Faith Versus Reason
Many persons who consider themselves to be intellectual conservatives do so from a religious or faith based attitude. They tie capitalism to faith.
Even though they seem to be on the side of reason,they are not. It is an illusion."The faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality as provided by man's senses, is reason.To base one's convictions on reason is to base them on the facts of reality.Faith is the acceptance of an idea without evidence or proof, or in spite of evidence to the contrary."
To rest one's advocacy of capitalism on faith , is to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies, which to an Objectivist would be intolorable.
Nathaniel Branden, Objectivist Newsletter, March 1962
Even though they seem to be on the side of reason,they are not. It is an illusion."The faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality as provided by man's senses, is reason.To base one's convictions on reason is to base them on the facts of reality.Faith is the acceptance of an idea without evidence or proof, or in spite of evidence to the contrary."
To rest one's advocacy of capitalism on faith , is to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies, which to an Objectivist would be intolorable.
Nathaniel Branden, Objectivist Newsletter, March 1962
Has raised the standard of living for the average Joe to live as well as royalty or even better from 150 yrs ago. Having FAITH that the government will meddle with progress and make improvements to a self fixing system is ignoring evidence to the contrary. Hence faith is the only way to support Government controls i.e. minimum wage ,price controls ,affirmative action and many more failed actions because reality tells a far different result. Have a great day.
Hell would be exactly the opposite: 1 lonely particle that could of been you, (had you chosen to be), wandering the quantum field with no connection to anything and no numbered T shirt on anyone's wall.
Laughing my butt off...
[I opened the door and AGAIN!..got you to walk right in]
Many reasons Dobrien. One is upbringing. Religious faith may be running in the family and the individual is not making the conscious connection and decide for himself that the two are not related.
Good point . I love your moniker!
Agreed in spades!...oops...can we say that these days?
Can't wait to turn that around on them...laughing
My dad was always a republican, he got most of his important open minded news from from the Christian Science publishing house inwhich his older sister worked for 50 plus years.
Actually the political articles were quite good and non biased.
When ever my brain slowed down enough and I had a deep question or idea...he would always say: Write it down...He never got to see the day I actually "wrote it down" Nor did he get to see the Red Soxs win the pennant either but I did... in his honor.
Foreign languages confound me but I did try to remember a few Swedish words...don't even ask me to spell them...have enough trouble with English...laughing
Once people gained the ability to have a christian or Jewish bible of their own, reading it actually gave them an education not just in, language, daily behavior but in a host of other subjects.
For many during those times, that's all they needed to be successful.
Reason and emotion - thinking and feeling - are not contradictory or mutually inimical faculties but their functions are not interchangeable emotions are not tools of cognition.What one feels feels in regard to any fact or issue is irrelevant..It is not by means of one's feelings that one perceives reality. whether one's judgement of it is true or false."
People on this site went ape condemning this. They say if you study Ayn Rand's writings, you'll learn that values need not come from arbitrary axioms or emotion. I love this idea. I wish people put the effort they devote to enjoying watching politicos make one another look bad to actually digging into the rational origin of values. They say it's in Virtue of Selfishness, but I did find not the answer there.
I hope the people who went ape are right. I don't like the notion that values are arbitrary or given to us by a benevolent creator who we have no evidence for.
My 2 bits.
All it takes is recognizing that we humans have a limited set of observational tools and the possibilities become fascinatingly endless.
The discoveries of what the universe is, is yet to occur. It may come as a cooperative venture or as a flash of insight ala Einsteinian thought experiments.It might require either or both physical and mental abilities that we don't have at present, but may acquire them in an altogether different way than we can imagine today..
"VE shall see" -- Gandpa Sherman..
Yes, "religion" (a more often than not, faux way of organizing the teachings) is based upon a confidence that the organization is correct. That faux "confidence" being faith.
That organization and resulting faith in it, absolutely destroys the teachings that actually resulted in the idea of capitalism, morality, ethics and how a free conscious being would act in a free market, not to mention, society itself.
