Reason vs. Faith, Question 7 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

[Radeo]

@LakeShaman

But then it wouldn't really be faith. It would be trust,

To honestly say one has "faith in science", would mean that one believes in it not for any logical agreement one has with its method, not because of observing a history of accomplishments and life-saving developments, not because it's in accordance with reality, but rather because one just "wants to".

The person who advocates science for this reason is also undercutting it at the same time, by holding opposite premises.

[MrChirpsky]

I think the questioners implication is that if you simply (and successfully) promote good ideas, all opposing schools of thought will either adapt or go extinct. Many atheists today (such as myself) love and find inspiration in Greek, Hindic, even Teutonic (if it isn't too soon), mythology. It is my hope that we may similarly, someday soon, be able to safely advocate Judeo-Christian mythology as a source of inspiration as well.

[xdorian5]

He did not answer the question.

What is the basis of reason? On what grounds is any rational accepted as fact.

What is truth?

[MyITRcom]

That is such a great question and the first one that should be asked. That one can think in terms of values to ones life, something is either for your life or against your life, this forms the basis of judging reality. That A is A, existence exists and that man can perceive and know reality accurately that perception is valid.

[oscar7557]

see Atlas Shrugged

[jetta230]

who appointed these Men to know everything? Not that they don't! They might just know everything, but i just have to ask

[DagnyTT]

It is possible to "appoint" men to know everything? If so, they appointed themselves using the one tool that is error proof: logic. You either know something or you don't - they hold the positions they do because they know Objectivism and Ayn Rand's convictions.

[rbilkie]

I wish everyone would just accept Objectivism as irrefutable fact already, like the laws of algebra, so that we could establish the principles and move on already. I'm sure most of these guys want to build on Rand's premises, rather than teaching the same stuff over and over again to a stupid generation.

[inflamesrgods]

That's a very strange way to look at this. You're almost asking people to accept Objectivism on faith. The point of Objectivism is for people to use reason and rationality to discover the facts of reality on their own. To accept objectivism as irrefutable fact immediately is against objectivism. I understand that you crave a rational society. I do too. But the point is there are steps necessary to get their and I think that the guys teaching Ayn Rand's ideas really enjoy what they are doing.

[rbilkie]

Are you trying to say that Objectivism isn't based on objective fact? How does my comment have anything to do with faith? "To accept objectivism as irrefutable fact immediately is against Objectivism"--do you even understand Objectivism at all? Are we talking about the same philosophy? I think you're getting this confused with "subjectivism". Objectivism IS objective fact, not subjective preference. These men at the ARI are trying to communicate this to people like you.

[inflamesrgods]

I'm done fighting about this since I honestly agree with you about Objectivism - I agree that Objectivism is entirely correct in its philosophy. I want it to be accepted as quickly as possible as well. One suggestion I will make is that if you haven't already, watch Yaron Brooks' video on ARI's cultural impact.

[rbilkie]

I have, thank you. It contradicts nothing that I've said.

[Luchotezxc]

Objectivism is not a fact, it's a label name for a philosophy. Objectivism is based on Ayn Rand's convictions. By wishing other people to believe something you are denying their own existence and their own will, and by calling them "stupid generation" you are denying their minds. You are not Objectivist, you don't believe in existence, I would say you are Skepticist.

[rbilkie]

Does Objectivism represent facts? Does the label "Newtonian Physics" represent subjective beliefs, or objective facts? Was the middle ages a stupid generation? Was Nazi Germany a stupid nation? By wishing someone to believe that 2+2=4, if I wish that they had accepted facts for what they are, I am denying existence and their minds? By wishing that people had come to correct conclusions, I don't believe in existence? Have you any idea what you are talking about? Do you know what Objectivism is?

[rbilkie]

THIS is what I'm talking about. It's like Leo and the lice. I'm just sick of it. But I recognize that bitching won't get me anywhere, so I'll stop. I'm glad that there are people in the humanities with more patience than I have.

[Luchotezxc]

quote: "By wishing someone to believe that 2+2=4, if I wish that they had accepted facts for what they are, I am denying existence and their minds?" Yes, that's it. You understood. The problem is in the "wish" word, and the "had accepted" is outside reality also. Don't get sick. Objectivism holds reason as an absolute.

[rbilkie]

How does a "wish" constitute skepticism? Obviously "had accepted" is outside of reality, as is the existence of conceptual "wishes"--that's what a wish means! It's something that doesn't exist, like Galt's Gulch, that you wish did, which presupposes the idea that you KNOW that it DOESN'T. That is KNOWLEDGE of EXISTENCE. Read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff...I'll add that "wishing," though far from "skepticism," is bad ethically if this "hypothetical reality" that...

[rbilkie]

...you "wish" for becomes a guiding point of your life, instead of reality. A wish is a hypothetical propostition. Every writer, including Rand, thinks in such terms, as does every mathematician when soliving abstract problems. My kind of "wish" is the same--a hypothetical proposition that I know is not true. Study Objectivist epistemology before you pretend to be a spokesman for it.

[Youhavethebody]

I think it depends more on rbilkie's meaning of "irrefutable." He could simply mean that the philosophy's logically consistent, and thus can't be refuted by an argument. An example I can think is the atomic theory of matter (I'm reading the history of it right now). There were so many angles and issues covered, and questions about matter answered, that the theory was proven sometime in the late 19th century. I think that's the sense that rbilkie is employing.

[jprational]

I've never seen/heard Onkar before this YouTube series.

I'm very impressed with his style and delivery, and have renewed hope for the future of humanity!

[shovelcharge]

Cheers for the New Intellectuals! Go Onkar!