The definition, as indicated cme from the Objectivist Newsletter from Ayn Rand herself via Nathaniel Branden, being contributors to this forum, I would think that you are in accord with it. Can either of you provide a better definition so we can view them side by side?.

In a debate, one must be willing to challenge even fundamental premises like definitions. To me, the definition of faith as used by the author is a straw man - a glaring fallacy - and I have supported such with extensive examples. (I can also look up several other dictionary websites to see a host of other definitions, so I think it of paramount importance to apply the correct definition to the idea the author is attempting to express.) The entirety of the author's argument lies upon his use of definition, so the notion that there is anything to debate here other than whether or not he has his definition correct seems to me to be moot.

As I see it, there are three paths:

1. We can continue to disagree about the definition being used and leave the matter unresolved.
2. You can offer a rebuttal to my arguments, expose any flaws in my reasoning, and continue the debate.
3. You can seriously consider my arguments.

Regardless, I appreciate your cordiality and consideration.

I don’t agree with the definition or concept that, “faith is the motivation to act.” Maybe someone else will.

When debating, the terms used need to be generally agreed upon.

Does "my" definition - even though it challenges conventional thought - make sense? Do the examples which I have given or the reasoning I have supplied contain fallacy? If not, they bear consideration. As I said, the entire dilemma lies solely in how one defines faith. If one defines it as being inherently contradictory to thought, then the conclusion is foregone. Given the implications, however, I think it worthy to challenge the premise as false.

I, too, reject the notion of blind faith, but I reject it because it has no meaning - no substance. One does not believe in the existence of extraterrestrial beings without having some concept of this Earth being separate and distinct in the cosmos from other planets and a supposition about intelligent life. One does not believe in "god" or the flying spaghetti monster without having formed some kind of notion of just what the attributes of such a being would be. It is impossible. We can not believe in an idea formed from cognitive dissonance or lack of cognition in the first place. There must be thought involved. Faith is simply the desire to act on a little knowledge in order to gain more.

A word has to have an agreed upon meaning to be useful. I simply used two non-religious definitions of “faith” on dictionary. com. Does dictionary. com use a straw man argument?

I could not find your definition.

"I can not agree with your definition."

And therein lies the dilemma. The definition of faith used by this author necessarily leads to a foregone conclusion - the epitome of the straw man argument. The problem is that even people of faith don't use such a flawed definition such as "belief that is not based on proof". The proof is in the doing: the proof can not precede the action!

I agree: one does not require faith to think. I propose that one of the reasons so many people get hung up on this is that they adopt the notion that thought and faith are mutually exclusive. I challenge this misbegotten preconception with all vigor. Thought is how the mind determines what to do. Faith gives him the reason to proceed. There is no better example in support of this proposition than that of the business entrepreneur - except perhaps the scientist - as a demonstration of what happens when careful thought and preparation are married with conviction-based action. Contrary to what some may choose to believe, rational thought is a partner to faith - rather than an antagonist.

Take the example of Hank Reardon's bridge. He had done the calculations. He was confident enough that he put his conviction on the line by being the first passenger on the train across the bridge. But up until the point that the train passed safely over, there was no evidence of success; no logical conclusion to be made. His faith played out in confirmation as the bridge held. He then knew with certainty that his actions up to that point had not been in vain.

Another example: Dagny Taggart. It was faith that led her to pursue Galt through the barrier into the Gulch. There is simply no other way to characterize it. She acted because the answer to her question was so important that she was motivated to test what can only be characterized as a wild guess. And - fortunately for her - she, too, found out that her faith was not in vain (which is good because its hard to continue a story without the main protagonist). ;)

One last caution: do not confuse the principle of faith itself with any foregone conclusion that what one has faith in is necessary correct. Once one has found by experience that something is not true, to continue to abide by that belief is folly - not faith. It is a willful act of defiance. Faith lasts only until the principle is proven - or not.

“faith really is: it is the motivation to act”
I can not agree with your definition.

Faith is mostly:
confidence or trust in a person or thing
belief that is not based on proof

You don’t need faith to start thinking. You don’t need faith to start doing. Before I begin the work required to start a business I use reason above faith. I think, “Will this work? Why or why not?” Later, I may be confident that it will work. I’m not saying everyone does this.

I've never seen a business plan materialize out of thin air, either - though there have been times when I wish they had! But I think you mistake what faith really is: it is the motivation to act - nothing more, nothing less. The person still has to act, to be sure, but the motivation for doing so does not come because the entrepreneur knows the end from the beginning! He hopes and believes that by putting in the work, he (or she) will confirm the hypothesis built within the business model.

The success of a business does not lie within the model itself, but in the willingness of the entrepreneur to commit to act based on nothing more than a belief in success. And business models don't guarantee success - they only give you a guide as to where to best focus your resources.

Logic can only confirm from observation - a passive event. That is its limitation. Logic does not cause things to happen in the first place, however. That requires action and action requires motivation. Motivation stems from belief that if one takes a proposed action, that the desired consequences will occur. But until the steps are taken, no events are set in motion and no outcome is possible.

What percentage of those businesses that failed started with a sound business plan? Those require a thinking mind, not faith, to create.

I completely agree, but what motivation leads one to put all that time into a business proposal in the first place? I've built them before and they take a lot of work and you have no reasonable expectation that anything in that document will actually pan out as you predict. Market factors (competitors, customers, alternatives, distance considerations, etc.) are all educated guesses. Budgets vs actual sales? More guesswork.

Why does the entrepreneur invest so much time and effort when two out of three go out of business within two years? The evidence should point people away from entrepreneurship, yet people still continue to do it at the same rates as ever (taking into consideration taxation laws, etc.). Logical conclusion works against the entrepreneur - not for.

I’d rather jump into business with a reasoned out plan then having faith that everything will work out.

So let me pose the following question: by what conclusive reasoning does an entrepreneur go into business for themselves? They have no guarantee of success - only the hope (or faith) that their ideas will garner enough business to allow them to make a living. Thus, they act out of faith - only confirming what they believe to be true (that their products or services are worthy of consumption) afterwards.

Religious faith has been the means by which anointed men can rule others by fear. I think it is mostly possible due to our fear of death but being too weak in mind and body to reason as individuals has made it easy to manipulate. Once a society accepts religious doctrines, they impose their rules on everyone. Altruism and the accumulation of wealth are difficult to reconcile but the belief that God rewards those that work hard and apply their superior intelligence to business matters was a means of doing so. This became known as the Protestant Ethic and the Capitalists justified their wealth in this manner. Like all reasoning based on false premises, there are unintended consequences and those that have opposing views can use the theory against you. Government and Capitalism can only co-exist efficiently when one has little to do with the other. Faith forms a bridge between two opposing forces that is healthy for neither.

Great topic Herb7734 ! Thanks for posting. Why would anyone tie their support of capitalism To faith? Maybe they are lazy and can't see the obvious. The most successful country in the history of man (that we know of) was built on capitalism. Innovations driven by the desire to succeed. Competition unfettered by cronyism
Has raised the standard of living for the average Joe to live as well as royalty or even better from 150 yrs ago. Having FAITH that the government will meddle with progress and make improvements to a self fixing system is ignoring evidence to the contrary. Hence faith is the only way to support Government controls i.e. minimum wage ,price controls ,affirmative action and many more failed actions because reality tells a far different result. Have a great day.