The "reason requires faith" argument

[DavidOdden]

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?

SN did not mention any innate truths, which is your interpretation, and understanding why that interpretation is wrong will help yo to understand your misunderstanding. There are no "innate truths" built into man -- man has no innate knowledge. Thus there are no building blocks that we have to overcome.

I think it would help if you work on the concept of "truth" itself -- do you understand what "truth" is? (I direct you to Aristotle Metaphysics 1011b25 for the classic statement of the nature of "truth"). This is just the foundation, but if you don't understand the foundation, your further conclusions can't be right.

The only tools that man has for identifying "that which is" are his sensory faculties and his faculty of reason.

[TruthVeritas]

SN did not mention any innate truths, which is your interpretation, and understanding why that interpretation is wrong will help yo to understand your misunderstanding. There are no "innate truths" built into man -- man has no innate knowledge. Thus there are no building blocks that we have to overcome.

I think it would help if you work on the concept of "truth" itself -- do you understand what "truth" is? (I direct you to Aristotle Metaphysics 1011b25 for the classic statement of the nature of "truth"). This is just the foundation, but if you don't understand the foundation, your further conclusions can't be right.

The only tools that man has for identifying "that which is" are his sensory faculties and his faculty of reason.

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

[softwareNerd]

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

I haven't gone back and checked, but I doubt I mentioned "A is A". Anyhow, whether I did or not, let me clarify (or correct) myself here. Reason is not "based" on axioms like A is A in this sense: we cannot start from "A is A" and derive any other knowledge (e.g. it is impossible to start from "A is A" to deduce the proposition that "cats don't have nine lives" from that alone). Rather, one has to look at cats, observing their lives and deaths; one has to integrate the knowledge of other animals and realize that a cat is an animal; and so on... and then one ends up with a proposition about cats.

The base of knowledge is observation (of something or of its effects), classification, conceptualization, experiment and deduction. That is how man acquires knowledge. Anything else would be fantasy.

For instance, scientists may not be able to observe some body in space, but might observe an effect. They might see that some planets are acting as if there were another planet nearby. Based on this, they might hypothesize that there is possibly another planet in some particular orbit. However, suppose I hypothesize that there was some planet between Jupiter and Saturn and when I'm told to prove it I say that I cannot because I also hypothesize that it is covered by some shield that negates all its effects and make it seem like it isn't there. This type of thing would be fantasy: because i and offering no reason in reality for any hypothesis, but merely making up fiction that I can get away with. (Which is fine if it is presented as fiction.)

Take the example of reincarnation. If someone say "this dog looks like by dead uncle and is mean like he is... therefore there is reincarnation", we'd say that the evidence was flimsy. We'd also say that it does not integrate with other knowledge. Nevertheless, at least the person is offering us something to work with. If, instead, the person were to say "we must have a soul, because this life cannot be all that is, and the soul must be coming back in some living form"... that is completely empty.

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?

Hopefully, you'll probably agree that even some pretty stupid human beings can understand something about some things. A rocket scientist can understand and learn more. Does it follow that the slow fellow should doubt even the simple things he knows? No he too can reach certainty, even if the range of his knowledge is limited.

You could put your question another way and ask: can we know anything if we do not know everything? (The answer -- full of hope -- is "yes, we can" )

If you're interested in Rand's ideas on knowledge, check out "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"

[DavidOdden]

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

What about tautologies?

Let's start with a few of your questions. Since there are no predefined building blocks, there are no limits to human knowledge deriving from building blocks. If it exists, it has an identity, and that identity can be known. Questions of causation (the "whys") are examples of things that can be know.

Are you asking how man gains knowledge of that which exists? That seems to be what your questions boil down to. The principle for answering complex questions such as "what exactly sustains life" is basically the same as it is for "what's in that box", except the former is a lot harder to answer.

[TruthVeritas]

What about tautologies?

Let's start with a few of your questions. Since there are no predefined building blocks, there are no limits to human knowledge deriving from building blocks. If it exists, it has an identity, and that identity can be known. Questions of causation (the "whys") are examples of things that can be know.

Are you asking how man gains knowledge of that which exists? That seems to be what your questions boil down to. The principle for answering complex questions such as "what exactly sustains life" is basically the same as it is for "what's in that box", except the former is a lot harder to answer.

What you ar saying is quite obvious to me. No, I am not saying "how man gains knowledge of what exists." How does one determine that there is no life after death, since one would first need to die in order to determine if he is correct that there is no life after death.

If man states there no God b/c he does not see that he exist, is he not declaring himself sovereign?

Additionally, does it not take faith to assume that man is inherently good, that he will, with the right training be able to create a utopian society?

[softwareNerd]

If man states there no God b/c he does not see that he exist, is he not declaring himself sovereign?

