Reason vs. Faith, Question 3 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

[visvaldisX]

You should have invited more profound people in the audience.

[aaaaaaaars]

Does Ayn Rand advocate the killing of psychopaths like the man asking the question? I do

[InaneRex]

Good lord!!!!

These guys make me want to go back to Christianity.

What Christianity REALLY leads to?

Christianity REALLY leads to alot of things, most of which involve explaining away various 'possibilities' as being 'logically impossible.'

Sounds alot like 'Objectivism'

Sorry, I know 'good riddance', but, I'm out.

[Radeo]

@InaneRex

I see you have taken your inability to think in principles with you.

[InaneRex]

@Radeo

LOL! Do tell.

[Radeo]

When people claim they are now "taking their faith seriously" that what they are generally doing is piecemealing together a philosophy of "what works" for them.

They become a misintegration of influences, feelings, beliefs and then they say, "Well this is where my faith led me". But saying so does not make it so.

In effect, that process was not entirely based on "faith", it was based on many influences, both secular and religious.

This is why Yaron speaks of "logical extremes".

[InaneRex]

@Radeo

If I wanted to read Rand quotes, I'd read Rand. These fools are as willing to try and understand other human beings as Rand was.

Not much.

Fail. Epic Fail.

[Wcoltd]

@InaneRex Yes, I notice this contradiction, anyone who sees themselves as Randian cannot possibly be, because the notion of being Randian is collectivist - which is not Randian at all. If they want to educate people towards this philosophy they should do it as individuals and not as members of an institution.

[InaneRex]

@Wcoltd

I do believe she preferred the term: Objectivist.

Rand taught her 'philosophy' via fiction--? Thus her followers try to live up to fictional characters, sound like anything to you?

-

The beauty of Rand is the clarity of her thinking. No empty words, no pointless metaphors.

[Wcoltd]

@InaneRex She wrote this in the back of her book Atlas Shrugged:

"I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written-and published- is my proof that they do."

She is clear, I see this with many people who share that philosophy.

[InaneRex]

@Wcoltd

Yeah. That's a nice statement, and I've read FH-6 times, AS-3 times, and all of her other non-fiction at least twice.

Searching for, how exactly, she was validating it. Yes, people with drives similar to her characters exist, but the cause and effect relationship she is proposing doesn't exist.

[InaneRex]

Nietzsche didn't say that.

He said something akin to "every will that doesn't find it's way out will burrow it's way back in."

A much better interpretation would be the idea(s) of emotional mis-identification/repression.

[xer0123]

Isn't the root difference between Ayn Rand and Nietzsche the difference between serving your own self interest, enjoying absolute increase in power by building yourself up (Ayn Rand). Versus Destroying others interests (Nietzsche) and enjoying RELATIVE increase in your power - by destroying everyone around you--which is irrational if your goal is greater life and prosperity in an absolute sense. (Relative to your own dreams- not using others as a yardstick for your success and happiness)

[MrChirpsky]

Objectivists, unfortunately, assume a monopoly on reason. So much gets dismissed (payback for so many's dismissal of Objectivism I suppose). And the self-congratulatory claim to uniqueness is anything but.

[Philosopher2087]

The foolish questioner ignores the answers completely!

[richardcadbury]

what the fuck went on in the questioner's head as the panel was answering his question?

was he thinking "la la la la la la la la !!!"?

was he humming "onward christian soldiers..." to himself?

perhaps the hymn "man cannot live by bread alone"

one thing is for sure, he wasn't listening to the answer. which is sad (that he's not even prepared to change his mind) as well as straightforwardly rude.

what a twat!

[clintcarter]

@richardcadbury

lol,...no kidding.

[InFromTheVoid]

I agree...he didn't listen to the answer at all. He was a Xtian fundy..you could tell. They never listen..they only bait you.

[Sam26100]

This guy keeps talking about not living by bread alone, did he not understand that Brook said objectivism doesn't adovcate living by bread alone?

