How so? I take a pretty dim view of most organized religion, and found this to be one of the more rational sermons I have read or heard.
He suggests that in a dire situation, stealing from the shelves of a major chain store is a less evil alternative than violent crime or prostitution.
The obvious flaw in his argument would pointing out that this is a false dilemma, that there are many other alternatives. But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. I'm not pro-shoplifting, but given his scenario it seems better than robbery.
(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.)
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&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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are sort of right, but not exactly. Objectivists hold that axiomatic concepts are self-evident. That is their "proof". Any other attempt to "prove" them would be nonsensical, since they are irreducible primaries and the basis of all knowledge.
That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral.
No, I am exactly right. There is no such thing as an undeniably self-evident truth. The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience. The so-called 'existence of existence' (a meaningless tautology) because it is not established that it is necessary for something to exist in order to for it to know.
As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further. The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one. Miss Rand chose one which happened to be convenient for supporting her preconceived notions, as did Marx, Aristotle, and Descartes.
That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral.
You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition.
I'm going to have to stop this discussion here because this tells me that your entire argument rests on an univocation. I really don't have the time to discuss this topic to the length that it deserves so I'm just going to have to drop this. If you want further reading, you can try the Categories by Aristotle.
There is a simple reason for our disagreement. You do not believe that reason is (possible/efficacious/valid). I do, though this belief is not based on faith. The argument for why reason is valid is given by Ayn Rand. You are not familiar enough with her argument to defeat or disprove it. Anyway, my response to your specific claims follows. I respect your wish to end the conversation, so I don't mind if you don't respond.
The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience.
It has been established. All the evidence supports that we are able to know and that we experience. I don't know what you mean when you say that this has not been established. No, we are not omniscient... but, for example, we could not build computers (for example) if we were not able to "know".
As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further.
No, I honestly can't see that. What is a more fundamental axiom than those of Objectivism?
The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one.
No, they are objective. They are the only primary concepts that are implicit in and fundamental to all knowledge. Can you name some other concept for which this is the case? They are also self-evident, though they are not the only concepts for which this is the case. (By the way, self-evident does not mean "obvious".)
You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds.
My report of seeing a fairy could count as evidence if you consider me a credible source and if the properties I ascribe to it are not contradictory to other evidence. Religious faith does not have evidence to support it, because the Bible and religious leaders are not credible enough to outweigh the evidence that suggests that miracles and so forth are impossible. In fact, if you ask a religious person to justify their belief in their religion, ultimately, they will cite faith as the source of their belief. I am positing a "faith" that all religious people hold.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition.
Objectivism is not "subtly religious" because it is based on reason. If you can show Objectivism to be in error, please publish a paper showing the error. It is clear from this discussion that you do not understand Objectivism.
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.
As someone else pointed out the Church holds that the right to live is greater than the right to [individual?] ownership of property. This has some interesting consequences which I'll enjoy meating out with friends in the Church in the next few weeks - very apposite.
Begging, agreed. Though when I look at it hard and consider that begging demands the poor to give up their dignity then it reinforces in me that we should endeavour not to leave people in a position where it is ever necessary.
I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon.
I think just the fact that so many are now considering the position of the poor facing moral choices of theft or starvation makes this an excellent sermon.
When was the last time anybody actually managed to starve to death in Great Britain? Great Britain is already a welfare state. It's easy to get paid for not working. If you fall through the cracks of that system there are dozens of charities devoted to helping those in genuine need. In addition, there's a beggar on every street corner. Oh, and there's always the Church, which really should be working on feeding the hungry itself (perhaps by reducing its own gold-plated candelabra budget) instead of sending 'em to knock over Tesco's.
Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere, and you haven't eaten for days and you're actually in danger of dying of starvation, all you need to do is go to hospital, where they'll say "hey, this guy is dying of starvation" and give you free food and medical treatment.
In conclusion, dying for lack of food in modern Britain is very, very difficult.
When I said "not to leave people in a position ..." I wasn't really thinking of people in the UK.
If you can walk into hospital then you're not going to be treated for hunger, if you can't then you'll possibly die where you sleep. I'll agree, in winter in the UK you'll die from exposure before you die technically from starvation.
Yes, in my city the best (in fact only) street work is paid for by the local Church - they do a rolling program of food/shelter moving between a few of the city centre church buildings.
"Finally, if you somehow manage to be completely unable to find food anywhere"
Isn't the point kinda that you can walk into this huge building, nearby and full of food, 20% of which will probably just be binned, and help yourself??
Begging in public is a crime in many jurisdictions, though one that tends to result in simply being chased off by the police rather than arrest. I don't think anyone is morally required to lie down and die if they've exhausted all legal avenues for basic survival.
Indeed, the cost to society of someone dying from starvation/exposure (in terms of autopsy, administration and other expenses) would seem to be quite a bit higher than the economic loss of some food. So I would suggest that stealing sufficient food for survival (rather than for profit) is more morally acceptable than passively dying.
I've camped out in sub-zero temperatures and been unfortunate enough to only afford one meal a day (but a good sized one). Surely being homeless and living on a bowl of soup most days, in winter, is going to leave one close to starving.
The only ones I've visited served bread and a bowl of something like curry or stew. Shorthand "soup". The point is it's a simple meal unlikely to provide a complete days _nutrition_ and enough energy for warmth in Winter; but probably enough for medium term survival.
He suggests that in a dire situation, stealing from the shelves of a major chain store is a less evil alternative than violent crime or prostitution.
The obvious flaw in his argument would pointing out that this is a false dilemma, that there are many other alternatives. But for the example of the recently released prisoner he cites, I'm not sure which obvious ones he's failing to consider. I'm not pro-shoplifting, but given his scenario it seems better than robbery.