"Do you recognize all three as operative?"

Originally posted by JS357
At best, my comments would be redundant with Lemonjello's. At best.

Clarity characterizes your style of expression without labyrinthian detours. LemonJello frequently grapples with elusive conceptual content that may get away. We need our differences, otherwise the sameness would stymie communication.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Clarity characterizes your style of expression without labyrinthian detours. LemonJello frequently grapples with elusive conceptual content that may get away. We need our differences, otherwise the sameness would stymie communication.

Out of curiosity, Bobby, I'd like you to consider the following questions about your so-called "faith perception".

Since you seem intent on ruling out both the a priori and the a posteriori in your definition, how precisely do you propose that these articles of 'faith perception' (which are at bottom beliefs, according to your own claims) form inside the faith perceiver? Do these beliefs get implanted somehow by some external process? How exactly do they form, according to you?

Moreover, do you have any model of warrant for these types of beliefs? Prima facie, beliefs that form through no connection with either a posteriori evidence (empirical evidence based on observation, e.g.) or a priori evidence (evidence independent of experience) should be evidentially challenged beliefs. So, why should one think it would be appropriate for a cognizer to have such beliefs?

Based on the apparent complete dissonance between your own definition of 'faith perception' and one of your own examples of such a thing (your belief that I exist), I think it is highly doubtful that you have thought this all through very clearly. I am sorry you find these sorts of inquiries to be "labyrinthine detours", but you do want your ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Clarity characterizes your style of expression without labyrinthian detours. LemonJello frequently grapples with elusive conceptual content that may get away. We need our differences, otherwise the sameness would stymie communication.

Regarding labyrinthine detours, I believe LJ's questions to be exactly on point; not detours at all. However, I believe the positions you cut and paste into this forum scarcely take these questions into account, and you take them into account even less. This is not a criticism, I believe it to be a fact. I believe it not to be a criticism because I believe the "faith-perception" mode is immune to such questions. But I also believe that this immunity is fatal to that mode as means of reaching reasonable skeptics. It is only good for preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Out of curiosity, Bobby, I'd like you to consider the following questions about your so-called "faith perception".

Since you seem intent on ruling out both the a priori and the a posteriori in your definition, how precisely do you propose that these articles of 'faith perception' (which are at bottom beliefs, according to your own claim detours", but you do want your ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?

"Out of curiosity, Bobby, I'd like you to consider the following questions about your so-called "faith perception".

"Since you seem intent on ruling out both the [1) a priori and the a posteriori] in your definition, how precisely do you propose that these articles of 'faith perception' (which are at bottom beliefs, according to your own claims) form inside the faith perceiver?" [1) Please clarify.] [2) "Do these beliefs get implanted somehow by some external process?"] [2) Yes, an interaction between things observed; information learned and remembered; and my rational processing of them.]

[3) "How exactly do they form, according to you?"] [3) Even before the age of five (first grade) there was daily amazement at the world in my periphery (micro/macro: earth, ants, birds, sky, food, hot baths, pine tree woods, seashores and high tides on Cape Cod). These discoveries became possible because of the stable, secure home my parents were providing. My dear Mom read to me almost daily; my patient Dad held conversations with me about his work, radio news events and his own childhood regularly. I would look out my upstairs bedroom window, especially in winter; made many fingernail sketches on the frosted inner pane, childish abstracts of the snowy, windscapes. Craning my small neck, I knelt transfixed by the awesome shapes and unnamed colors of those skies. Who made them? Who protected them? How did night become day?

A few years later, I began seriously wondering if there could be anyone smarter, stronger and a greater source of love and security than my parents. By nine (when my kind Swedish Uncle taught me chess), the audible question began recurring: "if there's a god or some strong/intelligent person up there, I want to know you". My parents began explaining God's Plan for the Human Race in sufficient detail for me to grasp the opportunity of choice. I chose to believe in Christ. (to be continued)

"Moreover, do you have any model of warrant for these types of beliefs? Prima facie, beliefs that form through no connection with either a posteriori evidence (empirical evidence based on observation, e.g.) or a priori evidence (evidence independent of experience) should be evidentially challenged beliefs. So, why should one think it would be appropriate for a cognizer to have such beliefs?

"Based on the apparent complete dissonance between your own definition of 'faith perception' and one of your own examples of such a thing (your belief that I exist), I think it is highly doubtful that you have thought this all through very clearly. I am sorry you find these sorts of inquiries to be "labyrinthine detours", but you do want your ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?" (LemonJello)

Originally posted by JS357
Regarding labyrinthine detours, I believe LJ's questions to be exactly on point; not detours at all. However, I believe the positions you cut and paste into this forum scarcely take these questions into account, and you take them into account even less. This is not a criticism, I believe it to be a fact. I believe it not to be a criticism because I believe the ...[text shortened]... at mode as means of reaching reasonable skeptics. It is only good for preaching to the choir.

