Metaphysics Model

[Donkey]

Note: I don't particularly like throwing around the word "metaphysics" but I was assured that it was the proper word for the model that my friend and I built last night.

Here is what it looks like... not very pretty, but it helped us to visualize our concept (we tried drawing it, but we were literally incapable of "seeing" the third dimension, even when we drew it right).

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b145/camilosmurf/376757968_1300765288_0.jpg

It's hard to see the colours, but the axes are as follows:

Blue (Belief [in the divine])------------(Anti-belief) Green
Red (Faith[trust])---------------(Doubt) Orange
Pink (Meaning[applied personal implication) -----------------(lack of meaning)

I don't really know where to start with explanation or discussion, I just wanted to show off what consumed a few hours the other night.

It's probably not useful for anything other than a fun way of organizing/looking at the ways people think, and what, if any, parallels can be made. Ironically, I'm in the same sector as Buddhists, absurdists and Hitler. :)

[dilettante]

Note: I don't particularly like throwing around the word "metaphysics" but I was assured that it was the proper word for the model that my friend and I built last night.

Here is what it looks like... not very pretty, but it helped us to visualize our concept (we tried drawing it, but we were literally incapable of "seeing" the third dimension, even when we drew it right).

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b145/camilosmurf/376757968_1300765288_0.jpg

It's hard to see the colours, but the axes are as follows:

Blue (Belief [in the divine])------------(Anti-belief) Green
Red (Faith[trust])---------------(Doubt) Orange
Pink (Meaning[applied personal implication) -----------------(lack of meaning)

I don't really know where to start with explanation or discussion, I just wanted to show off what consumed a few hours the other night.

It's probably not useful for anything other than a fun way of organizing/looking at the ways people think, and what, if any, parallels can be made. Ironically, I'm in the same sector as Buddhists, absurdists and Hitler. :)

I find this intriguing. Can you explain the model farther? Three axes would yield 8 regions, I presume.

[Michael]

I find this intriguing. Can you explain the model farther? Three axes would yield 8 regions, I presume.
Yes, a three-dimensional Ven diagram. Essentially a Two-by-two-by-two crosstab.

Defining the regions though is a bit tricky...

[SMadsen]

Dang, you actually wrote on the china?

[Donkey]

Dang, you actually wrote on the china?
Well it's cheap china. ;)

[Donkey]

I find this intriguing. Can you explain the model farther? Three axes would yield 8 regions, I presume.
Yes, it would yield eight regions. Eight being the regions yielded. It would not yield nine, nor would it yield seven, excepting that you then added an eighth. Ten regions is right out.

Let's see... the idea started with a continuum of "faith" and "doubt" that I conceived of, with the the middle being what I called the "crisis of faith," the point at which doubt overcomes faith, or vice versa.

With the assistance of one of my friends, however, we cleared up some definitions and ambiguities, and added another two axes.

Anyway: The first axis is the continuum of belief and anti belief in the existence of a divine entity. We are not specific as to whether it is a single God, many gods, or whatever. Just the belief in the existence of what my friend (he's a religion major, fwiw) the "wholly other." The farther toward absolute belief you get, the more certainty there is about the existence. The center is lack of belief. The opposite end of the spectrum is absolute certainty that the divine does not exist.

The second axis is faith and doubt. This idea was properly elaborated by my "colleague" and while I understand it, it's a little harder for me to explain again. The best synonym for faith, in this circumstance, is "trust." It doesn't have to refer to a belief in a divine: you can have faith or doubt in god, humanity, political ideology, karma, whatever.

Meaning is a word that I don't particularly like, but I think it is appropriate to use here. This is the third axis. How we defined meaning is "applied implication." If you register high meaning, then "it all means something" and you have a role. Technically the role is not necessarily active, if for you the meaning is inactivity (me telling you to do nothing is not the same as me not telling you to do anything).

I don't know if that makes any sense, so I'll try to throw out some examples (I might be wrong about where I place certain philosophies, so feel free to correct me).

