Reason vs. faith as tools of cognition?

[Toolboxnj]

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. 

Oh, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not a philosophy student particularly, but I know Plato, Hobbes, a little Hume, Kant, Decartes, Hegel, Aristotle.. basically the big guys that everyone seems to know. I've taken classes and read on political philosophers like Locke, Marx, Mill, etc.

I lack the technical terminology, is what I was trying to say. I know about the ideas on a cursory level except for a couple mentioned above.

You are right, though, that a history of philosophy would do me well be it a book or tape set (if they weren't so expensive).

[mweiss]

I was having a discussion on another forum about this very same matter and I got an interesting reply back. This goes back to my earlier understanding of dimensional universe, that being the assumption that there are various dimensions of existence and that life on the lower dimensions cannot perceive live on the higher dimensions.

One example was a British essay called "The Flatlands People", which talked about a hypothetical 2-dimensional world. They existed as if on a sheet of paper. If you drew a line on the paper, dividing their population, they would be cut off from their brethren. If an elephant stepped into their flat world, they would perceive only the circumference of his feet. If his trunk touched the surface of their world, they would perceive it as a separate entity touching down. Their perception of the elephant's shape would be very limited and inaccurate in a 3D world.

I think that what the gentleman quoted below is trying to point out is that our dimension may not be the final word. We may exist on a hierarchy and there may be additional dimensions. (If anything, one day mathematicians may prove the existence of a 4th and higher dimension; I recall reading that they already have demonstrated it through math.) If a god exists, then such a being would have to be in another dimension than ours. The quote talks about AI, and how AI would perceive the programmer that created AI. I think this is a fascinating argument.:

The contradiction you are describing is accurate as long as you assume that the universe is all there is. By "universe" I am using that term to describe the system of matter arrangement, physical properties, flows of energy and inhabited life. This is a working system; each piece working together to define the whole.

If you allow for the possibility for other, non-universe systems; your argument stating that no consciousness can exist from non-existence makes a fatal logical error. By stating this, you assume that all consciousness must be constrained by the system that we observe to be the universe. If there are other systems out there unknown to us that do not include the working universe model, then it is safe to say that consciousness can exist within a separate system that is independent of this particular system and therefore existed before there was consciousness within this system.

I'll give you an example of this in action... Let's say that I am a programmer. I create a system of computer based logic that is similar to what was shown in the movie "The Matrix". Before this system was created, I still existed. But from the A.I.'s perspective, there is only non-existence before I actually create this computer based system. Once I create a computer A.I. system, then from the A.I.'s perspective, time and all of existence has begun. From the A.I's perspective, I, the programmer, existed before time and so would have always existed. I operate in an entirely different system and what is required for the A.I. system to operate is non applicable in my world.

So it is possible for there to be a consciousness before there was a human consciousness or any other consciousness in the universe. If this original consciousness is part of a completely independent system...

Too often we judge God by the world in which we live. We try to define Him based upon what we can observe and understand.The system that we live in is not the same as the system that God exists in. What we logically judge as impossible, is actually possible once you transcend to the point of accepting that God is not dependant upon the variables of this world system because He can exist in a different system that is independent of the world in which we find ourselves constrained. According to Jesus, it is God's will for us to begin to learn and understand the system in which He lives. Apparently His world is a much better place...

[TomL]

If this whole concept were true, then it would be completely unknowable by any process which exists as a result of our system.

To use the example of "The Matrix", there is no way for the people inside it to know they are inside it. There is no way within their daily lives, the sense perceptions, the thoughts they have on them -- to come to the conclusion that there is another system.

So how can you come to that very conclusion from within this system?

If something is supernatural, then it is necessarily unknowable by reason, and thus reason cannot postulate the supernatural. Only imagination can do so.

[mweiss]

Well, yes, only the imagination can conjur up such a concept as a diety, but in this example that I quoted above, let's arbitrarily state that the programmer wanted the AI beings to know of his existence. By a number of means, he would insert that information into the programming, ie., "your creator exists, so worship me."

We know that there is a Bible and 40 Books of Moses, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature out there. These documents, ostensibly, were written by man, but he would have had quite some imagination to dream it all up.

Of course, I have a theory of my own, and it came about when I read "Chariots of the Gods" and two other books in the early 1970s, which talked about alien visitors to our planet. Some of the scriptures, interpretated a certain way, could describe the visit of beings in ships. "From out of the head of the god, came many lesser gods," to paraphrase one passage.