It advocates living rationally, that doesn't exclude spiritual pursuits. Im a musician, and an objectivist

[Sam26100]

Great answer by Yaron Brook

[narleyg5]

`We want man to live by reason alone`` lol pretty funny comment. Whose reason is that? obviously your reason, which is not necessarily everybody`s reason. My reason may be different, what makes your reason the right one Dr. Ghate? because your objectivism tells you that it is? really? wer`e not robots don`t you know.

[hapspir]

"what makes your reason the right one Dr. Ghate?"

If his reason is faulty, then his life will diminish to the extent that he is wrong. (Maybe he thinks that turpentine is good to drink or that sex causes amnesia.) The same goes for everyone. But we can correct our mistakes. Reason allows for that. Faith is not nearly as flexible, unfortunately.

[gamesbok]

@hapspir About your comment that 'sex causes amnesia'.....er.....er......I forgot what I was going to say.

[Torrriate]

That's the only point from the believers side I can fully subscribe to.

[painisanillusion7]

I'm a strict objectivist, but one thing this guy is wrong about is emotion and higher thinking or reason. Emotion comes before thinking and that is a neurological fact. You can think first, then have emotion, or you can have emotion then think about it. But Emotion developed in the brain first and exists in organisms who do not have reason or high conciousness

[longlakeshore]

Comparing extremes of political "power-lusting" with extremes of "Christianity" is NOT comparing apples to apples. More flawed logic.

Idolizing an obscenely rich man in Bill Gates? You're forgetting how many people he ripped off to get there. Remember the court cases?

A human cannot live by reason alone anymore than s/he can live by emotion alone. A healthy balance is required. Rand and her acolytes are so psychologically immature that they cannot see this, let alone accept it.

[pllpls]

"Comparing extremes of political "power-lusting" with extremes of "Christianity" is NOT comparing apples to apples. More flawed logic."

Extremes of Christianity/religion isn't about power lusting? The Church wielded significant power over others during the Middle Ages. In the Middle East religion is institutionalized and commands every aspect of life; the clergymen have great power in society.

[longlakeshore]

Of course it's about power, but you miss my point. Comparing the Inquisition (which happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages) with the Soviet Gulag is comparing apples to oranges. One was a religious power (Vatican) whose small excesses were frequently tempered by the secular governments of individual countries, while the (USSR) was a secular political power far whose excesses went beyond anything the Vatican did.

It's rhetorical bullshit to compare the two. A lie.

[pllpls]

You'd call the Crusades and the Inquisition small excesses?

Look at the big picture: the Communists/Socialists and the Church both used their power to imprison, torture, and kill. The fact that one was secular and one was not means nothing.

[longlakeshore]

Yes. Compared to modern mass death, the Inquisition barely registers precisely because it was religious-based.

You are also mistaken to lump the Inquisition(religious) with the Crusades & Gulag(secular).

The fact that one was religious and the other secular makes ALL the difference.

[b1gr1g]

The guy who spoke at the begining was a complete idiot..Communism comes from a lack of Christianity...WTF?!

[jay19xxx]

ayn rand was a dumb cunt hooked on a bullshit theory. fuck these two.

[richardcadbury]

that argument is superb. I will overturn my worldview immediately!

[jay19xxx]

brilliance in simplicity, you fucking simpleton. the first thing you should overturn is your ass and stop taking it in the poop chute you facetious prig.

[Cramnella]

What an eloquent rebuttal!

[thtrgremlin]

Premise #1: Thinking is hard

Premise #2: Other people are good at thinking.

Conclusion: It isn't worth the effort for me to think for myself.

Manifestation in the free market: Religion.

Religion and faith are natural and desirable, imo Rand relates human progress to the sum of human thought thus reasoning a moral cause for maximization of individual contribution. Though some people may be stupid, justifying taking rights away, that ignores that all thinking is recursive, thus evolving.

[MarxBakuninMe]

What makes reason so special? Seriously?

[limpnail]

What's better, is seeing the real world in it's natural state. I'd rather know what is true than to believe a lie. Having something feel good doesn't mean it's true.