Absurdists, Buddhists, me, and Hitler would fall into the meaning, faith, anti-belief region.

Existentialists and nihilists would fall into the lack of meaning, doubt and anti-belief region.

The pope, my roommate, and a Muslim fanatical extremist would fall into the meaning, faith and belief region.

An extreme compartmentalist would fall into the lack of faith, belief and lack of meaning region.

Is any of this making sense? I hope so. Anyway, I have to run off because I'm getting a free meal. Holler.

[Dominick]

Anyway: The first axis is the continuum of belief and anti belief in the existence of a divine entity. We are not specific as to whether it is a single God, many gods, or whatever. Just the belief in the existence of what my friend (he's a religion major, fwiw) the "wholly other." The farther toward absolute belief you get, the more certainty there is about the existence. The center is lack of belief. The opposite end of the spectrum is absolute certainty that the divine does not exist.

Isn't absolute certainty of non-existence identical to absolute certainty of existence ? Both are beliefs. I'd put disinterestedness opposite to belief ?


An extreme compartmentalist would fall into the lack of faith, belief and lack of meaning region.
What's a compartmentalist ? I appear to be one but have no idea what it is :)

[Donkey]

Isn't absolute certainty of non-existence identical to absolute certainty of existence ? Both are beliefs. I'd put disinterestedness opposite to belief ?
Well it is a belief, yes, but this spectrum is specific to belief in a divine entity. In that sense it is the absolute opposite of belief. disinterestedness is in the middle: lack of belief.



What's a compartmentalist ? I appear to be one but have no idea what it is :)

You believe in God? I could have put it in a more logical order, I think: Belief, Faith, Lack of Meaning. I notice now, also, that I made a mistake in that one, I think that what I was referring to would register high on the faith spectrum.

Someone who compartmentalizes is, for example, a Christian who tends to believe that God will take care of everything. That is, God places no responsibility on the individual to do anything. You are free to drive your big SUV, wear sweatshop clothes, etc. etc. because God doesn't require that you live the gospels. I don't like them much.

[Dominick]

You believe in God?
Uhm, no. I must have misread the definition.

Nihilist then. That seems to suit better :)

[Michael]

Yes, it would yield eight regions. Eight being the regions yielded. It would not yield nine, nor would it yield seven, excepting that you then added an eighth. Ten regions is right out.

Let's see... the idea started with a continuum of "faith" and "doubt" that I conceived of, with the the middle being what I called the "crisis of faith," the point at which doubt overcomes faith, or vice versa.

With the assistance of one of my friends, however, we cleared up some definitions and ambiguities, and added another two axes.

Anyway: The first axis is the continuum of belief and anti belief in the existence of a divine entity. We are not specific as to whether it is a single God, many gods, or whatever. Just the belief in the existence of what my friend (he's a religion major, fwiw) the "wholly other." The farther toward absolute belief you get, the more certainty there is about the existence. The center is lack of belief. The opposite end of the spectrum is absolute certainty that the divine does not exist.

The second axis is faith and doubt. This idea was properly elaborated by my "colleague" and while I understand it, it's a little harder for me to explain again. The best synonym for faith, in this circumstance, is "trust." It doesn't have to refer to a belief in a divine: you can have faith or doubt in god, humanity, political ideology, karma, whatever.

Meaning is a word that I don't particularly like, but I think it is appropriate to use here. This is the third axis. How we defined meaning is "applied implication." If you register high meaning, then "it all means something" and you have a role. Technically the role is not necessarily active, if for you the meaning is inactivity (me telling you to do nothing is not the same as me not telling you to do anything).

I don't know if that makes any sense, so I'll try to throw out some examples (I might be wrong about where I place certain philosophies, so feel free to correct me).

Absurdists, Buddhists, me, and Hitler would fall into the meaning, faith, anti-belief region.

Existentialists and nihilists would fall into the lack of meaning, doubt and anti-belief region.

The pope, my roommate, and a Muslim fanatical extremist would fall into the meaning, faith and belief region.

An extreme compartmentalist would fall into the lack of faith, belief and lack of meaning region.