JS357, I'm glad you're pleased with LemonJello's questions; any others of your own?

[4]"Moreover, do you have any model of warrant for these types of beliefs? Prima facie, beliefs that form through no connection with either a posteriori evidence (empirical evidence based on observation, e.g.) or a priori evidence (evidence independent of experience) should be evidentially challenged beliefs. So, why should one think it would be appropriate for a cognizer to have such beliefs?" (LemonJello)

[4] As a very small boy, I gained both empirical information from direct observation and academic information from my parents. Concurrently, I pondered it all and formulated rationally derived questions, which for several years I kept to myself. About the time I learned the basics of chess my need to know answers caused me to open dialogue with my Mom (to a lesser extent, because of long work hours, with my Dad). Within months, I reached the firm conclusion that having a powerful and loving god as my trusted friend was far better (appropriate) than any other option I'd discovered. -Bob
(to be continued)

"Based on the apparent complete dissonance between your own definition of 'faith perception' and one of your own examples of such a thing (your belief that I exist), I think it is highly doubtful that you have thought this all through very clearly. I am sorry you find these sorts of inquiries to be "labyrinthine detours", but you do want your ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?" (LemonJello)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
JS357, I'm glad you're pleased with LemonJello's questions; any others of your own?

Not at this time. But thanks for asking.

Originally posted by JS357
Not at this time. But thanks for asking.

You're welcome. Thought you might appreciate this quote (from my site profile): "Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth. When truth is discovered by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness." -Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
You're welcome. Thought you might appreciate this quote (from my site profile): "Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth. When truth is discovered by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness." -Alexander Solzhenitsyn

It sounds peevish to me.

"Empiricism; Rationalism; Faith Perception: Of these three basic means of acquiring information (to be assimilated and converted into knowledge), do you recognize all three as operative? Two? One? None?" (OP)

[4] "Moreover, do you have any model of warrant for these types of beliefs? Prima facie, beliefs that form through no connection with either a posteriori evidence (empirical evidence based on observation, e.g.) or a priori evidence (evidence independent of experience) should be evidentially challenged beliefs. [/4]An example described as accurately as memory allowed in [3] above. [5] So, why should one think it would be appropriate for a cognizer to have such beliefs? [/5]Content of beliefs held isn't the topic; it's the means by which information is gleaned, assimilated and applied within any realm.

[6] "Based on the apparent complete dissonance between your own definition of 'faith perception' and one of your own examples of such a thing (your belief that I exist), I think it is highly doubtful that you have thought this all through very clearly. [/6] Doesn't "... that I exist), I think" suggest that you do exist? If not, to whom do the twin personal pronouns refer? [7] I am sorry you find these sorts of inquiries to be "labyrinthine detours", but you do want your ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?" (LemonJello) [/7] Hardly. The phrase was employed to illustrate two rather different styles of expression. Yes, I've always welcomed scrutiny. Developed an early appreciation for it, thanks to a half dozen hard nosed mentor/upper level superiors with two Fortune 100 Corporations along the way; and an elegant bride of twenty five years who knew me better than I knew myself, faults and all, and loved me intensely anyway. (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Out of curiosity, Bobby, I'd like you to consider the following questions about your so-called "faith perception".

"Since you seem intent on ruling out both the [1) a priori and the a posteriori] in your definition, how precisely do you propose that these articles of 'faith perception' (which are at bottom beliefs, according to your own claims) for our ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?" (LemonJello)

First, I would like to remind you of the definition you gave for 'faith perception' for reference:

"Belief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational process."

1) Please clarify.

Unless I am misreading your definition above, you hold that 'faith perception' consists in beliefs that form apparently in the absence of either evidence dependent on experience or empirical observation (the a posteriori) or evidence independent of the same (the a priori). So, naturally, I'm left wondering what exactly informs such belief. That's why I was asking, for example, if they are simply implanted by some external process (e.g., are they implanted in the faith perceiver by God? ), etc.

If I have misinterpreted your definition then, likewise, please clarify.

Yes, an interaction between things observed; information learned and remembered; and my rational processing of them.

That doesn't sound like an "external process" (I meant external as in exogenous to the faith perceiver). At any rate, I don't see how this is in keeping with your own definition of 'faith perception'. According to your definition, faith perception consists in beliefs "without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational process." Now, however, you're claiming that your own faith perceptions came about, in part, through some mixture of observation (which would seem to imply the 'benefit of empirical perception' ) and rational processing. So, as far as I can tell, you are simply contradicting yourself. Again, if I am missing something here, then please clarify.

Hopefully by now you can see my concern. You stated a definition for 'faith perception'; but, then, the examples and ensuing discussion you give on the subject only seem to blatantly contradict your own definition. So, I honestly make no sense out of your characterization of 'faith perception'. Your account of it seems to lack coherent content; further, based on your account, I have really no idea how it is supposed to fit into the empiricism vs. rationalism debate.

