Lestat
10-28-2006, 02:05 AM
I suppose Sklansky got me again, but this time (I think) it's only a technicality.
Of course, given information one would (and should) go with the favorable odds when making a decision or arriving at a belief. But what if odds are not available?
Imagine our ancestors as hunter/gatherers being forced to leave an area either due to inclement weather or lack of food sources. Now of course, if there were any evidence at all pointing to one direction yielding a more favorable result than another, the answer is easy. But what if there were no clue on which way to go? In other words, no probability to say any one direction is better than any other. Does Sklansky mean to say that they now should stay put and surely perish, because nothing can be assumed about any direction? Hardly. A decision must be made, a belief must be formed, and a direction must be chosen.
Perhaps this isn't the best example. Maybe two unfamiliar tribes meeting and one having to place trust (faith), in the other over some kind of trade, etc. I'm hoping others (who see my point, if I have one), can provide better examples.
But I submit that faith (not merely assumptions) holds an important place in the human pysche. There is a need to feel grounded even in the absence of evidence or probabilities.
By the way, this is why I'm not much bothered by someone who postulates a god to fill the unanswerable questions of his existence, meaning of life, or what it all means. I am however, greatly bothered by those who extend such a faith to include beliefs that require a complete suspension of one's reality and all known evidence to them. I'm referring to burning bushes that talk, parting seas, two fish multiplying to feed hundreds of people, and so on. These things supercede faith, and reach into outright gullibility.
Of course, given information one would (and should) go with the favorable odds when making a decision or arriving at a belief. But what if odds are not available?
Imagine our ancestors as hunter/gatherers being forced to leave an area either due to inclement weather or lack of food sources. Now of course, if there were any evidence at all pointing to one direction yielding a more favorable result than another, the answer is easy. But what if there were no clue on which way to go? In other words, no probability to say any one direction is better than any other. Does Sklansky mean to say that they now should stay put and surely perish, because nothing can be assumed about any direction? Hardly. A decision must be made, a belief must be formed, and a direction must be chosen.
Perhaps this isn't the best example. Maybe two unfamiliar tribes meeting and one having to place trust (faith), in the other over some kind of trade, etc. I'm hoping others (who see my point, if I have one), can provide better examples.
But I submit that faith (not merely assumptions) holds an important place in the human pysche. There is a need to feel grounded even in the absence of evidence or probabilities.
By the way, this is why I'm not much bothered by someone who postulates a god to fill the unanswerable questions of his existence, meaning of life, or what it all means. I am however, greatly bothered by those who extend such a faith to include beliefs that require a complete suspension of one's reality and all known evidence to them. I'm referring to burning bushes that talk, parting seas, two fish multiplying to feed hundreds of people, and so on. These things supercede faith, and reach into outright gullibility.