Is any of this making sense? I hope so. Anyway, I have to run off because I'm getting a free meal. Holler.
'Faith and doubt' seem to be almost identical to 'belief and anti-belief'. They are measuring the same thing. Those that have faith, tend to have religious beliefs. Those that are doubtful tend to be skeptics about God.

Btw, "faith" in anything correlates very closely to religion and trust in institutions, authority, laws, etc. Skepticism in religion tends to correlate with skepticism of all forms of authority.

That is to say, I don't think it is meaningful to draw distinctions there about the 'content' of faith/trust.

[Donkey]

'Faith and doubt' seem to be almost identical to 'belief and anti-belief'. They are measuring the same thing. Those that have faith, tend to have religious beliefs. Those that are doubtful tend to be skeptics about God.

Btw, "faith" in anything correlates very closely to religion and trust in institutions, authority, laws, etc. Skepticism in religion tends to correlate with skepticism of all forms of authority.

That is to say, I don't think it is meaningful to draw distinctions there about the 'content' of faith/trust.
Oh I very much disagree (surprise :lol:). I think that someone without any belief in God(s) can have deep faith/trust: faith in humanity, faith in an ideology, faith in oneself, faith in a master race, faith in a moral code... anything really.

Conversely, I think it entirely possible to have a powerful belief in God but have no, or little faith in that divine entity. They might, quite literally, consider themselves God Forsaken. They could believe in an almighty God, but have no trust or hope that it will act for good, for instance.

I admit that the two regions of belief/doubt are sparsely populated, but by no means vacated. For lack of a better term, my friend and I call them "sad people."

Buddhists, to my limited understanding, believe in no divine supernatural entity. However I think it would specious to call them "without faith."

Similarly Hitler.

Unfortunately, as I think I warned earlier, parsing the faith/doubt axis is not my strong point.

[dilettante]

Oh I very much disagree (surprise :lol:). I think that someone without any belief in God(s) can have deep faith/trust: faith in humanity, faith in an ideology, faith in oneself, faith in a master race, faith in a moral code... anything really.

Conversely, I think it entirely possible to have a powerful belief in God but have no, or little faith in that divine entity. They might, quite literally, consider themselves God Forsaken. They could believe in an almighty God, but have no trust or hope that it will act for good, for instance.

I admit that the two regions of belief/doubt are sparsely populated, but by no means vacated. For lack of a better term, my friend and I call them "sad people."

Buddhists, to my limited understanding, believe in no divine supernatural entity. However I think it would specious to call them "without faith."

Similarly Hitler.

Unfortunately, as I think I warned earlier, parsing the faith/doubt axis is not my strong point.

That does make it sound more like "trust" than "faith," as the words are commonly used. One could easily believe that someone exists but not put any trust in them.

[Donkey]

That does make it sound more like "trust" than "faith," as the words are commonly used. One could easily believe that someone exists but not put any trust in them.
Dylan (the guy I did this with, cause I'm sick of referring to him thus) is a religion major, among other things, who concentrates mainly on the New Testament. He tells me that in many instances, "trust" is an equally legitimate translation as "faith" from the original Greek.

I think that faith is a commonly misused word. A misuse of which I am most certainly guilty.

[Greendruid]

Dylan (the guy I did this with, cause I'm sick of referring to him thus) is a religion major, among other things, who concentrates mainly on the New Testament. He tells me that in many instances, "trust" is an equally legitimate translation as "faith" from the original Greek.

I think that faith is a commonly misused word. A misuse of which I am most certainly guilty.

Unfortunately, if it is the word "pisti" that he is referring to (and I'd like you to ask him which word if you wouldn't mind) then it can also be translated as "belief", "allegiance" or "loyalty". The word in Ancient Athenian Greek actually ends with an eta but in English gets translated as "i". Also, I'm curious which dialect he is using for translation. My knowledge is largely limited to 7th c. Athenian personally but there are of course many others ...

