TruthVeritas

Then you are at odds, I assume, with evolutionists who constantly talk about how they wonder how the universe began. This is Dawkins question.

How do you view the fact that existance cannot come from non-existance? I ask in terms of considering that, as we know, life comes from life. As Dawkins said, there appears to be a designer but he rules it out by asking who designed the designer? However, he just drops it. Here is a syllogism to look at regarding existance. http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2009/...ponder-and.html What is your response? Also, this is dealt with in a discussion with Ben Stein and RC Sproul. http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/ (videos at top of page. It discusses chance as having no power). This seems to say that there has to be an eternal being.

To present the faith in the blind manner is only one kind of faith. As Softwarenerd says, "There is also a second meaning of faith, which is: confidence in a person or a plan. That is a very different meaning, and one has to be careful not to equivocate between faith in the sense of a non-observational, non logical attempt at getting knowledge versus faith in the sense of trusting someone. The latter can often be valid, particularly if one has faith in the findings of a person who has shown he never uses (philosophical) faith. " There are many who would say that their faith is not blind and to argue that it is would be a strawman fallacy. There is no question that reason works within the parameters that it sets. Of course the use of reason is not faith. To say that those who are not athiests all have a blind faith and reject reason seems illogical, unless you can really prove ALL. Reason is not faith. One could argue that it takes faith to use Objectivism to rule out possibilities and truth that are clearly outside the parameters of reason. To say that something seems beyond reason and therefore should not be viewed with any reason seems invalid.

If there is virtue and evil (Rand used this term to refer to the evils of conservatism during an interview from the 70s), there are definitions for such. In a world where man is neither inherently good or evil, the definition of good and evil depends on who defines it. For example, Aristotle has his definition, a Christian has his, a muslim has his, etc. Objectivism makes its own claim of virtue but it is dependent on their definition of man and his place in the world. Ultimately, they decide all from reason. But this does limit the whys that you can ask. You say it does not take faith to limit yourself to your finite paramaters but I would question that. You say there is nothing about your system that takes faith. However, unless you believe in aliens, you would probably say there are no aliens. We might all say that there are no aliens because we have no knowledge of them (other than unsubstantiated claims) but ultimately we accept that on faith (even if the tiniest amount of faith)since we cannot ultimately prove it.

In her own words, during interviews, Rand calls, Conservatives, among others, evil. Rand discusses virtue.

What you ar saying is quite obvious to me. No, I am not saying "how man gains knowledge of what exists." How does one determine that there is no life after death, since one would first need to die in order to determine if he is correct that there is no life after death. If man states there no God b/c he does not see that he exist, is he not declaring himself sovereign? Additionally, does it not take faith to assume that man is inherently good, that he will, with the right training be able to create a utopian society?

Misnomer on my part...I mean tautologies: A is A, etc. What about the other questions?

Point taken. I see that there is reason to see a force in the world beyond man, HOWEVER, I am drifting from what I really want to ask. I will attempt to get closer to the heart of what I am asking... You mentioned that all reason is ultimately based on basic, innate truths. I would assume these are definitions. Doesn't this limit one in seeing beyond what one can study beyond these building blocks? What about the "whys" of life. How does one determine that there is no life after death, since one would first need to die in order to determine if he is correct that there is no life after death. If man determines life based on reason, down to these innate building blocks, and states there is nothing else, is he not declaring himself sovereign? Additionally, does it not take faith to assume that man is inherently good, that he will, with the right training be able to create a utopian society? Also, no one has yet answered the following: If one holds that man has evolved, it is reasonable to assume that his mind is still evolving. Can one ultimately trust that what an evolving brain tells you is true?

To say that the Bible is the above, is a statement that requires proof. Also, in my argument, I said IF...IF all my statements were true, would it be an act of faith for Rand to say that there is no God.

If faith is defined as "belief without proof", doesn't one take it on faith that humans are the source of all truth, rather than God? If someone says, "I accept my worlview on reason" isn't one saying, "I believe reason is the way to view all reality." Is it not a statement of faith to say that one cannot step outside of one's brain and attack it? If there is something more than a human mind to define the world, it would be logical to reason in light of the "something more". For example, SoftwareNerd provided a secondary, potentially valid definition of faith. He says this secondary definition can be valid "particularly if one has faith in the findings of a person who has shown he never uses (philosophical) faith." If the God of the Bible is real, by SoftwareNerd's definition, it is valid to put one's faith in Him, since said God does not use faith. If one accepts the Bible's claim that God is truth, God would never exercise faith. Thus, is it not reasonable to accept such a God? Does it not take faith to reject such a God (one that is reasonable to accept)? If it does, than Rand would be guilty of exercising faith.

Is it not a statement of faith to say that one cannot step outside of one's brain and attack it? It seems to be saying, I can evaluate all reality but I cannot be evaluated for any limits in defining that reality. How would anyone critique the argument at the end of this article on Ayn Rand and Objectivism? http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2009/...bjectivism.html

Oops, don't know how that showed up as a separate line. Anyway, if anyone could provide a few differences to the above question regarding the manner in which Objectivism would suggest where a truly indogent person would seek assistance (as compared to the person with a Biblical worldview).

*** Mod's note: Split from another thread. - sN *** I am new to learning about the differences between Objectivism and Biblical Christianity as it is applied to a system of political philosophy. I ask as I am a blog editor and recently provided some excellent Ayn Rand quotes. My next post will include a brief biography and list of her works and philosophy. I would like to compare and contrast her worldview to that of a Christian, particularly the system Objectivism would provide in providing assistant to the truly indogent.

*** Mod's note: Split from with another thread and merged into this one. *** I don't see how one must reasonably recognize that every philosophical view point, at some level (albeit some deeper than most) has a faith. Does one not take it on faith that reason is the "entity" (faith in the validity of reason) to be followed. For example, if one holds that man has evolved, it is reasonable to assume that his mind is still evolving. Can one ultimately trust that what an evolving brain tells you is true?