Shylock

As I had previously mentioned, I have abandoned the thread and the forum entirely because of the thinly-veiled threat of censorship by the administrators. As such, I have posted on the Orwellian Nature of Objectivism in a censorship-free zone, which can be found at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5614.html I would have abandoned it entirely, except that I keep getting e-mails on the subject.

I hope that everyone believes I have behaved myself acceptably, respected the rules of the forum, and shown adequate courtesy for the other users. If I have offended anyone, I should like to apologize. I have recently received a private message from one of the administrative staff. This message has had a Chilling Effect on me and I have decided to discontinue frequenting this forum. My personal e-mail is a matter of public record. Should any of you wish to contact me, you should feel free to do so.

God, if he exists, could easily prove his own existence. Accordingly, I fall under the definition of a Rational Theologian. I do not, however, intend to try to prove his existence. When Rand said that reason is the only method of cognition, she made a statement of faith. Despite a lack of proof, she concluded that it was true. I don't happen to agree with her. I think that seeing something is an arational process that doesn't involve reason but which allows us to know the world around us. Faith does not impart knowledge. Faith imparts hope. Hope leads to action. The success or failure of that action either weakens or strengthens the faith. Example: Two farmers are growing identical crops. However, Farmer A's field is always better. Farmer B asks Farmer A what the secret is. Farmer A says it's because he uses ABC Fertilizing Spray 2-weeks after germination. If Farmer B chooses to apply ABC Fertilizing Spray in the future then he has exercised faith. Maybe ABC Spray is the key. Maybe it isn't. Soy estadounidense. Vivo aquí hace 5 años. Soy docente de inglés.

I think before we get into a deep discussion of why demons should or should not receive benefit of the expiación of Christ, we'd have to first agree that they exist at least for the sake of this argument. I don't know you, but I'm assuming you don't believe in demons. While I'm open to the idea that they exist, without having hard evidence one way or another, I don't see the point. The point of my post was to debunk the idea that by using the word 'belief' that I confessed that faith was irrational or mystical. Not all faith is religious. People can have faith in their own abilities.

BTW, that's in Hebrews. Reading it in the Greek helps you realize that the word 'substance' means 'foundation'. So if you take the text as true (for the sake of argument) then when a person says, "I hope John gets here soon..." that implies that he has faith since faith is defined as the foundation of hope. P.S. Have you ever seen an electron?

I respect your statement of faith that "people who are given the correct differentiation of the facts will discard those misintegrations." However, I believe that you are quite optimistic. I refer you to this chart of the results of the Gallup polls conducted on the creation/evolution debate: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=321 The most-recent numbers indicate that 44% of Americans believe that God created humans, as is, approximately 10,000 years ago. The other 56% believe in evolution in one form or another. These numbers have remained basically unchanged since January 1982 when the poll was first taken. Without bothering to delve into which side is right, we can simply conclude that no one is likely to budge anytime soon.

As used in the religious world, there is a difference between belief and faith. The difference is normally illustrated by reading James 2:19 of the Bible (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:19), which states that although demons believe in Christ they don't have faith in him. Faith is, therefore, defined as a hope, belief, or expectation that motivates someone to take a specific action. An archeologist who is convinced that Troy really existed and goes searching for it is exercising faith. I believe that Troy existed but I really have better things to do with my time than to try to find it and anyway I'm not well-qualified for that task.

Imagine that we have a man born in some poor tribal village in the Amazon jungle whose members are carefully isolated from modern society to ensure that they don't catch all of our diseases and die. He falls ill. He knows that his father, mother, and other people have used the services of the medicine man in the past with varying levels of success. The medicine man requires him to go without food and water for 2 days and also scares the evil spirits out of him. Is the hypothetical man's choice to use the services of the medicine man A) A rational expectation that something is likely to work; or, An irrational blind belief in something for which there is no evidence?

I hate to be nitpicky, but quoting from your previous post you claimed that faith was: "...defined as belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence. Evidence is not the same as proof.

