- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
•That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,
•That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,
•That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,
•That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,
•That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,
•That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.
The last item will undoubtedly be controversial amongst Gulchers, but other than that, this is someone we can support. Will he end tonight's announcement by asking Who is John Galt?
If his best defense of the free enterprise system is that it "is the most productive supplier of human needs", then he appears to have given away the moral ground to those that hold "needs" as a standard. And honestly, what does "economic justice" really mean?
I agree with equal rights and justice under the law; but what is meant by being "entitled to" "opportunities"?
Lastly, why is "faith in God" "ESSENTIAL to the moral fiber of the Nation"?
I've read many of your posts in the Gulch, and I agree with much of what you write. I also respect your knowledge and appreciate your efforts regarding a real Gulch, but I think that battle will need to be waged from multiple locations rather than one. ;)
Brat has some different foundational principles than you do. I have seen several people here in the Gulch who share many Objectivist values other than atheism and yet remain Christian. As long as such Christians realize the burden of lordship that Christianity entails to go along with the questionable prospect of an eternal heavenly reward, people like Brat can have much in common with Objectivists and can live non-contradictory lifestyles. However, as I have said before, they cannot take Galt's oath.
Christians have one fundamentally different premise than Objectivists. Many of those who participate here in Galt's Gulch have checked such premises and are quite comfortable with the one fundamentally different premise that Objectivists do not share.
The battle will have to be waged on many fronts. I am in Florida at a non-tenure-granting engineering university in what many would consider a position of prestige and in a job I work quite hard at, but I still consider it a shrug job because I could have founded multiple companies or been a few levels below a Robert Stadler had I been willing to continue accepting the government gravy train.
I will battle from here during the academic year but want to start building a real Atlantis during the remainder of the time. I consider the shrug jobs we are in the battle positions, but we all need a vacation periodically.
as you may recall, we have been of different opinion on a few things in the past, but I muat acknowledge your well thought out and written commentary above. On the other hand, i must also differ with you on the opinion that Brat or any other christian can be an objectivist and still believe in God. as to his ability to take the "Galt Oath," as a believer, you couldn't be more wrong.
Ms. Rand's atheism was based more on her growing up in Russia than on any real disagreement with Christianity. I don't doubt that she refused to believe in a God, yet her moral principles are in fact in line with christian beliefs.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
She was born in early 1905 and the Russian Revolution did not occur until 1917 when she was twelve. I seriously doubt she became an Atheist after reading the Communist Manifesto or being exposed to communist propaganda prior to her departure from th Soviet Union in 1926..
I grew up in the US Bible Belt (in a city on the circumference of Project X) and was raised by very religious (Christian) parents who, ironically, also taught me to think for myself. My transformation to Atheism occurred after reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time at age seventeen.
The sheer arrogance of believing as an atheist that they are always smarter than anyone else is truly amazing.
What I offer is an opinion that is open to debate. I don't for a moment believe that I have the answer that everyone should accept. i offer food for thought whether it's on Christianity or Ayn Rand's philosophy.
The irony is that your explanation for Ayn Rand's atheism in fact proves my point that she was very likely affected by the pervasive communism i.e atheism that she grew up under.
The point I was making is primarily about her philosophy being very much in line with Christianity and that the two are not mutually exclusive. Her philosophy is very much like mine and mine is certainly influenced by Christianity. I lay no claim on perfection but I would like to achieve it and if I ever did, it would be influenced by both the christian philosophy of Jesus and have no conflict with the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
If, prior to making your baseless assertions (and indigestible "food for thought") about Ayn Rand's Atheism and my (assumed) arrogance, you took five minutes to search "Ayn Rand Atheism quotes" in google you would have been able to find this:
"Ayn Rand was an atheist. According to her one-time associate Barbara Branden, Rand became an atheist at age thirteen. Branden records Rand writing in her diary at that age: "Today I decided to be an atheist." Branden then reports her as later explaining, "I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong." [Branden, PAR, p. 35.] Branden continues that Rand's "second reason" is that "no proof of the existence of God exists."
Rand therefore proposes two objections to the existence of God. First, belief in God degrades man, by positing something "higher" or more "perfect." Belief in God is anti-man. Second, there is no proof for the existence of God. While Rand would later emphasize the irrationality of belief in God, the impression from her writings is that her principal objection to belief in God was a moral or psychological one." [Ryan, OCR, p. 270.]
Also: "It is important to keep in mind that Rand opposed religion at its most basic level. That is to say, she believed that it was untrue in all its manifestations and that its consequences were disastrous."
In "Requiem for Man" she sees Catholicism as the principal rival to communism: "Today, Catholicism and communism may well cooperate, on the premise that they will fight each other for power later, but must first destroy their common enemy, the individual, by forcing mankind to unite to form one neck-ready for one leash." [Rand, CUI, p. 316.]
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Pari...
Even though she saw the Catholic church as a rival to Communism (and the actions of Pope John Paul II would prove this to be true), it is absurd to claim that the "Christian philosophy of Jesus" is not in conflict with the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
In her own words:
(The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287):
"There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.
This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus...
Anyone who understands the meaning of the word "contradiction" should be able to understand the reason that Christianity and Objectivism will be "forever" locked in an unresolvable conflict. A compromise between the two should be unacceptable to both "sides" for obvious reasons.
