Regarding the following excerpts from my ramblings, and your responses
to them, let me re-respond later below (following presentation of them
here):

By that last sentence I meant to convey that some social orientations,
including
my own, rely upon certain empirically unprovable "faith" presumptions as:

1. That there is at least one manifestation of consciousness above and
beyond both the knowledge and the reasoning capacity of collective human
consciousness;

2. That the possessor of that higher manifestation of consciousness has
both logical and emotional capacities, and is aware of, and concerned for,
such humans as you and me;

3. That I am obligated by the possessor of that higher manifestation of
consciousness to so live that my behavior shall conduce to the happiness of
others (of my own level), as well as to my own individual happiness, as well
as to the greater good of this "island Earth," without which neither we nor
our progeny could exist;

4. That in pursuing happiness and survival, humans such as you and I and
our progeny (if any) are more successful (happier overall) when we pursue
personal gain in a zero sum manner (which takes from the survival and
happiness pool in such a way as to deprive another, or others, rather than
in
a way that conduces to a greater pool or overall happiness of all players.)

Let me emphasize, once again, that it is NOT illogical to presume much
STILL, TODAY, remains unknown to collective human consciousness, just
as once remained to be known of electric lights, electric motors and
machines,
cameras, microscopes, motorized vehicles, telephones, radios, televisions,
jet aircraft, spectrometers, computers, rocket engines, magnetic resonance
imaging devices, radio telescopes, cyclotrons ...and such. How likely was
it
that because humans of a prior day did not even conceive of the possibility
of such things, those things were unknowable or impossible.

How likely, in turn, is it that you and I, or any human of today, has so
much
as even dreamed of what STILL REMAINS beyond human knowledge or
even human imaginings.

While we can look at how new discoverings and inventions led, bit by bit to
each of the above-cited knowns -- where before there were unknowns -- and
try to project what the future might bring... we are hamstrung by our lack
of
what new breakthroughs may lead science in whole new directions we would
not even think to imagine... just as the above cited led human learning into
new avenues previously unimagined.

Even MORE than it would be egotistical of us to assume that OUR time is
special and we know EVERYTHING, almost... it would be egotistical of us
(and temporally egocentric of us) to assume we can predict what knowledge
future humans will attain.

So (repeating for emphasis) I concur with your observation that, ALL the
people living today, those considering themselves to be scientifically
literate
would be the MOST in denial of our limits if they assert that it is
un-scientific
to assume there IS NOT still more on the other side of the frontiers of
human
knowns, or that there CANNOT BE any higher consciousness than mankind's,
or that a consciousness in it which is mindful of, and concerned about, you
and
me.

To PREFER to believe in such a consciousness and to PREFER to believe
that it is mindful of, and concerned for, you and me is not one iota more
logical,
one iota more scientific, nor one iota more grounded in human historical
realities
than to PREFER to take on faith the pessimistic view that there is nothing
beyond
human reasoning that we do not already know enough about... to KNOW that
nothing exists beyond the known but consciousless indifference.

As you can see, I am not saying whether the ontological optimist is wrong,
or that
the ontological pessimist is wrong. Nor am I saying that the ontological
agnostic
is wrong. In a sense, the stance that "we don't KNOW," is no more correct
than
the optimist or the pessimist. He merely declines to choose.

So is it illogical to believe what we do not know? If it were, then we
should all
believe that none of us had any ancestor prior to, say, a thousand years
ago. Did
you? Then what were the names of your great-to-the-27th-pregeneration
grandmother's names? Taking 2 parents, multiplying by 2 to get the number
of
your grand parents, multiplying that by 2 to get the number of your great
grand
parents, and continuing this for 27 generations, you come up with about
268,435,456 individuals. How many were there ACTUALLY (since we know
that if we continued on the assumption of no duplications, and we continued
to
go back, we would come to more people than existed on all the earth, before
many more doublings. But the point is, if you are like me, you don't know
much
of ANYTHING about those people except that there surely must have been some
ancestors of you 27 generations ago, or you would not be here... unless, of
course,
we have made a few assumptions based upon CURRENT DAY empirically
testable assumptions, such as, that people don't get born, as a rule,
without a mom
and a dad. But can we PROVE empirically that this was true in all cases,
also,
a thousand years ago?

