Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reason vs. faith as tools of cognition?

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_John

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest_John

I recently came across a television program where a man was pontificating on religion in front of some college students on a college campus. He was attempting to formulate a deductive proof of God based on the idea that because the universe is orderly it must have a creator. I found out who the guy was and found out that he has a web site with a discussion board. I contacted the man directly via E-mail with my invalidation of his "proof" and of course received no response. I also put my thoughts up on the discussion board. That did engender quite a response, in fact a voluminous response that has been distilled down into essentially a thoughtful and lively debate between reason and faith. I am the only one on this board defending reason and there are a number of zealots there trying to counter my ideas. As I only have a limited amount of time to defend these worthwhile ideas, I am here now to recruit anyone who feels strongly about defending reason to join in the discussion and add any thoughtful considerations. The web address is as follows:

http://www.givemeananswer.org/main/frames/...swersframe.html

Thanks to anyone who is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's almost impossible to win an argument where the arbiter is faith and not reason. Therefore it is futile to "argue" over the existence of God with anyone who willfully suspends his mind by denying all the fallacies and total lack of evidence. Even if they realize that their points are logically impossible, they'll never be convinced because in the end they'll revert to the most hackneyed excuse I've ever heard whenever I am in such a situation:

"Man's finite, little mind can't possibly comprehend the infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, and infinitely good being called God."

And that's when they "blank-out", i.e., evade. If they can't prove God's existence logically, then they'll simply abandon logic. They will never deny faith and accept reason simply because they've failed to prove God's existence. They're just too afraid. Their mind is full of doubts and fears--doubtful of their ability to comprehend reality, fearful of being alienated, and most of all--fearful of letting go of their moral code, without which they believe they cannot live. Confidence and certainty are what they lack--and desperately need.

Here are the main reasons why they cling to the belief in God:

They believe that without God,

  1. Life is meaningless.
  2. The universe is incomprehensible.
  3. There is no morality by which we can live.
  4. We can never be certain of the truth.

You can see why they believe in God even in the face of cogent evidence. (I would, too, if I thought that those were the only alternatives to faith in God).

Disproving their logical arguments for the existence of God will never work, it will only make them deny the validity of logic--or at least set "limits" to it. If you want to win them over, then show them that the aforementioned four premises (see list) are false, that their minds are capable of comprehending reality and that alienation is nothing to be feared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tom's post, and would simply add that it is not your responsibility to try to make other people be rational. It can't be done, as Tom mentioned, when they rest their case on faith, and is therefore a waste of time; and it's not your problem anyway. Live your own life, and let these fools live theirs--to whatever extent they can while denying their only means of doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Grantsinmypants

Uh, Marshall, you quoted me.

I never claimed that I was the exclusive victim of your wrath.

I simply named the only valid reason that I can think of for having a philosophical or political discussion with a religious zealot. It was a constructive statement.

But then you stated that the other people involved in this discussion were basically religious zealots themselves. I guess that means that it's worthless having a philosophical or political discussion with these people, and that I'm behaving in a manner deserving of your criticism because I am not treating them like the religious zealots that they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, Marshall, you quoted me.

I never claimed that I was the exclusive victim of your wrath.

I simply named the only valid reason that I can think of for having a philosophical or political discussion with a religious zealot.  It was a constructive statement.

But then you stated that the other people involved in this discussion were basically religious zealots themselves.  I guess that means that it's worthless having a philosophical or political discussion with these people, and that I'm behaving in a manner deserving of your criticism because I am not treating them like the religious zealots that they are.

Actually, I didn't say they were religious zealots, I said they were fools. :)

And I would never advocate a policy of not talking with those one doesn't agree with as there are lots of things to be learned from these kinds of people, perhaps even religious zealots. Note that this is an argument for tolerance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief summary of Marshall's activities in this thread:

1. He calls us fools.

But so do all of these fools.

2. He asserts (incorrectly) that every Objectivist that supports the Ayn Rand Institute voted for the candidate who Leonard Peikoff told them to.

3. He asserts (again incorrectly) that Leonard Peikoff tried to tell Objectivists to vote for Bush. Both of these assertions were made without a shred of evidence.

I'm sure they almost unanimously voted for Bush, Peikoff's candidate of choice.
4. He denies having attacked anyone. Again, this is false (see #s 1-3). Does he think we're stupid enough to forget what he posted less than 12 hours prior, particularly when it's posted right above? ("Very clear"?! :( )

I don't believe a single one of my statements was an attack, nor directed exclusively at you, so don't go saying I dug my nails into you when it's very clear that I didn't.