What does being "sovereign" mean? It is not a word I understand in relation to man. And, are you implying it is something negative? If so, why? Man is not "sovereign" in the sense that he cannot do whatever he wishes: no amount of wishing will make certain things happen (nature to be commanded must be obeyed). Adult man ought to be "sovereign" in the sense that he ought to be allowed (by other men) to do what he likes as long as he respects their "sovereignty". Man is "sovereign" inside his own mind, in the sense that he is free to focus his mind on this, that or the other.

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?

Rather than faith, it takes observation of people around one, and of history. One has to draw conclusions about what men would like to do, and about what is possible to men if they can find the right social system. Of course, if you mean "utopia" in some ivory-tower sense of a place where everyone is happy and no people are criminal, then it ain't going to happen -- in my opinion, the volitional nature of man, and the lessons of history rule this out.

[DavidOdden]

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.

First, how does one determine that there is life after death? There are no facts that show this. Second, you have to understand the physical nature of life, which leads you understand that life after death is impossible. Third, given what "life" and "death" refer to, life after death is a contradiction.

If man states there no God b/c he does not see that he exist, is he not declaring himself sovereign?

Ignoring whatever this "sovereign" thing is, you don't seem to understand the reasons for stating that god does not exist. Atheism is based on an understanding of the contradictory nature of god; agnosticism is based on simple no-knowledge.

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?

I don't understand the question. Man is neither inherently good or evil; what training are you talking about?; what do you mean by "utopian society"?

[Plasmatic]

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.

Everything we know about life says it is a result of material causation. Your question presupposes non-material causation of life, and this is contrary to the only context of knowledge we can have; ie. the input of senses.This of course presupposes a biological entity possessing said senses etc.

I do not need to observe every facet of existence to know that non-existence is not a part of it.

[TruthVeritas]

First, how does one determine that there is life after death? There are no facts that show this. Second, you have to understand the physical nature of life, which leads you understand that life after death is impossible. Third, given what "life" and "death" refer to, life after death is a contradiction.Ignoring whatever this "sovereign" thing is, you don't seem to understand the reasons for stating that god does not exist. Atheism is based on an understanding of the contradictory nature of god; agnosticism is based on simple no-knowledge.I don't understand the question. Man is neither inherently good or evil; what training are you talking about?; what do you mean by "utopian society"?

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

[DavidOdden]

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

What does that indicate to you? What is that relevant to?

[Plasmatic]

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

She sure does discuss virtue. I defy you to post a single instance of her claiming man is "inherently" good or evil.

[TruthVeritas]

She sure does discuss virtue. I defy you to post a single instance of her claiming man is "inherently" good or evil.

If there is virtue and evil (Rand used this term to refer to the evils of conservatism during an interview from the 70s), there are definitions for such. In a world where man is neither inherently good or evil, the definition of good and evil depends on who defines it.

For example, Aristotle has his definition, a Christian has his, a muslim has his, etc.

Objectivism makes its own claim of virtue but it is dependent on their definition of man and his place in the world. Ultimately, they decide all from reason. But this does limit the whys that you can ask. You say it does not take faith to limit yourself to your finite paramaters but I would question that.

You say there is nothing about your system that takes faith. However, unless you believe in aliens, you would probably say there are no aliens. We might all say that there are no aliens because we have no knowledge of them (other than unsubstantiated claims) but ultimately we accept that on faith (even if the tiniest amount of faith)since we cannot ultimately prove it.

[bluecherry]

On the issue of limits, yes, reason has a particular nature about how it works. Everything that exists is something in particular with a particular nature. Limits are a necessary part of existence by defining the guidelines of what something is versus other things and what it is not, so saying something is “limited” does not mean it is somehow “bad” or that it is “inferior” to some flimsy notion of “something” that is “unlimited.” Don't knock reason for meeting a requirement of being an actual existent. Abandoning reason in favor of a non-existent "unbound" means of gaining "knowledge" would not somehow make us omniscient, it would leave us with no knowledge at all. You've just got to learn to hold your horses and accept that there are particular ways humans can acquire valid data and that it is just a fact that those methods will take time and that we may just never get around to finding out everything and other things may just be invalid questions from the get go for violating the requirements of reason. Your "life after death" question not only ignores that we need to be able to get some sensory information to draw off of to start making conclusions, it also as was mentioned above goes against the definitions of life and death and what we know consciousness to require in order to function. Further to the question of "God," that is something not only with no serious evidence, it also has a pretty poor definition of what exactly it should metaphysically be, and furthermore parts of it's definition are outright contradictory and therefore it is *impossible.* As far as aliens go, that's a bit of a different story. We don't have evidence for them, but we know other places -LOTS of them- exist out in space from observations and we know other life forms can exist and can form under many different circumstances too. We also can well define what it would require for something to be an alien. So with aliens at least it isn't pulling a supposition totally out of thin air and becoming all kinds of contradictory in the process. Aliens are at least a supposition which it would be logical to ask if they could exist after seeing other places and life forms under various conditions on earth and then seeing there are other places and other conditions outside of earth. Personally, just with the vastness of space and the time span, I'd be more surprised to find out there completely were NO aliens ever than if there WERE aliens.

