Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The "reason requires faith" argument

Rate this topic


mb121

Recommended Posts

How do you defeat this:

Reason requires faith. How do you know it is correct? You have faith for it. Thus, faith shouldn't be discredited as a form of knowledge.

As an anologous question: How do you know a yardstick measures a yard? You might say "because it's a yardstick!" but that doesn't answer the question.

So, to sum it up, I ask "doesn't reason require faith?" and you declare "no, because it's reason!" (just like "it's a yardstick!")

Defining faith as the "lack of reason" doesn't answer this objection!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason is the faculity that identifies and integrates he material provided by mans senses.
- Ayn Rand. VOS

That is it takes the facts of reality perceived by the senses, and integrates them into mans knowledge, knowledge of reality. It discards arbitary beleifs that are inconistent with reality.

Faith in this context is the arbitary beleif in whatever one wishes, based not on analysis of reality but whatever one feels should be the case. They do not mean faith as in confidence, or else they would not bring it up as a basis of knowledge.

Faith is the antithesis of reason. To exercise faith is to abandon reason as a source of knowledge and to seek the truth based on whatever you beleive to be so, making a rational, reasoned identification of reality impossible on a consisetent basis. Anyone that claims that faith is needed for reason wants to disguise a system of delusional, arbitary beleif in the respectability of a consistent , approach to identifiying fact.

Ask them how forming a system of ideas without needing to analyse reality is consistent with reason, which is based on analysis of reality and rejection of arbitary beleifs. The two are inconsistent, embracing one can never further the other. if they dont see that ,then I suggest you stop dealing with that person if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason requires faith. How do you know it is correct? You have faith for it. Thus, faith shouldn't be discredited as a form of knowledge.
You might want to read OPAR, which develops the basis of knowledge in a clear way. Perhaps the first thing to ask is, what do the concepts "know" and "correct" refer to? If you're dealing with actual people who are raising this objection at you, you have to distinguish between nihilist nay-sayers and people who are at least somewhat interested in using reason. If they have an automatic reply "but you always have to have faith to know anything", then you should change the topic to gardening. Once a person accepts that it is possible to have knowledge, and that there is a difference between actual knowledge (being correct) and error, and that furthermore it is at least sometimes possible to distinguish between knowledge and error, then you have the foundation for a discussion that is based on reason. But if your opponent is axiomatically committed to the non-existence of knowledge or the impossibility of using reason to gain knowledge, then, axiomatically, you can't persuade them to drop one of more of their axioms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one of the lectures by Leonard Peikoff, he was asked how he was sure that reason was the only means of knowledge. He said something along the lines of, "I had a dream about it. Is that an acceptable answer? If not, then are you looking for a logical answer of why reason is the only means of knowledge?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason requires faith. How do you know it is correct? You have faith for it. Thus, faith shouldn't be discredited as a form of knowledge.

How do I know what is correct? How do I know that reason integrates my sensations in accordance with the facts of reality? How do I know that my sensations are accurate and the only means of discovering reality? What is the question here?

If faith is a form of discovering reality then by what method does it seperate that which is true from that which isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If faith is a form of discovering reality then by what method does it seperate that which is true from that which isn't?

"It doesn't," they will say, "it just gives us a starting point."

"You can't say that reason is the only thing we have of discovering reality since to believe in it IS FAITH!"

...And these people will not buy my assertion that "faith is the lack of reason" because they keep insisting that reason requires faith. How can I explain this to them better?

Edited by mb121
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It doesn't," they will say, "it just gives us a starting point."

"You can't say that reason is the only thing we have of discovering reality since to believe in it IS FAITH!"

...And these people will not buy my assertion that "faith is the lack of reason" because they keep insisting that reason requires faith. How can I explain this to them better?

It sounds like you are having a debate whether reason is man's only means of knowledge. What is a debate? It is two people attempting to employ reason through persuasive rhetoric to prove a point. If your interlocuter demands you to give him a reason why he should believe in reason (since otherwise to rely on it is faith), then you have already won the debate. If your interlocuter still insists that reason requires faith, then he is honestly not worth arguing with, unless if your goal is to influence a third party. It is impossible to change the mind of someone who refuses to listen to reason.

For your own amusement, you can also ask him why he has faith just to see if he offers you a reason. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mb121, Does this person accept that reality exists, or does he think that reality is something that we just make up in our minds? If he accepts reality (at least concrete reality, if not abstractions) does he accept that keeping one's eyes open, feeling things with one's hands, listening, smelling and ways of perceiving reality?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamentalist viewpoint explains this question quite nicely.

