When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

"For Spinoza, reason is the trustworthy path to truth, however much it may come into conflict with authoritarian claims."

Reason can lead to discovery of the falsehood of authoritarian claims. But reason alone cannot always lead to the truth, and does not lead to morality.

One thing all men might learn from the past millennium -- highlighted by 11 September 2001 events -- is that the infalliblity lock religions claim over matters "moral" should be denounced for what it is; a lie.

Thinktwice - you're all bunched up about 9/11 and religion. Many claim to speak God's truth, and are in conflict with each other. That does not mean, automatically, that none of those claims may not be true. Morality cannot be derived by reason. It can come from God, it can come from our hearts, it can come from teachers. It cannot come from reason. (Because to construct morality from reason [Rand's futile exercise], you need to have underlying ideas of what is good and what isn't (as she did). Most people who believe in God and accept His claims on moral truth, have strong inferential reasons for doing so. There's no proof, granted. But for most, the weight of the evidence favors that approach. That's why 90-some % of the world believes in God, and 1/3 of all humanity is Christian.

Yendu ... Rationality can lead to anything.

Think ... in reply ... Nice cliche, rationalization at its finest.

Yendu in counter reply ... I'm sorry, but rationality can lead to anything. It's not a cliche.

Think's final reply ... If rationality can lead to anything, it can lead to a rational ethics.

Your cliche is now proven worthless.

QED

Think's final reply ... If rationality can lead to anything, it can lead to a rational ethics. Your cliche is now proven worthless.

I was careless! I admit it. Rationality can't lead to morality. What I meant was that rationality can be used with any morality, and as such can lead to any outcome (including killing off millions of innocent people). You are on the wrong track if you believe morality can be derived from rationality.

You are on the wrong track if you believe morality can be derived from rationality.

Beliefs belong in church, they have nothing to do with rational thought.

Regarding your admitted carelessness, welcome to the real world.

Part of Ayn Rand's brilliance is that she continually checked her premises. In so doing, she used her mind to check on her mental processes, a self-exam far superior to Christians checking their consciences over adherence to things like man-made religious rules. Checking her premises was also a habit that resulted in her writing with incredible clarity -- always.

killing off millions of innocent people

Killing off millions of people is not the result of a rational ethics, it is the result of the ethics of altruism -- the ethics of communism, socialism and Christianlty; where self-sacrifice is not optionsl to the individual, but mandatory. Tithing is a minor example. And those Russian/Nazi massacres you mention are the product of altruism, too -- massacres that were "justified" (in Stalin and Hitler like minds) for the good of the state.

Checking one's premises can lead to startling observations.

Reason can lead to discovery of the falsehood of authoritarian claims. But reason alone cannot always lead to the truth, and does not lead to morality.

Excellent. Reason can construct and critique arguments, question assumptions, discover contradictions and expose fallacies, and that sort of thing. Reason can discover much of how the physical world works, and it can give us a certain amount of power over our circumstances. Reason is also invaluable when you need to justify an impulsive decision after the fact.

But reason is, for the most part, blind to the matters of the spirit: the nature of God, the nature of men, the nature of good, the nature of evil.

thinktwice, so far you have left unanswered one rather important question, one that I will rephrase here: When we have eliminated all contradictions and fallacies from a line of reasoning, how can we be certain that we will have arrived at the truth? And if we can't be certain of this, then how can we be certain that reason will lead us to the truth?

One thing all men might learn from the past millennium -- highlighted by 11 September 2001 events -- is that the infalliblity lock religions claim over matters "moral" should be denounced for what it is; a lie.

While we are taking history lessons from the past millenium, don't forget this one, especially poignant in the last two centuries:

History Lesson #42
When someone comes to power in your nation telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God, run, don't walk! to apply for your emigration permit. And don't watch the news from the nation you left; it will be very depressing.

thinktwice, feel free to correct me on this. You appear to have studied history and philosophy and made the following observations:

That the main world religions have severe disagreements in their religious and moral teachings
That at most one religion could be true at each point of disagreement
That they are particularly dogmatic on these points of their dogma
That each religion has shown itself historically willing to fight and kill 'infidels' who believe differently

And you have reached the following conclusion:

That all of the world religions must therefore be wrong.

Did you conclude this before or after you discovered Ayn Rand?

At any rate, if you cannot see the gap in this logic, you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason. But then, you might have more observations than the four I have listed. If you believe that you have anything resembling a proof of your conclusion, please present it for our enlightenment.

But reason alone cannot always lead to the truth, and does not lead to morality.

No human, religious or otherwise, has ever proven the existence of God; but all religions claim to be instruments of God. Which one, if any, can one trust?

