Marianne Robinson

Originally posted by Dave Lenton:


I totally agree. This is where a faith based view point can have problems. If a person has faith that an event will occur, and that event does not occur, then that person may be quite upset.
While it may be comforting to hold something totally on faith, to think that something is certain, it may be a good idea to consider alternatives and the possibilities of a given view point being incorrect. But then I guess that's the point when it stops being faith.

A flickering faith seeks refuge in the possibility of an alternative and transcends to the realms of doubt.

Can someone tell me what would be the cost of D70 just in case I also want to buy one?

I am still not clear. Is PPF interest taxable now? And then what about GPF?? If it is so, it is a pity.

From HK drive down to China side and then bargain for the best price. But be careful about your wallet

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
I think Marianne's point is that there are things which happen to be true, but cannot be rationally proven. That does not make them less true. For example, the guilty status of someone who commits the perfect murder.

It would be more apt first to recognise an element like faith discernible from "rationality" and equally desirable does exit.

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
supra-rational sounds like not rational to me.

Supra rational is very well well understood and used terminology in logic and philosophy meaning beyond the realms of rational and irrational. It also refers to certain axiomatic propositions, not requiring any proof.

Could you post some???

Originally posted by Neeru Misra:

I would still suggest that "irrational" in contradistinction to "rational" may not be appropriate expression for faith. It could be better comprehended by the term "supra-rational", one that is beyond the realms of rationality and irrationality.

Faith can move mountains, and drive oceans. One only needs adequate levels of patience.

Post some results of D70 Europe please. It may inspire me as well.

The rationale of faith is well understood and is an essential element in all healings, the debate is peripheral.

Originally posted by Dave Lenton:


Quite a large number of people hold certain things to be true even though they have not been, are not, and probably never will be proven true. These things are held true on faith alone, no proof involved.

Take Father Christmas, for example. There's no proof that Father Christmas doesn't exist, but many people have faith that he doesn't

This is a misplaced generalization of faith. Faith is that Father Christmas, fully knowing is an enactment, gives happiness to children. No scientific proof has ever been sought for it. Faith is that father would save the child from drowning, and faith is that times would change from bad to good. It does happen even though there is no E=mc2 established for it.

Originally posted by Paul Sturrock:

Hmm. Examples?

I fully agree with the fact that faith is built upon time tested empirically arrived conclusions. It is another thing that with the passage of time, some corrections may be required, but it is a dynamic process. Even cars need new models with time.

By definition faith healing is unscientific. Science is empirical and built round the well understood concept of rational argument. Faith healing is in the domain of belief, belief is what you need when you can't supply a rational arguement, and so is diametrically opposed to science.

I agree that many countries have not extended legal validity to faith healing, yet many approaches to healing use "good and positive thoughts" and which are claimed to have yielded results. A child and even an adult failing to achieve the desired results has to be motivated for a stronger level of confidence. This regeneration of faith prevents several possible physical ailments, there is no doubt about it. I firmly believe that there are several areas of knowledge yet to be explored, and faith healing is one of them.

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
Faith healers in general are dangerous quacks.

They're responsible for many deaths each year as they keep "patients" believing that they'll get cured of anything from infectious diseases to terminal cancer if only they'll forego all real doctors and just believe fervently enough.

In the end the patient dies of course, but the faith "healer" doesn't see this as a failure of their techniques. Instead they blame it on lack of faith (which is usually measured in donations...) instead and go on practicing like before.

It's only when a case is brought against them for causing the deaths of the patient or impersonating a medical professional that they're stopped, and then only for a short while.

So far the quacks are concerened, they are many more in allopathic or homeopathic stratms as well. The most scientific procedures also fail miserably and succeed without explanations.
[ February 11, 2005: Message edited by: Marianne Robinson ]

Originally posted by Dr Neeru Misra:
The cry for execs not using PDAs because of the preoccupations with their personal ambitions is then true. The hypotheses when we started the discussion was that PDAs are more desirable than desserts.

I am still not convinced that PDAs are one up the desserts. Jobs with PDAs and no salary and dessert are meaningless.