Thank you for your response to my commentary.
However in your spirited defense of Ayn Rand’s acknowledged atheism you simply overlooked several points that I was making.
I never stated that Ayn Rand didn’t claim to be an atheist; she surely did so through her writings and in her interviews. My point was that she was simply wrong. Her philosophy, which I agree with and admire very much quite often, at least in my humble opinion, corresponds to the philosophy of Christianity. I have no desire to change your opinion of her atheism; my purpose is to point out the contradictions. I write these opinions for the purpose of providing “food for thought” among her many admirers. Whether any of them change their mind about Christianity is of little concern to me. My life does not revolve around creating converts but to cause people to think beyond their personal limitations. In that process, it also provides me with reasons to re-think many of my own beliefs and opinions.
The major points of Christian and Ayn Rand’s philosophy are the following.
A belief that hard work should be rewarded by whomever is willing to pay the worker or the producer of that work.
That the individual has a right to the fruit of his labor.
Yes, even that no man should sacrifice for another and no man has a right to have any sacrifices made on his behalf. However that does not mean that man can not voluntarily choose to make a sacrifice to whoever he wishes.
No one should ever be forced to do anything and that his life is his own to do with whatever he or she wishes.
We are all responsible for our own actions and brute force by governments to take man’s property can never be justified.
These are just a few of the similar principles of Ayn Rand and Christianity.
What you took to be offensive were in fact only my opinions that can hopefully be debated. I happen to believe that neither mine nor your opinions are absolute.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I never heard anyone who claimed to be a Christian assert that property rights were a major point of their faith and I cannot find anything to support that assertion in the Bible. Ayn Rand, however, believed that without property rights, the concept of individuals rights was meaningless.
I cannot find anything in the New Testament to support the idea that opposition to the seizure of property by government is a a principle of Christianity. I can, however, find what I believe to be a "reference" to sacrifice:
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done." (Matthew 16:24-27)
PS: I wasn't offended by your opinions. I was surprised by the insinuations in your comments. They did nothing to support your opinions.
Does the Commandment below ring a bell?
Thou shalt not steal
What does a thief steal except property of another; therefore Ayn Rand’s and Christian philosophy are in fact the same.
It is always amazing to me that Atheists make such a great effort to deny Christianity as a valid philosophy whether they believe in God or not. They spend all their time trying to convert Christians to their belief system when most Christians look for and often find that they in fact treat their belief, Atheism, as a religion. Atheists of course deny that fact but it is very obvious to all but them.
Christians are indeed gratified when anyone decides to believe, but Christians only want to offer their views to anyone willing to listen. We don’t sue to outlaw atheism as Atheists are constantly suing to outlaw Christianity at every turn.
I know that I will not convince you that Ayn Rand for whatever reason proclaimed herself to be an Atheist and chose not to believe in life after death, Christians however do believe in it, that’s why it’s called faith. Some people have it and others don’t.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Is this supposed to be a syllogism ?
It appears to be a question followed by an unsupported conclusion. It does not follow the simple formula of a syllogism and your "conclusion" is not logically derived.
I know Ayn Rand did not believe in stealing, but it doesn't logically follow that her philosophy is the same as Christianity,
As a matter of fact, the "commandment" you referred to above appears in the Old Testament.
Would it not therefore be correct (using your form of 'logic") to conclude that her philosophy is actually the same as Judaism?
The Koran also forbid stealing. Does that make her philosophy the same as Islam?
PS: Ayn Rand clearly did believe in all of the Ten Commandments. Frank O'Connor was her "ideal man" in real life and she placed no God above him. Nonetheless, she may have granted herself an exemption for commandment number seven as well.
You speak of logic, yet I see no evidence that you understand the concept. There’s a reason why I used the philosophy of Christianity and not Islam. While the Koran also forbids stealing like the Bible in the 10 Commandments, there are many differences in the two books and philosophies. Is there one thing written in the Bible that Ayn Rand would find objectionable with the exception that she didn’t believe in an afterlife?
For that matter do you think I, as a Christian disagree with anything in her philosophy? I disagree with her only in the sense that I believe in Christianity and she doesn’t. That does not make her an evil person; I can still admire her thought processes and her writings.
It is you that wants to push her and other peoples claim to Atheism. I have no objection to that belief, but I do have an objection to the Atheists constant desire to destroy the concept of Christianity. You have quoted the Bible to me several times; sadly I don’t believe that you have an understanding of it. For that matter I’m not convinced that you understand Ayn Rand’s core of her philosophy either.
I have the freedom to choose my faith and you have yours, but you don’t have the right to dictate to me what my belief should be. Zeroing in on Atheism will not allow anyone to find justice or happiness. Good luck following your path, I’m very comfortable following mine.
Fred
"Is there one thing written in the Bible that Ayn Rand would find objectionable with the exception that she didn’t believe in an afterlife?"
Yes, the concept of altruism.
Altruism means “selfless” concern for the welfare of others. Altruism is not synonymous to charity, because in truth and in reality, altruism makes charity impossible, as it imposes obligation on the individual to put the interest and welfare of others above his own.