The latter, being the product of reason, observation and duplication of the results of those observations.
(don't mind me, just working out my understanding of the language and concepts being used here.)
Why the debate. you are either a person who has religious beliefs or not. If one has religious beliefs why would you want to discuss "reason" in this context with them. N.B. is correct!
.That's okay. Generally, I avoid what me dino calls a bash a believer boobytrap, though such may not be the intention.
As for my background, I have read a variety of non-fiction works, including Piekoff's Objectivism, as well as some of Rand's shorter essays. I've also read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Hayek's Road to Serfdom, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Plato's Republic, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, and others. I just completed Winston Churchill's voluminous history of WW II (4000+ pages). I also enjoy science fiction and fantasy, among which several of my favorites include R.A. Salvatore's "Dark Elf" trilogy, Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and John Ringo's Troy Rising series. If there are other titles you would recommend, please suggest them as I enjoy reading and am always on the lookout for good books.
I've noticed an interesting coincidence, when it comes to "disposable income".
For instance...if I have $5 in my pocket, I never seem to come up with any more (excluding payday). That five dollars just sits there.
On the other hand, if I spend my last $5, more money appears...either I get an unexpected refund, or someone remembers to pay me the $20 they owed me. This isn't consistent, but it's happened enough times that it's caused me to take notice of the effect.
It's really weird how this happens, and may just be coincidence. I was just wondering if anyone else ever has this happen to them?
AS TO DEFINITION
I made a near fatal error by trying to squeeze the definitions into the subject. My responses are always cool, polite, and sometimes humorous. On rare occasions, I may get steamed but rarely vitupretive.. Here are the Objectivists definitions to which I adhere.
REASON: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.
FAITH: faith designates blind acceptance of certain idea content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.
If religion is the basis of the faith, the addendum is: Faith in the supernatural begins as superiority of others.
Further:Faith and force are corollaries: Every period of history dominated by mysticism was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny.
Years ago, I was a bullied youngster. During that period, there was one particular bully that I could count on to make my life nearly unbearable.
One night, I basically "prayed" that this bully would leave me alone. I didn't pray to God (I didn't believe in Him any more then, than I do, now), but to whatever power there might be, in the universe.
The next day, this kid virtually ignored me, which was as near to a miracle as I could ever imagine. Of course, it only lasted for a time, but I never forgot that particular instance.
What made the kid leave me alone on that particular day? Almost 50 years later and I still ask myself that question. I still don't believe in God, but I do wonder, at times, if there IS something out there.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
One night, a group of 3 local bullies approached us and I resolved to duke it out with my buddy by my side. Unfortunately, when I looked behind me, my buddy was high-tailing it, in the opposite direction. I figured 3 against 1 was going to end badly, so I followed suit...
A couple years later, I joined the Marine Corps and haven't had any problems, since.
Factual research then calculated risk - speaking from experience (and success).
Why does the entrepreneur invest so much time and effort when two out of three go out of business within two years? The evidence should point people away from entrepreneurship, yet people still continue to do it at the same rates as ever (taking into consideration taxation laws, etc.). Logical conclusion works against the entrepreneur - not for.
The success of a business does not lie within the model itself, but in the willingness of the entrepreneur to commit to act based on nothing more than a belief in success. And business models don't guarantee success - they only give you a guide as to where to best focus your resources.
Logic can only confirm from observation - a passive event. That is its limitation. Logic does not cause things to happen in the first place, however. That requires action and action requires motivation. Motivation stems from belief that if one takes a proposed action, that the desired consequences will occur. But until the steps are taken, no events are set in motion and no outcome is possible.
I can not agree with your definition.
Faith is mostly:
confidence or trust in a person or thing
belief that is not based on proof
You don’t need faith to start thinking. You don’t need faith to start doing. Before I begin the work required to start a business I use reason above faith. I think, “Will this work? Why or why not?” Later, I may be confident that it will work. I’m not saying everyone does this.
