Ah, ok. How much of the theoretical foundations of math are you familiar with? The 9 axioms of ZFC are the things that underly math that no one can prove. Sort of by definition. Which is one way if getting around the "faith" argument in math. Those axioms are "definitional" if you like rather than "taken on faith" but whatever you call them they're things everyone who uses math accepts as true - but can't possibly prove.
BTW formal Buddhism is pretty empirical. The Dalai Lama has famously said (paraphrasing) "if science can show reincarnation is not true, we must abandon it." On the other hand Buddhism as practiced is full of superstition (as I'm sure you well know.) Anyway, I like to use ZFC to examine how anti-faith supposed rationalists are. I find the philosophy of science fascinating. On Mon, 15 Jan 2024, 1:51 pm Tim Bray, <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 2024 at 3:56:01 PM, Charles Haynes <charles.hay...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In that piece you seem to be conflating "Faith" and "Religion." Do you >> think that faith always implies religion? I personally define faith as >> "things I believe that are true but that I can't prove" and it seems to me >> that doesn't particularly imply religion - unless you define religion so >> broadly that it becomes the same as faith. >> > > Haha, I believe in lots of things I don’t understand let alone can prove, > for example how airplanes fly and how electrical infrastructure works. I > think I was writing about the large class of things that people believe > that *nobody* can provide an evidence-based proof for. Which I think is > mostly religion? Or if you prefer, the “supernatural”. > > >>>
-- Silklist mailing list Silklist@lists.digeratus.in https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
