James Fowler's Faith Development Theory

[heretic888]

I do however, find it interesting that there are several groups withing the Bujinkan (and probably every other group out there) which make sense out of Soke's teachings using the filter of one of these stages.

I often noticed the different ways that people view their training; I never really thought to correlate it with their approach to their religious views.

Strictly speaking, Fowler differentiates between "faith" and religious beliefs in his theory. What he is describing is very similar to the "existential intelligence" that Howard Gardner suggested in his recent Intelligence Reframed (published in 1999).

"Faith", within the context of Faith Development Theory (FTD), has more to do with where an individual places their "ultimate concern" (to paraphrase Christian existentialist Paul Tillich). Since everybody has an "ultimate concern" of some kind, this isn't something unique to religious people, but instead seems to be a developmental inheritance common to all human beings.

In essence, FTD is just an explanatory framework for detailing how people's responses to questions like "who really counts?", "what is really important?", and "what is your role in life?" tend to develop and mature over the course of their lifespan. As such, it could hypothetically be applied to a number of meaningful activities, including both religion and the martial arts.

I should also add that just because a given individual is at one of the lower stages of faith does not mean they are "bad" or "wrong". Because, if that's the position we're going to take, then we're all wrong, since there is always a higher stage than where we are to show how partial and incomplete our way of looking at things is. Rather, it would perhaps be a more comprehensive viewpoint to see that each stage is completely appropriate and natural for individuals based on the circumstances of their life interacting with their own internal dispositions.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

No offense, but this is the logical equivalent of shouting, "You're a big, fat doody-head, so there!" on the school courtyard and storming off in illusory triumph.

"Faith", within the context of Faith Development Theory (FTD), has more to do with where an individual places their "ultimate concern" ...Since everybody has an "ultimate concern" of some kind, this isn't something unique to religious people, but instead seems to be a developmental inheritance common to all human beings

Well now, when you put that way it kind of makes me want to go back and read your first post and perhaps eat crow...

Yes sir, I just re-read the first post in light of "faith" as you define it above and if I were a more noble person I would definately apologize.

Oh what the heck, I apologize.

 

[still learning]

Hello, You can put me in group 5 .......Aloha

 

[stephen]

Hello, You can put me in group 5 .......Aloha

I'm a 7. I win!

 

[heretic888]

James Fowler gives a very good description of the distinction between "faith", "religion", and "beliefs" in Religion and the Clinical Practice of Psychology (ed. Edward Shafranske, 1996, pp. 168-169):

"Faith-development theory and research have focused on a multidimensional construct for faith that sees it as foundation to social relations, to personal identity, and to the making of personal and cultural meanings (Fowler, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991). My claim is that faith is a generic feature of human beings. To make this claim credible, I must take some care to distinguish faith from two related patterns of human action that are often treated as synonymous with faith; belief and religion. Belief, in the modern period, has come increasingly mean the giving of intellectual assent to propositional statements that codify the doctrines or ideological claims of a particular tradition or group. Although belief may be an aspect of a person's or a group's faith, it is only a part. Faith includes unconscious dynamics as well as conscious awareness. It includes deep-seated emotional dimensions as well as cognitive operations and content. Faith is both more personal and more existentially defining than belief, understood in this modern sense.

Religion, as distinguished from faith, may be thought of as a cumulative tradition composed from the myriad beliefs and practices that have expressed and formed the faith of individuals in the past and present. The components of a cumulative tradition can include art and architecture; symbols, rituals, narrative, and myth; scriptures, doctrines, ethical teachings, and music; practices of justice and mercy; and much more. Elements from a cumulative tradition can be the souce of awakening and forming for the faith consciousness of individuals in the present. A current generation's drawing on and being formed by elements from a cumulative tradition make for a reciprocity of mutual vitalization and commitment. In the long evolution of humankind, the tie between faith and religion has generally been inextricable. It is only in the modern period, where many people have separated themselves from religious communities and religious faith, that religious faith needs to be distinguished from faith in a more generic and universal sense.

Faith, understood in this more inclusive sense, may be characterized as an integral, centering process, underlying the formation of the beliefs, values, and meanings, that (a) gives coherence and direction to people's lives; (b) links them in shared trusts and loyalties with others; (c) grounds their personal stances and communal loyalties in a sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference; and (d) enables them to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying on that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.

The foregoing characterization of faith is meant to be as formal as possible. It aims to include descriptions of religious faith as well as the explicit faith orientations of individuals and groups who can be described as secular or eclectic in their belief and value orientations. The non-content-specific characterizations of faith correlates with the formal intent of the descriptions of the stages of faith. The stages aim to describe patterned operations of knowing and valuing that underlie consciousness. The varying stages of faith can be differentiated in relation to the degrees of complexity, of comprehensiveness, of internal differentiation, and of moral inclusiveness that their operations of knowing and valuing manifest. In continuity with the constructive developmental tradition, faith stages are held to be invariant, sequential, and hierarchical."

The bold coding was added for emphasis. I hope this helps to clarify what it is that Faith Development Theory is actually aiming to describe in individuals and groups.

Laterz.

 

[Last Fearner]

"Faith", within the context of Faith Development Theory (FTD)...