5. He acknowledges having stated that we are fools (after having denied attacking anyone), but still denies calling us zealots (again, see #2).

Actually, I didn't say they were religious zealots, I said they were fools.
6. And for his grand finale, he claims to be advancing something that he calls "tolerance". I, for one, would like to know what this mysterious "tolerance" is--perhaps he could provide a definition? If we take his claim to be advancing it to be true and look back at his recent activity, "tolerance" apparently has something to do with making groundless ad hominem attacks, including calling one's hosts "fools" and dogmatic followers, and then attempting to confuse one's associates by denying, then admitting, then denying again the facts of the matter which are right there for everyone to see. Wow, I want to know more about this "tolerance"--it sounds like a rational, objective way to behave, a real virtue. :)

And I would never advocate a policy of not talking with those one doesn't agree with as there are lots of things to be learned from these kinds of people, perhaps even religious zealots. Note that this is an argument for tolerance.

---

So, what do 1-6 above add up to? A whole lot of jack-assery.

Thanks for a laugh, Marshall. Now get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marshall
A brief summary of Marshall's activities in this thread:

1. He calls us fools.

2. He asserts (incorrectly) that every Objectivist that supports the Ayn Rand Institute voted for the candidate who Leonard Peikoff told them to.

3. He asserts (again incorrectly) that Leonard Peikoff tried to tell Objectivists to vote for Bush. Both of these assertions were made without a shred of evidence.

4. He denies having attacked anyone. Again, this is false (see #s 1-3). Does he think we're stupid enough to forget what he posted less than 12 hours prior, particularly when it's posted right above? ("Very clear"?! :( )

5. He acknowledges having stated that we are fools (after having denied attacking anyone), but still denies calling us zealots (again, see #2).

6. And for his grand finale, he claims to be advancing something that he calls "tolerance". I, for one, would like to know what this mysterious "tolerance" is--perhaps he could provide a definition? If we take his claim to be advancing it to be true and look back at his recent activity, "tolerance" apparently has something to do with making groundless ad hominem attacks, including calling one's hosts "fools" and dogmatic followers, and then attempting to confuse one's associates by denying, then admitting, then denying again the facts of the matter which are right there for everyone to see. Wow, I want to know more about this "tolerance"--it sounds like a rational, objective way to behave, a real virtue. :)

---

So, what do 1-6 above add up to? A whole lot of jack-assery.

Thanks for a laugh, Marshall. Now get out.

What I meant was, I didn't attack Grant.

And yes, my fools comment was inflammatory, but I was just venting a little frustration. I renounce my statement.

The issue of tolerance, however, we can discuss later.

Marshall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was, I didn't attack Grant.

And yes, my fools comment was inflammatory, but I was just venting a little frustration. I renounce my statement.

The issue of tolerance, however, we can discuss later.

Marshall

What you said, was, you didn't think any one of your statements was an attack (in general), nor that they were directed exclusively at Grant (the nor implying that the issue of whether you had attacked anyone was separate from whether that person had been Grant, implying that the claim that none of your statements was an attack applied to everyone else as well).

This is more of the same from you.

As for the issue of tolerance, I have done some more thinking about it and understand the error being made now, and will post my thoughts in the appropriate thread later.

You, however, can discuss it elsewhere. You are not welcome here anymore.

Goodbye.

[edit] I just went to ban Marshall, but noticed that David beat me to it. Oh well. Thanks, David. [/edit]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
I agree with Tom's post, and would simply add that it is not your responsibility to try to make other people be rational.  It can't be done, as Tom mentioned, when they rest their case on faith, and is therefore a waste of time; and it's not your problem anyway.  Live your own life, and let these fools live theirs--to whatever extent they can while denying their only means of doing so.

I wanted to revive this before posting another new topic.

I sometimes debate Christian Fundamentalists on other message boards, and their only reply when I present a rational argument is "well you have to have faith" or "those with faith can see". Also, they claim that I must have faith in the markets, faith in myself, which I do not.

For example, they insist that Jesus Christ died, was buried and resurrected. I claim that a more plausible event would be that his body was stolen or that wild animals ate his corpse. My assertion is impossible to prove (since there are no historical writings of Jesus at the time, except for a brief mention by Josephius, a Roman historian). But, they claim they are right because their faith tells them so, or that it must take more faith to believe that he DIDN'T rise from the dead.

Is it just pointless to debate with characters like this? If not, what resources can I read to give me guidance on the issue.

Thanks

TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes debate Christian Fundamentalists on other message boards, and their only reply when I present a rational argument is "well you have to have faith" or "those with faith can see".  Also, they claim that I must have faith in the markets, faith in myself, which I do not. 

[...]