I've gotten rather rusty over the past 37 years after reading the bulk of the Objectivist books, and I am just starting to get back to reading them again, but I am unable to think of a good refutation of his argument at present.

[TomL]

Name the evidence that was inserted by god(s) into our system to clue us in. There isn't any. A book is just a book, it doesn't prove anything. Certainly man has produced far more vast volumes of fiction than just the Bible/Books of Moses/Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't see as how they count as evidence inserted by the supernatural things, just because they claim to be sourced from them.

If they created this system and they wanted us to worship them, why wouldn't they create the system to ensure worship? What difference would it make how they manipulated the system to obtain worship, if in the end it is all just manipulation (whether it be through divine books and their creation of "volition", or inherent in our DNA)?

Why would anyone capable of creating such a system waste time doing so? What purpose would it serve? In "The Matrix", the purpose was to use human beings as a source of electricity (as horribly inefficient and unrealistic as that is, the authors still realized that the system must have a purpose). What's the purpose of our system? To provide worship for the almighty? What's the point of creating a robot than bows in front you?

[Richard Roark]

Wizards Ninth Rule States:

A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole. To believe in a contradiction is to abdicate your belief in existence of the world around you and the nature of the things in it, to instead embrace any random impulse that strikes your fancy—to imagine something is real simply because you wish it were.

“Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men.

[softwareNerd]

... Bible and 40 Books of Moses, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature out there. ...ostensibly, were written by man, but he would have had quite some imagination to dream it all up.

These books are hardly extraordinary in the pantheon of world literature. Many (perhaps all) cultures have curious myths and legends. I'm not sure if you are saying that these books are possibly true because they include things that are miraculous. Literature is full of more realistic and less realistic stories. What makes the biblical ones any more real?

"Chariots of the Gods" and two other books in the early 1970s, which talked about alien visitors to our planet.

I think it was this book -- many, many years ago where the author presented (among other things) the large Easter island rock formations as (one piece of) evidence that machines had been used (presumably by space creatures). Years later, I read about a researcher who promised to pay some fairly primitive villagers if they would erect something similar. And they did...with no modern machines.

I am unable to think of a good refutation of his argument at present.

The onus of proof is not on you. People who make claims about other dimensions and offer no proof, are being induced to do so by little green gremlins that sit on their shoulders and cannot be sensed by any human means.

[mweiss]

Excellent responses, from all of you. I especially like the "Faith is a device of self-delusion" argument. This is the argument I have believed for much of my life.

That being said, I get the impression that all the responses here have not addressed the issue of multiple dimensions. While I understand the notion of not bothering with the rediculousness of making a robot whose purpose is to bow before you, still no one offered discussion in the context of multiple planes of existence. I will have to research the scientific data on 4th dimensional existence (supposedly it was demonstrated in mathematics) to back my theory, but has no one here read anything on multiple dimensions in the universe? This is a topic that I am fascinated with to some extent because it is the only means by which a god-like being could exist without our ability to directly apprehend its existence with our senses.

It is theorized by some scientists, that advanced extraterrestrials exist in the fourth dimension, and their incredible maneuvers appear extraordinary to use in the 3 dimensional world, but are quite ordinary in a 4th dimensional world.

I have never witnessed a UFO myself, but I don't deny categorically that they might exist. The universe is a huge space, with millions of planets that can sustain life. The statistical odds of there being intelligent life out there are more than zero, in my opinion.

That said, softwareNerd offered an interesting example where the "evidene" was manufactured. Can you point me to a reference for that information? You've picqued my curiousity about this. If this is happening around the world--if the pyramids, the crop circles, the lines in the desert are all fabrications, then all the talk of extraterrestrials may be just one big hoax. But it seems that would be too much of an organized conspiracy.

One other possibility: human civilization was, at one time far advanced from what it is today. But that's just a wild conjecture on my part.

What makes the biblical books more real than the literature books? It would be their suppsed origin. But I don't believe these books came from any god.

As much as I like to refute the existence of a diety, I still remain unconvinced that a situation like the one I quoted the other guy on at the start of my participation in this thread could not exist. It would explain why we are not aware of God or could not perceive God directly. Maybe I'm just not getting your points here, but perhaps someone else can explain it from another angle and make it clear to me.

I'm disturbed by the multiple dimension theory!

