From: max demian (oikoumenist@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 17:05:35 BST
Hi,
Say I am to commit suicide. I take a bunch of sleeping pills. I have faith
that in the science that the sleeping pills will do the trick. Suddenly,
before I fall asleep I realize that I don’t want to die. I try to vomit the
pills but don’t know if they came up before they take action. I call the
police but don’t know if they will get here in time as I feel the pills
begin there work. All I can do is pray to God I will live. In the end as I
fall to sleep I pray that God’s will be done. In the end I have faith
(however morbid) that the sleeping pills can kill me if I didn’t throw them
up and if the police don’t get to me in time. At the same time I believe God
can save me. There is nothing I can do but pray. I pray the cops will get to
me first or that I threw enough up that I will not die. I cannot do anything
but hope that God will spare me. I take solace in the belief that God will
save me if it is his will.
I have a certain faith in the science that says the pills can kill me.
I have faith in the science that by throwing up I can save myself.
I have faith in the technology that says the cops could save me.
I have faith that God can save me.
I have faith that if it is God’s will I will live.
I believe the pills can kill me, yet I believe that God can save me.
Are these ‘faiths’ different? How? Why?
Max
Sorry for the morbid example. I couldn’t think of a different scenario to
suit my questions. In retrospect, I think that the idea of a ‘fox hole
conversion’ would not be as dark. Maybe next time.
>From: ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Scientific beliefs and religious faith
>Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:58:35 +0800
>
>Ham,
>
>Apart possibly for the word "universally" in your definition of an
>empirical fact, I'd say that was about as succint a statement of the
>truth as I've heard in a long time.
>
>The Deutsch book I referred to recently, despite its physicalist main
>thesis, has an excellent "philosophy of science" piece on the "problem
>of induction" which ends up supporting Popper, but which goes through
>the "why wouldn't you jump off the Eiffel Tower" thought game at some
>length - don't try this at home :-).
>
>ie it's not a test you've actually made, even once, let alone
>repeatedly - so we need to be slightly careful about the word "test"
>here - can be indirect, by inference / reasonable extrapolation -
>awfully like induction, but not that formal or universal in reasoning
>methodology because the world is not a scientific experiment, or even
>a rehearsal for one.
>
>Ian
>
>On Apr 12, 2005 8:26 AM, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marsha --
> >
> > Marsha asked:
> > > Am I totally nuts?
> >
> > Gee, I don't know. Have you had your head examined recently? (I have.)
> >
> > Seriously, if you will read my last posting to David, I think it will
> > enlighten you as to the difference between beliefs that have empirical
> > validation and those that don't.
> >
> > I'll try to make it simple. In the practical world of houses, trees,
>and
> > I-pods, we need a reliable set of principles to build, maintain and
>operate
> > things. Reduced to its simplest form, an empirical principle is a
>"fact"
> > whose reliability has been universally established by observation and
> > repeated testing.
> >
> > Any other kind of belief may or may not be a fact, but we do not know.
> > Sometimes we're just ignorant of the facts and accept a belief on
>hearsay or
> > as part of a tradition, such as folklore, superstition or religion.
>Some
> > beliefs stem from intuitive concepts that simply can't be tested by the
> > empirical method. Is there a god? Is there a hereafter? Is there
>meaning?
> > What is consciousness? What is nothingness? What is the essence of
> > reality? What is goodness? -- these are questions that fall into the
>domain
> > of Philosophy. To the philosopher, they're more important than
>empirical
> > knowledge about the physical world. But the conclusions that philosophy
> > comes up with are not "factual". They are metaphysical hypotheses based
>on
> > logic and reason. And while they can and do influence our beliefs, they
> > can't be proved. (Not in this world, anyway.)
> >
> > As to where your personal beliefs fit into this scheme, I'd best let you
> > decide.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ham
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
>http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> >
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 23:18:53 BST