Reason vs. Faith, Question 5 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

[MrChirpsky]

Every good thing to the glory of an ingenious elitist named Aristotle (reduced for the sake of Objectivist polemic to a catch-all invocation). Disbelieve this if you like, but I posted this before I heard the answer (it's always the same formula).

[FilipinoObjectivist]

Dr. Yaron Brook is amazing. Love the guy.

[InFromTheVoid]

It is the fact the humans really do act in their rational self interest if given the opportunity. And religious people are really good double thinkers lol

[jay19xxx]

luciferian cocksuckers, fuck these dumb cunts.

[Scrampster]

good to see you again jay :)

[henrka]

I'm sorry, but I have to say it.  There is nothing out there more irrational than atheism. Denying God's existence should not be associated with reason, denying the existence of God shows in fact a complete lack of reason.

[dkt80]

Why on earth would you say that? How is it unreasonable to say "I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster"? If you can't answer that, then why is "I don't believe in God" so different?

[henrka]

Romans 3:18 to 3:20 from the NLT version says:

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

[dkt80]

What, is that supposed to be an argument? Random quotes from some old book? "I'm right because I say so"? Please. You'll have to do better than that. Explain, without resorting to appeals to authority, why it is that denying the existence of a God is unreasonable.

[henrka]

man, you just don't get it. God, the creator reveals himself in nature. If you see a building there.s a builder. If you see creation (nature) it means there's a god.

[dkt80]

Riiight.... so if there's a creator, he must be fairly complicated himself, eh? So who created him?

Fortunately I have a better answer. Things started off being very simple. Over time they became more complicated. Things that resembled sea sponges developed tendrils that helped them to gather food, and so they prospered. Tendrils turned into fins that could actually move them through the water, and so they prospered more. These are facts with fossil evidence. Where's your evidence?

[henrka]

This is plain common sense not an old book. Does a house come out of nothing? NO. There is a builder that builds it. Does nature and the universe and life come out of nothing? NO. There is a creator that created it.

Even Aristotle, the champion of reason that Ayn Rand loved, said there had to be a "prime mover", a god that created the universe. It's irrational and mad to claim there is no god.

[Scrampster]

rational thinking conscious beings = prime movers

There's no need for the supernatural... just more knowledge and control over the universe.

What we do now, to people 100 years ago would seem like magic/supernatural. But it's just we're smarter, stronger, better than we were before.

What will it be like in another 100 years? Maybe we'll be creating universes.

Man = God (in not as cool form yet) :P

But he does NOT contradict reality. Supernaturalism does.

[zhrob1]

Scrampster

/There's no need for the ... just more knowledge and control over the universe./

It is this control and knowledge that has led to so much trouble in the first place! Better Ethics and morals by whose standard, the same guiding force that has led to man being morally deficient even now. It is like one saying my forefathers are not as smart as I am, and they said they same thing about those before, where does it end?

/we're smarter, stronger, better than we were before. /

lol nope

R

[LegalizeCapitalism]

Its not common sense if nothing within your book can inferred from existence without it. its complete old-world fiction, a fetus of philosophical thought. And your builder example is an incredibly weak metaphor: man is conscious and may therefore act with purpose. the universe is not a conscious entity, but it does have conscious beings. since the universe is not conscious it cannot think, nor implement any will to act since it is not a living thing, but a collection of them. Rand is better.

[thtrgremlin]

If you allow God to be anything you want, see, or believe at any given time, while allowing every other person to have the same freedom despite beliefs that are fundamentally contrary to your own conception of God, then what is there to reason. Reason says that words that can mean anything must also mean nothing at all.

Counter-Example: Barush Spinoza, Ethics, 1677, advocated that God coexisted within the natural world. For this belief, he was excommunicated as an atheist.

[henrka]

Spinoza was an atheist because he worshipped God's creation instead of God who is the creator and deserves all glory.

Romans 3:25 (NLT) puts it beautifully why Spinoza was an atheist:

Romans 3:25: "They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen."

[LegalizeCapitalism]

that is not reasonable at all. how do you account for definition? the universe is absolute. reality is objective. things have identity, and no thing identifiable in nature leads to infer the existence of anything else but the natural: no god, no spirits, no mystic power. give up the appeal to ignorance and use some real reason.

[Scrampster]

zhrob1, let me take that control you don't need anymore away. Let's see what it'd be like shall we: No computers, no house (yes, someone built it), no communication other than the occasional GRUNT, no walking (yes, you control your legs), not even the most basic inventions like fire, or the wheel. You'd be nothing more than an animal. Nice going there buddy.

I'll keep the knowledge and control, and I'll build on it for a better future. THAT'S MORAL, ETHICAL AND RIGHT.

[ummidkme]

just a question: how do identifiable beings, i.e. thinking creatures (humans), account for abstract thought if they can only identify with the natural? also explain language and writing that account for other identities without the ability to self-identify.

[LegalizeCapitalism]

The nature of a concept is based on the natural, its a man centered abstraction for characteristics one may attribute to the object, since the object doesnt direct in how to store itself in your knowledge, you have to create a way to retain it; the symbols of language/writing are used in thought and based on conceptualization before being developed into a form one can exhibit in reality, like cave paintings and the alpha-numeric system. For more read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

[Aerensiniac]

@LegalizeCapitalism

Give it a definition then please.

Till there is no definition you are trying to make up a difference based on a philosophical assumption.

Ultimately all that oppose faith with nothing but philosophy are chasing down other people based on assumptions.

Take your time, research, kill faith by proving that their definition is wrong, but dont go and make up philosophical crap based merely on your own bias and logic. Prove.

[rbilkie]

And again, the answers to all of these questions can be reduced to distinguishing characteristics. Even though the whole world was religious, it was the reason of the certain parts of the west that allowed for the birth of capitalism. But it was a practically flawless answer.

[rbilkie]

Haha.  Dr. Brook's the man.

[rbilkie]

Haha. Dr. Brook's the man.

[stephmchick]

Wow, what a great explanation for the basis of our country's founding and the slow demise of its greatness! I wish more people were able to express the philosophical root cause of such historical trends.

[Youhavethebody]

"It was a miracle." -Classic.

[reneekatz]

That made me laugh. :)

[Cramnella]

What made it even funnier was that the questioner didn't get that it was a joke.

[chuFFisTwo]

@Youhavethebody showing that that's an insufficient answer. GREAT.