Fripm October 12.
When worlds collide.
On Sep 24, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Worksforme.
On Sep 24, 2012 9:34 PM, "Victoria Hughes" <victo...@toryhughes.com>
wrote:
Perhaps one could rename or subset the meeting as FRIPM.
Meet at Sas' and finally combine the whiskey, the cast of
characters, and the table-pounding.
After October 10.
On Sep 24, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
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 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
onlybeyond, 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
============================================================
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
