As a novice philosopher... Is it possible 'belief' doesn't
require/expect any consequences while 'faith' does? I can believe in
God but not expect God to do anything about it. If I have faith in God,
I expect something in return depending on the model of God I have faith
in. If nothing happens I can lose faith in God but still believe in
God. (As pointed out the reverse/transposition of the form is easier to
construct.)
Robert C
On 9/23/12 11:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson 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:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
*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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
============================================================
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
