"By 'inadequate' I mean inadequate according to that person's normal way of deciding what to believe."
But... Again I am confused... and admittedly being confused is often a step on the way to understanding... Who have you ever known who believed in God, and that belief was not "normal", i.e. typical-for-them. I am not sure how you (as a third party) or I (as a first party) could determine which of my belief's were arrived at in the normal-way-by-which-I-arrive-at-beliefs. I also suspect that if we did arrive at such a criterion, the things I believe by faith would be quite random, and of little interest - for example, I am not sure on what basis I believe I probably missed the last episode of So You Think You Can Dance, but I believe I could probably Torrent it, and I believe it would make my wife happily, though I also believe NBC should make it available for free a bit after it airs. Which of those came by the normal means? If we are returning to the start of this conversation (or at least what I think was the start of this thread), my belief that there is NOT a Judeo-Christian God is a bit a-typical for me, and likely by your criterion is a kind of Faith. There are lots of things I don't believe in, which other people seem to believe in (e.g., dictionaries), but I have pretty good reasons not to believe in those (e.g., the historic inaccuracy of the assertion that words have one and only one spelling). Eric P.S. I am not sure how crucial the word "decide" is to your point. I would argue, one does not typically "decide" what to believe. That is, the developmental process that forms the majority of our beliefs is not adequately characterized by the term "decide". Beliefs we consciously decided upon are surely a special case. On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 01:13 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >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: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977688> > Google voice: 747-999-5105 >> Google+: <https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/> > >> vita: <http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> > >> <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach >_____________________________________________ > > > > > > >>On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:58 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <<#>> 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 <<#>> 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 <<#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 <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 >><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 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ 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
