Yikes. I might just have to break tradition and attend an actual FRIAM meeting. Has there ever been an actual fist fight at a FRIAM meeting?
-Doug Sent from Android. On Sep 24, 2012 9:17 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hi Russ, **** > > ** ** > > Whatever SEP may have to say, we still have to talk to one another, > right? Notice that all these meanings have to do with God. If SEP is > correct, a person not concerned with god in one way or another would never > use the word. Do you put faith in the advice of your stockbroker? **** > > ** ** > > Forgive me if I am being abit trollish, here; I perhaps am not following > closely enough, due to packing, etc., to get back to Santa Fe. This week I > won’t make it for Friday’s meeting, but NEXT WEEK, look out!**** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Russ Abbott > *Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2012 9:42 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] faith**** > > ** ** > > Robert Holmes quoted the *Stanford Encyclopedia of > Philosophy*<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/#FaiDoxVen>as listing > these senses of "faith." > **** > > ** ** > > · *the ‘purely affective’ model*: faith as a feeling of existential > confidence **** > > · *the ‘special knowledge’ model*: faith as knowledge of specific > truths, revealed by God **** > > · *the ‘belief’ model*: faith as belief *that* God exists **** > > · *the ‘trust’ model*: faith as belief *in* (trust in) God**** > > · *the ‘doxastic venture’ model*: faith as practical commitment beyond > the evidence to one's belief that God exists **** > > · *the ‘sub-doxastic venture’ model*: faith as practical commitment > without belief **** > > · *the ‘hope’ model*: faith as hoping—or acting in the hope that—the God > who saves exists. **** > > ** ** > > Has the discussion done better than this?**** > > ** ** > > It seems to me that we are getting into trouble because (as this list > illustrates) we (in English) use the word "faith" to mean a number of > different things, which are only sometimes related to each other. **** > > ** ** > > My original concern was with "faith" in the sense of the fifth bullet. > (The third bullet is explicitly based on belief in God.) According to the > article, **** > > ** ** > > On the doxastic venture model, faith involves *full* commitment, in the > face of the recognition that this is not ‘objectively’ justified on the > evidence.**** > > ** ** > > That's pretty close to how I would use the term. To a great extent the > article has a theological focus, which clouds the issue as far as I'm > concerned. But here is more of what it says about faith as a doxastic > venture.**** > > ** ** > > A possible view of theistic faith-commitment is that it is wholly > independent of the epistemic concern that cares about evidential support: > faith then reveals its authenticity most clearly when it takes > faith-propositions to be true *contrary to* the weight of the evidence. > This view is widely described as ‘fideist’, but ought more fairly to be > called *arational* fideism, or, where commitment contrary to the evidence > is positively favoured, *irrational* or *counter-rational* fideism. **** > > ** ** > > and**** > > ** ** > > Serious philosophical defence of a doxastic venture model of faith amounts > to a *supra-rational* fideism, for which epistemic concern is not > overridden and for which, therefore, it is a constraint on faith-commitment > that it *not* accept what is known, or justifiably believed on the > evidence, to be false. Rather, faith commits itself only*beyond*, and not > against, the evidence—and it does so *out of* epistemic concern to grasp > truth on matters of vital existential importance. The thought that one may > be entitled to commit to an existentially momentous truth-claim in > principle undecidable on the evidence when forced to decide either to do so > or not is what motivates William James's ‘justification of faith’ in ‘The > Will to Believe’ (James 1896/1956). If such faith can be justified, its > cognitive content will (on realist assumptions) have to cohere with our > best evidence-based theories about the real world. Faith may extend our > scientific grasp of the real, but may not counter it. Whether the desire to > grasp more truth about the real than science can supply is a noble > aspiration or a dangerous delusion is at the heart of the debate about > entitlement to faith on this supra-rational fideist doxastic venture model. > **** > > **** > > *-- Russ ***** > > > > **** > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM, glen <g...@ropella.name> wrote:**** > > Robert J. Cordingley wrote at 09/24/2012 04:38 PM:**** > > > But my point (regarding God) was an expectation of action by whatever I > > have faith in and has nothing to do with action on my part. The > > expected action can be provision of n virgins, not going to hell, relief > > from pain, reincarnation as a higher being and all sorts of other forms > > of divine intervention.**** > > That's just a slight variation on what I laid out. The point being that > whatever the article of faith is (a being, an attribute of the world, > etc.), if it _matters_ to the conclusion whether or not that article is > true/false or exists or whatever, _then_ belief in it is more likely to > be called "faith". That's because the word "faith" is used to call out > or point out when someone is basing their position (or their actions), > in part, on an unjustified assumption. > > I.e. "faith" is a label used to identify especially important > components. Less important components can be negligible, ignored, or > easily adopted by everyone involved.**** > > > > PS I may have missed it but please can you explain what a compressible > > process is? (I know how it relates to things like gasses and some > > liquids). R**** > > A compressible system can be (adequately) represented, mimicked, or > replaced by a smaller system. Any (adequate) representation of an > incompressible system will be just as large as the system itself. > > -- > glen**** > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
