Comments on: The Bright Side http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/ I go many places Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:26:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Malcolm http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/comment-page-1/#comment-414 Malcolm Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:56:54 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/?p=163#comment-414 Hi Bob, Right. I can't share my faith with anyone else, and a <em>lack </em>of reasoned arguments in support of whatever my faith tells me to be true need not compel me to abandon my conviction. I <em>would </em>say, though, that if logical objections are brought up that <em>contradict</em> my faith, then I should begine to suspect that something is wrong, and if at that point I fail to try, at least, to find a logically defensible "loophole", then I'm just copping out. Hi Bob,

Right. I can’t share my faith with anyone else, and a lack of reasoned arguments in support of whatever my faith tells me to be true need not compel me to abandon my conviction. I would say, though, that if logical objections are brought up that contradict my faith, then I should begine to suspect that something is wrong, and if at that point I fail to try, at least, to find a logically defensible “loophole”, then I’m just copping out.

]]> By: Bob Koepp http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/comment-page-1/#comment-413 Bob Koepp Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:22:29 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/?p=163#comment-413 Hi Malcolm - Yes, faith is problematic in this context since MY faith isn't (or shouldn't be) any sort of reason for YOU to believe as I do. In other words, the persuasiveness of faith-based belief doesn't extend beyond the one whose faith it is. And when, as often happens, faith serves as an "excuse" for not confronting uncomfortable data in a forthright manner, then, whatever its other merits, I think faith has gone off the rails and should be directly challenged. Hi Malcolm -
Yes, faith is problematic in this context since MY faith isn’t (or shouldn’t be) any sort of reason for YOU to believe as I do. In other words, the persuasiveness of faith-based belief doesn’t extend beyond the one whose faith it is. And when, as often happens, faith serves as an “excuse” for not confronting uncomfortable data in a forthright manner, then, whatever its other merits, I think faith has gone off the rails and should be directly challenged.

]]> By: Malcolm http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/comment-page-1/#comment-411 Malcolm Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:31:28 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/?p=163#comment-411 Hi Bob, Part of the problem is the phenomenon of faith itself, which by its very nature is not publicly communicable in the way that reasoned arguments are. Hi Bob,

Part of the problem is the phenomenon of faith itself, which by its very nature is not publicly communicable in the way that reasoned arguments are.

]]> By: Bob Koepp http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/comment-page-1/#comment-410 Bob Koepp Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:07:55 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/?p=163#comment-410 I, too, think Dennett goes "over the top" in his critique of religious belief. As Michael Ruse has pointed out, it might help if Dennett actually studied the object of his scorn -- not as a believer, obviously, but as a fair-minded critic who knows whereof he speaks. But I certainly share Dennett's dislike of the handwaving and obfuscatory evasions one gets from defenders of the faith when they are asked to provide recognizable _reasons_ for their beliefs. I, too, think Dennett goes “over the top” in his critique of religious belief. As Michael Ruse has pointed out, it might help if Dennett actually studied the object of his scorn — not as a believer, obviously, but as a fair-minded critic who knows whereof he speaks.

But I certainly share Dennett’s dislike of the handwaving and obfuscatory evasions one gets from defenders of the faith when they are asked to provide recognizable _reasons_ for their beliefs.

]]> By: Malcolm http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/comment-page-1/#comment-409 Malcolm Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:40:28 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/?p=163#comment-409 Thanks, Thomas, and thanks as always for commenting. One fuzzy part of all of this is what we mean, exactly, by "the physical world". I doubt very much that we have permanently and immovably set its frontiers just yet. Likewise for the question of what we can and cannot, in either principle or future practice, "detect scientifically". I think the next few centuries should be quite interesting; I have the feeling that we are just getting warmed up. Thanks, Thomas, and thanks as always for commenting.

One fuzzy part of all of this is what we mean, exactly, by “the physical world”. I doubt very much that we have permanently and immovably set its frontiers just yet. Likewise for the question of what we can and cannot, in either principle or future practice, “detect scientifically”.

I think the next few centuries should be quite interesting; I have the feeling that we are just getting warmed up.

]]> By: Thomas http://malcolmpollack.com/2006/03/06/the-bright-side/comment-page-1/#comment-408 Thomas Tue, 07 Mar 2006 13:21:21 +0000 http://malcolmpollack.com/?p=163#comment-408 Hi Malcolm, welcome back! a quick thought (have to work): I still find it incomprehensible how anyone can confidently state that "the physical world is all that there is." This is no scientific statement: it cannot be tested scientifically, as science obviously deals with the physical world only so cannot prove whether that is all there is. And as a philosophical statement, it is debatable and therefore not unproblematically "just true". As a matter of fact, I find it not just a bit over-confident to assume that what humans are able to scientifically detect is all there is. But, well, as a Dutch scientist stated in a newspaper a few days ago, these discussions tend to reveal more about one's attitude towards life and the world, than about the world itself. "The physical world is all that there is" in that sense is an existential statement; nothing more, nothing less. oops, now to work! Hi Malcolm, welcome back!

a quick thought (have to work):

I still find it incomprehensible how anyone can confidently state that “the physical world is all that there is.” This is no scientific statement: it cannot be tested scientifically, as science obviously deals with the physical world only so cannot prove whether that is all there is. And as a philosophical statement, it is debatable and therefore not unproblematically “just true”.

As a matter of fact, I find it not just a bit over-confident to assume that what humans are able to scientifically detect is all there is.

But, well, as a Dutch scientist stated in a newspaper a few days ago, these discussions tend to reveal more about one’s attitude towards life and the world, than about the world itself. “The physical world is all that there is” in that sense is an existential statement; nothing more, nothing less.

oops, now to work!

]]>