Is it just pointless to debate with characters like this?  If not, what resources can I read to give me guidance on the issue.

This general subject has been a central interest for me for almost 9 years, and will be for several more years. I have many questions and suggestions, but I need to ask some preliminary questions first:

1. What is your purpose in debating fideists, that is, individuals who believe that all philosophically important knowledge comes through faith? How does this debate advance you toward your highest personal values? Is it related to your central purpose in life, that is, your beloved profession (paid or not)?

2. What are your expectations? Do you expect to "change the minds" of the fideists -- or are you appealing to the audience watching the debate?

3. Have you asked yourself what you mean by reason and faith, and then have you compared those definitions to the meanings you have elicited from your debating foes?

4. What are the issues involved in the debates? Are you able to sort them in some way -- perhaps by fundamentality of the principles at issue? The reason I ask this is because debates -- where there are no full-time moderators to keep things on track -- are like hurricanes: they go round and round and round ferociously, while the center also wanders across the countryside.

With answers to these preliminary questions, I might be able to make suggestions based on personal experience and on some narrow reading in the history of philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just pointless to debate with characters like this?

If someone explicitly declares to you that they have no interest in reason or facts, on what grounds is debate possible? If you are trying to prove something to your debate opponent, then you have to require they accept that which proof requires. If they declare instead that they believe what they want to believe and are not concerned with logic, then anything you say -- no matter how air-tight your argument -- may not cause them to change their mind.

So, as a matter of principle, I don't bother trying to argue religious issues with devout believers, just as I don't try to persuade rocks and trees. :dough:

The caveat is that people often don't integrate their beliefs, so they may declare wildly irrational ideas without really processing their meaning. They may also compartmentalize their faith, and be quite rational in other areas of life (as I see daily when I deal with conservative engineers).

The other issue: what's in it for you? What do you get out of debating with these characters? There are certainly some issues that you and they can discuss rationally. But why topics about which they have shown no interest in hearing your views? If your purpose in debating them about religion is to get them to change their minds, forget it. For that purpose, spend your energy on those who look for a rational discussion of the issues.

Finally, keep in mind that the details of the stories in the Bible or Koran are beside the point. The fact that something was written in a book is meaningless. Don't debate on terms set by an irrational standard. They are effectively saying: "Here's what I believe, and it's up to you to prove I'm wrong." The burden of proof is on them. You can't prove a negative -- i.e., prove something doesn't exist by the non-existence of evidence.

And if you are looking to argue religion (presumably with more rational people) determine what's essential: the existence of God or trivia about some particular belief system. If you can prove that God doesn't exist, then there's no reason to argue over the details of kosher foods or of the meaning of some passage in the Book of Matthew. IOW, focus on principles, using concretes as necessary. (Also, see the discussions of supernaturalism and faith in OPAR for arguments against God.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes debate Christian Fundamentalists on other message boards, and their only reply when I present a rational argument is "well you have to have faith" or "those with faith can see".  Also, they claim that I must have faith in the markets, faith in myself, which I do not.

The word "faith" can refer to more than the concept of belief without (or despite) evidence. It can also be a synonym for confidence. I don't let people get away with that equivocation, which is why I ALWAYS use the word "confidence" when that is what I mean.

For example, they insist that Jesus Christ died, was buried and resurrected. I claim that a more plausible event would be that his body was stolen or that wild animals ate his corpse. My assertion is impossible to prove (since there are no historical writings of Jesus at the time, except for a brief mention by Josephius, a Roman historian). But, they claim they are right because their faith tells them so, or that it must take more faith to believe that he DIDN'T rise from the dead.

Notice that they are starting out with an arbitrary claim (Jesus' resurrection) for which they have no evidence and flies in the face of everything we know from science. You can't argue that by just asserting another arbitrary claim. The burden is on them to prove their claim. Don't take their argument as a given that you must disprove; challenge their foundation, go after their assumptions, make them quake in their boots with a simple question: why? Where's the evidence?

If they claim their faith justifies their claim, then that's that. There's no means to rationally argue with that.

If you haven't already done so, I suggest reading the section in OPAR on the arbitrary as neither true nor false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This general subject has been a central interest for me for almost 9 years, and will be for several more years. I have many questions and suggestions, but I need to ask some preliminary questions first:

1. What is your purpose in debating fideists, that is, individuals who believe that all philosophically important knowledge comes through faith? How does this debate advance you toward your highest personal values? Is it related to your central purpose in life, that is, your beloved profession (paid or not)?

It's for fun and personal enrichment. I enjoy studying things other than Objectivism like Christianity and Marxism in order to challenge myself into thinking different ways. It's also important for philosophic detection, since knowing what your opponent will say in a debate is as important as knowing what your position is.

