… Humans have a literal need operate on no faith, in order to navigate the world around them.
And yet here we are, having apparently survived your literal need for millennia, continuing to be fruitful and multiply. Just dumb luck I guess 
And yet here we are, having apparently survived your literal need for millennia, continuing to be fruitful and multiply. Just dumb luck I guess
I’m going to take this as a joke.
Motivation, reason, and morality need not be based on faith. Regarding the operational understanding of one’s car, the safety of the food and water we consumer, or the explanation of evolutionary biology, there are experts who can provide detailed, accurate, and honest explanations, if we need them. Generally, we do not need them, and we proceed through life with the expectation that the pilot and co-pilot in the cockpit of the plane we travel in meets all the necessary qualification, and values life. And that the guy driving toward you at a rate of 60mph will stay in his/her lane, because he/she values life. And that the doctor knows what he/she is doing. Yet, it is a gamble; most of us every day are playing the odds, and most of us are winning. We win, because the vast majority are rational enough to value life, at least their own.
Random probability taken personally is what I call luck. (I don’t know who said that first, but Penn Gillette used it once.) In response to the question, “Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?” My response remains a firm: No. Reason is necessary, not faith.
I’ve had a few responses from fellow atheists and doubters as to the necessity of religion. Many believe it may be the only answer to the reformation of criminal minds. These are people who may not necessarily value life. But how to treat the sociopath is another problem for another page. Maybe religion is the treatment of the present for them. I’m not so sure it’s the final answer, but if there’s any truth to it, time will tell.
I’m going to take this as a joke.
Of course you are. You might have said, “Humans have a literal need operate on reason, in order to navigate the world around them,” in which case there’d be no argument. But you chose to try killing two birds with one stone and missed.
To seriously argue that humans (qua human) have no need to operate on faith at all is a false dichotomy. History demonstrates that humans have operated on reason and faith in order to navigate the world around them for millennia. “Here be dragons” specifically refers to dangerous places that weren’t known, therefore requiring early explorers to have faith that their skill as seaman would be sufficient to the task of navigating them beyond the horizon of their knowledge and home again.
“To boldly go where no man has gone before (and lived to tell about it)”
It’s one thing to assert that reason is supreme, but to carry the argument to the point where faith is irrelavent is amusing given the historical record. You are talking about human beings, aren’t you??
Of course you are. You might have said, “Humans have a literal need operate on reason, in order to navigate the world around them,” in which case there’d be no argument. But you chose to try killing two birds with one stone and missed.
You’re nit-picking.
It’s like he said “Humans need to eat uncontaminated food”, and your response is that “humans can tolerate quite some contamination”.
1 Like
Classic Christian rug-pulling, equivocating two uses of the same word. My religious 20-year-old in-law does it all the time. But, he doesn’t know anything about Rand’s ideas, unlike you. I can’t imagine you haven’t come across Rand’s ideas on reason *vs.* faith, so I’m going to assume you just disagree with her. And I have no interest in discussing that particular disagreement.
You’re nit-picking.
It’s like he said “Humans need to eat uncontaminated food”, and your response is that “humans can tolerate quite some contamination”.
Actually my response is that faith, led by reason, gave those early explorers the courage to sail beyond the horizon, where reason alone (delimited only to what is known) would have logically held them back to the safety of known waters. All I’m saying is you can’t know something prior to knowing it, and in that respect faith in yourself to figure it out is a good thing.
Actually my response is that faith, led by reason, gave those early explorers the courage to sail beyond the horizon, where reason alone (delimited only to what is known) would have logically held them back to the safety of known waters. All I’m saying is you can’t know something prior to knowing it, and in that respect faith in yourself to figure it out is a good thing.
How would you compare your notion of faith to what I mean when I say that I have confidence in my abilities, in unknown situations, to see me through?
- Could you share what those are?
- Yes, of-course! When you have two or more alternatives, it is wise to look at both the rights and the wrongs of each. In the topic Objectivism and Buddhism, there was a reason pointed out that Kids would be more rebellious if it were not for Religion. If there is any truth to that statement wouldn’t you rather preach a mix of religious philosophy and Objectivism to your kids.
- I agree.
P.S. : I personally would rather let my kids be rebellious than preach something that I do not accept.
One that I was considering when I made the response is with regard to Christianity and Judaism, would be the origin(s) of life. While bio-science continues to investigate life’s origins, Objectivism is more or less silent on the topic. In Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science, Harry Binswanger states unequivocally that the evidence for evolution is a fact (disc 3, track 3) - albeit, he does not consider this a matter for philosophers.
[..]but religion can make you feel better about the answer, or worse depending…
Do you enjoy doing math? Does it give you peace of mind to know that every time you add 1 + 1 you will arrive at 2?? Religion avoids math anxiety by working the problem backwards. Religion provides the answer (revealed) and then explains how to get there (ritual).
How often have you heard a religious person say, “Everthing happens for a reason”? That statement gains potency when times are hard. A Creator creates order, and that provides a great deal of comfort in uncertain times. Do you know why the heretic is so despised? Because he is the greatest threat to an orderly universe.
I enjoy Math. It gives me great pleasure to find answers and solve logical questions and puzzles. Of-course, if I am not able to solve I will refer my books. But I will make sure that the answer in the book has a consistent logical solution to the answer. Are all rituals logical ?
The phrase “Everything happens for a Reason” is used in order to console someone who is going throw a rough patch, indicating whatever that is happening will play out in a future event, in a positive way. This has nothing to do with religion.
[..] “Here be dragons” specifically refers to dangerous places that weren’t known, therefore requiring early explorers to have faith that their skill as seaman would be sufficient to the task of navigating them beyond the horizon of their knowledge and home again.