Relying on Aristotle’s philosophy, philosopher Ayn Rand offered the most proper definition of individualism, by identifying its metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political foundation. Both Aristotle and Ayn Rand reject the morality of altruism. Aristotle rejects altruism because he champions rational egoism. For example in his theory of friendship in Nichomachaean Ethics, the philosopher contends that an individual must befriend himself first before he can befriend others.
On the other hand, Ayn Rand rejects altruism because according to her, “the basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.”
Ayn Rand wrote in the Virtue of Selfishness:
“Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.”
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/the...
There are a number of Christians who strongly disagree with Rand's definition of altruism, even claiming that she distorted the Christian view of altruism. If they are correct, her philosophy cannot be the same as Christianity.
https://www.google.com.ar/search?client=...
I have no desire to destroy the concept of Christianity. I want it to be known for exactly what it is and it is not the same as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It requires a fallacious argument to "conclude" that it is. It is also fallacious to make an "argument" with expressions like, "sadly, I don't believe that you have an understanding of it (the Bible) or "For that matter I’m not convinced that you understand Ayn Rand’s core of her philosophy either." It's more ad hominem.
I acknowledge that what I have done in this post is zero in on altruism and, in this topic, I have zeroed in on your claims that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is the same as Christianity. That is an equivocation that requires a massive amount of evasion (if not misrepresentation) of what she actually believed and expressed.
The last thing I would ever consider doing is dictate to you what your beliefs should be, but don't expect me to remain silent when you misrepresent the "beliefs" of Ayn Rand in a website like this.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I am convinced by your comments that you neither understand Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, nor Christian philosophy.
That’s only my opinion. I wish you well in yours. As an admirer of Ayn Rand’s books and philosophy I see absolutely no conflict between the two. How could I when I am a practicing Christian and also believe her philosophy to be consistent for a life of business and labor. The simple problem we have to deal with are the corrupt politicians that have abused people all over the world and that includes our politicians in the United States.
I wish you well,
Fred
…(19) "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. (20) And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" (21) They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."…Matthew 22:19-21
As an Objectivist, Ayn Rand believed that all taxation constitutes the seizure of property and, based on the above scripture, that belief is not consistent with "Christian" philosophy.
Regarding the oath, we will agree to disagree on whether a Christian will be able to take Galt's oath. It could be reasonably argued that a Christian didn't ask Jesus to live his life for us, but a Christian who takes his/her faith seriously should be living their lives for Jesus.
That is my very point, yes Christians should live their lives for Jesus, but what you fail to understand is that doing so is by the Christians choice. free will is what ayn Rand's philosophy is all about as it is for Christians. I'm always puzzled that atheists can't seem to understand that. even Ayn Rand missed that understanding about christianity. considering that she was raised in Russia it is not really surprising.
To therefore decide that a Christian couldn't take that oath is an absurdity of the strongest order.
Fred Speckmann
Anyone can always choose to live any way he wants to anywhere and take the consequences in both its affect on his personal life and in accordance with whatever political system he lives under. That does not mean he is living in accordance with Ayn Rand's ethical principles.
Moral philosophy is more fundamental than politics. You have to know what man's nature is and what is right for him in making choices before you can know what social system is proper. Every moral system implies a political system.
Ayn Rand did not misunderstand Christianity. She rejected it.
Her morality of rational self interest implies and requires a politics of capitalism; Christianity does not. An ethics requiring a duty to serve others has consequences for political philosophy. Capitalism cannot be defended based on Christianity.
You should read the non-fiction books.
What I’m about to write is not meant in any disrespect to your opinions stated above. However, I must say that your understanding of my points are negligent at best.
First of all, I’m not arguing that free will in accordance with Christianity allow Christians to engage in Hedonism or any other immoral behavior as defined in Christianity. The point I was making is that Ayn Rand’s philosophy and principles of how free people should live are in accordance with Christianity not the other way around. I’m stating that her philosophy is based on the philosophy of Jesus Christ whether you accept Him as a Deity or not. I don’t question that she did not believe in Christianity, but that’s only because she didn’t recognize the similarity, doubtlessly as a result of having grown up in a Russian Atheist society. For that matter, it doesn’t matter that she proclaimed herself to be an Atheist. As a Christian I have absolutely no conflict with her beliefs. The difference is that I recognize Christianity both as a faith and as a philosophy.
The question then becomes of whether Rand’s philosophy is positive or not. I believe it is, as is Christianity.
I’m not sure as to the meaning of your remark about that I should be reading the “non-fiction books.” I have been reading all her books for almost 50 years since shortly after publication as a young man.
I also believe that I may have a little more understanding of her background as I was born and lived as a boy in East Germany under Soviet domination where Christianity was to say the least frowned upon.
It always amazes me that instead of engaging in debate, some of the commentators in the Gulch tend to assume themselves to be smarter than everyone else and seem to have trouble engaging in debate about the nuances of Ayn Rand’s writings. None of us have an insight into her mind.
During the decades of my reading and re-reading her works, I continue to discover new meanings in her work.
Above all else, I have always admired her insight into the future, much of it based upon her past in Russia. I do believe strongly that the very background and history of her early life as is mine, has provided her with the insights that allowed her to see the true future of this nation and caused her to write Atlas Shrugged as a warning tome to us all.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
What is there to "nuance" about the fact that she became an athiest at the age of thirteen and never wrote anything that would suggest that decision had anything to do with communism, which she abhorred?