Science is based on the scientific method. Observation - Hypothesis - Experimentation - Analysis - Conclusion I like the scientific method. However, I'm not aware that anyone has proven that it works. Nevertheless, scientists do place a lot of faith in it. So far it hasn't been disproven. That is not the same, however, as claiming that it has been proven. Ayn Rand's books are not generally available in Peru. Even if they were, they wouldn't be in my language. Accordingly, I can neither confirm nor deny anything she might have said. All my information is second-hand.

Like I guessed above, I figured you wouldn't be convinced. But let's take another less controversial subject. Someone claims that the city of Troy (as mentioned in the Illiad) really did exist and was sacked in a war with Greece. Can you really prove that it did or did not exist? Aren't we really looking at the evidence and choosing to either believe or not believe. We can't be 100% sure one way or another, can we?

I like your post. Let's take a theoretical example. Let's say that your friend(sister,cousin,workmate,whatever) invites you to there place on a Monday night to have dinner. Surprise surprise you see two 19-year-old guys with white shirts and little namebadges. You should have known by the bikes outside, I suppose, it's the Mormons. Lo and behold you find out that your gullible friend has recently converted and he is now presenting the gospel to you so you can get saved, too. You're in a good mood, so you play along for awhile for laughs. Now, I don't know you personally, but I'm figuring you for an athiest type (Ayn Rand was too, wasn't she?) so you challenge these guys to prove that God exists. Their answer is as follows: 1. Joseph Smith, Jr. (the founder of Mormonism) saw God in a miraculous vision in 18-- (I don't know the exact date). 2. His sidekick Oliver Cowdrey also saw God later in the temple they constructed (along with Joseph). 3. The two missionaries prayed to receive a miraculous confirmation and felt what they call the 'Holy Spirit' 4. Your friend(acquaintance?) also informs you that he had a miraculous dream in which he saw his deceased mother telling him that she had converted to Mormonism in the spirit world. 5. They provide you with a Book of Mormon whose opening page has the local bishop's account of miraculous confirmation of its truthfulness spelled out for you. Now, I don't know you personally, but I'm guessing that the evidence above-presented wouldn't be enough to convince you to join up to the Mormon faith (using a different definition of the word faith here) but I think that we can all realize that some people will find the evidence presented convincing. The above hypothetical situation is the primary conversion technique used by that church. It is not atypical. Born-Again Christians normally use a similar 'witnessing' technique to persuade people and I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't that far off from the same basic technique, either. Witnessing provides enough evidence to lead to faith. Faith causes the person to take specific actions (making donations, reading the Bible, whatever). The actions either lead to a better life and/or any improvement noted is attributed to the new activity despite the lack of proof of a causal connection. The improvements lead to an increase in faith and an increase in activity as the person becomes more and more convinced of the rightness of their path.

Your definition is faulty. How have you arrived at that definition? Let's take a real-world example, which I will proceed to treat lightly (as I'm not Catholic). To anyone who is offended, please accept my apology for any slight I might inadvertantly make. The Virgin of Guadalupe According to the story Juan Diego (his Christian name) was converted to Catholicism and later say a miraculous vision of the Virgin Mary, who instructed him to have a church built on that spot. After some trouble, he managed to relate his supernatural story to the local bishop who demanded proof of this vision. Later Juan Diego encountered the spirit(?) again and was instructed to take roses to the bishop as proof of the vision. Upon presenting these roses to the bishop they were both amazed to see an imagine of "La Virgen de Guadalupe" emblazoned on the mantle he had used to transport the flowers. That mantle has been preserved and the image is still visible without signs of deterioration. The Vatican recognized the miracle in 1745 and The Virgin of Guadalupe is widely recognized as the patron saint of Mexico. Thousands of people faithfully visit the shrine every year and some have claimed miracles as a result of their prayers there (drawn from http://www.cancunsteve.com/guadalupe.htm). Is this an account of faith? Absolutely. Is it "a belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence" ? According to the account, the validity of which I have not investigated, there is evidence on which the people base their belief in Guadalupe. Their belief may very well be completely wrong but it is not a belief for which there is no evidence.

Can you provide the source of this definition of faith as belief without causal justification? Or should I just take it on 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.