Faith is Axiomatic

[Shylock]

The first principle of all action is faith. Before someone can get up out of bed in the morning he must first hope and believe that his legs will support him. A person who honestly doubts that his legs will support him will not attempt to get out of bed.

Before someone works for another person he must first believe that the person will pay him for his labors. If he doesn't believe that the person will pay him, he won't work for that person. On what does he base his faith in his employer? Perhaps he sees other employees there working and figures that they would not continue to work for an employer that did not pay. Perhaps he is thinking about his past life and he reasons that since his previous employers all paid him that this employer will be no different. If his last employer failed to pay him, and he greets a disgruntled employee leaving just as he arrives and that employee says, "I quit. This guy doesn't pay his workers." then he will (justifiably) lack faith in the potential employer and will be unable to work for him.

Ayn Rand was wrong to reject faith. Perhaps she had a different definition of faith, but faith is axiomatic. Before you can post against faith, you must first believe that your fingers will carry out your commands. You must believe that your computer will record them. You must believe that your ISP will forward the message across various servers to the one this forum rests on. You must believe in the software of the forum. You must also believe that your brain can formulate reasons and arguments sufficient to persuade me of the rightness of your perspective. All of this requires faith in many different objects.

[KevinDW78]

Ok, first question. What works have you read of Rand's? That will give a better indication of where to start. Also I think your definition of "faith" is incorrect. "Faith" means accepting a truth without evidence. I have plenty of evidence that my computer, keyboard, ISP and this forum all work very reliably. God however, is the most unreliable concept ever invented.

Edited November 24, 2008 by KevinDW78

[01503]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html

There ya go, champ. Have fun reading your first bit o' Objectivism.

[Jake_Ellison]

The time it took you to write that little essay, you could've just picked up the dictionary, and checked what faith means.

But hey, at least you're defending faith because you don't know what it means. It's a good sign: it means that you can still learn to be a good person. In my book, a mistake always beats some loon who bases their life on fantasies: just make sure you correct that.

[Zip]

The first principle of all action is faith knowledge. Before someone can get up out of bed in the morning he must first hope and believe know that his legs will support him. A person who honestly doubts that his legs will support him will not attempt to get out of bed.

Before someone works for another person he must first believe have a reasonable expectation that the person will pay him for his labors. If he doesn't believe think that the person will pay him, he won't work for that person. On what does he base his faith in knowledge of his employer? Perhaps he sees other employees there working and figures that they would not continue to work for an employer that did not pay. Perhaps he is thinking about his past life and he reasons that since his previous employers all paid him that this employer will be no different. If his last employer failed to pay him, and he greets a disgruntled employee leaving just as he arrives and that employee says, "I quit. This guy doesn't pay his workers." then he will (justifiably) lack faith in deduce the potential employer and will be unable to work for him will not pay him either.

I fixed some problems in your post, hope you don't mind.

[KendallJ]

uh, maybe I'm on an ettiquette kick today, but since when did the Debate Forum turn into the "needlessly Pile On" forum. It's the guy's first post for Chrissake. One might be encouraged to at least let him prove himself a troll before you flame him. Before that, can we please take respectful issue with his argument?

He may be wrong, but one can point that out reasonably. I didn't find anything objectionable in his post. He simply states a position.

[01503]

I may have been a tad too harsh... it is your first post and all. I think the problem lies in your definition of faith. Try the link I posted.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html

[Nyronus]

There is a difference between rationally deducing the facts of reality via the senses, and putting "faith" in a arbitrary concept. Look into it.

[KevinDW78]

uh, maybe I'm on an ettiquette kick today

But just today, right?

[KendallJ]

But just today, right?

Well, if you think that what I may sometimes do looks anything like the above, then obviously I need to differentiate a little better. There is a big difference between forcefully driving home an argument and being snide about making one.

[Shylock]

The time it took you to write that little essay, you could've just picked up the dictionary, and checked what faith means.

But hey, at least you're defending faith because you don't know what it means. It's a good sign: it means that you can still learn to be a good person. In my book, a mistake always beats some loon who bases their life on fantasies: just make sure you correct that.

Faith (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

In the previous post and in all further posts made by me you can understand the meaning of the word 'faith' to be either (1) or (2) as defined above. Should you have an alternate definition of faith such as that contained at http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith.html then that merely implies that Ayn Rand took no time to understand faith before attacking it.

[Shylock]

The first principle of all action is faith knowledge. Before someone can get up out of bed in the morning he must first hope and believe know that his legs will support him. A person who honestly doubts that his legs will support him will not attempt to get out of bed.