What amazes me is how those who want to be "Christian Objectivists" have to misrepresent her history and philosophy in order to find "new meanings" in her writings, while saying no one has an insight into her mind.
She clearly recognized a similarity as well as an inherent contradiction between Christianity and Objectivism when she wrote:
"There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.
This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus......
Anyone who truly believes in subordinating their self (aka soul) to the soul of others would not be able to honestly take Galt's oath. The term "Christian Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms. No one has to be "smarter than everyone else" to realize this fact.
They just have to be able to think logically (without contradiction).
And without equivocation or ad hominem.
.
Now we all know we are talking generalities, it's hard to know just what she took in, but nothing I've read showed any exposure to anything but these. That established as much as possible, all we can say is that she dis not understand protestant doctrines even as she laid them out in Atlas Shrugged. Yes, even in the strikers oath.
The "needs", "economic justice", and "opportunities" are addressed by "responsibilities as citizens in a free society". To me that last phrase states folks are responsible for their own lives and the choices they make in pursuing their own needs, etc. I, nor the government via my taxes, are responsible for their poor choices.
For myself, I have no problem with his beliefs as stated. To me they are clear.
Science is not omniscience. There is always more to understand. That is not achieved by a "fallback" position of mysticism as a substitute. It explains nothing.
Like I said, it works for me, but, maybe, not for thee. And, here on the Gulch, we are encouraged to have independent thought and ideas. None more valid nor worthy than the other. Just different. Get it?
Bravo for your analysis of the election results and your religious beliefs. In my opinion, too many gulchers seem to be at the least agnostic if not actually Atheists. As you stated about the wonders you have witnessed that science can't explain.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
True. So what the problem?
The reigns of terror of totalitarian dictators were not the result of reason. That vicious attack on reason is disgusting.
Unfortunately, there are some (here and on more hard core O boards) who insist on atheistic purity and will discount this candidate on that aspect alone.
Whatever Brat's politics and improvement over Cantor, no one should be excited about Brat being an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Despite the reports claiming he loves Ayn Rand, etc., there has been no supporting evidence for that, only that he likes Atlas Shrugged and has been "influenced" by it in politics, that he "appreciates" her "case" for human freedom and markets, and that he is in deep with religion and has also been influenced by the likes of Calvin and Niebuhr.
He may be "appreciating" Ayn Rand's arguments only enough to get BT&T money used primarily to promote his religion as the alleged moral foundation of everything while only liking a few of Ayn Rand's formulations at the level of politics, which does more harm than good if that's what he is doing.
Until we see the one article he co-authored on Ayn Rand's moral philosophy we don't know explicitly what his position on it is or if he understands it at all. If someone finds a link to it, please post it on gg. Meanwhile be glad that Cantor is gone and watch your back.
Looking for full article: http://ariarmstrong.com/2014/06/where-is...
"Southeast Informs", turns out to have been an annual multi-disciplinary meeting of a chapter of InfORMS, the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences.
The paper he delivered is apparently not available in written form, but a 4 page printed summary was released prior to the presentation under the alternate title. The summary describes it not as a philosophical analysis or evaluation of a philosophy of moral foundations, but as an attempt to statistically "test" political goals using "freedom indices" compiled by the World Bank for different countries today.
"We plan to explore the moral foundations of Randian capitalism as Ayn Rand defined them and compare these ideas to several prominent western philosophical thinkers. We then plan to line these ideas up with real world economic variables and to test what it is possible to test. Is economic freedom good? Is it correlated with many of the goods we desire?"
And
"There are obviously arguments for and against capitalism and there are both societal advantages and disadvantages to such a system. I plan to examine these advantages and disadvantages; examining whether in fact the advantages of competition and the free market system that Rand so strongly advocates in both her pieces of fiction and nonfiction outweigh disadvantages of capitalism. For Rand, this is almost easy by definition, but social science must [d]o better. The debate must be put forward in falsifiable and testable terms."
I have no idea why it has not been made available. I have only been trying to find out first hand what he thinks about Ayn Rand's philosophy.
If that is what Brat is doing then it _is_ nefarious, but there has been no evidence so far that he is doing that. There are no details at all so far available on his views of Ayn Rand's philosophy. There are many possibilities.
Not much is now known publicly about Brat other than vague free market tendencies and slogans, with a religious twist. It behooves us to find out. There will be no candidates anywhere near a rational ideal in many aspects for a very long time (if ever).
"Atheism" as such is secondary; it is a negative position only denying belief in the supernatural and tells us nothing about what the person does believe.
Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. That is why she got to say what it is rather than you. There is no such thing as "theistic Objectivism". If you want to steal some of Ayn Rand's ideas from what you regard as a Chinese menu to munge them with contradictions as if ideas were pawns floating on a table to be manipulated and interchanged with plug'N'play while calling it "developing from a different perspective", then pick another name for whatever you want rather than trying to imply it is a kind of Objectivism. It isn't. You are contradicting it.
And, if one believes in a deity, and expresses support for O, then ipso facto, one must be a theistic Objectivist.
She once gave a famous very brief "standing on one foot" summary in terms of the following principles, but this (as she said) isn't enough for a full understanding of their meaning, their justification and the connections between them:
"At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
"If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
"If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that..."