[DavidOdden]

You say there is nothing about your system that takes faith. However, unless you believe in aliens, you would probably say there are no aliens.

It is true: nothing in Objectivism requires faith. As for aliens, the Objectivist epistemology holds that when there is no evidence for or against a proposition, one cannot rationally discuss the proposition so one cannot say that there are aliens, or that there are no aliens. When there is evidence against a claim, such as the existence of god, then one can say that it does not exist.

[Ifat Glassman]

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.

That is such a messed up idea, I don't know how anyone can get it wrong. Yet I know Peikoff raised a similar question to Ayn Rand when he was 17 or so, and now he is the wisest, and one of the smartest people I've heard.

So anyway, to get to the point. How about this solution? Next time you meet one of the advocates of this idea, smack them on the head with an object, then if they complain, explain that it is fine that they believe that you smacked them, but hey, this is just their belief, right? And you are very offended that this is the kind of thing they believe you would do to them.

[organon1973]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. But it is an objective fact, a fact of reality, that knowledge arrived at by rational method is true, given the premises are true (this follows from the nature of things).

If all physicists are men, and all men are beings of volitional consciousness, then all physicists are beings of volitional consciousness. This is a conclusion of which one can be certain, and faith forms no part whatever of that certainty.

[Jach]

I don't even understand why they would try to argue in the manner to begin with. "My beliefs are based on faith. Reason is faith too!!!!" So shouldn't you be congratulating me or something, if you hold the moral high ground with this faith? It's like if a Catholic ridicules a Mormon because the Mormon's beliefs come from blind faith.

[Ifat Glassman]

I don't even understand why they would try to argue in the manner to begin with. "My beliefs are based on faith. Reason is faith too!!!!"

Because if they establish that reason is invalid (no more than an instance of faith) then that gives men the "privilege" of regarding everything they wish as true. If they convince others of the invalidity of their thinking process, then others can't challenge their ideas and conclusions either.

Edited August 29, 2009 by ifatart

[Jach]

They accept the premise that beliefs based on blind faith are invalid, and then try to convince you with their invalid beliefs that your beliefs based on reason are equally invalid? I'm still not following why they would try this in the first place, and when faced with such a situation I tend to make that clear.

[TruthVeritas]

They accept the premise that beliefs based on blind faith are invalid, and then try to convince you with their invalid beliefs that your beliefs based on reason are equally invalid? I'm still not following why they would try this in the first place, and when faced with such a situation I tend to make that clear.

To present the faith in the blind manner is only one kind of faith. As Softwarenerd says, "There is also a second meaning of faith, which is: confidence in a person or a plan. That is a very different meaning, and one has to be careful not to equivocate between faith in the sense of a non-observational, non logical attempt at getting knowledge versus faith in the sense of trusting someone. The latter can often be valid, particularly if one has faith in the findings of a person who has shown he never uses (philosophical) faith. "

There are many who would say that their faith is not blind and to argue that it is would be a strawman fallacy. There is no question that reason works within the parameters that it sets. Of course the use of reason is not faith. To say that those who are not athiests all have a blind faith and reject reason seems illogical, unless you can really prove ALL.

Reason is not faith. One could argue that it takes faith to use Objectivism to rule out possibilities and truth that are clearly outside the parameters of reason. To say that something seems beyond reason and therefore should not be viewed with any reason seems invalid.

[themadkat]

Can you explain how one arrives at truth without the use of reason?

To present the faith in the blind manner is only one kind of faith. As Softwarenerd says, "There is also a second meaning of faith, which is: confidence in a person or a plan. That is a very different meaning, and one has to be careful not to equivocate between faith in the sense of a non-observational, non logical attempt at getting knowledge versus faith in the sense of trusting someone. The latter can often be valid, particularly if one has faith in the findings of a person who has shown he never uses (philosophical) faith. "

There are many who would say that their faith is not blind and to argue that it is would be a strawman fallacy. There is no question that reason works within the parameters that it sets. Of course the use of reason is not faith. To say that those who are not athiests all have a blind faith and reject reason seems illogical, unless you can really prove ALL.

Reason is not faith. One could argue that it takes faith to use Objectivism to rule out possibilities and truth that are clearly outside the parameters of reason. To say that something seems beyond reason and therefore should not be viewed with any reason seems invalid.