If we take a purely empirical approach, we can say we are probably safe in
assuming certain things, because we see no exceptions to them going on
nowadays.
Probability, based upon those most-likelies, gives us a very strong feeling
that
SURELY we had some ancestors back then. But hey, now, are we able to PROVE
it to a point of absolute certainty? Yes? Okay, then naming each of them
is a
piece of cake.

How tall was each. What color eyes did each have? What was the favorite
color
of each. What musical instrument, if any, did each play?

Hey, that's OKAY. As I have said, I have not allowed myself to be illogical
in
choosing to believe certain things, and allowing myself and others the
benefit of
CHOOSING for themselves whether to just say, "We cannot know," and stop
there... or say, "We cannot know empirically, but have chosen to believe in
a
consciousness that knows and cares about us," or say, "We cannot know
empirically
but have chosen to believe that there is nothing beyond the frontiers of
human
knowledge but absence of consciousness."

Hey, that's funny. I can truthfully say that if I were not conscious I
would not
believe consciousness to be possible in the universe. Of course, I would
not
believe it impossible, either. Isn't that odd. Only a conscious, thinking,
human
could logically believe EITHER. But, the paradoxical humor does not stop
there.
If we take the next logical step -- from experiencing consciousness
ourselves -- to
recognizing that it takes an abundance of egocentrism for a human being to
say,
in effect, "Okay. I'll admit consciousness could exist in humans, because I
am a
human, and I am conscious. And, well, gee whiz... there are other people
who SAY
they are conscious... so I'm willing to admit that maybe they are, too. But
out there
beyond the CURRENT frontiers of human knowledge, NO, NO, NO... A
THOUSAND TIMES NO... It is IMPOSSIBLE and ILLOGICAL and
PREPOSTEROUS for anyone to prefer it could happen anywhere else...

(:>)

Well, that's the best I am able to come up with right now as to the basis
for my
remark (repeat here) that:

As to your following (copied and pasted) comment, in response to the quote
I have just attempted to expand on, let me copy and paste here and response
to it:

This raises more questions than I can treat in a single message. First of
all, I
believe in total freedom of choice of what to believe in. I do not, on the
other
hand, believe in absolute cultural and personal freedom... that is... an
absolute
freedom of individuals to ACT OUT with respect to their acculturation,
where
the acting out of one imposes upon the freedom of another.

Of all the subjects I have read and thought MOST on, political philosophy is
the utmost. But for me and you to exhaust all the fine points of THAT in
THIS newsgroup would be too far off subject.

I am hoping our wonderful moderator, in his infinite wisdom, will recognize
that I have spoken to the EMPIRICAL AND LOGICAL aspects of "faith" in
this message... which DOES have a bearing upon evolutionary biology qua one
of the sciences... and have NOT waxed metaphysical here.

JAH, I am estimating you are intelligent enough understand, even better than
this struggling layman, that pure empiricism is as unsupportable an
assumption
in science as any other pure "dogma," and hence are aware that without SOME
ungroundable assumptions, no interpretation of any objective raw data is
possible. All I have sought to do here is demonstrate that much of what we
humans deem ourselves to KNOW, is interpolative and interpretive... and
ultimately empirically untestable.

You, too, Peter. Thanks for keeping this interesting.

All is offered in search of optimum objectivity... with respect to sciences
generally,
INCLUDING biological evolution... but NOT in search of certainty or
absolute
objectivity (which would be out of place in the human condition).

If we humans were meant to access, or to recognize, absolute objectivity,
there
would be nothing left for us to differ over, and hence naught but a dull
universe
to be trapped in, and bored in, to the point of quiet desperation.

(:>)

g