2. What are your expectations? Do you expect to "change the minds" of the fideists -- or are you appealing to the audience watching the debate?

More appealing to the audience and those who haven't made up their mind. I was once a practicing Catholic, and would have benefited from reading debates like the ones I try and participate in. I know that hardcore believers in faith and Christianity will not change their minds so easily because it's almost been engrained in them. At least I can challenge those open-minded enough to think to not evade on these important issues.

3. Have you asked yourself what you mean by reason and faith, and then have you compared those definitions to the meanings you have elicited from your debating foes?

Yes, they come up with their own definitions. I have the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which is a wonderful tool for definitions since it goes beyond just the dictionary meaning. Faith is probably the more important one: I use Peikoff's standard definition and work from there. They just won't accept it. Andrew Bernstein said in a lecture on tape that it's pointless to debate on others' premises because you'll lose right off the bat. Unfortunately, the Christian definition of faith seems to be different from Peikoff and this presents some problems.

For myself, I find trouble in definitions myself. I guess the classic one is "democracy", which we know is mob or majority rule. But scholars (people that are more educated than me) seem to invent new ways of defining it. I'll blame my International Politics professor who said that definitions are totally subjective (this was before I ever heard of Ayn Rand) and as look as you define the term and be consistent you are in the clear. Perhaps I need some clarification on this, since I know it isn't correct.

4. What are the issues involved in the debates? Are you able to sort them in some way -- perhaps by fundamentality of the principles at issue? The reason I ask this is because debates -- where there are no full-time moderators to keep things on track -- are like hurricanes: they go round and round and round ferociously, while the center also wanders across the countryside.

Oh, you are absolutely correct on this. Why do I love this forum? Everyone seems to know what they are talking about and is able to comment intelligently on the issue. Sometimes people in debates post just so their words appear on the screen. I try to avoid this as much as possible.

I haven't been "trained" in philosophy like others on this forum. My knowledge is limited to what I've read by Ayn Rand in the non-fiction as well as discussions with O'ists at college. I've only taken two philosophy courses so far, and the ones I've taken have been terrible. So, maybe I wouldn't know the terminology or technical aspects of philosophy since it's a hobby of mine, and not a profession or a purely academic pursuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been "trained" in philosophy like others on this forum.  My knowledge is limited to what I've read by Ayn Rand in the non-fiction as well as discussions with O'ists at college.  I've only taken two philosophy courses so far, and the ones I've taken have been terrible.

For anyone interested in philosophy, I certainly support the idea of seeing for yourself what the other sides have to say. But if you aren't looking for a career in the humanities, there's a limit to the benefits of taking mega-expensive college courses over just reading the same books on your own.

If you're looking for an overview of the history of western philosophy, the W.T. Jones is probably the best out there. For something more condensed, look for the two slim volumes by Wallace I. Matson. Both book sets were used in my college courses, and the first series was also recommended years back in the Objectivist literature. Also, Dr. Peikoff has a comprehensive taped lecture set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading through some of the babble from the link that the original poster provided. This was the post that made me stop in my tracks, shudder and stop reading;

"The problem with truth is that it can be de valued with lies of reason to a people not willing to accept it."

The person who thinks that is truly scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

------Here are the main reasons why they cling to the belief in God:

They believe that without God,

  1. Life is meaningless.
  2. The universe is incomprehensible.
  3. There is no morality by which we can live.
  4. We can never be certain of the truth.

You can see why they believe in God even in the face of cogent evidence. (I would, too, if I thought that those were the only alternatives to faith in God).-----

^QUOTE^

They are motivated by the horror of personal extinction, and would sacrifice all of these reasons you cite, if they thought it would spare them having to die someday.

SolomonEagle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to revive this before posting another new topic.

Is it just pointless to debate with characters like this?  If not, what resources can I read to give me guidance on the issue.

Thanks

TB

No, I was once a Fundamentalist Christian myself. Even if they hold to faith as their sole justification, no man is completely devoid of self-esteem and therefore, rely on their ability to reason to a certain degree. Anyone can be reasoned with to a certain degree; finding the common ground where you can get them to commit to reason is the trick. Remember: the Renaissance began in a world of religious fundamentalist. You can make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they hold to faith as their sole justification, no man is completely devoid of self-esteem and therefore, rely on their ability to reason to a certain degree. Anyone can be reasoned with to a certain degree; finding the common ground where you can get them to commit to reason is the trick.

The problem is that the "certain degree" of rationality may be too small in some cases. If someone is unwilling to listen to reason, there is no point trying to reason with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...