In answer to that question, I'd tend to select the religion that gives God the benefit of highest respect while acknowledging man's inability to explain the nature of God -- The Jewish religion.

how can we be certain that reason will lead us to the truth?

The alternative question is has the same answer because man is not capable of total certainty. What we can be almost certain of, however, are those things we've learned for survival. "Look, there's a truck coming! Get out of the way." "I'm hungry, so I need something to eat." "My sister's children need something to eat (Jean Valjean in Les Miserables), but I'd have to steal to get it and stealing is immoral." To that Jean Valjean example, I'd say, the culture that considers that type (from the bakery) stealing immoral has an inflexible, perhaps evil, moral code much like that found in most religions today.

When someone comes to power in your nation telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God, run, don't walk!

The founding of the United States comes close to exemplify the condition you describe, in that the founders refused to permit a validity sanction to any religious faith.

With respect to your point #2. That at most one religion could be true at each point of disagreement.

There is nothing within articles of faith that are "true" in any respect, truth being the recognition of reality.

That all of the world religions must therefore be wrong.

Wrong, yes; totally wrong, no. No matter how good any religion is, no religion can claim credit for the natural goodness in Man, nor can any evil religion totally destroy that natural goodness.

you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason.

I'll let Ayn Rand answer that one.

"They, you decide, will tell you what to do.
You are never heard from again.
... This is the way most men live their lives here, on earth."

That in bold is excerpted from Ayn Rand's lost astronaut story in the opening paragraphs of her 1974 speech to West Point cadets: "Philosophy: Who needs it."

In post 48, Kyrie wrote: Perhaps rational ethics would work well for a society of robots.

Actually, rational ethics benefit all mankind, even those that robotically kneel to pray.

Regarding the depth and breath of rational and religious ethics, every decision a human makes is an ethical decision -- requiring the use of reason to determine right from wrong -- and only a small fraction of all human decisions are covered by codified religious edicts.

See the difference?

If men are to be ruled, the enemy is reason. -- Ayn Rand

Actually, rational ethics benefit all mankind, even those that robotically kneel to pray.

This is little better than simply saying, "IS TOO!" in this debate. It is nothing more than a restatement of your thesis without any new supporting argument or evidence. Certainly it is not any more convincing than the original post.

Regarding the depth and breath of rational and religious ethics, every decision a human makes is an ethical decision -- requiring the use of reason to determine right from wrong -- and only a small fraction of all human decisions are covered by codified religious edicts.

Okay, let's deal with this one. I will answer from my own peculiar Christian standpoint, and I will confess my ignorance in answering for other religions. Beginning with a few quotes from Jesus:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

According to what Jesus was saying here, rather than a small fraction of all His decisions being covered by codified religious edicts, ALL of His decisions, His judgements, the things HE did, and even His words, were not His own, but were from God his Father. Thus, in His own life, He made EVERY decision a religious decision.

But you are probably right about "codified religious edicts." Jesus was not living by "codified religious edicts" but by a perfect relationship with God his Father. His apostles later lived by their own close relationships with the Father. This is why one of them could write "All things are lawful to me but not all things are expedient." and "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." These two do not contradict one another, but speak of a life in which every decision, word, and deed proceed either from God or from an ungodly source.

See the difference?

I'll see you and raise you one.

The difference is that my statements make rational sense, while your scriptural quotes don't make rational sense. I think from a reality basis, and you've chosen to follow a mystical basis. I think -- to a large extent -- in terms of essentials, while you live according to scripture.

I'd really be interested in what you think heaven's gatekeeper question will be. Will it be about faith in Jesus, believing in God, or how well you've used the mind God gave you?

There's a parable about stewartship in the New Testament. How do the essentials in that parable apply to the question about using your mind?

Continuing our discussion...

Kyrie: When someone comes to power in your nation telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God, run, don't walk!

thinktwice: The founding of the United States comes close to exemplify the condition you describe, in that the founders refused to permit a validity sanction to any religious faith.

Nonsense! You are apparently equating my phrase "faith in God" with the establishment of a particular Christian denomination. You should know better. I'm sure you have already seen many quotes from the founding fathers that not only prove that many of them were ardent in their own faith, but actually enjoined others to believe likewise. Would you kindly point out how this could be close to "telling people to throw off the 'bondage' of faith in God"?

If you haven't seen those quotes, let me know. I'm sure you have. But let's continue...

yendu bwam: Reason can lead to discovery of the falsehood of authoritarian claims. But reason alone cannot always lead to the truth, and does not lead to morality.

thinktwice: No human, religious or otherwise, has ever proven the existence of God; but all religions claim to be instruments of God. Which one, if any, can one trust?

