Faith is Axiomatic

[Plasmatic]

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?

One does not need the personal experience you are proposing in order to attempt persuation. One only needs to know what persuation is and that its possible. The "belief" is then based on percieved instances of the concepts one is applying in actions. Causal expectation.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

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.

You dont understand the concept of identity. The percieved essentials of the identity of the rational animal is all one needs. Perception of these essentials is the basis of ones expectation. This is NOT faith. Faith again is belief WITHOUT causal justification.

[Maarten]

True axioms are perceptually evident, but they can also be validated. I don't know how you propose to validate faith as a tool of cognition. It certainly can and has been done for reason: we've proven countless times that it IS man's means of cognition, of survival. How do you want to do that for faith? How does faith (defined as belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence) allow a man to do that?

[KendallJ]

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

There are 3 axioms: identity, existence, consciousness. Reason is not among them. Can you cite a source for this claim that Rand said Reason was axiomatic?

[Maarten]

There are 3 axioms: identity, existence, consciousness. Reason is not among them. Can you cite a source for this claim that Rand said Reason was axiomatic?

I don't think Rand said that, myself. But I think it still holds (perhaps as a derivative axiom or something). It's completely circular to attempt to justify reason through using reason, because you have to assume it before you can use it to prove it. That seems very similar in concept to how reality and identity and consciousness are axioms. Would it be fair to say that reason is a derivative axiom of consciousness? In other words, it's the axiom of consciousness applied to man?

[KendallJ]

I don't think Rand said that, myself. But I think it still holds (perhaps as a derivative axiom or something). It's completely circular to attempt to justify reason through using reason, because you have to assume it before you can use it to prove it. That seems very similar in concept to how reality and identity and consciousness are axioms. Would it be fair to say that reason is a derivative axiom of consciousness? In other words, it's the axiom of consciousness applied to man?

My personal opinion is that I don't think that is a correct characterization. But that is the trick to Shylock's equivocation of reason and faith. It is not true that you have to use reason to deny reason. That is only true in a specific context, and it is NOT because of the fact that reason is somehow axiomatic.

If you accept that premise, he has you.

[KevinDW78]

This thread is quickly descending into absurdity.

Faith and axioms, BY DEFINITION are opposites. Case closed.

Edited November 26, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Zip]

"what the enemies of reason seem to know, but its alleged defenders have not discovered, is the fact that *axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man's mind and the foundation of reason*--the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason --and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed." (p.60)

The axioms are existence, identity, and consciousness.

Shjylock's assertions are trying to obscure the axiom of identity, when he claims that people need faith to know that they can walk. A man qua man is able to walk based on the characteristics and composition of his physical body. It has nothing to do with faith, it is a matter of form and function. It is a part of his identity.

[Maarten]

I think a lot of people use the equivocation of rational meanings of "faith" with the irrational form of it to try and win arguments. There are a lot of instances where the word faith or belief is used where the person involved is NOT making an unreasoned choice. But then those instances are used to justify the use of faith in other situations where believing certain things IS bad.

Many ordinary people confuse rational beliefs and faith in everyday language, I think, and it adds greatly to the confusion of discussions such as this.

[RationalBiker]

Although their legs may have supported them in the past, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I don't know what any of these words mean. I don't have faith that they all mean the same thing they meant two second ago.

[Jake_Ellison]

Reason is not an axiom, but "axiom" is a logical concept, and faith is the anthitesis of reason and logic.

Saying faith is axiomatic is like saying a chair is a mammal, or the numer 5 is a vowel.

Again, check the definiton.

[Plasmatic]

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?

Nice try! You ask for "proof" which rest on the foundation of reason. Your attempt to discredit reason only expresses its relationship to proof and exposes the stolen concept in your question. It only shows the presupposition of reason when speaking of proof . This also highlights the contrast to faith which expresses the lack of proof.

[Nyronus]

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.

First: Learn your logical fallacies. You are conflating two very different uses of the term faith. When I am arguing about oranges, I can't arbitrarily jump between on definition (fruit) and the other (reflected light) in an attempt to prove I can nourish myself off of sunlight. Your saying confidence = belief without reality, when it is very much not so. You also throw non-sequiturs at us willy-nilly. Learn proper rhetoric and try again.

Second: Read some Ayn Rand. You are arguing from a straw-man most likely handed to you by someone who does not like/understand Ayn Rand. Either that, or you didn't get it right on your first go through. Learn what your talking about, and try again.

Third: Try not to make willy-nilly psycho-epistimelogical judgements about people you do not know. Especially if you aren't using the same language as them. This goes double if you don't know what your talking about on top of it. Stop telling us what we accept on faith and what we don't. You have no clue what your talking about. Learn to think, and try again.