See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/object... for the rest of this summary.
Q: Why is it so?
A: because Rand said...
I do not see the threat or competition.
You reject any evidence that I can provide on the existence of a deity, so I cannot "prove" the existence. Neither can you "prove" that a deity does not exist.
My argument is with those who say that AR said so, so it must automatically be the final "truth." That, in essence, is calling her "God." That I reject.
AJAshinoff asked "how believing in a deity is not an Objective pursuit and cannot co-exist with Rand's philosophy?" and was given an answer, which neither of you have yet to acknowledge, let alone discuss. The answer requires knowing what Ayn Rand's philosophy is and her explanations for it. Your religious pronouncements contradict it.
Neither you nor anyone else has given "evidence" of a supernatural being. Existence is not "evidence" of the supernatural. The religious 'arguments' have for centuries ranged from overt mysticism to a long history in the Catholic orthodoxy of rationalistic fallacies regarding reason as a handmaiden to faith. The arguments are now used as classic examples of logical fallacies.
No "proof" of non-existence is required to reject unsubstantiated assertions, which is all atheism is: the rejection of a belief in a god.
Just because you can't physically see or experience something for yourself doesn't mean it does not exist.
I say this with all due respect, I'm not sure why Objectivists feel threatened by the notion that some may believe outside their perceived and self-defined box.
I guess we all have our own criteria for determining what's real and what isn't. Keplar22b meets mine, God doesn't.
12 apostles eyewitness and wrote of Christ.
Not much difference at all, IMO.
We are TOLD there are satellites out there (and we're told the Navy spends $500 on a toilet) and TOLD that they are finding planets that we will never set foot on. We are TOLD...and yet there are those who believe this is factual despite never seeing or experiencing them first hand.
I still don't understand the threat to objectivism by those who believe in a deity.
Primitive belief in the supernatural is not a threat to civilization or Objectivism. It is rejected because it is screwy and irrelevant to rational knowledge, not out of fear. The threat is from irrational people committing irrational acts by physical force. Those who act on faith inevitably use force to get their way because they have no objective standards that anyone else can see in order to come to any agreement.
It is easy to "prove" your point when you discount out of hand those things that you don't want to agree with.
How do you explain the 3 girls who viewed Mary at Fatima? Or how about Colton Burpo who at the age of 4 has an experience where he describes meeting people in heaven and seeing things that he could not have seen?
Thank you for the reminder, however even an ignorant old man like me knows that ARI represents the Ayn Rand Institute. It does beg the question however if you truly understand the meaning of the Ayn Rand philosophy. There are many on this site that do understand, but I am amazed at the number that don't seem to have a clue.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
K
Based on your last comment directed at me you have proven the old adage that "It's better to keep silence and let others think you a fool than to speak and let it be know to be true."
My suggestion is that I'll just ket you prove it to be true and not be bothered to try and engage you in debate on points of difference. free speech and opinions go for everyone and sometimes criticism is justified.
Quote me one time where I have in fact insulted or condescended to you as you have to me.
Fred
Also, it is reasonable to assume, I think, that there are moralities and moralities. I would agree that the one based on a personal philosophy founded in reason and based on natural rights is the best one we discovered thus far. I don't see anybody claiming that the belief in God is the essential part of morality. On the other hand, we cannot deny that many people have been able to find in their belief in God a foundation for their personal philosophy for a morality that I can readily accept in very many situations. It is, I think, a kind of choice that a free society worthy of that name must never deny. Ultimately, morality is just a cognitive guide for our actions. Mistaken choice of morality (or ignorance) is no excuse for misdeeds. Is it?
Personal philosophy is not based on natural rights. It's the other way around. Every political philosophy presupposes a moral philosophy.
Much of the "moral principles" held by today's Christians in modern society are not due to the otherworldly mysticism of early Christianity at all. They embrace out of common sense a highly secularized version that does not depend on religion at all.
But then again, you're not a typical O.
Ayn Rand advocated man's nature as the standard of morality and one's own happiness here on earth as the moral goal for each individual. She rejected all forms of the supernatural and mysticism, and categorically rejected -- not "discounted" -- mysticism posing as "rational belief". Mystical "self-orientation" with a mystical "purpose" is not rational and not in one's self interest. Most professed Christians in this country have been better than than, with mixed premises, while not realizing that Christianity is the philosophy of the Dark and Middle Ages that were overthrown by the Enlightenment making American individualism possible.
Where science, atheism, and objectivism stop religion begins. It is entirely selfish to want to live beyond your life. In those ways it is perfectly rational to look for ways to avoid those things. Science, atheism and objectivism have no answer to these questions.
Christianity has not been overthrown by the Enlightenment by any means, not when 70% of the US professes Christ in one way or another. Christianity provides a functional and acceptable social/personal code of conduct that prohibits the need for government controls (totalitarianism). The Framers didn't choose the word "inalienable" for no reason, they put certain rights above the ability of men to alter, pretty shrewd if you ask me.
Science deconstructs what is to understand it - it creates nothing and theorizes much.
Athiesm and Objectivism each have no answer for creation.
I'm not sure why you would take a point when I asked a question and was prepared to give you a rational answer.
