I'm gonna need a bigger rear tire if Steve's on the back...
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Nicholas Thompson
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
Doug I look forward to hearing your HAWG roll through the gates of
St. Johns College. Bring Steve. N
*From:*friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
*Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2012 11:28 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] faith
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 <mailto: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>
[mailto: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
<mailto: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
--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org <mailto:drobe...@rti.org>
d...@parrot-farm.net <mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net>
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
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