3) Even before the age of five (first grade) there was daily amazement at the world in my periphery...Who made them?...

Right, so your 'faith perception' seems inextricable from your own observations of the world. So, again, why did you claim, definitionally, that 'faith perception' is "without the benefit" of your senses. Again, this seems like simple contradiction. At any rate, what you describe is some concoction of teleology and supernatural agency attribution in explanation of worldly phenomena. But, the question would be whether or not such attribution is justified.

I chose to believe in Christ.

This should be a red flag. Why did you need to "choose to believe" in God and Christ and whatnot? If all those observations you talked about were compelling evidence unto the supernatural agency you mentioned, then one would think it would not be necessary for you to choose such a stance, since the observations should have already elicited belief from you whether you liked it or not. In fact, given that you admit that you chose such a stance, there are reasons to question whether this actually qualifies as 'belief' as you claimed in your definition of 'faith perception'. Indeed, I think the most interesting and worthwhile questions regarding 'faith' have nothing directly to do with how it fits into the empiricism vs rationalism discussion. Rather, they are questions like what exactly is faith; what sort of mental attitude or mental state is faith; is it predominantly cognitive or affective, or is it some mixture; under what conditions and in what sort of epistemic environment is faith appropriate; etc, etc. In my memory, I think the best discussion on such questions was fostered by bbarr. I cannot seem to find the original posting, but there is some re-posted here in this thread. In particular, his breakdown of different potential takes on 'faith' (page 1 of the thread) is a very good starting point. Please take a look if you are interested: Thread 102108

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[4]"Moreover, do you have any model of warrant for these types of beliefs? Prima facie, beliefs that form through no connection with either a posteriori evidence (empirical evidence based on observation, e.g.) or a priori evidence (evidence independent of experience) should be evidentially challenged beliefs. So, why should one think it would be appropr you do want your ideas to be able to survive some basic scrutiny, right?" (LemonJello)

Within months, I reached the firm conclusion that having a powerful and loving god as my trusted friend was far better (appropriate) than any other option I'd discovered.

That's certainly not what I meant by "appropriate". I was talking about whether or not these "beliefs" which you claim are definitional to faith percecption' have epistemic justification or warrant. I was talking about "appropriate" as taken within the context of one's epistemic environment. Since, as you keep implying, your articles of 'faith perception' seem to have a very robust volitional dimension (you basically choose them), I find it dubious not only that they are beliefs to begin with but also that they are justified within your epistemic environment. After all, justification in this sense is typically tied to evidential considerations; and if your evidence is not sufficient to elicit the belief from you without the need to choose, then why think accepting such a stance is appropriate to your epistemic outlook? In fact, what you talk about here (choosing it because you find it a "better option" ) is merely consistent with obviously faulty and fallacious lines of reasoning, such as appeal to consequences.

Again, I would urge that you take a look at bbarr's breakdown and maybe it will give you some ideas for how to characterize your 'faith'. I don't think the definition you gave on the preceding page is going to fly here.

Originally posted by LemonJello
First, I would like to remind you of the definition you gave for 'faith perception' for reference:

"Belief in a person, place or thing without the benefit of empirical perception [visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, sensory, etc] or proof derived through objective rational process."

1) Please clarify.

Unless I am mi a look if you are interested: Thread 102108

1) Please clarify.

As a representative of the human race, I'm unable to see or hear or smell or taste or touch God today or as a child. By reason of those sensory perceptions, I did obtain information (during 4-5 to 9-10 years of age) which was academically considered and assimilated. Conclusions eventually reached resulted in my uncoerced decision to believe in Christ. (gb)

"Again, I would urge that you take a look at bbarr's breakdown and maybe it will give you some ideas for how to characterize your 'faith'. I don't think the definition you gave on the preceding page is going to fly here." (LemonJello)

What will "fly here" or not fly here is at best an inconsequential consideration; at worst, malignant intrusion on the gravitas of this conversation's outcome. Crux issue is nothing less than the eternal destiny of gb and LemonJello's immortal souls.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

1) Please clarify.

As a representative of the human race, I'm unable to see or hear or smell or taste or touch God today or as a child. By reason of those sensory perceptions, I did obtain information (during 4-5 to 9-10 years of age) which was academically considered and assimilated. Conclusions eventually reached resulted in my uncoerced decision to believe in Christ. (gb)

Again, why did it result in an "uncoerced decision to believe"? Why did the evidence not simply garner the cool assent of your intellect (by "cool" here it is meant to imply a cognitive state, as opposed to a conative or affective one; so, basically, the question here is why did it garner the heat of your passions instead of the coolness of your intellect)?

Again, what you describe as your own articles of 'faith perception' seem to have a pretty robust volitional dimension (rather than simply cognition) and one which I fear is simply not captured in the definition of 'faith perception' that you offered in this thread.