[Donkey]

Unfortunately, if it is the word "pisti" that he is referring to (and I'd like you to ask him which word if you wouldn't mind) then it can also be translated as "belief", "allegiance" or "loyalty". The word in Ancient Athenian Greek actually ends with an eta but in English gets translated as "i". Also, I'm curious which dialect he is using for translation. My knowledge is largely limited to 7th c. Athenian personally but there are of course many others ...
Yeah you lost me now... I was just remembering something he had said. At any rate, I think in this context, the words faith and trust are similar.

[Michael]

At any rate, I think in this context, the words faith and trust are similar.
From my knowledge of ancient Greek, one can have a variety of reasonable interpretations of quite a few 'key' words. It is for this reason that classical Greek philosophy is still hotly debated.

For this reason, I can't get too wrapped up in any one particular translation of any given controversial word from ancient Greek. If a given text 'requires' a particular translation to support a particular interpretation, I'm skeptical of that reasoning since the ancient greek just doesn't support accurate translation.

[Donkey]

From my knowledge of ancient Greek, one can have a variety of reasonable interpretations of quite a few 'key' words. It is for this reason that classical Greek philosophy is still hotly debated.

For this reason, I can't get too wrapped up in any one particular translation of any given controversial word from ancient Greek. If a given text 'requires' a particular translation to support a particular interpretation, I'm skeptical of that reasoning since the ancient greek just doesn't support accurate translation.
Fair enough. I don't think, though, that this particular argument hinges on the nuances of translation from Greek.

[SMadsen]

Greek or no Greek, I agree that the concept of faith is distinguishable from the concept of belief in that it embraces additional concepts such as trust and loyalty. Belief may be said to contain an ingredience of trust but then it is trust in the perception itself, not trust in the object of perception.

Excellent model, by the way. Donkey, how would you place an individual like Fred Phelps, where the real issue may not actually be induced by religious faith but by projections of fear?

[dilettante]

Greek or no Greek, I agree that the concept of faith is distinguishable from the concept of belief in that it embraces additional concepts such as trust and loyalty. Belief may be said to contain an ingredient of trust but then it is trust in the perception itself, not trust in the object of perception.


Oh, I like how you worded that.

[SMadsen]

Oh, I like how you worded that.
Do I detect a bit of sarchasm? :)

[dilettante]

Do I detect a bit of sarchasm? :)

No, that was quite genuine. I really didn't have anything substantial to add to the conversation, but I appreciated the distinction between trusting one's perception and trusting in that which one perceives.

[SMadsen]

No, that was quite genuine. I really didn't have anything substantial to add to the conversation, but I appreciated the distinction between trusting one's perception and trusting in that which one perceives.
Oh ok. Apologies for my paranoid tendencies :)

[Non Sequitur]

my only problem with this model is the faith/doubt dichotomy. Personally i feel that doubt is one of the most important parts faith. In fact one of my favorite theologians writes: "faith implies doubt." Personally, i could flip-flop on the faith/doubt line on any given day, but still hold on the belief and personal meaning lines.

[Michael]

my only problem with this model is the faith/doubt dichotomy. Personally i feel that doubt is one of the most important parts faith. In fact one of my favorite theologians writes: "faith implies doubt." Personally, i could flip-flop on the faith/doubt line on any given day, but still hold on the belief and personal meaning lines.
:wave: Glad to see you Non Sequitur! I very much enjoy engaging your perspective on some of these issues.

And true to form, you supply a really interesting perspective on this topic and I'm inclined to agree with you on this one.

On the surface, this assertion runs counter to 'common sense rationality' but I think it is a very real human form of rationality - faith and doubt are intimately related and not just as the 'opposites' they are assumed to be.

One always has doubts about that which one has faith. One's faith is built by overcoming or engaging one's doubt.

On the other hand, where there is no faith, doubt doesn't seem to carry much weight other than as a comparatively 'unemotional' default position.

I guess what I'm saying here is that 'faith' seems to be required for 'doubt' to have substantive meaning. Without faith, doubt appears to be emotively insubstantial and essentially neutral. Faith and doubt are thus not suitable to be modeled as a polarity.