Before someone works for another person he must first believe have a reasonable expectation that the person will pay him for his labors. If he doesn't believe think that the person will pay him, he won't work for that person. On what does he base his faith in knowledge of his employer? Perhaps he sees other employees there working and figures that they would not continue to work for an employer that did not pay. Perhaps he is thinking about his past life and he reasons that since his previous employers all paid him that this employer will be no different. If his last employer failed to pay him, and he greets a disgruntled employee leaving just as he arrives and that employee says, "I quit. This guy doesn't pay his workers." then he will (justifiably) lack faith in deduce the potential employer and will be unable to work for him will not pay him either.

I fixed some problems in your post, hope you don't mind.

Thank you for your intended corrections. However, I object to several of them. First of all, no one can know that their legs will support them. Although their legs may have supported them in the past, past performance is no guarantee of future results. He trusts his legs to support him as they have in the past. This trust is defined as faith under definition (1) above. Unfortunately, however, legs can fail. The chance of legs failing can be increased by alcohol consumption.

We can see faith in action when a person attempts to turn on a light. They flip the switch but nothing happens. Although it may seem extremely illogical, the person will almost invariably turn the switch back off and then try it again. Why do they do this? It should be obvious from the first failure that there is something wrong. Perhaps the bulb has burned out. Perhaps the electricity is out. Nevertheless, their faith in the bulb and the switch is stronger than the rational mind and they almost invariably try a second time. Only after two failures do they begin to take logical action to resolve the situation.

[Sarrisan]

2. belief that is not based on proof

You would imagine this means "case closed," but I somehow doubt it will be.

[01503]

We use faith as a contrast to reason. In other words, where reason is knowledge that can be justified logically, faith is things that have no proof for, we just accept them. "To have faith in" someone does not go under the philosophical meaning of faith.

[Zip]

Thank you for your intended corrections. However, I object to several of them. First of all, no one can know that their legs will support them. Although their legs may have supported them in the past, past performance is no guarantee of future results. He trusts his legs to support him as they have in the past. This trust is defined as faith under definition (1) above. Unfortunately, however, legs can fail. The chance of legs failing can be increased by alcohol consumption.

I believe that you are being pedantic in both argument and thought here. The fact that I went to bed and my legs worked means that the facts of "legs working" when I wake up is a reasonable assumption based on all the available information. I need no faith in the unknown and my trust is placed upon a foundation of knowledge not "faith".

If my legs fail because of alcohol consumption then I can come to that conclusion by way of reason, I would have proof of my intoxication in blurred vision, and slurred speech long before I ever reached the "legs don't work stage" Trust me BTDT

We can see faith in action when a person attempts to turn on a light. They flip the switch but nothing happens. Although it may seem extremely illogical, the person will almost invariably turn the switch back off and then try it again. Why do they do this? It should be obvious from the first failure that there is something wrong. Perhaps the bulb has burned out. Perhaps the electricity is out.

No, we see reason. The "trust" you are trying to co-op into your mystic framework comes from understanding, even if only on the most basic level, that the invention called a light bulb illuminates when an electric current is applied to a small wire filament.

As for flipping the switch again... So? When I do it, I am normally doing other things as well. Listening for the electric crackle of the connection being made in the switch itself, seeing if perhaps the light bulb is just loose (watching for the telltale sign of flickering) and checking that other lights are on or that there is some other indication that the entire grid isn't off line. It's a process called deduction and it is based in reason not in faith.

Nevertheless, their faith in the bulb and the switch is stronger than the rational mind and they almost invariably try a second time. Only after two failures do they begin to take logical action to resolve the situation.

Wrong.

By the way, before you lead us all down this delightful garden path of light bulbs of obscuration could you please tell us all how "faith is axiomatic"

An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

So by definition the fact that every argument against your claim has been able to refute that claim without having to base itself on "faith" means that your claim is false.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Zip

[Plasmatic]

Faith is non-causal belief. It produces non-causal expectation [hope]. None of which are based on rational identification and integration of the facts of existence. My confidence that my legs will work is causal expectation based on integrated facts already identified.

The connection to religion and spirituality is now clear. Spiritual,miraculous,supernatural and all the words that pertain to articles of Faith are at root based on the concept of acausality and violations of Identity.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Plasmatic

[Shylock]

We use faith as a contrast to reason. In other words, where reason is knowledge that can be justified logically, faith is things that have no proof for, we just accept them. "To have faith in" someone does not go under the philosophical meaning of faith.

Can you prove reason is a good thing? If you can, can you also prove that reason is a good thing without resorting to reason to prove your case? Or is the supremacy of reason something I have to take on faith?

