Dear Organlearners,
Doc Holloway" <learnshops@thresholds.com> writes:
> I've yet to find a better definition of faith than the Pauline
> definition--"faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
> things not seen."
>
> This need for hope (or it's stronger cousin, faith) reflects not only
> what we don't know, but also what we can't know.
I have followed this topic since it was initiated by Gerrit Visser in
LO18836.
Since then the following persons have contributed to this topic:
Ben Compton LO18845
Technology interacts strongly with faith
David Guinn LO18871
Faith is connected with religion which itself is a lyfestyle
Ben Compton LO18892
Faith concerns reason which itself goes wider than religion
Suzanne Sauve LO18907
Faith is revealed and these relevations are not fixed
John Zavacki LO18934
Religions run on fauth and reason is based on it
This list helps me to note the following
(1) Faith is a complex topic
What do writers on complexity theory say on faith? Very little, I am
afraid. They are as quiet as bed lamps. But think about the following
concepts that are part of faith or related to it:
"credence" which makes unquestioned statements articles of faith
"conviction" which makes argumented conclusions articles of fiath
"assurance" which makes experienced facts articles of faith
"belief" which makes impersonal, collective truths articles of faith
I can go on and on, looking at words like fidelity, reliability,
veracity, integrity, devotion, honesty, trust, knowledge, hope and
holiness which all concerns faith.
(2) Faith is a facet of humaneness
When we study homo sapiens all over the world and all through the
ages, we cannot help to note that faith is one of the things which
makes us human. There is not such a thing as a faithless human. Even
in my visits to mental institutions for gravely retarded people their
naive (almost animal like) faith in their caretakers struck me. (In
fact, they compelled me to consider the possibility that faith, like
creativity, is a not only a propery of only humans. This possibility
still puzzles me because I "believe" I cannot resolve the issue on
grounds of "belief". Note the words quoted -- in essence I say
that belief cannot explain itself.). Since there is no such a thing
as a faithless human, any attempt to fragment faith from any person
in whatever activity of that person is a dehumanising deed.
(3) Destructive thinking impairs faith.
Because faith is a complex topic, we must take care as with all other
complex topics not to fall into the trap of destructive thinking.
Let us consider, for example, exclusive thinking. Following this way
of fragmented thinking we can say that hope is not part of faith,
but something on its own. As a result faith will converge with
reason, thus distorting the latter. It becomes clear that at least
wholeness, one of the seven essentialities of creativity, is also
essential to faith. If we acknowledge merely wholeness, i.e holism,
we comprehend that faith is not merely the sum of hope and reason.
For example, we all expect things which we do not desire and hold
onto some things which we cannot explain.
(4) Learning and faith are deeply connected.
This connection is the reason why I decided to partcipate on this
topic. Because of this connection, learning organisations are also
involved and hence this topic should be important to the list.
How does faith develop within each of us? I must confess that my own
religious upbringing gave me a very distorted outlook on religion. I
will give three examples.
It was often stressed that faith is a gift of God. From this I got
the notion that I have little responsibility for the development of
my faith, except to pray for it. But what about health, physical and
mental -- were they not also gifts of God? Are all good things (even
food), not gifts of God? Why should faith be excluded? I cannot do
nothing except for praying and then expect God to give me food. Why
should it be otherwise for faith? Today I know that I have to work
with care on my faith just as I have to work for anything else.
It was also often stressed that God's relevations are the articles of
faith. From this I got the notion that I merely have to reflect and
proclaim these relevations as faithfully as possible. But what about
other things such as art, science and caring -- do they not require
the same fidelity (faithfulness) in their excecution? Are the
articles of faith my crooked comprehension of God's relevations or
are they all my creations with high fidelity? Today I know that the
cutting edge of all my creations express my articles of faith better
than anything else.
It was often stressed that doubt was a sin against God because it
denies the wisdom of God. Thus I kept my doubts to myself which
added to my sense of guilt. However, a giant leap in the development
of my faith was when I realised that God wants me to question Him
unceasingly on whatever troubles me. To have doubts is not wrong,
but to persist with these doubts and do nothing about them is wrong.
I began to discover that many other people use faith to cover up
their doubts and to excuse themselves for not questioning. To
discover that some people use faith to express their hubris was very
shocking to me.
[My grandaughter Jessica is now at the stage at which she also
questions her faith. It usually happens when we are driving to or
back from my nursery. Almost after every session of questioning, she
asks me what God thinks. Then I tell her that He is too buzy smiling
to say anything because He loves it when we question Him. She then
usually begins with a song of praise created on the spur of moment.]
As I see it today, learning is a higher quality of creativity. Thus,
on the one hand, to learn is to create, but on the other hand, not
all creating are learning. We may think of learning as a first order
emergent of creativity. Likewise faith is a higher quality of
learning. Thus, on the one hand, to believe is to learn, but on the
other hand, not all learning are believing. We may think of faith as
a first order emergent of learning and as a second order emergent of
creativity.
Since faith is a second order emergent of creativity, much of what I
know of creativity today also applies to my faith. For example, the
seven essentialities which help me to shift from destructive to
constructive creativity, also help me to improve on my faith.
Consider the epistle of James in which he teaches us that faith
without work (talk without walk) is liveless. (Martin Luther
struggled with this truth until very close to his death.) What James
teaches me is that being-becoming is essential to the liveness of
faith, just as it is essential to the liveness of learning and
creativity.
Coming to the Learning Organisation (LO), can it emerge and sustain
itself when the topic of faith is avoided or even forbidden? This is
not an easy question to answer. As I see it, a LO is a higher quality
of learning in which individual learning give rise to collective
mearning.
[Rick, sorry for answering your important question in such
a manner between the lines.]
[Host's Note: To At and everyone, your answers are welcome, between the
lines or in any other manner! ...Rick
Now, if we assume both faith and LO to be first order emergents of
learning, we cannot employ the seven essentialities directly and be
sure of our answers. For example, we cannot merely say that by
denying faith, wholeness is impaired and thus the LO will become
impaired or may not even emerge. Although this statement is true, it
is not enough. We have to go deeper.
What we have to observe, is the back-action of a higher ordered
quality on a lower order quality. This back-action is of a dynamical
(semantical) nature whereas the essentialities are of a mechanical
(syntactical nature). One most important aspect of the back-action is
to increase the potential (free energy) of the lower order to sustain
itself. By denying faith, the potential of learning is lowered. Thus
learners will soon find themselves demotivated. In other words,
although nothing else is wrong with the learner's learning, they do
not have the free energy to begin with learning. (Its like a car
without fuel.) Since they can learn, but do not learn, a LO can
emerge, but will not emerge.
Obviously, the dual of this argument also exists. By denying a LO,
the emergence of faith can also become hindered. One most important
back-action of a LO is to provide an environment conducive to
personal learning. Without a LO the learner will have to learn in a
hostile and intimidating environment. The leaner's free energy will
again be scaled down and learning will become more difficult. Hence
also the emergence of faith will become difficult.
Lastly, a painful sight for sore eyes is to see a leader struggling
to communicate his vision among a society or organisation which has
lost much of its faith. It is a tragic theme in many biographies of
people who were once visionary leaders. A vision becomes visible
through the inner eyes of faith. Even worse (on advice of
unscrupulous leadership consultants) is a clever leader trying to
sell a vision which he does not have faith in. Since it is occuring
more and more I have to say it for the authentic leadership
consultants among us. Such faithless visionary leadership is
extremely revolting to me. Others people may not be able to express
why it is revolting to them, but they surely make their revulsion
known.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>