In essence, FTD is just an explanatory framework...

In essence, FTD concerns the development of an individual's "faith"...

Shouldn't that be "FDT" ?

I should also add that just because a given individual is at one of the lower stages of faith does not mean they are "bad" or "wrong". Because, if that's the position we're going to take, then we're all wrong...

I'm sure glad you added this! Insights such as this are key to understanding and accepting research that tends to place things in "static categories" and label people based on limited perspective.

Without going into detail, yet, I find nothing inherently wrong with the observations he has made, although I do find it to be excessive in its presentation, and lacking of the simplest base root (the smallest breakdown without over categorizing), and yet it is missing some important elements.

In any event, there is not much here in the FDT that is not well documented and accepted in at least some of the various theories presented in studies of basic psychology, sociology, and criminology. Most of these areas of study have a variety of "experts" and differing schools of thought that contain some similarities with some variants in interpretation, hypotheses and final theory.

It is not that difficult to take a cross-section of people, over a period of time, and observe their behavior based on certain criteria and external influences. The difficulty comes in analyzing the data correctly, and drawing accurate conclusions that bear any relevance to real-life application.

In my opinion, FDT does not present any astounding revelations, yet there is more to the phenomenon of faith than what is presented in the six stages. My commentary here might be a bit extemporaneous, to which you might ask me to elaborate, but I would be disinclined to acquiesce to your request presently. :wink1:

This is difficult to explain in a short answer, but I will attempt to find the time in the near future to explain further.

So, heretic888, are you currently studying this in college, or have you already attained a degree in a related field?

The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:

1) Intuitive-Projective Faith: Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age;

2) Mythic-Literal Faith: Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age;

3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith: Typically found at age 12 and beyond;

4) Individuative-Reflective Faith: Typically found in the early 20's and beyond;

5) Conjunctive Faith: Typically found at midlife and beyond;

6) Universalizing Faith: Extremely rare;

Heretic888, seeing that you are 24 years old, in what stage do you consider yourself to be? Are you "typical" or atypical?

 

[heretic888]

Shouldn't that be "FDT" ?

Yes, it should.

I'm sure glad you added this! Insights such as this are key to understanding and accepting research that tends to place things in "static categories" and label people based on limited perspective.

Without going into detail, yet, I find nothing inherently wrong with the observations he has made, although I do find it to be excessive in its presentation, and lacking of the simplest base root (the smallest breakdown without over categorizing), and yet it is missing some important elements.

In any event, there is not much here in the FDT that is not well documented and accepted in at least some of the various theories presented in studies of basic psychology, sociology, and criminology. Most of these areas of study have a variety of "experts" and differing schools of thought that contain some similarities with some variants in interpretation, hypotheses and final theory.

It is not that difficult to take a cross-section of people, over a period of time, and observe their behavior based on certain criteria and external influences. The difficulty comes in analyzing the data correctly, and drawing accurate conclusions that bear any relevance to real-life application.

Can't disagree with you here.

In my opinion, FDT does not present any astounding revelations, yet there is more to the phenomenon of faith than what is presented in the six stages.

Well, I think its important to keep in mind just what Dr. Fowler means when he says "faith". In his theory, this isn't the special property of the religious, but something that all human beings possess in varying degrees. It is comparable to Dr. Gardner's "existential intelligence". I went into more detail with this in an earlier post.

This is difficult to explain in a short answer, but I will attempt to find the time in the near future to explain further.

Should be interesting.

So, heretic888, are you currently studying this in college, or have you already attained a degree in a related field?

I'm a psychology major in college.

Heretic888, seeing that you are 24 years old, in what stage do you consider yourself to be? Are you "typical" or atypical?

While there is inherent danger in diagnosing oneself, I would consider myself somewhere between Stages 4 and 5. In that regard, I suppose I'm pretty "typical" given my age and educational background.

 

[Last Fearner]

Well, I think its important to keep in mind just what Dr. Fowler means when he says "faith". In his theory, this isn't the special property of the religious, but something that all human beings possess in varying degrees. It is comparable to Dr. Gardner's "existential intelligence". I went into more detail with this in an earlier post.

Thanks for posting this. I am going to spend a little more time (as time permits) to examine, cross-reference, and understand Dr. Fowler's and Dr. Gardner's points of views. I think it will be beneficial for me to review what I learned years ago, and add to it.

Should be interesting.

I hope so, and I look forward to your replies once I have posted my own assessment. I am sure that your current pursuit of this knowledge is keeping you fresh and better informed of the latest theories.

I'm a psychology major in college.

That's fascinating. I hope you do well in your studies. I have had a little psychology at college, and intend to return to it and add a degree in philosophy once I get back on track to further my college education (yes, even at my old age!). My nephew is working towards his master's in psychology with a focus on Autism (lucky for me since I have a son who has mild autism).

While there is inherent danger in diagnosing oneself, I would consider myself somewhere between Stages 4 and 5. In that regard, I suppose I'm pretty "typical" given my age and educational background.

:ultracool Thanks for your honesty. Self-evaluation is relevant to psychology (in my opinion) but can be biased. I would be interested in getting to know you better (even though we disagree on some issues), since you seem like an interesting, and sharp minded individual (for such a young pup)!

Last Fearner