Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bbncca!keesan
From: keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: re starving people
Message-ID: <299@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 10-Nov-83 15:23:38 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.299
Posted: Thu Nov 10 15:23:38 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Nov-83 00:04:41 EST
References: <1408@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 45

--------------------------------

>>>>	"Faith by definition discourages rational thought which results
>>>>	 in atrophied minds!"
>>
>> flame flame flame Theology flame flame dogmatic flame flame religions
>> flame flame religions flame flame religion flame flame dogmatic mud-slinging
>> flame flame religions flame flame.
>>
>>Laura Creighton

I think there is a problem in communication here, based on use of differing
definitions of terms.  Laura Creighton reads a statement about faith, and
proceeds to issue a vehement defense of religion, without once referring to
faith, which was the original issue in question.  At this point, I consulted
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, and I think the result is worth
sharing, slightly excerpted:

    faith: 1 a:  allegiance to duty or person : LOYALTY . . .
	   2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in
	   the traditional doctrines of a religion  b (1): firm belief in
	   something for which there is no proof  (2): complete trust
	   3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction;
           esp: a system of religious beliefs

It is clear to me that the definition referred to in the original statement
above is Webster's 2 b (1), and I think that at least the first part of the
statement becomes non-controversial with the proper substitution ("Firm belief
. . . [with] no proof discourages rational thought . . ."), although the
conclusion is a bit strong.  I will admit that this is the definition which
springs immediately to my mind, and so I found the statement fairly
self-evident therefore.  Laura's response, however, indicates that her
definition of faith is closer to Webster's 2 a or 3, and I suspect most people
would not claim that belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion in and
of itself discourages rational thought -- certainly not I, whose ancestors
engaged in centuries of Talmudic hair-splitting.  However, it would seem that
these uses of the word "faith" do stem from the "belief without proof" usage,
and it is true that there are and have been religions which encourage this
sort of faith, for whatever reasons.  There is, for example, the theory that
the Pope's objections to Galileo were based less on the substance of Galileo's
beliefs than on the fact that his writings in defense of them were too eloquent,
and encouraged the use of observation and reason instead of unreasoning faith.

						    Morris M. Keesan
						    decvax!bbncca!keesan