The Enlightenment did overthrow the stranglehold of religion. Christianity was the philosophy of the Dark and Middle Ages. Theocracy and sacrifice to other worldliness were destroyed, making possible the moral acceptance of the right of the individual to his own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness here on earth.
Our rights are inalienable natural rights because they are based on the nature of man, who requires freedom in order to make choices and live in accordance with his nature; rights are not mystical decrees that explain nothing while in the name of a supposedly superior mysticism concede reason to the statists, hoping that that mysticism will keep them in check as a "shrewd" maneuver while they laugh at you and do what they want.
The best of American Christians in the remnants of religion today pay lip service to it with little impact on their personal lives. Most of them don't even bother to go to church any more. They are productive individuals who pursue values on earth, and are much better than and have nothing in common with the sordid sense of life of the likes of Tertullian and Augustine groveling before the supernatural in the Christian era, which is the opposite of the American sense of life. But "atheism" is not an explanation of anything and is not intended to be. It is not a substitute for a positive view of life and the world, it only rejects the supernatural, making it a minor aspect of rational thought required for positive achievement.
Science did not "deconstruct", it made possible rational pursuit of knowledge and the engineering that has created so much. The rise of reason, individualism and science broken free from the stranglehold of religion resulted in a spectacular improvement in our lives in only a few hundred years out of millennia of primitivism. You count on it as you type at your keyboard denouncing it.
There is no "answer for creation" in the religious sense; there is no creation of existence as such out of literally nothing, which is meaningless. Those who want to understand the world pursue it by understanding its nature and processes rationally through science. Mystical speculation of an imagined super being running the universe is not understanding of anything, any more than primitive tribes attributing causes of everything from the weather to the growth of food to airplanes in the sky built by advanced civilization understand anything through imagined gods pulling strings.
Many throughout time have seen the concept of a crucified deliverer as absurd, and it would be absurd if one applies logic to the situation.
All of this points to the idea that our universe is extremely logically laid out, and it is. Anyone with intelligence can see its order and wonder from whence it came. If one says that the order in the universe happened by a series of unlikely chances, then that person needs to answer how such remarkable order arose from disorder. A couple of months ago I referenced a list of 322 items that had to go right just to have an Earth capable of sustaining life, let alone producing life. That is just too many coincidences for me to accept. This same audience is quick to correctly point out even one "coincidence" when it comes to the Obama administration.
None of that, however, does not prove or disprove that there is a deity who looks at humanity very ironically and chooses whether he/she is to be revealed or not revealed. Would it not be poetic justice if those here in the Gulch and people of faith were to be confronted by someone like Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation as a quirky omniscient, omnipotent deity? My point is that we have no idea what will transpire after this life and should go on living our lives honorably. If we do that, then we will have nothing to apologize for if there is an afterlife to which we must provide an accounting.
I will see the universe as a child like Einstein did. I can see its order and wonder about who could create such an order. And if you call me foolish or illogical, I want you to consider how foolish you sound in mocking someone who tries to see the universe as Einstein does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDaSgyi...
Does science = truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZ...
Do humans operate like computers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tf6BS9B...
Can we be certain of anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDNCv-ob...
Do we enjoy being free?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHrbeBTi...
The physical universe did not evolve by chance as a coincidence and the universe has no "goal". Everything does what it does in accordance with its nature. If it weren't what it is now we wouldn't be here talking about it. That includes the conditions for life and the evolution of life itself. Darwin's theory of evolution was not and is not a progression of probabilities, nor was it compatible with a teleology and Creationism.
However we classify the distribution of entities within the physical universe as more or less uniform or "ordered" for purposes of our understanding, the universe continues to be what it is and acts accordingly. There is no metaphysical "disorder". There are only different states in a progression which we try to understand by identifying patterns and formulating principles of causality.
jbrenner: "None of that, however, does not prove or disprove that there is a deity who looks at humanity very ironically and chooses whether he/she is to be revealed or not revealed. Would it not be poetic justice if those here in the Gulch and people of faith were to be confronted by someone like Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation as a quirky omniscient, omnipotent deity? My point is that we have no idea what will transpire after this life and should go on living our lives honorably. If we do that, then we will have nothing to apologize for if there is an afterlife to which we must provide an accounting."
There is no evidence that we have any kind of soul or consciousness after physical death. All known observation requires a living, functioning, physical brain for consciousness. Anything else is pure, pointless speculation, often accompanied by equally pointless wishful thinking. We go on living our lives "honorably" in accordance with what we believe is proper for our lives while we live, not in a hope of fulfilling an unknowable future criteria for an after world, and not in accordance with standards guessed to satisfy it, hoping that by "coincidence" that they are the same.
"I will see the universe as a child like Einstein did. I can see its order and wonder about who could create such an order. And if you call me foolish or illogical, I want you to consider how foolish you sound in mocking someone who tries to see the universe as Einstein does."
Invoking the scientific prestige of Einstein as intellectual poetic intimidation for a hope of Creationism will not work. It doesn't matter what he thought about religion or deism (which wasn't much at all). We know better. We wonder how the universe works and try, like he did, to understand it. That does not imply wondering about a supposed superconsciousness creating and running everything, contradicting everything we know about the physical and biological universe.
