[FoRK] Terms - Practicing Science: Secular vs. Religious Ideology

[Jeff Bone]

On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:

> Dr. Ernie, I actually don't know --- and on some level don't really  
> care, in a benign sort of not-caring way --- what it is that you  
> actually believe.  I don't really have any quibble with you at  
> all;  I find that your tendency to shift the focus from (I) to (II)  
> above is a useful foil.  Whether or not you believe in anything in  
> particular, you engage the arguer against (I) in the manner of an  
> adept believer, a fideist,

BTW, it's not the fideism that's the problem.  It's the apologetic  
stance.

It would not be inaccurate to use the term "fideist" the describe my  
own position;  I do indeed believe that religious belief depends on  
faith;  in fact, they are precisely equivalent.  Any sort of  
"religious" belief *not* based on faith isn't religious belief,  
IMHO.  My objection is to the idea that there is anything meaningful  
that is ineffable or otherwise unapproachable by the senses,  
language, logic, words, etc.  Or, perhaps better put, my objection is  
to the idea that knowledge "gained" except by certain rather narrow  
means (experience, measurement, unwavering critical thinking) may  
have any objective value.  I believe that idea is dangerous, and may  
be trapping humankind in an intellectual / evolutionary cul-de-sac  
rife with existential risk.

IMHO, anybody who thinks they are both "religious" and "thinking  
critically with no exceptions" is willfully ignoring a very large  
pachyderm in the living room...


jb