On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, David McFadzean wrote:
> I concur with all of the above. Here's my simplistic analysis of
> the great faith debate so far:
>
> Pro-side: "It is counter-productive to denigrate faith in general
> because the word has many meanings, some bad (and admittedly
> irrational) and some good, even necessary. If we want the CoV
> to appeal to a majority of the population, we have to accept
> faith."
>
> Con-side: "It is counter-productive to use the same word for
> distinctly different meanings (at least in our own discussions)
> because it causes confusion, miscommunication, equivocation
> and generally wastes a lot of time and effort that could be
> better devoted to more relevant, interesting discussions."
>
> Have I misrepresented either position? Are there any others?
Mm..I agree with all statements in both your summaries, with KMO's amendment of "accommodate" rather than "accept" in the first case. How's that for ambiguity?
Speaking of fence-straddling, I also get different readings when I do Myers-Briggs-clone tests at different times. Today I took two different ones, and came out as ISTJ on both. I find this somewhat distasteful to my images of myself (I have read as INTP, INTJ, and INFJ on various other occasions, but never as S anything before), and am pondering a change of career as part of therapy.
> I couldn't come up with anything based on the Latin /fides/ that I
> liked. Maybe we could borrow words from another language that makes
> the distinction?
Inspiration? Drive? Principle? Purpose? Idealism?
--Eva