Wed, 30 May 2001 13:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
--]I like the definition of faith that if it can be proven, it's not faith.
--]You can't have faith in God if you talk to Him and He answers you -- it's
--]not faith if you've got proof! Similarly, you can't have faith in gravity
--]if you can witness it working and test it with experiments. Of course,
--]everybody in this argument is using faith in a slightly different sense.
--]Particularly TomWHore's email where he uses several definitions in the same
The simplicity of the reductionist leads to the blind men and the elephant
syndrome. The complexity of the uberrococo leads to fruitfull fancy over
substance. Between the two is a tempah bbq sandwich with my name on it.
I cannot find fault in any of the definitions bandied here in place of the
word faith. Faith is much like underware, you have to find the cut that
suits you best. For me its not a constaining straight jackect nor that
lost-in-the-folds sort of thing.
It seems the word faith is akin to fuck and cunt to many folks, a vulgure
crass word that assualts the better senses of the refined and learned.
I do not mean it as such. I mean it , as much as I
can mean anything, as the knowing of something I do not know.
I know, even without really knowing hence I have faith, that this AnotA
idea will cause some amount of foot stomping good flames of reason , but
so it is. From these I will learn even more, and hopefully so to the other
To each thier own, if only from each respect for the others.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in
your philosophy." Hamlet