[softwareNerd]

...softwareNerd offered an interesting example where the "evidence" was manufactured. Can you point me to a reference for that information? You've picqued my curiousity about this. If this is happening around the world--if the pyramids, the crop circles, the lines in the desert are all fabrications, then all the talk of extraterrestrials may be just one big hoax. But it seems that would be too much of an organized conspiracy.

I wish I could give you a reference, but I never bothered to remember where I read it. You see, it is not really necessary. If you put your mind to it, you will see that it can be done without machines. Take the pyramids as an example: is it your contention that if you were to be given the tools (and the hordes of workers) of ancient Egypt, you would not know how to construct them? If so, fine. But, how about "a Howard Roark" of that time; would he be stumped too? [Aside: Maybe we should start a "building a pyramid" thread in "Miscellaneous".] There is a T.V. show (probably BBC) where teams get together an try to make various ancient devices, using tools of those times.

As for crop circles, what is amazing about them? As for lines in the landscape... ask a geologist for theories... things like glaciers. As for symmetry in such things... would it be more convincing if a glacier wiggled along? My point is that these things are far less amazing than (say) the symmetry of a snowflake or the complexity of the human body. If these latter are held up as evidence of God (as many do) or of space-invaders (as some do) that is understandable. The ancients could be excused for believing in "intelligent design"; but, even they knew that pyramids were man-made.

If you'd like to research, I'd suggest books by James Randi and others who call themselves "skeptics". Also, the recent "Penn and Teller: Bullshit" show on the Showtime channel could be interesting. Maybe John Stossel has done a show or two about such things; I don't know for sure.

That being said, I get the impression that all the responses here have not addressed the issue of multiple dimensions..

I notice you did not address my theory about green gremlins. I wonder why you consider it less worthy of comment.

[B. Royce]

mweiss, you make a strange statement: "As much as I like to refute the existence of a diety..." It sounds like an ongoing process that never reaches a conclusion. Is that true?

[JMeganSnow]

Excellent responses, from all of you. I especially like the "Faith is a device of self-delusion" argument. This is the argument I have believed for much of my life.

Believed? On what basis?

That being said, I get the impression that all the responses here have not addressed the issue of multiple dimensions. While I understand the notion of not bothering with the rediculousness of making a robot whose purpose is to bow before you, still no one offered discussion in the context of multiple planes of existence. I will have to research the scientific data on 4th dimensional existence (supposedly it was demonstrated in mathematics) to back my theory, but has no one here read anything on multiple dimensions in the universe? This is a topic that I am fascinated with to some extent because it is the only means by which a god-like being could exist without our ability to directly apprehend its existence with our senses.

I've also heard it said that God may exist before the universe is created or in black holes because we can never observe what exists under those conditions. It remains an arbitrary statement until there is some observable evidence. Removing the evidence from the realm of observation is a null argument.

Simply because something is mathematically internally consistant does not mean that it exists in reality. Mathematics is a concept of METHOD, if you put bad information in, you will get bad information out regardless of the level of internal consistency you exercise. Objectivist physicists often have some amusing things to say about the current state of that science.

I have never witnessed a UFO myself, but I don't deny categorically that they might exist. The universe is a huge space, with millions of planets that can sustain life. The statistical odds of there being intelligent life out there are more than zero, in my opinion.

This is a result of a confusion in what constitutes a possibility. Something is "possible" only if there is SOME evidence supporting it and NO evidence against it. Statistical probability is not proof. It may be incredibly unlikely that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. But it still may be true. The only way to know is to look.

There isn't even positive evidence that there are millions of planets; astronomers have only recently been able to detect them with any degree of reliability.

That said, softwareNerd offered an interesting example where the "evidene" was manufactured. Can you point me to a reference for that information? You've picqued my curiousity about this. If this is happening around the world--if the pyramids, the crop circles, the lines in the desert are all fabrications, then all the talk of extraterrestrials may be just one big hoax. But it seems that would be too much of an organized conspiracy.

SoftwareNerd was NOT pointing to an example where the evidence was manufactured, he was demonstrating that the claims that primitive tribes could not have built the Easter Island monuments are false. There are similar claims of this kind about every major ancient monument, "Oh, primitive Egyptians could never have moved those huge blocks!" Sorry, but they did. It's not a hoax. Except the crop circles, those were PROVEN to be a hoax, carried out by two guys with a board and some rope, and a bunch of copycats! It's a sad statement on the irrationality of these UFOlogists, that two guys with a rope becomes this fantastical alien civilization. Yeesh.