I will agree with you that the universe does not have to have a goal. khalling and I had a side conversation about the existence of spontaneous order. I am not going to deny that such a thing is possible; in fact, we have seen spontaneous ordering on some scales. However, such spontaneous ordering assumes that we are progressing toward a global minimal Gibbs free energy (often confused with heat or enthalpy, which are only parts of the Gibbs free energy) and maximum entropy. If one believes that, then Darwinian evolution should be very highly disfavored as it does require an activation energy (related to the enthalpy term) to overcome. I am not saying that Darwinian evolution is impossible; in fact, I think it is part of the history that has transpired.
Use of Einstein was poetic intimidation. My purpose in using such intimidation is to counter the attempt of Ayn Rand and many who follow her, notably ewv, regarding atheism. Considering the possibility of the presence of a deity is not nonsensical. Many of the great minds throughout history have considered the topic. You are free to reject deism, atheism, or agnosticism. My point is that there is room for debate on this topic and that we will have no concrete answer in this life. Whether there is an afterlife or not is an equally valid question to ponder. All I am saying is that AR was dismissive of the whole topic and did not adhere to the same standards of proof that she did with regard to everything else.
Frankly, ewv, we don't "know better" than Einstein.
I knew that you would fall into my trap to claim to know better than Einstein.
However, Objectivism does not need to address the existence of a deity in order to be valid. As well, Rand spent a fair amount of time addressing all sorts of definitions of God, mostly from Christianity, applying reason and logic. The definitions fail due to contradictory definitions, which the religious tell us to accept on faith and reject a rational explanation for-because we cannot know. Imagine a scientific hypothesis that did the same. The religious would like to argue we must have perfect knowledge in order to have knowledge. That would assume you must know everything to know anything. We know that gravity works at a distance, however we do not yet know how.
Why would you try to intimidate in arguments regarding truth? I'm confused.
please define God.
Actually, in my debates with religious people, they dance around definitions so it's extremely difficult to stick to logic and reason. If you do not want to define God, then we can just have a discussion about faith. Most often in these discussions, things get heated because the participants are using different definitions for concepts.
Objectivists will reject contradictory reasoning. Atheists are all over the map
At some later point, we will discuss the issue of faith. There is no reason why anyone would have faith in a god who simply set the Big Bang into motion. There is nothing to be gained in such a pursuit. As for faith in a god who interacts very rarely in human events, there can be some discussion as to whether or not this is reasonable, but we will save that for a later time.
And don't try the trick of what then created God. God has always existed, and will always exist. God may be beyond anything that we can comprehend, as beings of a physical world.
Granted, that argument applies to closed, equilibrium systems, and the universe is neither.
I'm going to stick here because you can run circles around me in this arena ;)
More ordered crystalline structures do appear, but the impurities segregate to grain boundaries and to surfaces. The impurities are what dictate many of the other material properties. In a system without impurities, many of the spontaneous order arguments do make sense, but refinement of such impurities requires someone like me or like Rearden who know a thing or two about phase diagrams. The problem is that the world is not a system free of impurities.
If deltaG is negative, then the process occurs spontaneously. Entropy is always increasing. That is one term in the equation. Enthalpy (which most people simplify to "heat") is the other term in the equation. One can think of deltaG (the Gibbs free energy) as the energetic driving force toward equilibrium.
Broda, "Ludwig Boltzmann: Man -- Physicist -- Philosopher", Ox Bow, 1983
Von Baeyer, Maxwell's Demon, Random House, 1998,
But this has nothing to do with the physical universe being regarded as inherently chaotic rather than operating under causality and identity. "Chaotic" and statistical mathematical descriptions are methods, not physics or metaphysics.
It is a logical fallacy but it wasn't Tertullian's position. Tertullian (165-220), an early father of the church operating not long after the compilation of the New Testament taken as a Church authority, did not just believe that a crazy story must be true because it survived so long. He threw out the idea of explanation entirely and literally embraced the irrational as an act of faith. He thought that the religion itself was too bizarre to be capable of philosophical explanation. He believed revelation was both above and contrary to reason and denounced the possibility of a philosophy of the religion at all. That is how he wound up at this stage of his evolution in a crack-up as a screaming mystic literally embracing the absurd and unable to sensibly articulate it. Windelband quotes him as "credibile est, quia ineptum est; certum est -- credo quia absurdum". [Windelband, A History of Philosophy, revised, 1901, citing De Carne Chr. 5; De Praescr. 7.]
Fuller gives a classic translation of his position "It is believable, because it is absurd; it is certain, because it is impossible" [Fuller and McMurrin, A History of Philosophy, 3rd ed 1955]. (This is a source used by Leonard Peikoff in his lectures on the History of Western Philosophy.)
There are other similar quotes from Tertullian and others in the Church leadership. They make no logical sense, and by Tertullian's own principles of the time could not make sense; their statements illustrated, as they went in tortured circles trying to express the inexpressible, an embracing of absurdity as such on faith and intuition alone. This was in contrast to others who tried to buttress the faith they started with employing rationalized qualifications and fallacious 'proofs' employing "reason as a handmaiden of faith". And that is the point. It was all based on an irrational faith formulated in one form or another considered above reason.
