Eric, For people for whom God is a normal part of their everyday world, faith is not an issue. They simply know whatever it is that they know. It's not matter of faith any more than it's a matter of faith that I'm typing on a keyboard right now.
I mentioned religion because that's where the discussion of faith started. (I think it did anyway.) But my definition of faith does not require religion; it only requires that one believe something for which one has inadequate reason for believing it -- other than one's faith that it's the case. By "inadequate" I mean inadequate according to that person's normal way of deciding what to believe. I don't want to impose any particular epidemiological perspective on anyone. Nick, I think it's the other way around. As Eric said, faith is a subclass of belief. Faith is a belief you hold for reasons outside your normal epidemiological processes, i.e., a belief you hold that you would not hold were it not for your faith in that belief. Steve, Your post is too long for me to comment on it here. *-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach *_____________________________________________* On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> wrote: > But Russ... if you concede Tory's point, then I think you are quite stuck. > > There are many, many, many people for whom the everyday world contains a > divine being... and the everyday world is the everyday world. There are > people who train hard to see God surrounding them, and there are people for > whom it seems to come quite naturally (which is not to say it didn't > develop, just that it came easily). For these people, by your definition, > belief in God, and belief that God will continue to be with them forever, > are NOT issues of faith. > > Eric > > P.S. I have no idea what Nick will say about "faith" vs. "belief"! I think > the concepts overlap pretty obviously, i.e., faith seems like it should be > a subclass of belief. On the other hand, one could treat them as two > different ways of talking about the same sort of thing. If we can get past > your odd claim that faith has to be religious AND that religious things are > not part of everyday life, I would be very interested to know how you think > the two relate. > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 12:41 AM, *Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com>*wrote: > > Nick, > > As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms. > I would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief." > > Tory, > > Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them. > > My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world. > But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone. Your > everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that believing > that the world will continue to conform to *your *sense of what the > everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief. > > Eric, > > I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as > different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was focusing > on. > > *-- Russ * > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes > <victo...@toryhughes.com<#139f6a3e427f43ce_> > > wrote: > >> >> Russ wrote, in part- >> >> Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier) >> >> >> is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith. >> >> >> Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world >> >> >> doesn't seem to me to require faith. >> >> >> Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I >> find this suspiciously tautological. >> >> Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient life >> forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance' >> cases can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you >> believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for others >> to believe, from your own beliefs. >> >> And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't >> believe without faith'. Hm and hm again. >> >> Eagleman's new book >> Incognito<http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/0307389928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348460523&sr=1-1&keywords=incognito+by+david+eagleman> >> offers >> fruitful information from recent neuroscience that may interest others on >> this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard questions about legal and >> ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie programs' that run most of >> our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as simplistic as - 'yet another >> pop science book.' >> >> A review David Eagleman's "Incognito" - >> Brainiac<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglemans.html> >> >> Tory >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ------------ > > Eric Charles > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
