It would take the inverse form Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional acceptance.
So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it. eg. "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will"" On 9/24/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Russ, > > I take your point, but still, I would have a hard time composing a sentence > of the form, " Russ has faith in X but he doesn't believe in it." Can you > compose such a sentence for me? > > N > > > > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On > Behalf > Of Russ Abbott > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:42 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith > > > > 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> > 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/r > ef=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 > <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglemans.ht > ml> "Incognito" - Brainiac > > > > 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
