That can be true but is a sidebar.

To try to prove anything via faith is irrational.

Huh?

I was taught the ist way. In those days, it was considered to fill the little heads full of rice pudding with memorizations, and fill in the reasons why later. when the intellect was more advanced. It seemed to work.

I'm just curious (nosey). I had noticed a fairly large contingent f Gulchers coming from a position of religious belief and was wondering how it was possible for them to do so when one of the very foundations of Objectivism is reason not religion as a basic premise.

Silent, but following........................until I posted below.........................

"...the evidence of things not seen." Seen being things for which no evidence exists, thus circuitous.
Non-A is A.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Religion sells a product that cannot be proven to exist provided you relinquish tangible current goods and your right to take care of yourself by sacrificing your noblest characteristics to those who are the most worthless. If God does exist and he is anything like he is described in religious texts I want to live in a different neighborhood. Often their most honored leaders are admitted (by their own texts) murderous thieves demanding obsequious servants. Their highest saints accomplish nothing of value existing only to demand payment and patronage for their chosen causes of caring for those who will not learn to care for themselves. Faith is one of two of the most destructive words in the language.

"what conclusive reasoning does an entrepreneur go into business for themselves?"

Factual research then calculated risk - speaking from experience (and success).

Now thatwe know that our place in the universe is rather incosequential we find it difficult to imagine a God being interested in entities so tiny as to be microscopic on a planet just a bit bigger than a moon, orbiting a mid-sized galaxiy with biliions of other stars in billions of other galaxies which causes light traveling at 186 (or 7) miles per second years to move from one outpost to another.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,s

D-I-T-T-O

DITTO

You are confusing trust with religious faith. Hank trusted his metal would support the load because he understood its capabilities. When he created it, he tested it. Now it may have been he miscalculated and the bridge would collapse, but that isn't because he had a belief without evidence.

Now let's say the metal was just created by mixing iron and copper in a mixture in an undetermined ratio and formed into girders to build the bridge to an untested design. Going over that bridge would be an act of faith because you have no evidence that that bridge could withstand the load.

Faith vs reason is much like the dichotomy between belief and understanding. You can believe that two plus two equals four or you can understand the mathematics so you know WHY two plus two equals four. The first is a blind alley and the second opens a path to a larger world.

Can we ever come to any agreement as to specifically define anything anymore today? After all we've recently been educated as to the meaning and redefinition of something so simple as "is". Today about half our population actually believes "it" and the other half doesn't.

very astute...and correct...Rand thought Conservatives worse than anyone else...

I think there is a difference in the way the word FAITH is used. A real person who bases his life on faith is essentially saying- "no matter whether what I am believing is true or not, I will believe it anyway". That view I would characterize as irrational.

But others use the word to indicate that they currently believe something to be true, but that view is subject to change if the facts prove otherwise. They shouldnt really use the word "faith" then, as they arent actually being irrational

I would hope a conservative, (one whom embraces time tested principles) could Not be an "intellectual" but instead an, intra-lectual...meaning integrated and not compartmentalized.

Yes, "religion" (a more often than not, faux way of organizing the teachings) is based upon a confidence that the organization is correct. That faux "confidence" being faith.

That organization and resulting faith in it, absolutely destroys the teachings that actually resulted in the idea of capitalism, morality, ethics and how a free conscious being would act in a free market, not to mention, society itself.

The latter, being the product of reason, observation and duplication of the results of those observations.

(don't mind me, just working out my understanding of the language and concepts being used here.)

The part in quotes is how I always saw the world: Values are arbitrary and the purview of feelings. Feelings set the axioms, the propositions we start from that don't rest on other propositions. From that starting point, we use reason and observation, but the values originate in feelings, and are passed down from our parents.

People on this site went ape condemning this. They say if you study Ayn Rand's writings, you'll learn that values need not come from arbitrary axioms or emotion. I love this idea. I wish people put the effort they devote to enjoying watching politicos make one another look bad to actually digging into the rational origin of values. They say it's in Virtue of Selfishness, but I did find not the answer there.

I hope the people who went ape are right. I don't like the notion that values are arbitrary or given to us by a benevolent creator who we have no evidence for.

Nice post. It is a little like “what religion or party are ones children?” Typically the same as the parents.

I think that the mistaken equivalence is faith and capitalism is based upon the error that correlation equals causation.

I completely agree with Nathan. His definition of faith is correct, by the way. I looked it up again yesterday to be certain.