Reason

Every reasonable or "rational" belief must be supported by other reasonable beliefs, which in turn must be supported by futher reasonable beliefs, and so on.... The nature of this seems to necessitate an infinite amount of reasonable beliefs; however, the fundamentalist viewpoint says that at the foundation of this system of beliefs are certain "Properly Basic Beliefs" that require no further beliefs for suppport.

Faith-Belief without proof. Proof-evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true

How can certain beliefs be reasonable/rational without furhter support? The existent epistemological answers to this question are quite convincing. The criteria for a properly baisc belief, depending on which specific theory you agree with, is that the belief must be a self-evident axiom, evident to the senses, incorrigible, or consistent with a sensible worldview. Here enlies the answer to the question, "does reason require faith?". Because all beliefs are derived from one or more properly basic beliefs, than every derivate belief requires a properly baisc belief to validate it.

The question then essentially comes down to whether or not holding properly basic beliefs is considered "faith." If we consider the above definition of faith, "belief without evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true," than holding a belief as properly basic is different than faith, because properly baisc beliefs fundamentally are considered reasonable to believe;thus, by definition reason, which relies on properly basic beliefs, does not require "faith" which means believing without proof.

So, if you accept the fundamentalist viewpoint and the criteria for properly baisc beliefs than you can confidently assert that reason does not require faith.

If you don't-I welcome objections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

*** Mod's note: Split from with another thread and merged into this one. ***

Prior to discovering Ayn Rand, I probably considered C.S. Lewis one of my most influencial thinkers. I've read volumes of his writings, both fiction and non-fiction, and it gave me much insight into an understanding of Christianity from a pro-reason perspective, yet I think his reason was more of the "rationalist" kind. I think C.S. Lewis makes a decent attempt at arguing for theology considering he was a vehement athiest turned Christian (and a devout one too). His previous atheism apparently forced him "kicking and screaming" as he became a religionist. The problem is that Lewis (like all religionists) must still try and convince you of something that you cannot fully grasp with reason. So, in the end, you still face the same dichotomy: faith or reason. I chose the latter after realizing that I could no longer hold the contradiction that "faith and reason can coexist."

I strongly encourage you to see the documentary "The Question of God: Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis." It's done by Dr. Armand Nicholi whom is a professor at Harvard. It will provide you with much interesting material if you care to learn more about C.S. Lewis (and Freud for that matter).

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?

Edited by softwareNerd
Split/Merged notice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Faith is belief regardless of or in opposition to reason. Reliance on reason cannot be a form of faith. It is only when we cease to rely on reason that we are guilty of believing on faith.

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?

This is illogical. Reason cannot refute reason. You can't step outside your brain to attack it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or to phrase that another way: you cannot disprove reason, because the method of disproof would itself, by definition, have to be.... reason!

Reason is built up off the axioms: existence exists, you are conscious, A is A, etc. Those are self-validating, everything derives from those. I suppose if you want to consider A is A an article of faith, I cannot stop you. But in fact it's a much more basic and validatable statement than one like a super-powerful consciousness exists--even though we cannot perceive him--and that consciousness created everything that exists. (This is not only a much more complex and specific proposition than the axioms, it leaves the unsolved issue of where the super-consciousness came from.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can one ultimately trust that what an evolving brain tells you is true?
Do you mean that it is futile for man to seek knowledge of reality, because it cannot be known? If it can be known, then do you think there are some particular ways in which this knowledge has to be glean: for instance can looking at the sky yield more information about the universe than not looking? Can the use of a telescope help or hurt? Can certain methods of experimenting help? Can certain ways of reasoning about the results of those experiments help?

Faith, in its philosophical sense, means to abandon those things -- observation, experiment, logic -- and just going with one's imagination.

BTW: 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith is belief regardless of or in opposition to reason. Reliance on reason cannot be a form of faith. It is only when we cease to rely on reason that we are guilty of believing on faith.

This is illogical. Reason cannot refute reason. You can't step outside your brain to attack it.

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

Edited by TruthVeritas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would anyone critique the argument at the end of this article on Ayn Rand and Objectivism?

