Re: CHAT: another new language to check out

Good heavens, there are SO MANY threads within this thread.  There is the
"Are IAL's useful" thread; the "What's the A stand for in AIAL" thread; the
"Is Esperanto an agglutinating language" thread; the "Aioli and the smell of
garlic" thread; the "How will And get out of this one NOW?" thread... :) :)

I suppose it is in my nature to want to respond to this last.  I.e., the
"can we call religion 'blind trust'" thread.  Forgive me!!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Thalmann" <cinga@...>

> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Joe <joe@W...> wrote:
>
> > Faith is not blindness to reason, but reason is not integrated in any
> > way to Faith.  In some ways, Faith can be seen as the antithesis of
> > Reason - that is, rather than being based on reason, it is formed around
> > blind trust.
I don't know if religious trust ("faith") is necessarily "blind," (she said
cautiously.)   I think aspects of the "rational" universe take just as much
unquestioning trust on a daily basis.  For instance, I know that my computer
is operated by electricity, but I couldn't begin to make a battery, much
less a generator.  Or a computer.  They work almost like magic for me.  More
to the point, I know that mathematicians and scientists can prove things
about the universe that I could never corroborate.  Quantum physics is like
a Book of Secrets for me.  I must trust it.  I will never understand it
completely.  Is that "blind"?  Remember, now, I'm talking about all belief
structures, here.  You can say that there are charts and documents that
"prove" quantum physics or mathematics, or show one how a battery works.
But look at the O.J. Simpson jury.  They decided not to put their "blind
trust" into what the forensics scientists told them about DNA testing.  And
O.J. walked.  I'm not saying that's a good thing.  I'm examining the nature
of trust and skepticism.  It goes both ways.

> > For instance,
> > belief in the existence of a God is not inherently irrational.
Exactly.  For Thomas Aquinas, it was deeply rational.  I suppose it depends
on the argument and the times and one's frame of mind.  I'm a religious
person with a sound respect for science.  I suppose for me it's more a
matter of hierarchy--what aspects of my universe matter to me when it comes
to the final time.  But Christian is right.  This is not a topic for the
list, I suppose, but I wanted to NIX that word "blind."  That's the
offending word.

What all this has to do with IALs is beyond me... it's another belief
structure.  We believe that we are producing something that will work.  Give
it a chance is what they are saying.  And's question, why do it, is still
mysterious.

Sally

Reply