Quoting Ro, see below Re: What Constitutes a Pointless Debate?
Thu, 24 May 2001 09:53:18 -0500
> a few questions for the boner:
> 1) do you think folks who don't limit their beliefs to science or logic are
Not necessarily. BTW, I don't think illogical/irrational/lazy/stupid are
immutable characteristics of people; a person who is otherwise rational can be
irrational in some contexts, etc. Otherwise reasonably smart people can do / say
stupid things. Hell, I prove that myself over and over again. ;-)
> 2) do you believe humans have eternal souls?
Don't have a clue. Depends on what you mean by "eternal" and what you mean by
"soul." In general, though, I think that *most* belief in such things is a
function of irrational / prerational "ticklings" of our God spots, coupled with a
psychological compensator for the knowledge of our own mortality. (Interestingly,
I think that there may be a reasonable, scientific, rational argument that leads
to approximately the same place; cf. Tipler. While he's a real case, there's
some interesting thought, there...)
> 3) do you perceive faith to be something only intellectually lazy people have?
Depends on what "faith" means. I believe that some intellectually lazy people
have faith, but I also know a large number of intellectually rigorous folks who
claim to have faith. I suspect, however, that what what the former group means by
"faith" is fundamentally different from what the latter folks mean by faith.
It's provably the case that there are unprovable assertions that are nonetheless
true. I would suggest that believing in the truth of something that has not /
cannot be proven true is a pretty good definition of "faith."