And therein lies the dilemma. The definition of faith used by this author necessarily leads to a foregone conclusion - the epitome of the straw man argument. The problem is that even people of faith don't use such a flawed definition such as "belief that is not based on proof". The proof is in the doing: the proof can not precede the action!
I agree: one does not require faith to think. I propose that one of the reasons so many people get hung up on this is that they adopt the notion that thought and faith are mutually exclusive. I challenge this misbegotten preconception with all vigor. Thought is how the mind determines what to do. Faith gives him the reason to proceed. There is no better example in support of this proposition than that of the business entrepreneur - except perhaps the scientist - as a demonstration of what happens when careful thought and preparation are married with conviction-based action. Contrary to what some may choose to believe, rational thought is a partner to faith - rather than an antagonist.
Take the example of Hank Reardon's bridge. He had done the calculations. He was confident enough that he put his conviction on the line by being the first passenger on the train across the bridge. But up until the point that the train passed safely over, there was no evidence of success; no logical conclusion to be made. His faith played out in confirmation as the bridge held. He then knew with certainty that his actions up to that point had not been in vain.
Another example: Dagny Taggart. It was faith that led her to pursue Galt through the barrier into the Gulch. There is simply no other way to characterize it. She acted because the answer to her question was so important that she was motivated to test what can only be characterized as a wild guess. And - fortunately for her - she, too, found out that her faith was not in vain (which is good because its hard to continue a story without the main protagonist). ;)
One last caution: do not confuse the principle of faith itself with any foregone conclusion that what one has faith in is necessary correct. Once one has found by experience that something is not true, to continue to abide by that belief is folly - not faith. It is a willful act of defiance. Faith lasts only until the principle is proven - or not.
But others use the word to indicate that they currently believe something to be true, but that view is subject to change if the facts prove otherwise. They shouldnt really use the word "faith" then, as they arent actually being irrational
I agree.
"They shouldn't really use the word "faith" then, as they aren't actually being irrational"
Again, this goes back to the authoritative definition of faith. If a religionist is using the definition aforementioned in Hebrews rather than Branden's definition, it seems to me that the religionist is being entirely rational. It is only if Branden's definition is applied that the religionist is now acting on the absurd. Given that the definition of faith has been defined by religionists for thousands of years compared to a few decades by Branden, I have to question why some view Branden's definition as authoritative. To me, since his definition is substantially different than what conventional use has been for thousands of years, his is the burden of proof - not the religionist for using his/her own construct.
you give me headaches. Have pity on this old man and allow me to be your censor. I promise to do it in a cool and rational way. The doctors only allow me Tylenol (acetomenephen).
Objectivism advocates the moral principal that man should be guided exclusively by reason. So what about the emotional side (faith)?
First we must give definitions to the concepts Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality as presented by his senses. Reason is man's tool of cognition.
Faith designates blind acceptance of certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.
Agreed. However there is a major caveat to all of this: Logic and perception deal with things that have already happened - they are not absolute predictors of the future nor do they impel one to act. I can sit and think about things all day, using my logic. I will be absolutely correct, but not accomplish anything. There must be motivation to act.
"Faith designates blind acceptance of certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof."
Here I'm going to stop you. There is no such thing as "blind faith". Blind necessarily implies a lack of perception - a lack of cognition or idea formation. No one can form a hypothesis on which to act - even irrationally - without some informational basis. Humans do not deal with the "unknown". They can not, for it is unknown - non-perceived! They may speculate and invent for themselves all kinds of reasons to try to explain what they perceive but do not understand, but this speculation is part of the process of logic based on what they have perceived while in pursuit of what they have not! (This assumes of course that one is pursuing new information and not rebelling against prior knowledge and/or experience.)
What you are really getting at is in actuality the establishment of some arbitrary threshold of probability upon which every decision "should" be based: if it meets the threshold it may be deemed "rational" while if it does not it is "irrational". If we think about that, however, we realize that no one has the right to enforce upon another person one's personal probability threshold for "rationality". Such an act constitutes coercion.
Answer: Zero. The real question is what kind of dance would it be if they could? ;)
"I'm pretty sure you'll have a reply to every pronouncement."