[Hazmatac]

Amen Nyronus

[Jake_Ellison]

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.

Not only did you do selective googleing, until you've found a moronic website that backed up your idea of what the word means by a stupid example at (2) ( The correct version of that sentence would be: He believed that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.), but you left out even meanings that are closer to reality, which appeared on this website. That's dishonest.

Let's look at another, in my opinion more credible, definition at the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

We're obviously not talking about "loyalty", so that leaves these definitions:

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Perfectly clear, perfectly in tune with Peikoff's definition. (specifically 2b is contained in that definition)

You seem to be confusing the concept "faith" with "belief": Belief can be based on reason, as well as faith. In your previous examples, the belief you mistakenly call "faith" is actually based on reason(proof), not faith. (for instance, you believe, rather than have faith, in your legs working, because of proof: you've seen them work all your life, and nothing changed. Saying that one has faith in rational beliefs is in fact a mistaken use of the term, in proper English, and you wouldn't find it in older, prestigious works of literature.)

Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is the blind belief in something, as opposed to belief based on reason.

[Shylock]

You dont understand the concept of identity. The percieved essentials of the identity of the rational animal is all one needs. Perception of these essentials is the basis of ones expectation. This is NOT faith. Faith again is belief WITHOUT causal justification.

Can you provide the source of this definition of faith as belief without causal justification?

Or should I just take it on faith?

[KendallJ]

Not only did you do selective googleing, until you've found a moronic website that backed up your idea of what the word means by a stupid example at (2) ( The correct version of that sentence would be: He believed that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.), but you left out even meanings that are closer to reality, which appeared on this website. That's dishonest.

Let's look at another, in my opinion more credible, definition at the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

We're obviously not talking about "loyalty", so that leaves these definitions:

Perfectly clear, perfectly in tune with Peikoff's definition. (specifically 2b is contained in that definition)

You seem to be confusing the concept "faith" with "belief": Belief can be based on reason, as well as faith. In your previous examples, the belief you mistakenly call "faith" is actually based on reason(proof), not faith. (for instance, you believe, rather than have faith, in your legs working, because of proof: you've seen them work all your life, and nothing changed. Saying that one has faith in rational beliefs is in fact a mistaken use of the term, in proper English, and you wouldn't find it in older, prestigious works of literature.)

Faith is the opposite of reason. Faith is the blind belief in something, as opposed to belief based on reason.

This response completey befuddles me.

a. Shylock was answering someone else's call for a definition. He simply gave the one he was using.

b. he need not differentiate every other one in the list, if he needs to define how he's using the term. He doesn't have to provide an etymological analysis, just pick the ones he asserts he means. So not calling them all out is not necessarily dishonest.

c. "moronic" and "stupid"? Did you really think your point wouldn't stand unless you resorted to name calling? If you want to question the source, question the source.

d. so after all that. Shylock has said he's using 2 possible definitions. One of which is: "2. belief that is not based on proof". You then berate him and when you finally get to your preferred source for definitions, the one you think is closest to Peikoff's usage and it's " b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof ". Umm. whew, glad we used such a better source. I can see how the first definition is so "moronic." They left out "firm." Sounds like you're in violent agreement.

e. The example is valid. The word is used that way. Why not focus on agreeing on the distinction rather than berating for a non-existent lack of dictionary skills?

Yikes, you guys are embarasing. This guy has yet to prove himself a troll, and you guys are really, really out of line.

Edited November 26, 2008 by KendallJ

[KendallJ]

There are 3 axioms: identity, existence, consciousness. Reason is not among them. Can you cite a source for this claim that Rand said Reason was axiomatic?

Shylock, while everyone else is nitpicking you on dictionary definitions, your main claim about Rand rests on the premise I take issue with. Can you please provide a source, and if not, you're going to need to reforumulate your "Faith is axiomatic" line of thinking.

Everyone is correct in saying that what you are calling every day "faith" is not faith in the way you believe in God. They are two species, and two separate concepts you are equivocating. One is understanding known causal relationships, and the other is belief without proof. In Objectivism, identity (and hence causality) is axiomatic. It is not faith to see that things have specific natures, and behave in specific ways. I see that every day, in absolutely everything I sense. When certain causal realationships are known, it is not faith to expect them to hold. Nor is it faith to simply see that cause and effect simply are.

I once had a friend at dinner who proceed to grab the salt shaker and hold it under the table. She said "it takes faith to know where the salt shaker is." My reply was "even my dog (who proceeds to dig under the covers when he sees me hide his stuffy there) knows that's not faith."

