Cap'n Regex

Ah, almost you understood me.. The exercise is to determine if you can differentiate between someone having a rational conclusion based upon evidence, and having everyone else agree on the conclusion without having experienced the evidence. Another angle is the understanding that rational and truth may not be the same depending on the evidence observed. The key point is if you can logically say to yourself.. "I can see where he would rationally make that conclusion based upon his evidence." even if you also say "I disagree with his conclusion based upon this other evidence which he didn't have available to him." or "I question the validity of his evidence" I agree that without some sort of evidence, other than the word of another we can't know for ourself the truth of something. To pretend otherwise would be mysticism and the abuse of faith that Ayn Rand had a legitimate complaint about. Because my hypothetical was a test to determine if yall were capable of considering things rationally. From your response to y hypothetical I can tell that you are unable to differentiate between determining if my conclusions based upon the evidence were rational for me and if you coming to the same conclusions for yourself based upon my description of my observations. To put it differently, Even if I were to take off my hat, you still wouldn't be able to see my hair, since I am not physically adjacent to you. To describe my evidence, since you cannot observe it yourself, and you are unwilling to differentiate from my rational and yours, would be to ask you to accept my word on Faith.. I can't see how that would be a benefit to you, and I can't see how that would be in my self-interest to do so. Suffice it to say that my belief in God is as much based upon direct personal observation and reasoning upon those observation as the persons whoom I based my hypothetical example.

The problem with that solution is that he was *shown* not given. He observed the evidence for himself, but he does not have the ability to show that evidence to another. He simply has the ability to describe his observations. Remember the question is what it would take to convince you of his belief in God being Rational, not in him convincing you that God exists. In other words, the question is not If God Exists or not. But is his conclusion that God Exists a rational conclusion based upon the evidence he observed.

Ok, so you are agreeing that the definition of faith as courage to act is rational? Well, I'll stop beating the dead horse then. As for Faith being a belief without sufficient evidence or rational thought.. I'll also not argue in defense of those who have beliefs without sufficient evidence or rational thought. There are certainly enough of them on both sides of the Athiest vs Thiest scale. Ok, let's see.. Let's start with a hypothetical.. Suppose for a moment that a person did have a direct one on one, face to face conversation with God. Let's also suppose for a moment that he wasn't deceived, and God showed him sufficient compelling evidence that he was convinced. How would he then convince yall that his belief in God was in fact Rational? Note, I'm not talking about him convincing yall that God exists.. I'd not ask yall to take his word for it on Faith..

No, Faith is belief leading to action. Blind Faith is when those beliefs have no evidence. It is still faith. The fellow who declared his faith in the "Add Reply" button earlier had it right, despite the sarcasm. In a word, no.. Blind Faith = Faith without evidence. There are also two other possibilities to explain Faith in God, other than the possible irrationality of the believer.. One, they have evidence that has been faked. Their Belief is Rational, given the evidence. Two, they do have real ( not faked ) evidence, and their Belief based upon that evidence is Rational. These two possibilities are ignored when you assume that a believer's Faith is either blind or irrational.

Yes, Faith can be blind. I would agree with Ayn Rand that Blind Faith can lead to deception, and is something we should avoid. This should include any Blind Faith, regardless of if that blind faith is in the words of another, or in our own imagining. It's not what faith is that is the problem however, it is how it is applied. Faith is when we act upon a belief. Regardless of if that belief is Rational or not. Can you have Act upon a belief without applying your Rational Mind? Certainly.. Not a good idea.. Since I only have my own Rational Mind to work with, I have to judge for myself if my reasoning is in fact rational, based upon my own observation. This is why it is so important to challenge your assumptions. Make sure that your reason is based upon accurate data. I used a concrete example because I wanted first to communicate how I used the term Faith. Hopefully you can see how my useage can be applied to any time you base action upon a belief. ( regardless of how well that belief represents reality ) Now if you will excuse me, ( or even if I don't ) I have some other things I deem in my self-interest to apply my rational mind, and faith upon.

Acting on my conclusions required faith.

Heh, just for the Record, I am not TCF (The Free Capitalist) Some of you have ask for some examples of where faith is employed. Let me think a moment.. Ok.. The other day I was driving across town in my van. While I was driving I noticed a white vapor coming out of the engine compartment. I also noticed a smell that seemed similar to engine coolant. Thirdly, I noticed the engine temperature rising. From these observations I concluded that the engine cooling system in my van had sprung a leak. Not wanting to damage my engine, I found a place to pull off the road. I then opened the hood and took a closer look at the engine. After looking at the engine, I was able to verify that it was in fact spewing steam, rather than some other white vapor. I didn't really want to leave it where it was, and I was fairly close to my home. Knowing now what the problem was, and considering the weather I hypothesized that I could drive the van the rest of the way home after letting it cool off some without it becoming hot enough to cause engine damage. I then used my faith in my reasoning by getting in the van and driving the rest of the way home. I didn't know prior to driving it home if my hypothesis was accurate. Thus it was not knowledge. It did not become knowledge until after I acted upon my faith, and my faith was validated by the van making it home without becoming dangerously hot. ( It did get to the high end of normal. )

I would say that your definition is in-accurate at best.

Reality may decide what is the actual truth, however if you cannot agree upon the definitions of the words you are using, ( semantics ) how can you describe it? Before we could come to an agreement upon faith being rational or irrational we first would need to come to an agreement upon what faith is. The definition of Faith I have seen so far from those claiming the title of Objectivist have been both reductionist and overly simplistic. You are no longer discussing Faith with a straw-man. Don't be surprised when the arguments that work against the straw-man are not compelling to the real thing.

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment.