4 ms·

Thanks for the thoughtful response. (1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It re

by javert 17y ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response. (1) No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Most of his sermon is about religion. It revolves around religion. Thus, it cannot be considered (as a whole) to be rational. (2) I think it would be rational to say stealing from a major chain store is less evil than violent crime, and possibly prostitution. But it's not rational to encourage people to steal. As you point out, most of the time, there are more choices than those presented--it's a false dilemma. There may be some cases in which steadling is the best option. However, the theif would certainly have a moral obligation to repay the store when he could, and that is not mentioned here. (Really, we need a basis for both 'rationality' and 'morality' to have this discussion, which can be had, but not in the space of a comment.)

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Something like faith that the universes speed limit is the speed of light - this makes GR completely devoid of reason? Or that our arithmetic can't be shown to be complete and consistent with and of itself - this makes all of maths (based in this common arithmetic, cf Godel's I.T.) devoid of reason? The Bible says, James 1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&ve... : "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
- astine 17y ago
  Assumptions are prerequisite for reason. Faith is a prerequisite for assumptions,. Therefore, faith is a prerequisite for reason. Put more simply: absolute proof of anything being impossible, some degree of faith is a universal requirement of human beings wanting to live a productive life. Thus to conclude that faith precludes reason is to conclude that every human on earth is incapable of reason. Which is quite a pretentious claim, I think.
  - javert 17y ago
    Your first two premises are wrong. You do NOT need faith to establish reason.
    - astine 17y ago
      Sigh. The entire modus operandi of philosophical discourse since Descartes has been the seeking of a basis for human thought that didn't depend on assumptions. Heretofore, it has failed utterly in this task, and modern philosophy has increasingly accepted the notion that nothing can be proved absolutely. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense: Why should the human mind be capable of absolute knowledge? Slowly we are realizing again what the ancients took for granted, that to reason, one must first assume that one is capable of it. So, seeing as your statement controverts over 3000 years of experience, you'll need to proved an example of a belief that doesn't rely on assumptions.
      - javert 17y ago
        The human mind is not capable of "absolute" knowledge. The human mind is not omniscient. But it doesn't have to be omniscient. We can still know many things, and we can have certainty that we're right about those things. To do so, we need a philosophical foundation for knowledge. See "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", by Leonard Peikoff, chapters 1-5. You can get it in most bookstores and libraries. P.S. Decartes was wrong. This book explains why in a straightforward and undeniable manner.
        astine 17y ago
        Javert, even the Objectivists ackknowledge that their first principles ("axioms" in Objectivist parlance) are not so much proven truths as they are necessary assumptions for the pursuit of cogent knowledge. "Certainty" is a relative term; it describes a state of mind rather than an objective truth. I can be 'certain' of something without it being true. I am certain of my own consciousness and existence, not because I can prove them, but because I must be so in order in order to live and function. It is a simple 'faith' everyone must simply accept, but it is no more than that.
- javert 17y ago
  The examples you're giving are NOT examples of faith. But since people keep downvoting me without any reason (you're only supposed to downvote if someone is rude or something, NOT because you disagree with them), I ought to just stop making comments. This is pitiful.

by javert 17y ago

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

No argumnet based on religion (that is, faith) can also be based on reason. Something like faith that the universes speed limit is the speed of light - this makes GR completely devoid of reason? Or that our arithmetic can't be shown to be complete and consistent with and of itself - this makes all of maths (based in this common arithmetic, cf Godel's I.T.) devoid of reason? The Bible says, James 1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james%201&ve... : "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

astine 17y ago
Assumptions are prerequisite for reason. Faith is a prerequisite for assumptions,. Therefore, faith is a prerequisite for reason. Put more simply: absolute proof of anything being impossible, some degree of faith is a universal requirement of human beings wanting to live a productive life. Thus to conclude that faith precludes reason is to conclude that every human on earth is incapable of reason. Which is quite a pretentious claim, I think.
- javert 17y ago
  Your first two premises are wrong. You do NOT need faith to establish reason.
  - astine 17y ago
    Sigh. The entire modus operandi of philosophical discourse since Descartes has been the seeking of a basis for human thought that didn't depend on assumptions. Heretofore, it has failed utterly in this task, and modern philosophy has increasingly accepted the notion that nothing can be proved absolutely. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense: Why should the human mind be capable of absolute knowledge? Slowly we are realizing again what the ancients took for granted, that to reason, one must first assume that one is capable of it. So, seeing as your statement controverts over 3000 years of experience, you'll need to proved an example of a belief that doesn't rely on assumptions.
    - javert 17y ago
      The human mind is not capable of "absolute" knowledge. The human mind is not omniscient. But it doesn't have to be omniscient. We can still know many things, and we can have certainty that we're right about those things. To do so, we need a philosophical foundation for knowledge. See "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", by Leonard Peikoff, chapters 1-5. You can get it in most bookstores and libraries. P.S. Decartes was wrong. This book explains why in a straightforward and undeniable manner.
      - astine 17y ago
        Javert, even the Objectivists ackknowledge that their first principles ("axioms" in Objectivist parlance) are not so much proven truths as they are necessary assumptions for the pursuit of cogent knowledge. "Certainty" is a relative term; it describes a state of mind rather than an objective truth. I can be 'certain' of something without it being true. I am certain of my own consciousness and existence, not because I can prove them, but because I must be so in order in order to live and function. It is a simple 'faith' everyone must simply accept, but it is no more than that.
javert 17y ago
The examples you're giving are NOT examples of faith. But since people keep downvoting me without any reason (you're only supposed to downvote if someone is rude or something, NOT because you disagree with them), I ought to just stop making comments. This is pitiful.