
>arguments. 

I'm doing fine, thanks.  Much better than you. in fact.


> Belief in the absence of proof, but with reason is a hypothesis.

Right.  However I may have erred when I said that belief without reason is 
superstition - superstition is belief with reason, but the reason used to 
validate superstition is of a very poor and superficial quality.  

>Once you get some proof to back it up, it becomes a theory.

No, theory and hypothesis are synonymous.  

> Once it has
>irrefutable proof that is generally accepted in all cases, it is a law.

Right, except that definition of 'laws' (Carnap's) is somewhat obsolete in 
light of Goodman's New Problem of Induction since the veracity of proof remains 
subjective.

>
>Belief in the absence of reason, even when there is proof, is faith; partly
>because without reason, you won't see the proof.

That's right, since proof is actually subjective, reason is the only tool that 
can help us get out of Plato's Cave.  The philosopher king cannot 'prove' to 
the cave prisoners that the shadows are not real.  He can only reason with 
them, and Plato says even that is a fools game because unlike the philosopher 
king, the cave prisoner knows nothing of Forms (reason).  In other words, the 
philosopher king, upon re-entering the cave to attempt to free his imprisoned 
fellows, finds that he must argue with them over the nature of the shadows, 
which is futile since they don't know about Forms and thus, cannot follow 
Plato's arguments. 
  
>> > That being said, reason has
>> >no place in faith.  Even a wrong conclusion can be arrived at using
>reason
>> >if the premises are flawed.  However, it is then a wrong conclusion, not
>> >faith.
>>
>> But you will put some measure of faith in that conclusion based on your
>> reasoning.  The better the quality of your reasoning, the more likely
>you'll
>> find flaws in your hypothesis.
>>
>Depending on how you define proof, you will put faith in everything in some
>form; since from a philosophical perspective, a fact does not exist except
>as a definition.  Consequently, no matter how good your reasoning is, you
>will likely arrive at the wrong conclusion if the premises are flawed. 

Only if your reasoning is so bounded that you can't recognize the flaw in your 
premise.  5000 years of research into logical fallacies has helped those of us 
who want to be philosopher kings well on our way to acheiving that goal.
 


> Need
>proof?  Read Zeno's Paradox.  The premises are generally accepted, yet the
>conclusions will make no sense, because the generally-accepted premises are
>misdefined in colloquial terms.
>

Zeno's paradoxes are exactly what I'm talking about.  the purpose of Zeno's 
paradoxes is to demonstrate that evidence of sense is misleading.  Zeno created 
his paradoxes to support Parmenides' claim that sense perception is rife with 
flaws.  Plato's dialogue "Parmenides" finds Parmendies debating the dialectic 
with Socrates. The dialectic is the most advanced and expansive form of reason, 
while gnosis was the most bounded form.  For dialectic to work, it requires 
discourse using impeccable logic, while gnosis requires nothing but revelation, 
essentially nothing but a conscious embrace of unconscious bias.  People who 
romanticize 'instinct' and the 'natural' tend to find gnosis to be more genuine 
than the dialectic.  Personally, I think they're lazy, inconsequential 
organisms.  But then, I'm a Philosopher King.