From the blog you linked:

"Also, it seems logical to conclude that, despite Rand's dismissal of a faith component in her philosophy, she must exercise faith that her worldview (her reason as the perceiver of all truth and reality) is ultimately true over all others. "

She didn't accept her worldview based on faith, she accepted it based on reason. SoftwareNerd pretty much said everything that could be said about the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the blog you linked:

"Also, it seems logical to conclude that, despite Rand's dismissal of a faith component in her philosophy, she must exercise faith that her worldview (her reason as the perceiver of all truth and reality) is ultimately true over all others. "

She didn't accept her worldview based on faith, she accepted it based on reason. SoftwareNerd pretty much said everything that could be said about the subject.

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.

Edited by TruthVeritas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 seek the reason of the "something more".

For example, SoftwareNerd provided a secondary, potentially valid definition of faith. If it is 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, if 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.

But why would it ever be reasonable to accept any notion of God? This is the burden of proof you must meet if you're going to make any headway. Why should one accept any claims made by the Bible, which is a contradictory and factually incorrect historical document?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would it ever be reasonable to accept any notion of God? This is the burden of proof you must meet if you're going to make any headway. Why should one accept any claims made by the Bible, which is a contradictory and factually incorrect historical document?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude - have you heard of logic? Logic is a concept which refers to a method of reasoning. Concept formation in itself is a process of reasoning - even if somewhat subconscious. You HAVE to reason to live your life and survive - you can cheat on that though and will suffer proportionally. What's the alternative to "reason"? Faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not a statement of faith to say that one cannot step outside of one's brain and attack it?

No.

It seems to be saying, I can evaluate all reality but I cannot be evaluated for any limits in defining that reality.

No, it is saying that you cannot refute that which is the means of all refutation.

How would anyone critique the argument at the end of this article on Ayn Rand and Objectivism? http://pepperedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2009/...bjectivism.html

I'll look at it.

Although Peppered with Salt would agree with the quotes that we have published, we would not hold to Rand's philosophy/worldview. Some of the reasons have been hinted at in the article.

That claim is false. I read the article, and no reasons for rejecting Rand's philosophy were even hinted at until the last sentence of the last paragraph.

Also, it seems logical to conclude that, despite Rand's dismissal of a faith component in her philosophy, she must exercise faith that her worldview (her reason as the perceiver of all truth and reality) is ultimately true over all others.

I just rebutted this. It is a contradiction to say that relying on reason is a form of faith, for the reason I just gave.

Perhaps the blog means that Rand must excercise faith to believe that O'ism is true. That is also false. In her corpus, Rand supports her philosophy with some impressive logic and gives reasons to reject the common alternative positions.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the God of the Bible is real, by SoftwareNerd's definition, it is valid to put one's faith in Him,...
Sure, but that is such a huge if... one could say "If Dumbledore was real, would the world be a safer place"... and one could probably try to reason and argue around that proposition. However, it would be ultimately a pointless argument, because it is simply fantasy. There is no reality, no truth at its root.

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.
Nope. The best way to understand this is to forget about faith for an instant and think about reality, observation, reason and proof. In the absence of the right observation and of reasonable speculation it is not reasonable to accept any arbitrary claim. A claim made without providing some observation is arbitrary. it is not reasonable to call such a claim "possible".

For instance, imagine I tell you that there's a gremlin standing in my living room. Imagine you ask for proof and you reply that there's a shadow of a gremlin being cast on the carpet. Now, if I look and see an actual shadow, then we have something to work with. Your claim is not arbitrary, even if it is false. We can call dad, and he might point out that the shadow is being cast by the little leprechaun sticker mom stuck on our window. However, if you do not offer such observations, or if you simply make some up, then the claim is arbitrary. Assumptions made in this way are not even "possible".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but that is such a huge if... one could say "If Dumbledore was real, would the world be a safer place"... and one could probably try to reason and argue around that proposition. However, it would be ultimately a pointless argument, because it is simply fantasy. There is no reality, no truth at its root.

Nope. The best way to understand this is to forget about faith for an instant and think about reality, observation, reason and proof. In the absence of the right observation and of reasonable speculation it is not reasonable to accept any arbitrary claim. A claim made without providing some observation is arbitrary. it is not reasonable to call such a claim "possible".

For instance, imagine I tell you that there's a gremlin standing in my living room. Imagine you ask for proof and you reply that there's a shadow of a gremlin being cast on the carpet. Now, if I look and see an actual shadow, then we have something to work with. Your claim is not arbitrary, even if it is false. We can call dad, and he might point out that the shadow is being cast by the little leprechaun sticker mom stuck on our window. However, if you do not offer such observations, or if you simply make some up, then the claim is arbitrary. Assumptions made in this way are not even "possible".

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?

Edited by TruthVeritas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...