Ultimately, it isn't having a reply, it is having a reply which can be logically defended. To be completely frank, I've been underwhelmed by the defense of Branden's definition for "faith". If it was accurate and logical in the first place, it should have been much harder to dispute.
I thank you for that time which you have seen fit to use on my behalf - even if my responses frustrated you. Hopefully I haven't caused you to exceed your daily limit on acetaminophen. ;)
Now let's say the metal was just created by mixing iron and copper in a mixture in an undetermined ratio and formed into girders to build the bridge to an untested design. Going over that bridge would be an act of faith because you have no evidence that that bridge could withstand the load.
To make it simple: one acts on faith UNTIL conclusive evidence is found - one way or the other. I don't disagree that Hank Reardon's understanding of his metal's capabilities made him more confident of success, it does not change the fact that until the train passed over the bridge, he had no proof - only conjecture supported by his calculations.
Now, if one wants to contend that Dagny's plunge through the barrier required significantly more faith than Reardon's bridge, I would completely agree because the degree of uncertainty was higher. It doesn't change the fact that in neither instance was the outcome guaranteed before the test was taken. The proof was obtained in the testing and not a moment before. As logic requires proof or confirmation, one can not logically conclude the bridge would hold or that there was an invisible barrier until after the trial of faith.
I could not find your definition.
I, too, reject the notion of blind faith, but I reject it because it has no meaning - no substance. One does not believe in the existence of extraterrestrial beings without having some concept of this Earth being separate and distinct in the cosmos from other planets and a supposition about intelligent life. One does not believe in "god" or the flying spaghetti monster without having formed some kind of notion of just what the attributes of such a being would be. It is impossible. We can not believe in an idea formed from cognitive dissonance or lack of cognition in the first place. There must be thought involved. Faith is simply the desire to act on a little knowledge in order to gain more.
For example, by using your very same argument, one can absolutely argue for a belief in the giant floating spaghetti monster (an actual religion) because you are not requiring any proof.
When debating, the terms used need to be generally agreed upon.
As I see it, there are three paths:
1. We can continue to disagree about the definition being used and leave the matter unresolved.
2. You can offer a rebuttal to my arguments, expose any flaws in my reasoning, and continue the debate.
3. You can seriously consider my arguments.
Regardless, I appreciate your cordiality and consideration.
is neither rational nor usable .
I can't accept the definition as used by Branden because in my view it is inherently flawed as a straw man. If one accepts it, one accepts everything that follows.
Non-A is A.
Put another way:
If I - as a parent - tell my three-year-old not to stick a knife in the power outlet because it will hurt him, does my son have to stick the knife in the power outlet just to find out what I tell him is true? Just because one person has not personally perceived something does not mean that someone else has not. Does that make the principle any less true simply because I have not personally tested it? No.
Did the planets exist before they were observed and identified by astronomers? Yes. But how many people take it for granted that Neptune exists even though they have never personally observed it through a telescope? You can apply that principle ad infinitum. We believe what other people say all the time. Do we take the time to question and confirm every single little thing? No. Does that mean that we are fools for acting on the belief that what others' say or do is not actually fallacy? Surely not.
Faith is the principle by which I act in anticipation of a desired result without knowing beforehand the outcome. (Knowing in this case being used to indicate a positive knowledge based on past experience or evidence.)
Example: it is not faith to expect the sun to rise every morning because past experience tells us it will. It would be faith to conduct an experiment to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson just as it would be faith to enter an entrepreneurial business venture.
The question is whether to use faith or reason in order to solve a problem.In other words which faculty would you rather have in order to solve a problem?
Again, you are using "faith" as if it is a competitor to logic - not a motivational force, which is why to you this argument appears absurd. Until you are willing to look at the argument without basing your reasoning on the Branden definition, you are caught in the very logical procession I have already admitted is a completely rational exposition based on that definition. If you look at things from the perspective of a substantially different definition of faith, the entire chain of reasoning changes and so do the rational conclusions. That is the entire crux of my argument.