Subject: Re: A more proper analogy
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:31:53 -0700
From: "Brian Holtz" <Brian.Holtz@sun.com>
To: "Brian Holtz" <brian@holtz.org>

"Netcom jimhumph" <jimhumph@netcomuk.co.uk> :
>
> > Surely for our purposes it does not simply mean belief without
certitude,
> > or belief that is especially strong. Would you agree to define 'faith'
as
> > belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt?
> <
> Decidely not.  Faith can be based on incomplete or inconclusive
> evidence, and need not be based on revelation.

Would you care to give a definition of 'faith' that you think should
be used in a.a.m?  Do you define 'faith' simply as belief without
certitude (a la m-w.com 2.b.), or belief that is especially strong
(3)?  Shouldn't the relevant definition here be closer to 2a:
"belief and trust and loyalty to God; belief in the traditional
doctrines of a religion"?

> Incidentally it seems to me that it would not be possible
> to practice science without faith- indeed faith seems to
> be a precondition for rationality.

Rationality certainly does depend on any of a) belief/trust in God,
b) belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion, or
c) belief based on revelation and exempt from doubt.
(Or are you now going to say that rationality is itself a "religion"?)

By the way, you never answered my other question:
Do you have any beliefs that are based on revelation and exempt from doubt?
(And would you agree that having any such belief is a mistake?)