Me too...

Through the door and into the void. Still looking for a good spot to land.

Interesting. Both definitions are are based on Lenny P's work. I could have liked him better if he weren't such a heavy smoker.

I agree with the definition for reason. I don't agree with the definition for "faith". See my other posts.

"We are getting to the point where we are going to argue as to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin."

Answer: Zero. The real question is what kind of dance would it be if they could? ;)

"I'm pretty sure you'll have a reply to every pronouncement."

Ultimately, it isn't having a reply, it is having a reply which can be logically defended. To be completely frank, I've been underwhelmed by the defense of Branden's definition for "faith". If it was accurate and logical in the first place, it should have been much harder to dispute.

I thank you for that time which you have seen fit to use on my behalf - even if my responses frustrated you. Hopefully I haven't caused you to exceed your daily limit on acetaminophen. ;)

While I have a number of replies to this, I think I'll stop here. We are getting to the point where we are going to argue as to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.I'm pretty sure you'll have a reply to every pronouncement. Actually the differences are such that in the end they become compatable.

"First we must give definitions to the concepts. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality as presented by his senses. Reason is man's tool of cognition."

Agreed. However there is a major caveat to all of this: Logic and perception deal with things that have already happened - they are not absolute predictors of the future nor do they impel one to act. I can sit and think about things all day, using my logic. I will be absolutely correct, but not accomplish anything. There must be motivation to act.

"Faith designates blind acceptance of certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof."

Here I'm going to stop you. There is no such thing as "blind faith". Blind necessarily implies a lack of perception - a lack of cognition or idea formation. No one can form a hypothesis on which to act - even irrationally - without some informational basis. Humans do not deal with the "unknown". They can not, for it is unknown - non-perceived! They may speculate and invent for themselves all kinds of reasons to try to explain what they perceive but do not understand, but this speculation is part of the process of logic based on what they have perceived while in pursuit of what they have not! (This assumes of course that one is pursuing new information and not rebelling against prior knowledge and/or experience.)

What you are really getting at is in actuality the establishment of some arbitrary threshold of probability upon which every decision "should" be based: if it meets the threshold it may be deemed "rational" while if it does not it is "irrational". If we think about that, however, we realize that no one has the right to enforce upon another person one's personal probability threshold for "rationality". Such an act constitutes coercion.

AN OPEN RESPONSE TO BLARMAN
AS TO DEFINITION
I made a near fatal error by trying to squeeze the definitions into the subject. My responses are always cool, polite, and sometimes humorous. On rare occasions, I may get steamed but rarely vitupretive.. Here are the Objectivists definitions to which I adhere.
REASON: Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

FAITH: faith designates blind acceptance of certain idea content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.

If religion is the basis of the faith, the addendum is: Faith in the supernatural begins as superiority of others.
Further:Faith and force are corollaries: Every period of history dominated by mysticism was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny.

I'm always either cool, rational, or humorous. Sometimes all three at once.
Objectivism advocates the moral principal that man should be guided exclusively by reason. So what about the emotional side (faith)?
First we must give definitions to the concepts Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality as presented by his senses. Reason is man's tool of cognition.
Faith designates blind acceptance of certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.

If you wish to offer a defense of Branden's definition, please do so. And to do it in a cool and rational way is the only way such should be done! ;)

Thank you. I adhere to principles until they have been shown to be false. Without a solid defense of Branden's definition, however, I have no reason to change my opinion.

As for my background, I have read a variety of non-fiction works, including Piekoff's Objectivism, as well as some of Rand's shorter essays. I've also read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Hayek's Road to Serfdom, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, Plato's Republic, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, and others. I just completed Winston Churchill's voluminous history of WW II (4000+ pages). I also enjoy science fiction and fantasy, among which several of my favorites include R.A. Salvatore's "Dark Elf" trilogy, Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and John Ringo's Troy Rising series. If there are other titles you would recommend, please suggest them as I enjoy reading and am always on the lookout for good books.

And I'll be happy to reciprocate! Thanks!

Oh...you mean the "Rabbit particles"???
Laughing my butt off...

[I opened the door and AGAIN!..got you to walk right in]

It's been fun. If we ever meet, I'll buy yo a banana split.

OK, make that 1+1= 3.15.. I have absolute faith that equation is true.

Man, are you ever stubborn. Have you read any of Rand's polemics? Not just the fiction?

Hypothesis, faith, Two of the same things painted different colors.

Are you referring to the same definition that I am?

Anytime one hears the phrase "different things to different people" it is a clue that you are wandering down the wrong path.

Blarman:
you give me headaches. Have pity on this old man and allow me to be your censor. I promise to do it in a cool and rational way. The doctors only allow me Tylenol (acetomenephen).

I think old Yaweh made the universe so big in order to accomodate all those quantum particles that multiply faster than anything else in the universe.

You are right. Also if people became objectivists you wouldn't be able to devise a better person.

I don't think any better system than laissez-faire capitalism could be devised. That is, the system of respect for individual rights.

Heaven may just be the exchange of information between a specific quantum particle we call you and another, regardless of the distance between.

Hell would be exactly the opposite: 1 lonely particle that could of been you, (had you chosen to be), wandering the quantum field with no connection to anything and no numbered T shirt on anyone's wall.

"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."

I agree.

"They shouldn't really use the word "faith" then, as they aren't actually being irrational"

Again, this goes back to the authoritative definition of faith. If a religionist is using the definition aforementioned in Hebrews rather than Branden's definition, it seems to me that the religionist is being entirely rational. It is only if Branden's definition is applied that the religionist is now acting on the absurd. Given that the definition of faith has been defined by religionists for thousands of years compared to a few decades by Branden, I have to question why some view Branden's definition as authoritative. To me, since his definition is substantially different than what conventional use has been for thousands of years, his is the burden of proof - not the religionist for using his/her own construct.