Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Faith is Axiomatic

Rate this topic


Shylock

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"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.

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.

Thanks. I'll answer yours when you provide me a source for your claim about Rand's statement as I discussed previously. That or retract it.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Both the dictionary example (faith in a hypothesis) and the example Shylock gives later (faith in your legs working in the morning), are using faith to mean a rational expectation that something is likely to work. I violently disagree with that definition. There's nothing embarrassing about that point, and I used strong language to make it, in order to stress my aversion to that specific website, which rarely gets anything right. I'm in a brick house, in the middle of a forrest, with the light of the candle straight as an arrow, proudly pointing towards the sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Or should I just take it on faith? ......

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?

The source is the very contexts that the concept refers to and originated from. I dont personally care what is in a dictionary ,if it doesnt fit experience I discard it.

Again you are ignoring the fact that in EVERY example youve given you are enumerating a causal chain of events ,and /or providing examples of evaluated criteria for judgement.

This is NOT what faith is. Otherwise the differentiation between proof and arbitrary declaration is meaningless. Now there are folks who actually do believe in religious myths because they have msintegrated facts. Those are people who given the correct differentiation of the facts will discard those misintegrations. I know because Im an ex minister myself.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the dictionary example (faith in a hypothesis) and the example Shylock gives later (faith in your legs working in the morning), are using faith to mean a rational expectation that something is likely to work. I violently disagree with that definition. There's nothing embarrassing about that point, and I used strong language to make it, in order to stress my aversion to that specific website, which rarely gets anything right. I'm in a brick house, in the middle of a forrest, with the light of the candle straight as an arrow, proudly pointing towards the sky.

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,

B) An irrational blind belief in something for which there is no evidence?

Edited by Shylock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Thank you. Deciding to use the word "believe" should prove to Kendall once and for all that my point on the definition of faith was well made, and now I agree 100% with your example. It is also a good example of what a hypothesis is: a believe, by a rational person, in something he seeks to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. Deciding to use the word "believe" should prove to Kendall once and for all that my point on the definition of faith was well made, and now I agree 100% with your example. It is also a good example of what a hypothesis is: a believe, by a rational person, in something he seeks to prove.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

B) An irrational blind belief in something for which there is no evidence?

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.

Actually, he probably knows nothing(varying levels of success doesn't tell me anything about the methods-it could mean a positive or negative sum of success-I'll assume it's neutral or negative): that means his choice to use the services is B.

If however he were experienced enough, he would know that these methods don't work: then, he would choose rationally. Of course, his choice would be not to use them. A. would never be the answer.

However, if by "varying levels of success" you mean more good than bad, then any human being is perfectly capable of doing the math and realizing this, so it would be A.

To sum it up: I would need to know the exact nature of the medicine man's practices, in oreder to answer your question directly. I answered based on both possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Cheif lets not bring biblical etymology into this because all id have to do is point you to the definition of faith in Romans to make my point if I considered it "proof". "the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen" . Meaning that a persons belief/faith is the "evidence" that the thinged hoped for exists. In other words what ever i want to believe is true. The primacy of consciousness.

Causal expectation as with ALL concepts for Objectivist have percieved instances i.e. concretes as referents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now there are folks who actually do believe in religious myths because they have msintegrated facts. Those are people who given the correct differentiation of the facts will discard those misintegrations. I know because Im an ex minister myself.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wrong guy. I didn't use it. However, the definition you yourself asserted would indicate that such as the example you gave is faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the dictionary example (faith in a hypothesis) and the example Shylock gives later (faith in your legs working in the morning), are using faith to mean a rational expectation that something is likely to work. I violently disagree with that definition.

I understand that you disagree with the particular meaning, and that certainly does go to a relevant point. However, it is a valid definition. The fact is that belief and faith are used in that way interchangably. So you can sit and debate the "real" meaning of belief and faith, but that doesnt' address the point very well.

The point is that he is equivocating on two different definitions of faith. Calling his choice of definition or source "stupid" or "moronic" is irrelevant. The two definitions he provided, point out his problem perfectly adequately. It's not a choice of source that's the issue. All you need do is take his definition 1, and 2, and simply point out that they cannot be used interchangably. end of story. move on. Getting all up in his shit about belief and faith looks well, petty. It's scommon mistake that Objectivists make when working with definitions. Agreeing on definitions is difficult and not always necessary to debate someone. Understanding what meanings another is using is crucial to analyzing their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Kendall has decided to be so patient I'll add my unanswered question to his.

You claim faith is axiomatic so provide me with one example of it that can not be rationally and logically explained by anything but faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Its not faith because its based on my own experience of having done the same.

Now I will concede I should have written can instead of "will". The point being that the misintegration must be corrected first. This is all based on the point that there are some who consider religious belief a matter of "provable facts". When they realize the ,misintegrations the will be confronted with the error of this thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well, then your belief is not a hypothesis, it's an educated guess. However, you do admit that you could be wrong, so it's not faith.

As for the Bible quote, I happen to be familiar with it. In Christian mythology, Demons are condemned souls, they do not benefit from Jesus dying for their sins, the way humans do. As a result, while they do have an irrational belief in Jesus (and the fact that he died, was resurrected blah blah blah), meaning that they do have faith in him( here, faith meaning to believe in something without proof ), they are not loyal to him, and they do not trust him (here faith meaning loyalty or trust).