[01503]

Why should I prove something if reason is futile? After all, you can't prove something with faith.

[Shylock]

Faith is non-causal belief. It produces non-causal expectation [hope]. None of which are based on rational identification and integration of the facts of existence. My confidence that my legs will work is causal expectation based on integrated facts already identified.

The connection to religion and spirituality is now clear. Spiritual,miraculous,supernatural and all the words that pertain to articles of Faith are at root based on the concept of acausality and violations of Identity.

We are all human beings and as such, we were not born walking. There was a time in your life when you had tried several times to walk and every attempt had ended in failure. However, you still believed that it was possible to accomplish it in spite of evidence to the contrary. Had you not persisted in trying to walk, using faith as your guide, you might still be crawling or not even moving at all.

In all likelihood your faith was based solely on the encouragement that your parents gave you as they coaxed you to keep trying. Rationally speaking, you probably should have given up long before you learned to walk. However, you didn't.

[01503]

We are all human beings and as such, we were not born walking. There was a time in your life when you had tried several times to walk and every attempt had ended in failure. However, you still believed that it was possible to accomplish it in spite of evidence to the contrary. Had you not persisted in trying to walk, using faith as your guide, you might still be crawling or not even moving at all.

In all likelihood your faith was based solely on the encouragement that your parents gave you as they coaxed you to keep trying. Rationally speaking, you probably should have given up long before you learned to walk. However, you didn't.

Well, you had the encouragement of your family and friends. And also, they walked. You were determined because you thought "hey they can do it, so can I". I don't think that's faith.

[LiberTodd]

Can you prove reason is a good thing? If you can, can you also prove that reason is a good thing without resorting to reason to prove your case? Or is the supremacy of reason something I have to take on faith?

No, you can experience the supremacy of reason for yourself. Simply go about your daily life doing unreasonable things. Lie down in a busy street. Sleep outside naked in the freezing cold. Give all your money to strangers. All of it. Drink your own urine. Just make sure that you have faith that these things will be good for you, and quite pleasurable at that. I'm sure there's some crazy moon-religion out there that would agree with you. Just reject reason altogether and go completely on random emotions and faith in the ramblings of the first witch-doctor you come across. See how far you get.

[Shylock]

Why should I prove something if reason is futile? After all, you can't prove something with faith.

Ayn Rand reasoned that you can't argue against reason without using reason. As such, she stated that reason is axiomatic.

Similarly I claim that you can't argue against faith without using faith. That's why this thread is entitled, "Faith is Axiomatic."

What percentage of people on here have you convinced of the rightness of your point of view when engaging in a debate against them? While I can't know the answer to that, I estimate that the percentage must be quite low - perhaps even zero. Regardless, you have chosen to answer my post having faith that you could change my mind. Or perhaps you have faith that you can persuade the people who will read this thread without posting to reject the arguments I am making. If that is the case, on what do you base that belief? Have you been contacted by lurkers at any time during your posting here to have them tell you that your post caused them to rethink their position and accept yours as true?

[Plasmatic]

Well, you had the encouragement of your family and friends. And also, they walked. You were determined because you thought "hey they can do it, so can I". I don't think that's faith.

Its not faith its deduced causal expectation.

[Shylock]

No, you can experience the supremacy of reason for yourself. Simply go about your daily life doing unreasonable things. Lie down in a busy street. Sleep outside naked in the freezing cold. Give all your money to strangers. All of it. Drink your own urine. Just make sure that you have faith that these things will be good for you, and quite pleasurable at that. I'm sure there's some crazy moon-religion out there that would agree with you. Just reject reason altogether and go completely on random emotions and faith in the ramblings of the first witch-doctor you come across. See how far you get.

If I agree to do that will you agree to live a life based completely without faith? Will you stop believing that food and water are necessary for life, doubt your own existence, doubt that your parents and/or partner loves you, doubt that you can walk, doubt that your employer will pay you, doubt that your ISP provider will give you Internet access, doubt that your bank will honor the checks you write, doubt that you can make it to the bathroom to relieve yourself before you piss all over yourself, doubt that a fall from a third-story window will harm you, etc.? All of these things are, after all, unproven.

[Shylock]

Well, you had the encouragement of your family and friends. And also, they walked. You were determined because you thought "hey they can do it, so can I". I don't think that's faith.

That is exactly what faith is.

Your parents may have told you, for example, that they went to ABC Swimming School and learned to swim. They assured you that you could also learn to swim at the same school. Other than the confidence you placed in them, you had no reason to believe what they said. Simply because one person learns something in one way or at one school doesn't prove that you can do it, too.