[kurlek]

Well, I suggest you get your self high on heroin then. People say it's an amazing experience - it takes you to another world where everything is perfect, life is a joy and everyday existence suddenly looks totally unimportant. There is only one problem: the longer you spend living such a lie, the more miserable your real existence will be. The same is true with religion...

Escaping reality through mystics and fairy tales is for cowards. I choose the reason!

[kurlek]

Faith will make me a better person? What's wrong with me now? I thought I was the one who "judges" people for their opinions! And furthermore, what meter is used to measure how good a person one is?

[kurlek]

But seriously: it is no question that the reason is what makes our life good, if not even possible. Limiting the reason by any kind of unquestionable dogmas can be nothing else but a handicap on your way to whatever you are after.

And remember: faith makes you life better only as long as there is enough reason-practicing people around you to neutralize your irrationality. Once a critical mass of people will share your "sincere faith in God", nothing will stand between us and the dark ages.

[Yerzriknot]

The Christian in this video doesn't seem to realize that there was nothing rational about the atrocities committed by Germany and the Soviet Union. The vast majority of wars are started over irrational desires and/or beliefs.

[hapspir]

When Brook explains that religion leads to an inquisition, the blue shirt denies such a conclusion. But what does the blue shirt think he's doing right now? He's performing his own miniature inquisition by denouncing the people on the stage as heretics, essentially. If he had a platoon of sword wielding knights at his command he would have had the objectivists carted away to be tortured.

[hapspir]

This guy in the blue shirt wasn't asking a question. He was making an accusation. The only response he would have accepted would have been: "Yeah, I guess you're right. We suck." No amount of arguing could possibly shake his faith in faith. He wants to live WITHOUT bread, so a philosophy dedicated to understanding that bread is necessary for our survival is evil to him.

[grumpone]

The answered this man in an opologetic way. This was their mistake, when in fact religion is making man live on bread (or crumbs) alone with it's strict dogma and rules that mandate every aspect of your life - a self inflicted jail cell. Reason sets you free to live and enjoy life to its fullest. You take joy in art, nature, yourself, your family and mental pursuits.

[xdorian5]

This panel argues for rationalism and reason, but they do not explain its origin, or why it can be trusted. If reason originates from the mind of man, then reason is merely the result of random chemical reactions: there is nothing here to trust.

My chemical reactions are not the same as your chemical reactions so there is no standard where this argument for reason is supported.

An argument for pure materialistic reason is self-refuting.

There must be an external standard.

[Madwolfkiller]

On the contrary, your position is self-refuting because it is contradictory. Your argument to say that reason cannot be trusted uses reason as a premise. If reason cannot be trusted, then neither can your argument; if your argument cannot be trusted, then neither can your conclusion.

You know that the brain operates through a series of chemical reactions because human reason discovered that knowledge. To discard reason is to discard that knowledge; and by consequence to discard your argument.

[Madwolfkiller]

In other words. If you are going to posit that reason cannot be trusted, then you must also acknowledge that the very argument you used to invalidate reason also cannot be trusted.

[KeyserX]

Therefore making reason an axiom in the objectivist sense. A premise that cannot be refuted without being confirmed in that it is necessary to the very argument that is meant to invalidate it.

To answer the original question though: REALITY is the standard which is the support for reason. Reality is the external standard you seek. Man can make logical errors, but it is not some God-figure that ultimately judges whether you are right, but REALITY.

There's no contradiction here.

[xdorian5]

I agree.

But you miss the point: if reason is based merely in chemical reactions, all argument breaks down.

Therefore, if reason is to be "trusted", on what basis do you found it?

[Madwolfkiller]

For one, why is it that "arguments break down" if reason is based in chemical reactions? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems to be a non-sequitur. Why must the fact that the brain functions by means of chemical reactions negate the validity of reason?

As for reason's basis, the proper answer is the axiom of an objective reality. Because reality is objective, it is capable of being understood.

