RE: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:50:24 -0700


At 09:18 PM 11/13/97 -0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
>> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>>
>> I have no problem with "working hypotheses" so long
>> as there is a good reason to believe them if they
>> are ever called into question.
>>
>But who decides what's a good reason? Do you
>think anyone would cling to a belief for what *they*
>considered to be bad reasons? Isn't the problem

Of course not. But that doesn't mean they have
good reasons. Do you think all reasons are equally
good?

>not that there's this thing called "faith" that you
>think is bad and others think is good, but that
>people disagree on what's a good reason for
>believing?

Sure. Can we discuss what makes a reason good?

>As so often, eventually you just have to face the
>need to get your hands dirty, by descending
>from generalisation to specifics. You believe
>in accepting what's said on good authority,
>don't you? (You can't check *everything* out!)
>Well, some folk think their local preacher is a
>good authority. Arguing about "faith" won't
>help them. Discussing their preacher, and
>what he says, with them, in depth, just might.
>Get specific!

If they have faith in something there is nothing
I can say that would influence them, by (my) definition.
The only recourse I can see is to attack faith itself.

>> What do you call
>> the category of assumptions for which there is no
>> good reason?
>>
>A matter of opinion.

Are all opinions OK with you no matter what effect
they have? If not, how do you decide? What do you do?

--
David McFadzean                 david@lucifer.com
Memetic Engineer                http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
Church of Virus                 http://www.lucifer.com/virus/