One other possibility: human civilization was, at one time far advanced from what it is today. But that's just a wild conjecture on my part.

What makes the biblical books more real than the literature books? It would be their suppsed origin. But I don't believe these books came from any god.

Once again, believe on what basis? Do you mean, I could claim that my writing is divinely inspired and it suddenly carries much more weight than other writings?!

There is also no proof that human society was once more advanced than today, again, arbitrary.

As much as I like to refute the existence of a diety, I still remain unconvinced that a situation like the one I quoted the other guy on at the start of my participation in this thread could not exist. It would explain why we are not aware of God or could not perceive God directly. Maybe I'm just not getting your points here, but perhaps someone else can explain it from another angle and make it clear to me.

I'm disturbed by the multiple dimension theory!

It doesn't matter whether it COULD exist, show us some proof that it DOES. It's not POSSIBLE until you have SOME evidence.

[Bryan]

I've gotten rather rusty over the past 37 years after reading the bulk of the Objectivist books, and I am just starting to get back to reading them again, but I am unable to think of a good refutation of his argument at present.

The refutation is that the argument is arbitrary. There is no evidence for or against it. Until either positive or negative evidence is provided, the argument isn't worth consideration, it is simply blind speculation.

I could spend the rest of my day coming up with my own theories about the nature of the universe and they wouldn't be any more or less valid than anybody else's arbitrary theories. Here's one: our entire universe is completely contained in an atom that makes up a piece of hair on the back of a super-giant-macro dog. Prove that it's not!

[Gabriel_S]

I was having a discussion on another forum about this very same matter and I got an interesting reply back. This goes back to my earlier understanding of dimensional universe, that being the assumption that there are various dimensions of existence and that life on the lower dimensions cannot perceive live on the higher dimensions.

One example was a British essay called "The Flatlands People", which talked about a hypothetical 2-dimensional world. They existed as if on a sheet of paper. If you drew a line on the paper, dividing their population, they would be cut off from their brethren. If an elephant stepped into their flat world, they would perceive only the circumference of his feet. If his trunk touched the surface of their world, they would perceive it as a separate entity touching down. Their perception of the elephant's shape would be very limited and inaccurate in a 3D world.

I think that what the gentleman quoted below is trying to point out is that our dimension may not be the final word. We may exist on a hierarchy and there may be additional dimensions. (If anything, one day mathematicians may prove the existence of a 4th and higher dimension; I recall reading that they already have demonstrated it through math.) If a god exists, then such a being would have to be in another dimension than ours. The quote talks about AI, and how AI would perceive the programmer that created AI. I think this is a fascinating argument.:

This argument is really just a gussied up version of Plato's Myth of the Cave. The inhabitants of Abbott's Flatland are really just the poor shackled men starring at shadowy reflections on the wall in Plato's cave. Abbott merely updates the metaphor with scientific sounding terminology (argument from authority among others). If you can answer Plato then you should have no problem with Abbott. If you can't, well, then that's a whole 'nother story.

Some of the follow-up posts pretty much just recount threads of Plato once again, Descartes' evil demon, Kant's dual world, and some modern thought experiments, such as Hilary Putnams' Brains in a Vat (in Reason, Truth and History), and so on. For the most part, they are all themes on a few basic ideas. Nothing really new here. Certainly nothing that hasn't already been addressed, and fully answered or discredited by Objectivism.

[Hal]

I'll give you an example of this in action... Let's say that I am a programmer. I create a system of computer based logic that is similar to what was shown in the movie "The Matrix". Before this system was created, I still existed. But from the A.I.'s perspective, there is only non-existence before I actually create this computer based system. Once I create a computer A.I. system, then from the A.I.'s perspective, time and all of existence has begun

This is just playing with words. Either existence means 'everything that exists' in which case it is simply wrong to say that existence 'for the AI' started at the time he programmed it, or it means something more limited in which case he isnt using the word in the same way as Ayn Rand. If I define existence to be 'the reality of human civilization' then I can correctly say that existence came into being 10000 years ago, but I have said nothing whatsoever about existence in the Objectivist sense of the word. Existence (in this sense) doesnt mean 'the existence of a particular world/dimension/system/whatever' - it means quite literally everything that exists (to put it into his language, "the set of objects you would have to quantity over in order to fully describe the conjunction of every single universe or 'non universe system'"). Edited April 1, 2005 by Hal

[HaloNoble6]

And as for any conflict between reason and faith, I would posit that there isn't any conflict---Catholicism teaches that the two are complementary, not opposed. It's a false dichotomy.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this statement. In your replies, please be very clear as to your definition of "faith" and "reason."