[xdorian5]

So you agree that reason exists apart from chemical reactions in the brain. "Objective reality" is then discovered, not invented by the human mind.

[Madwolfkiller]

I don't understand how you were able to make that inference from anything in my post, but you don't seem to understand "reason" and "objective reality."

One entails data capable of being understood, the other is a cognitive process of which is the means of understand. Ayn Rand stated it as "Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification." Why must reason, in order to be used to understand reality, exist apart from man's mind?

[xdorian5]

From your posts, your definition of reason seems to be the "human capacity for understanding reality"

With that understanding, I am merely adding that reason cannot *establish* objective reality, no matter how reason is used to ascertain it. By cataloging man's reason in a stepwise or objective fashion we may discern a pattern or design. Therefore the paths to understanding exist outside of man's capacity or willingness to comprehend them.

[Madwolfkiller]

Furthermore, consider exactly what it is that you're asking.

The concept of "basis" presupposes the validity of reason. You are essentially asking to use "reason" to justify "reason." The basis of reason is not to be found in consciousness; it is to be found in the axioms.

[xdorian5]

No, I was stating that reason (for it to be reason) cannot be founded on random chemical reactions, but must exist apart from man and the mind.

[Madwolfkiller]

Why? Reason is a faculty of the human mind, and cannot exist apart from it.

And it is completely incorrect to refer to the chemical reactions as "random." Thinking is not a random process, and neither are the internal bodily functions which allow thinking to occur.

Your premise that reason must exist apart from man's mind is totally contradictory (it's like saying heart beats must exist apart from the heart). What fact of reality gives rise to it?

[davidngo4415]

There IS an external and objective standard. It's called REALITY. our thoughts and concepts are not TRUE or VALID until tested upon REALITY. LOGIC and REASON are just words to describe an IDEA or CONCEPT generated in our mind and has been tested against reality to be TRUE. That is logic. That is reason. and because it is tested against reality, it is objectively TRUE.

[xdorian5]

Objectively UNDERSTOOD to be true, but perhaps that is merely your perception and not mine.

What should judge between us?

[teewillis1981]

Do you feel like you can't trust your own mind? If not, what can you trust?

[jetta230]

I like the question and the answer. Yet both lead to nothing. All that's identified is one is a man of faith and the other isn't and both men are justified in believing so.

[brockomundo]

I enjoyed the question's theory that the "will to power" led to communism and the Holocaust. He should go back to reading his Bible because he obviously cannot understand Nietzsche or anything remotely rational.

[88ragtime]

As a former fundamentalist Christian, I can say without reservation that the gentleman asking the question is so immersed in mysticism that he is impervious to reason and logic.

Most men feel they need a supernatural, celestial being that can take care of them and give them an "afterlife" because they are to scared to make decisions on their own and their lives are so miserably unfulfilled that they look at this world as corrupt and illusory.

[rainmaker7777]

"Christianity leads to the Inquisition?"

Can you give me one verse from the words of Christ that supports this conclusion?

Such a strong misunderstanding of Christianity from these men. If your going to attack something, be willing to know it first.

[Nadow]

You've not understand anything....Hes not talking about what Jesus says, but instead about the RELIGION based on him and in what have become. In essence, has become corrupted because it is based in IRRATIONAL values not attached with reality and with living according to it

[rawever]

When watching this video, I can only feel pity for the questioner. His basic premises are so obviously drowned in mysticism that it is impossible for him to even understand a rational answer.

His principle in this question is "man cannot live on bread alone". Primarily, he cites the Bible, which is a mystical document impervious to reason. He deduces from this passage that man cannot live by extremes (extreme rationality). I refer you to "The Cult of Moral Grayness".

[rawever]

"Before anyone can identify anything as "gray," one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil."

-Ayn Rand

[soitoldhimno]

"I would give the greaest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage....

[soitoldhimno]

....Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body." - The Fountainhead

[soitoldhimno]

I nearly died with laughter at the end when the guy said, "Well, call it what you will."

As if bread and reason are synonyms?