Edited November 26, 2008 by KendallJ

[Shylock]

True axioms are perceptually evident, but they can also be validated. I don't know how you propose to validate faith as a tool of cognition. It certainly can and has been done for reason: we've proven countless times that it IS man's means of cognition, of survival. How do you want to do that for faith? How does faith (defined as belief in the absence of evidence, or belief contradicted by evidence) allow a man to do that?

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.

[KendallJ]

Your definition is faulty. How have you arrived at that definition?

Its the one you proposed. "Belief without proof."

[Jake_Ellison]

c. "moronic" and "stupid"? Did you really think your point wouldn't stand unless you resorted to name calling? If you want to question the source, question the source.

The website is moronic (look into it if you don't believe me, punch up a few definitions), and completely useless. The example is stupid: it seeks to illustrate the exact opposite of what it's supposed to illustrate: the difference between faith and belief.

If you look up the definition of both words(moronic and stupid), hopefully in a different place, you'll find that they fit quite nicely.

Your aversion to calling things what they are is strange, given your obvious intelligence and attention to detail.

I did however not insult Shylock, so there is no need for you to jump to his defence. In fact your decision to do so by dismissing my point is annoying me:

"He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." in a dictionary definition of "faith" is not a valid example: it suggests that faith, rather than rational belief, is used in scientific research.

Of course, I went further than that by saying something that I cannot prove, because it is a somewhat subjective (but widely held) opinion : using "to have faith" to replace "to believe", when it comes to rational ideas or plans such as a scientific hypothesis, is probably wrong, and bad writing at best. However, even though you said nothing to refute even this part of my argument (you just said the example was perfectly valid), it is not necessary to my larger point that the example is stupid: the attempt to link the word faith to the scientific method (in a dictionary of all places) is plenty proof of that.

That said, I consider the matter closed. I'm not going to sit here and explain words. It's really not a fun activity.

[KendallJ]

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.

Well in order for it to be valid evidence you have to walk through that causal chain. It has to be established. If you can't, then it's not actually evidence.

Your account is a bit like me saying, "yesterday I hit my head and when I did, I saw a bright flash of light. Therefore God." There is a huge gap in your reasoning and until you fill that gap, you don't actually have evidence. BY that logic I can claim anything around me is evidence for God. Oh, wait, that's what the Argument from Design is. It is completely arbitrary.

[Shylock]

Shylock, while everyone else is nitpicking you on dictionary definitions, your main claim about Rand rests on the premise I take issue with. Can you please provide a source, and if not, you're going to need to reforumulate your "Faith is axiomatic" line of thinking.

Everyone is correct in saying that what you are calling every day "faith" is not faith in the way you believe in God. They are two species, and two separate concepts you are equivocating. One is understanding known causal relationships, and the other is belief without proof. In Objectivism, identity (and hence causality) is axiomatic. It is not faith to see that things have specific natures, and behave in specific ways. I see that every day, in absolutely everything I sense. When certain causal realationships are known, it is not faith to expect them to hold. Nor is it faith to simply see that cause and effect simply are.

I once had a friend at dinner who proceed to grab the salt shaker and hold it under the table. She said "it takes faith to know where the salt shaker is." My reply was "even my dog (who proceeds to dig under the covers when he sees me hide his stuffy there) knows that's not faith."

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.

[KendallJ]

Your aversion to calling things what they are is strange, given your obvious intelligence and attention to detail.

I did however not insult Shylock, so there is no need for you to jump to his defence. In fact your decision to do so by dismissing my point is annoying me:

Well you might check your premises before you question my psychology. Dictionary's reflect usage. That is why they have so many options. The word is used that way. If you want to claim that it is not, then you need to provide some evidence. You may think it is a poor distinction, but that doesn't make the dictionary wrong for not articulating it. If you really want an etymological debate with the guy, maybe you should start with the OED.

"didn't insult"? uh huh. Shylock, the source you picked is moronic and stupid, but that doesn't say anything about you. Regardless, my question still stands. Why the need? Your point could have been made without it. It is gratuitous use of inflammatory language.

And finally regardless of all that crap, you guys have violently agreed on the definition you want to use. See, that's the really embarrasing part. After dressing him up and down, and calling his website moronic and stupid, when you put everything in the context of what he was trying do, it really doesn't amount to a very strong point. You're off in the weeds, bellowing.

Edited November 26, 2008 by KendallJ

[Shylock]

Well in order for it to be valid evidence you have to walk through that causal chain. It has to be established. If you can't, then it's not actually evidence.

Your account is a bit like me saying, "yesterday I hit my head and when I did, I saw a bright flash of light. Therefore God." There is a huge gap in your reasoning and until you fill that gap, you don't actually have evidence. BY that logic I can claim anything around me is evidence for God. Oh, wait, that's what the Argument from Design is. It is completely arbitrary.

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?