Caught on tape by an undercover CIA agent were Hal White's words:
-> HW>    MB overstates his case, yes.  But trust produces evidence,
-> and evidence presupposes trust.
 BS>   How does trust produce evidence?  Trust is usually built upon
 BS> evidence of something being trustworthy.
 HW>    If you trust someone, there is a reasonable chance they will prove
 HW> trustworthy.  Hence my statement 'trust produces evidence' [on which
 HW> to base trust]
 HW>    Further, consider what you have called 'evidence of something
 HW> [someone?--HW] being trustworthy.'  I submit that is a mistaken
 HW> view.  Take the case of your banker who {apparently} safeguards
 HW> your funds.  Would that be evidence.  No, I submit, for  lacking
 HW> trust, you might well presume he--like any con artist-- is merely
 HW> setting you up by acting honest/trustworthy.
    Actually, I don't trust *any* banker.  ;^)
    I decided on my bank because it had already built a reputation, not
 because I blindly trusted it first.  With personal relationships, you
 take a small chance at first.  When they prove themselves, then I
 extend trust that far, and take a slightly bigger chance, then extend
 more trust if they prove trustworthy with the extra trust, on and on.
    But chance comes first, then trust is or isn't earned.
-> HW> Faith as 'belief in'  {holding beliefs in X}  is a red
-> herring {A greek deviation, a cognitive formulation  of
-> religion}.
BS>   I'm not sure I agree, but then maybe I'm misunderstanding your
-> statement.
 HW>    What I was trying to say was that  'belief' in God, in Biblical
 HW> terms is not quite what it would seem.  We now use belief as
 HW> involving willingness to affirm propositions.
 HW> "I believe (in) quantum theoretic explanations of this
 HW> phenomenon."
 HW>    To the Biblical terms, the modern analogy is  when you say
 HW> "I believe in my friend, X"  I.e.,  you trust them.
 HW> Hence, I submit, the core of Jewish or Christian religion
 HW> has nothing much to do with the willingness to
 HW> endorse creedal statements or even dogmatic statements
 HW> like "God exists" .  This last is simply an affirmation alien to the
 HW> Jewish prophets, including Jesus.
 HW>    Maybe that is clearer.
    Yes, it was, and I think I do agree.
BS>   Yeah, but that seems to put the cart before the proverbial horse.
-> Love and trust are, or should be, built upon evidence of the previous
-> trustworthiness of the object of our love.
 HW>    As I argued above, you cannot, in a real sense, 'collect' such
 HW> evidence, unless there is at least a willingness to trust.  If you
 HW> are able to trust, you will 'see' such evidence.  Lacking that,
 HW> you will see only  "She's acting straight, I wonder what she's up to."
    And I submit, again, that it's a willingness to take a chance, not
 trust, that starts the ball rolling.  Trust comes on the evidence built
 after taking the chance.
... Recursion (re kur' shun):  n. See recursion.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------