Your reply seems not to directly address the issue. Let's try it again. Please consider these points.

What is reason trying to do, in your view? Let me hazard a guess, and correct me if I'm wrong: Reason wants to give us complete and accurate knowledge of everything that is important to us, so that we can use this knowledge to improve our lifestyles, our tools, our toys, our circumstances, our society, and finally--ourselves.
How does reason do this? Answer: by the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, observe more, test hypothesis, establish theories. Also by logic: propose arguments, find inconsistencies, revise arguments, be persuaded.
How do we measure how well reason is doing? Answer: my computer is a product of reason, and it works real well. Also, I once had pneumonia, and they cured it with antibiotics. Another answer: It's doing better than any religion ever did.
Can reason actually do what we want it to do? Answer: I'm sure it will take us to the truth because it's doing so well. And it's better than your religion.

Regarding #1, some other people who might be reading this might be interested to note that in effect we want to become as gods.

Regarding #2, the issue is not quite so clear-cut as it seems. This is the way reason is supposed to operate. All too often, however, it is used after the fact to justify an irrational decision, to make it seem reasonable. Even in the human institutions of science and philosophy.

Regarding #3, we have known for some time that technology is a two-edged sword. Thanks to antibiotics we now have at least one laboratory strain of tuberculosis that is resistant to all known antibiotics. We have so many time-saving devices, why are our lives so harried? But the larger issue is this: we have no idea how well reason is doing in the realms we cannot directly observe and measure. For example, you most likely would assert that rational ethics (a product of reason) is better than, say, Judaism (the religion you find the most palatable). But hypothetically suppose that God actually did reveal to Moses and the Hebrew prophets exactly what they claim He revealed. Then Judaism would be Truth, while the rest of us were stumbling around in the dark. Then the articles of faith for Judaism would be objectively true. Now, can reason give us a way to measure the truth or falsity of the hypothetical above? Can we by reason measure the effectiveness of reason in a metaphysical or spiritual realm?

And then regarding #4, if the effectiveness of reason cannot be measured in a metaphysical realm, we have no reason to believe that it will be effective there.

Although if reason were my religion, perhaps I would have faith that it would succeed. But this faith would go against the religion of reason, so where does that leave us?

And if we would set reason up as God, we must deal with another issue. Most philosophies--not only rational ethics--claim to be the product of pure reason. This would be an exact analogue for religions claiming to speak for God. The philosophies of the world are in no better agreement than the religions of the world. You claim that your religion, excuse me, philosophy--Randian ethics--speaks for Reason. But Kant, Heidegger, Schlegel, Wittgenstein, etc., would all claim the same thing. So, by your logic concerning religions, you are all wrong. Right? (But not totally wrong. Does that make you feel better?)

And please note that while one may switch philosophies, each philosophical system is fairly fixed. In other words, you may switch from socialism to Randian ethics and consider that a victory for Reason, but socialism and Randian ethics are both fixed systems. In the same way, people convert from one religion to another while the religious system remains fixed. Some people even claim that it was purely reason that propelled them out of one religion into another.

So, regarding philosophies, "which one, if any, can one trust?"

And finally,

Kyrie: you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason.

thinktwice: I'll let Ayn Rand answer that one.

Two comments. First, don't lean too heavily on Ayn Rand, either. She also is fallible. Second, the sentence from which you took my comment is a conditional sentence. Stripped of the condition, it appears to be a universal declaration. Let's restore it to its proper state:

Kyrie: At any rate, if you cannot see the gap in this logic, you would do well not to lean too heavily on your reason.

So...could you see the gap in that logic (post #87)? If you could, the rest of the sentence is inoperative as its condition has not been met. But would you place your trust in an ability to reason that was unable to see the gap in that logic?

The difference is that my statements make rational sense, while your scriptural quotes don't make rational sense. I think from a reality basis, and you've chosen to follow a mystical basis. I think -- to a large extent -- in terms of essentials, while you live according to scripture.

I suspect you didn't read my post very carefully. Perhaps when you saw scriptural quotes you decided that they could not possibly make rational sense, and never bothered to determine what point I was trying to make, and whether the quotes supported my point or not. Let's test you: can you paraphrase the point I was trying to make? [Hint: I stated it clearly more than once.] The next question is harder: can you see why the quotes supported my point? I can help you on this if you need it.

If my God does exist, then my "mystical" basis is in fact the reality basis, while any materialistic basis is in fact the wrong basis. So in effect, you are simply asserting that my God does not exist. How utterly convincing.

I'd really be interested in what you think heaven's gatekeeper question will be. Will it be about faith in Jesus, believing in God, or how well you've used the mind God gave you?