The quote basically is aimed at telling the faithful that it is not enough to believe the events in the Bible, you must also believe them to be good: which means trust in God's actions and loyalty to Him (or Jesus, as the case may be). But this trust -in the floods, plagues, suffering being good- is just as irrational, so you cannot go ahead and use the term in science. (like the dictionary I called stupid)

If I were to change a few words with exact matches, the quote would read:

" demons take Jesus's existence and deeds on faith, but they don't trust him" -wouldn't you agree this means the same thing?

I never disputed the fact that the word faith has several different meanings. However, trust and loyalty are less likely to be considered axioms than "irrational belief", so it made sense to think that you meant the latter. The fact that you used it to attack reason confirmed my assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheif lets not bring biblical etymology into this because all id have to do is point you to the definition of faith in Romans to make my point if I considered it "proof". "the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen" . Meaning that a persons belief/faith is the "evidence" that the thinged hoped for exists. In other words what ever i want to believe is true. The primacy of consciousness.

Causal expectation as with ALL concepts for Objectivist have percieved instances i.e. concretes as referents.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Ah, ok, then I would submit that are incorrect about the attribution. You could certainly claim to deny reason through the use of some other means (say revelation). An objectvist would claim that this is invalid. If you think that reason can be "rationally" denied, then of course you must use reason to do so, but that is nothing special, and it does not make reason axiomatic.

I think a better statement regarding reason that Rand did say is that it is the only method of cognition, i.e. of knowing something. Objectivism doesn't recognize any extra-rational means of knowing the universe. So, faith does not give one knowledge of God. That does not impart anything to the idea of faith to make it parallel. Faith is not axiomatic.

The Rational Theologian would say that God can be proven.

The Irrational Theologian would say that there are other means of knowing God (i.e. revelation, etc.)

So, if you say that God can be proven, then you're the first. Welcome to a millenia of attempts to do so without succeeding.

If you say God can only be "known" through faith, then I'd say "Good luck with that. We don't have much to debate."

Peru? Soy Boliviano, me padre era de Santa Cruz. Naci alla. Bienvenidos.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then your belief is not a hypothesis, it's an educated guess. However, you do admit that you could be wrong, so it's not faith.

As for the Bible quote, I happen to be familiar with it. In Christian mythology, Demons are condemned souls, they do not benefit from Jesus dying for their sins, the way humans do. As a result, while they do have an irrational belief in Jesus (and the fact that he died, was resurrected blah blah blah), meaning that they do have faith in him( here, faith meaning to believe in something without proof ), they are not loyal to him, and they do not trust him (here faith meaning loyalty or trust).

The quote basically is aimed at telling the faithful that it is not enough to believe the events in the Bible, you must also believe them to be good: which means trust in God's actions and loyalty to Him (or Jesus, as the case may be). But this trust -in the floods, plagues, suffering being good- is just as irrational, so you cannot go ahead and use the term in science. (like the dictionary I called stupid)

If I were to change a few words with exact matches, the quote would read:

" demons take Jesus's existence and deeds on faith, but they don't trust him" -wouldn't you agree this means the same thing?

I never disputed the fact that the word faith has several different meanings. However, trust and loyalty are less likely to be considered axioms than "irrational belief", so it made sense to think that you meant the latter. The fact that you used it to attack reason confirmed my assumption.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, ok, then I would submit that are incorrect about the attribution. You could certainly claim to deny reason through the use of some other means (say revelation). An objectvist would claim that this is invalid. If you think that reason can be "rationally" denied, then of course you must use reason to do so, but that is nothing special, and it does not make reason axiomatic.

I think a better statement regarding reason that Rand did say is that it is the only method of cognition, i.e. of knowing something. Objectivism doesn't recognize any extra-rational means of knowing the universe. So, faith does not give one knowledge of God. That does not impart anything to the idea of faith to make it parallel. Faith is not axiomatic.

The Rational Theologian would say that God can be proven.

The Irrational Theologian would say that there are other means of knowing God (i.e. revelation, etc.)

So, if you say that God can be proven, then you're the first. Welcome to a millenia of attempts to do so without succeeding.

If you say God can only be "known" through faith, then I'd say "Good luck with that. We don't have much to debate."

Peru? Soy Boliviano, me padre era de Santa Cruz. Naci alla. Bienvenidos.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Hebrews yes. My mistake its been a while-about eight years.

5287. hupostasis hoop-os'-tas-is from a compound of 5259 and 2476; a setting under (support), i.e. (figuratively) concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively):--confidence, confident, person, substance.

My man you are still not getting it. "foundation" granted it still make the point that the only foundation ones hope is on is his belief it is so. This is the very opposite of having causal expectation based on percieved identity.

I have quite unconventional views on science so its best we dont get into that one.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Alright, let's try this Kendall's way:

Here's the two meanings of the word faith:(as quoted by you-I'm going to leave out the examples, because they were written by a five year old:)

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing;

2. belief that is not based on proof;

First you say "Not all faith is religious." Here, you use faith to mean the (2.) definition.

Then, you say "People can have faith in their own abilities." Here you use faith to mean the (1.) definition.

Would you agree with my assessment, and that faith(1.) and faith(2.) are two very different concepts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

"Rational theologian" is an invalid concept. Like square-circles,no offense intended. The "belief" in god is irrational because it the acceptance of an invalid concept and unprovable arbitrary hypothesis.

You just expressed your article of faith. You "do not intend" because it is not possible ergo your "faith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...