[philosophyarchitect]

It is true that man needs a variety of stimulus. The rational equivalent of his analogy might be that man needs, in his life, philosophy, as well as art, and the physical sciences, and work time, and time with friends etc. But just like the fact that we need to eat different things but only eat edible things, so we need a variety of mental activities but only rational ones. He's caught in the attachment of emotional/spiritual fulfillment to mysticism.

[sumfamousperson17]

I couldn't stand that man's additude...but Yaron and that other guy gave great answers to his stupid question.

[rambo26]

Great answers!

[PaulMcKeever]

...He hopes that that conscious transvaluation will allow him to counter the feelings of misery (or numbness) and guilt (or fear) that are the natural result of his modes of thought and action. And, when it fails, he takes to the bottle, blames "god", blames "greedy capitalists, blames "enviro-criminals", or sends Jews to the gas chambers. When such things fail, should he follow his philosophy to its logical conclusion, he will commit suicide...not unusually, murder-suicide.

[Radeo]

Part of what was not explicitly addressed is what need people are trying to fill when they turn to religion. There's a hint at it when Dr. Ghate speaks of "the arbitrary", but to complete that: is that the religious person is choosing to believe in the arbitrary in order to gain a sense of certainty about the world and his life.

Once we address and understand that at the deepest level it is possible to find that certainty within reality, there is a door open to change.

[PaulMcKeever]

I think that's only half of it: the person wants certainty, but the certainty he seeks is certainty that his decisions are morally right. He wants a code of alleged ethics that will tell him it is right to expect others to sacrifice themselves, and to obtain from others the unearned...

[PaulMcKeever]

...Christianity's "transvaluation of all values" tells him that man's actual virtues (rationality, and all it implies) are vices, and that man's actual vices (e.g., the acceptance of assertions as 'knowledge" on the basis of faith) are virtues; that man's actual values (notably his life and happiness) are not values, and that man's actual non-values (e.g., need) and dis-values (e.g., loss) are values....

[jprational]

At worst, the man's question amounts to: If man doesn't have faith in arbitrary stories, he'll become a monster (a totalitarian power monger of some flavor).

At best, the man's question amounts to: if you take away man's spiritual needs, then what's left?

While good, the panel's response doesn't seem to address (what I think) is this man's contradiction.

Ayn Rand discusses man's spiritual needs in "The Romantic Manifesto." Man's spirit does not require faith, but does have identity and needs.

[shovelcharge]

"we want man to live by reason alone" Amen!

[ArrogantEgoist]

I generally liked the panel's responses--especially Dr. Brook's comment that Objectivism is not anti-emotions--"listen to me speak!" Awesome.

[PaulMcKeever]

I agree. That line was classic.

[JackDoitCrawford]

I don't think the questioner sees that ideas and emotions based on reason form the spiritual aspect of Objectivism, and replaces faith-based ideas and emotions for those who adopt Ayn Rand's philosophy.

[PaulMcKeever]

The questioner implies that the need for spirituality is the need for a ghost. I liked the panel's answers, but I would have replied to the man with the following words:... (cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

"The issue is not spirituality, yes or no. The issue is irrational spirituality vs. rational spirituality; the effort to achieve ones own happiness on this earth in this life vs. the unwarranted hope that an unearned joy will be experienced after ones death if one simply, passively, and effortlessly sacrifices oneself and endures the suffering and joylessness that results; the active embracing of this life vs. the passive, resented endurance of it."

[qtronman]

Yeah, the point is that whatever spiritual needs we have, *they exist in reality*. Therefore substituting that which does not exist (monotheistic God, far Eastern mysticism, etc.) for a real existing need is not, and cannot be, "filling" the need. It's tantamount to asking: Doesn't man need to fill a real hole with a substance that doesn't exist? You end up masking the hole with a phony substance.

[PaulMcKeever]

Oooh, that's very succinct. Thanks for that.

[88ragtime]

Masking the hole with a phony substance. Very true! And very well said!

[deinse81]

How ironic.