There's a parable about stewartship in the New Testament. How do the essentials in that parable apply to the question about using your mind?

You mean "stewardship." First, the idea of a "gatekeeper question" is extrabiblical. I'll stick with what Jesus said about the whole issue. I'm sure you have heard that before. If you haven't, I'll be glad to inform you.

Second, regarding the parable. Let's use reason and see where we get. Let's take the followiong as our hypothetical assumptions. As hypothetical assumptions, you need not agree with them. Just see where the logic takes you anyway.

That God authored that parable, and that it does have a meaning.
That we aren't sure what that meaning is. What, precisely, is the meaning of the "talents" that each servant was given? Is it supposed to be the mind?
That the rest of the Bible is equally valid as God's Word, and that some passages are more obvious in their meanings.

So, did God have a specific object in mind when He said, "talent"? Or could it be any object, such as "mind," which is the interpretation you favor? [Note that at the time of writing, a "talent" was a fixed amount of money. This parable is often preached as a lesson in giving to the church. This also could be questioned in the same way.]

Let's try a different interpretation and see what we get. God gives to most men all of the equipment they need to rape a woman. Does the parable then teach us that God expects men to rape as many women as they can?

Clearly the answer is "no." God has something else in mind for that organ.

You may have overlooked the context in the parable, that the servants were investing the "talents" to get gain for their Master. He, and not they, would be the judge of how well they had used what He had given them.

The conclusion: In light of the rest of the Bible, some interpretations of this parable are invalid.

Addendum: We need to use the interpretation God intended, not supply our own. So how do the essentials of that parable apply to the use of one's mind? By using our mind to the profit of God, not to our own ends.

Finally, at one time you thought I might have a background in philosophy. Apparently at that time I was making sense to you. Was I using my mind then, or not? Have I stopped?

Or would you say that a person is using his mind only when he agrees with you and Ayn?

the servants were investing the "talents" to get gain for their Master

I disagree -- Reference Matthew 25, sentence 28.

Did I think you were trained in philosophy?

Your first post had a touch of Kantian philosophy in it, that's all.

So the answer is no; your only philosophical interest now appears to be a defense of your faith.

Good luck with it.

I disagree -- Reference Matthew 25, sentence 28.

Insufficient. In v. 27 the master clearly considers what he gave the servant to be "my own." They are still servants, and the money and cities they control still belong to him.

Did I think you were trained in philosophy?

What do you imagine what a reasonable reader would think when you wrote: Meanwhile, I thank you for the interesting thoughts and I'm wondering if you are a philosophy major or professor(!), and if your posted thoughts evolve from Kant's work.

What I wrote later was, Finally, at one time you thought I might have a background in philosophy.

In light of your earlier post, are you now claiming that you never thought I might have a background in philosophy?

So the answer is no; your only philosophical interest now appears to be a defense of your faith.

As does yours. Or perhaps you could point out where in this dialog you have demonstrated interest in philosophy for the sake of philosophy, rather than simply supporting and defending your beliefs. But I realize that this debate we have had is only a sample of our philosophical interests, and that this sample is neither large nor unbiased, so I would not presume to infer from this data where your philosophical interests lie. To do so would be quite irrational.

But tell me something. When I use philosophy, as you say, to defend my faith, am I using my mind, or not? And according to your idea of the "heaven's gatekeeper question" would God be pleased that I am using my mind in this way? Or would He rather that I apply my mind to rational ethics? Does it matter to Him (your God) how I use my mind, or does it make no difference?

And I have noticed that you have ceased responding to most of the points or questions I have raised in recent posts. You now pick one or two minor points and dispute them. In a war, when one army withdraws from the main battle and begins sniping at individuals on the other side, the army is generally either planning an ambush...or is in retreat.

Are you planning an ambush?

A Randian of the Peikoffian variety would say that someone who imputably disagrees with Rand is evil.

This is the type of thing that makes thinktwice dismiss all religions when they do it. I'm not convinced that thinktwice would say I'm evil (would you?) but if you said, "someone who imputably disagrees with Rand is not using their mind" you might get agreement.

Are you planning an ambush?

Why bother?

Regarding Goldhammer's anti-Rand book ("The Ayn Rand Cult") recommendation in post 34, it has an Amazon.com sales ranking ... Amazon.com Sales Rank: 110,643

Compare that to the Amazon ranking for Ayn Rand's paperback edition of "Atlas Shrugged" ... Amazon.com Sales Rank: 151

Based on that empirical data, I'd guess that there are far more Rand fans out there than Rand haters; but the saddest fact is (for those interested readers) that Ayn Rand is hated virulently -- as was Mark Twain -- by religious folks committed to altruism and claiming to preach love.