“To boldly go where no man has gone before (and lived to tell about it)”
It’s one thing to assert that reason is supreme, but to carry the argument to the point where faith is irrelavent is amusing given the historical record. You are talking about human beings, aren’t you??
I would agree that faith has its place for the reason :
- that man is not absolutely sure of all situations and all results.
- that man does not immediately posses the data and faculty required to calculate probability for real life situations.
- that when man says “I will win” even though he knows he is holding a thought against probability, he becomes more efficient and more effective because by having faith n himself, all his thoughts are focused on the objective and thus resulting in increased performance.
Faith in something that can happen; that has a probability is fine. But faith in religion is different; it demands faith in ‘God’ i.e. either something that has zero probability.
How would you compare your notion of faith to what I mean when I say that I have confidence in my abilities, in unknown situations, to see me through?
As approximations of the same firm belief. If you begin with the premise that you can’t know something before you know it; that knowing it dismisses the need for faith, then when you reach past the limits of your knowledge are you taking a leap of belief?
Actually my response is that faith, led by reason, gave those early explorers the courage to sail beyond the horizon, where reason alone (delimited only to what is known) would have logically held them back to the safety of known waters. All I’m saying is you can’t know something prior to knowing it, and in that respect faith in yourself to figure it out is a good thing.
Do not say that you’re afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life.
What you are calling faith in yourself to figure it out, Rand called trusting your mind to expand your knowledge_. _ Rand took terms literally and in that sense you are equivocating_._
1 Like
As approximations of the same firm belief. If you begin with the premise that you can’t know something before you know it; that knowing it dismisses the need for faith, then when you reach past the limits of your knowledge are you taking a leap of belief?
When I say that I have “confidence in my abilities” to deal with the unknown, I consider my confidence to be rooted in knowledge – my knowledge of those abilities, and knowledge of experiences I’ve had with past unknown circumstances.
When I say that I have confidence, or trust, in another person, I am again referring to knowledge that I have of their character or their ability or their skill.
In none of these circumstances would I use the term “faith” to describe what I mean, though I know others might use that word to express what I take to be largely the same sentiment.
As approximations of the same firm belief. If you begin with the premise that you can’t know something before you know it; that knowing it dismisses the need for faith, then when you reach past the limits of your knowledge are you taking a leap of belief?
Debate on faith is not same as discussing religion because - All religions (at-least theistic ones) are based on faith, but all faith is not religion.
OK, so that we can remain on the same page then, which definition of faith are you using to define something unknown, but presumed to exist?
I think that it would be beneficial to first define “religion” and be clear on the meaning before an answer to the question of “Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?” can be found.
<snip>
Of course, another definition of religion could produce an entirely different answer.
From one of the references in the OP, John Ridpath was working with this definition from lecture 1 disk 1 track 1 9:25:
A set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.
He later identified what he was looking for was “religion as an answer”, and he started thinking about the questions. He came up with these on lecture 1 disk 1 track 2 at 9:38:
What is it?
Where did it come from?
How do I know it?
What should I do?
He states that all religions are answers to these questions.
Keep in mind, this is a vast oversimplification here. This leaves out the build up to the definition (Galileo’s trial), and about 15 minutes of touching base with many things before arriving at these four questions.
OK, so that we can remain on the same page then, which definition of faith are you using to define something unknown, but presumed to exist?
It is faith (an irrational one ?) to presume something as existent but for which there is no evidence. But faith can also be synonymous to trust, belief and conviction.
I hope you had checked out post # 30.
While faith and religion do hold hands, Anuj correctly points out that faith is evident in other areas as well. The colloquial usage of faith, as the conviction of or the trusting of one’s mind can, and often is seized upon to try to shake convictions and insert a metaphoric crowbar in to try and leverage an element of doubt.
Aristotle classified man with the genus animal and the differentia of rational. He identified man as the rational animal.
Miss Rand adhered to this throughout her writings. Questions to the contrary should be teased out in a separate inquiry.
Does man appeal to faith in various issues pertinent to his life is self-evident. Should he appeal to faith is a moral question.
The question, as I read it was: Is/are there any reason/reasons, any religion(s) should still exist. The current contenders:
- God or religion arises whenever there are questions that seem to be unanswerable.
- [R]eligion still exists because it is adapting itself to the changes taking place around it.
- As StrictlyLogical pointed out in post #2, methods of acquiring beliefs by faith can be taught as readily as methods of acquiring knowledge by reason.
- Closely related to point 3, JASKN points out in post #13, (p)ersonally, I think the biggest damage religion inflicts is on how a person thinks. The notion that someone is watching over you at all times has vast implications on inner thought – problem solving, value choices, assigned importance on different life events, perceived self-efficacy, etc. etc. etc.
The question, as I read it was: Is/are there any reason/reasons, any religion(s) should still exist. The current contenders:…
Those contenders address why religion arose and why is hangs on.
So, on the original question – is there any reason for it still to exist – there has been no rational answer.
I suppose this is the wrong place to ask. Objectivist forums see a lot of debates, but atheism is typically uncontroversial among self-declared Objectivists.
Those contenders address why religion arose and why is hangs on.
So, on the original question – is there any reason for it still to exist – there has been no rational answer.
I suppose this is the wrong place to ask. Objectivist forums see a lot of debates, but atheism is typically uncontroversial among self-declared Objectivists.
Gauging from your response, I’m simply asking a circular question. To re-couch, or recast the question, it is altruistic in nature: What does it take for others to grasp such a position?, but selfish, I think, if one presumes to see the 'presumed consequences" too clearly. Catch 22?