Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Limnor]

Evidence suggests that “reasoned faith” functions chiefly as an adaptive apologetic reflex rather than as a stable epistemological baseline. Its elasticity enables practitioners to reassign burdens of proof, reinterpret contradictions as spiritually meaningful, and reinterpret critiques as deficiencies in the critic’s worldview rather than substantive challenges to the claim itself. While advantageous for preserving belief,

That sounds about right.

Anselm as far as I understand was first to propose the idea of reasoned faith, but his most famous accomplishment undermines it, in my opinion. Anselm quotes the Bible, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God" as his prelude to his ontological argument. He says even the fool understands the concept of God and proceeds with the proof. So in principle, the fool could have proven the existence of God independent of any faith, even if Anselm himself believed first by faith. If faith just means those with an interest in something will pursue it, I don't think it's that interesting. You can say the same for an astronomer who was first struck by the beauty of the moon.

Exactly. If the “fool” can follow Anselm’s argument without prior belief, then the work is being done by logic, not faith.

The flaw is Anselm assumes someone can be argued into belief, which opposes the idea as written biblically that Christ draws people to Him.

[malkie]

See: "The Artificial Intelligence MEGATHREAD" for further entertainment and enlightenment.

Further responses from me on this topic will be found there where it is considered 'legal' to do so.

Or is it? If not, I will cease and desist. The problem is, what if Limnor is doing the same thing?

Regards,
MG

LOL. More projection.

I think it says more about MG and his methods than about Limnor and his methods that MG seems to doubt that Limnor could best him without the assistance of an AI. Could it be any more obvious? (skater boy playing in my head)

ETA: I don't mean to suggest that MG is not smart - he was a middle school teacher. I've taught ages 12-17, and adults up to 64, and I think I have a pretty good idea of, at minimum, what level of debate MG must be capable of. Even then, I expect that I'm underestimating him.

[Limnor]

LOL. More projection.

I think it says more about MG and his methods than about Limnor and his methods that MG seems to doubt that Limnor could best him without the assistance of an AI. Could it be any more obvious? (skater boy playing in my head)

I’m thinking through my next game.

Probably something aligned to word counts and reversal.

[Limnor]

LOL. More projection.

I think it says more about MG and his methods than about Limnor and his methods that MG seems to doubt that Limnor could best him without the assistance of an AI. Could it be any more obvious? (skater boy playing in my head)

ETA: I don't mean to suggest that MG is not smart - he was a middle school teacher. I've taught ages 12-17, and adults up to 64, and I think I have a pretty good idea of, at minimum, what level of debate MG must be capable of. Even then, I expect that I'm underestimating him.

Yeah, MG’s not lacking in intellect or ability. It’s more that his skill is aligned to preservation rather than ctually following an argument. Once you recognize that, “debate” stops being the right definition for the interaction. It’s more like a game.

[Limnor]

We had a conversation at work about Anselm and the early formative ideas around church and state, how his theological arguments fit into the larger picture when the Church was asserting independence from kings and developing its own kind of institutional authority.

[Marcus]

I think it says more about MG and his methods than about Limnor and his methods that MG seems to doubt that Limnor could best him without the assistance of an AI. Could it be any more obvious? (skater boy playing in my head)

I’m thinking through my next game.

Probably something aligned to word counts and reversal.

If I understand you correctly about reversal, here's my favorite:

.. critics tend to look at isolated brushstrokes rather than the larger picture to make more/greater sense out of it.

And nine days later:

critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole ...

Those 'critics' are talented, are they not?

[Limnor]

I’m thinking through my next game.

Probably something aligned to word counts and reversal.

If I understand you correctly about reversal, here's my favorite:

.. critics tend to look at isolated brushstrokes rather than the larger picture to make more/greater sense out of it.

And nine days later:

critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole ...

Those 'critics' are talented, are they not?

Dear Esteemed Colleague Marcus,

Yes. It will be fun.

Yours &etc,

W. Mathonihah Limnor

[Gadianton]

Concerning the shifting back and forth between the brush strokes and the big picture. I think this is a Mormon thing to do and a typical marketing strategy.

When to claim that you stand out from the crowd and when to claim that nobody fits into the crowd better? Lately, if you believe MG, there's no reason to be Mormon because all Mormons do is talk about Jesus and nothing is at all controversial, he won't even admit to the Great Apostasy. I had two religion teachers at BYU who were converts. They were quite different as individuals, one was a very conservative believer and the other quite liberal, but the one thing they had in common was they both became interested in the Church because of the teachings about the apostasy and restoration. Both had theology degrees and disagreed with philosophized Christianity.

[Whiskey]

I had two religion teachers at BYU who were converts.

I had Hugh Nibley for the only religion class I ever took at BYU, and I’d call him a convert too. Dude was converted from regular crazy to crazy crazy. Pre-internet, shuffling around with his little recipe cards, smelling like he’d been sealed in a root cellar, rambling through whatever popped into his head. The man was a walking footnote with no main text. Fascinating in a spectacle way, but still nuts.

And as for “reason,” the Nibley era had its own rule: if you needed evidence for a conclusion, you just declared whatever you had to be the evidence you needed. Any scrap could be repurposed into “proof” if you squinted hard enough and waved your hands fast enough. Your comment makes me wonder if that sort of logic was appealing to a theology student enough that they would convert to Mormonism and Mormon apologetics circa 1990's

[I Have Questions]

I’m thinking through my next game.

Probably something aligned to word counts and reversal.

If I understand you correctly about reversal, here's my favorite:

.. critics tend to look at isolated brushstrokes rather than the larger picture to make more/greater sense out of it.

And nine days later:

critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole ...

Those 'critics' are talented, are they not?

MG 2.0 laid bare