RE: MD On Faith

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 21:27:33 BST

  • Next message: Robert Eckert: "Re: MD On Faith - Improbability ?"

    > msh says:
    > Yes, I guess if you get a big enough dictionary, and read far enough
    > down the list of less and less common uses of the word, you'll find a
    > definition far enough out of phase with popular usage to match your
    > obfuscatory needs.

    So, we're are supposed to take what msh says is a proper definition of a
    word rather than a widely used online dictionary. Like I said in comparing
    msh to Godel, if I have to choose between msh and Merriam-Webster, I'm
    inclined to go with Merriam-Webster.

    msh says:
    > Even this definition won't quite work for you, however, since good
    > scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers accept their first
    > principle(s) not out of ardor or faith, but utility. You are bending over
    > backward to blur what is a very clear distinction between religious faith
    > and scientific assumption.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, those who believe in a higher power
    also accept their first principles out of utility because their beliefs,
    (just as those accepted by scientists) serve to explain experience. The
    first principles of science are limited to exterior manifestations of
    matter and energy at the lower levels. There's a helluva lot more to the
    world than that, like the entire world of the arts, for example, about
    which science as nothing to say.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 09 2004 - 21:50:35 BST