[JMeganSnow]

I would like to point out, as an aside, that Catholicism does NOT teach that the two are complementary, this is the result of the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Catholicism ALSO contains famous quotes such as credo quius absurdum "I believe it BECAUSE it is absurd". Catholicism is NOT an integrated philosophy.

[Hal]

I would like to point out, as an aside, that Catholicism does NOT teach that the two are complementary, this is the result of the writings of Thomas Aquinas. 

Which are part of Catholicism.

[drewfactor]

Faith being the belief in something by a means other than reason, or belief that contradicts a conclusion obtained by reason, indicates an irrreconcilable split. Take the biblical claim that man was created 6000 years ago. Reason, by observation and scientific analysis disputes this claim, so you have to choose one or the other: faith or reason, as your means of knowledge. If you still maintain that God created man (as the bible claims) and you claim that faith and reason can coexist, you start to rationalize the evidence with the faith-based claim. Hence, many people will still believe that God created man, but the bible must not be taken literally, so evolution can then be called a means of creation. Unfortunately, as more and more evidence piles up to contradict your faith-based claim, it becomes more and more arbitrary, and therefore less connected to reality. In today's world of skepticism, people just say, "you never can really know anything for sure" and then just continue to have faith because of tradition, because they feel it's true, or because they want it to be true etc...

[Hal]

Even when religion and science dont directly conflict over matters of fact, there are methological conflicts. It simply doesnt make sense for someone to base their beliefs on 'facts and logic' 6 days a week, and then claim something is 'true because its in the Bible' on Sunday.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Hal

[JMeganSnow]

Which are part of Catholicism.

Yes, they are, which is (part of the reason) why Catholicism isn't integrated. From my own personal knowledge and having discussed with a Thomist or two, I've realized that, if you're liberal in your interpretations, Catholicism can be taken to "mean" almost ANYTHING.

[drewfactor]

What is a Thomist? Is it someone who adheres to the ideas of Thomas Aquinas?

[JMeganSnow]

What is a Thomist?  Is it someone who adheres to the ideas of Thomas Aquinas?

Yes; to his attempt to blend Aristotle with Catholicism.

[TomL]

Reason: the mental process using one's sense organs in order to perceive facts of reality, integrate the material by means of logic, and formabstractions (concepts) to build knowledge beyond the perceptual level.

Faith: The mental process of using imagination in order to fill in the gaps in one's knowledge where no sense data or other known valid abstractions appear to be relevant, in order to fill an emotional need for filling the gap.

It's no suprise that AqAd would call this a "false dichotomy" and then not even bother to identify the third (or more) alternatives.

The fact is, if you aren't using "reason", then there's no other way to come to a conclusion of any kind other than by "faith". And if you accept that you can come to valid conclusions using both, then how do you decide when to use reason and when to use faith? What is it that controls the "switch" between the two?

Reason cannot. There no is no way to use reason to choose to use faith. There is no sense data and no process of logic which can result in the conclusion "Use faith here, but not there." Only faith can do that, and that means that if any "faith" is present in one's reasoning or arguments, then "faith" will always have primacy over "reason".

[MisterSwig]

And as for any conflict between reason and faith, I would posit that there isn't any conflict---Catholicism teaches that the two are complementary, not opposed. It's a false dichotomy.

Catholics teach it ... therefore it's true? Hrm. Now that's a unique argument that I've never heard before.

[BurgessLau]

[...] please be very clear as to your definition of "faith" [...]

Forget late-comers like Jerome, Thomas, and John Paul II. Go to The Holy Bible, at least in one of its life-forms, "The Revised Standard Version." Specifically turn to "The Letter to the Hebrews," Chapter 9, Verse 1:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

That passage states the how and what of faith. "Conviction" here means belief, so this verse is saying, in part, that faith is belief in things unknown through sense-perception. That is the what of faith.

Then how does one decide what to believe? The first part of the verse answers that: By looking inwardly at your hopes -- in other words, wishful "thinking."

Summary: Faith is believing in what you want to happen, when no evidence based on sense-perception would support such a belief.