About 900 years later St. Bernard [1091-1153] was still writing in the Tertullian tradition: "Like Tertullian, Bernard reveled in the incomprehensibility of this experience: 'I believe though I do not comprehend, and I hold by faith what I cannot grasp with the mind." [Jones, A History of Western Philosophy: The Medieval Mind, 2nd ed 1969.]
You still run across people today who gravitate towards the mysterious and feel at home mentally wallowing in the incomprehensible, but not usually with the same intensity committed across the board to their personal lives and not on a cultural scale or else we would be back to a Dark Ages, living under the philosophy of the original Dark Ages that put and kept it there for over a millennium.
The line that "It is believable, because it is absurd; it is certain, because it is impossible" should have "without some outside explanation such as a deity" after both clauses. This is implied both in Tertullian's writings and in those of the apostle Paul's. I am not saying that they are reasonable or should be believed. They are absurd unless one also accepts the presence of a deity.
Arguing this is pointless, I've learned that atheists are some of the most closed-minded folks I've ever encountered. I'm not a very religious person, btw.
Writing sci-fi and simply thinking things through I've learned that its best to entertain a wide variety of ideas particularly when matters aren't settled (and they aren't).
I respect your position. I do not remotely agree with it.
Nor is this a matter of having an "open mind". "He who has an open mind quickly has it filled with garbage." I have an _active_ mind, open to new ideas and rational explanation, not to the arbitrary and not to the constant repetition of variations on old fallacies promoted with an alleged requirement to be "open" to them without regard to prior knowledge.
This is a positive point of view, not "atheism", which is only a rejection of belief in the supernatural and not a positive statement of any position. Whatever atheists you talk to and lump together, the atheism itself tells you nothing about anyone's philosophy or the degree of activity of anyone else's mind. Accusing someone of being "closed" for rejecting nonsense, claimed to be based on talking to "atheists", is not a justification for dismissal of the rejection.
You can entertain any idea you wish for the purpose of fiction, but even in that there are standards to make your stories coherent and plausible enough to illustrate a theme. If you mean non-fiction by "matters not settled", there is always advancement in the frontiers of knowledge, especially in science. The need for creative thought does not imply openness to anything and everything. Science is not fiction.
The Framers did not just "choose" the word "inalienable" for no conceptual reason beyond politics, and they didn't just "shrewdly put" certain rights above the "ability of men to alter" as a political move to try to head them off by calling rights "inalienable". They identified the fact that rights are inalienable by our nature as human beings and that this fact precedes concepts of government: As men of the Enlightenment emphasizing reason and individualism they understood that man's nature requires him to be free in order to live in accordance with his own thinking and choices, and that therefore government should accordingly be limited. "Inalianable" is philosophical, and means by our nature, not either shrewdly political or theological.
They knew that this was man's nature regardless of how that nature came to be over history. Their reference to 'endowed by a creator' referred briefly and in general to a permanent endowment however it was created, what our characteristics and moral rights are permanently by our nature, regardless of how they got that way. It did not mean a Christian god. It was an application of their individualist outlook to politics made in a political statement, not theology. 'Creator' was vaguely deist in an era of pre-evolutionary science which they could not have known about; they had no idea how or by what mechanism we became what we are, nor was or is that relevant to what they needed to do based on what they knew. It was a lot deeper than just being either "shrewd" or religious dogmatists.
I have no idea what that means and so can't address it. I don't know what it means to "to take a point" or what you mean by "being
prepared to give a rational answer" to your own question that you did not ask.
There is no sixth sense bypassing the other five, but there is a wealth of knowledge about the human capacity for gullibility, imagination and lack of objectivity. There are no "experiences" of contradictory "miracles", only people who interpret whatever bizarre notions that go through their minds as supernatural, contradicting everything that is known. Fantasy is not a tool of cognition.
I do not naively "believe" whatever someone calling himself a "scientist" says, with no explanation or understanding. That is your approach, which you falsely attribute to others because you know no other. I distinguish between bald bizarre and contradictory assertions, versus understanding the classical experiments and the conceptual and mathematical explanations of physics. I put a lot of effort into understanding and connecting all knowledge to ultimate observation, taking care to identify the facts that give rise to the hierarchy of concepts and principles. I know what the source of my knowledge is, retaining the distinction between what I have replicated first hand and what is reported by scientists who make and duplicate observations, committed to rational scientific method reproducible by others as opposed to 'reporting miracles'.
I don't believe in "atoms" or anything else only because someone "told me they exist" so "take it on faith", with no explanation of how they discovered it and why they think so or who else accepts it for what rational reasons. Science represents objectivity in method, not mental authoritarianism to be taken on faith. Modern physics texts are not sacred texts repeating myths and legends passed down from wandering primitives in the desert thousands of years ago. Those who cannot make the distinction or understand the explanations means that they have no rational claim themselves to believe in atoms, gravity and photons, and that as a trafficker in faith and the arbitrary that they have no credibility on anything as they nihilistically demean science as no better than themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E9pKU_N...
- John W. Campbell, "Hyperdemocracy"
http://www.xtimports.com/text/Hyperdemoc...
The corollary is that: Even though life isn't fair, you should always seek to be just in your dealings with others.
"Come let us reason together, says the Lord."
This very lengthy phrase from Paul would be translated into modern and succinct language as: Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.
With all due respect, context dropping and concept swapping is why there is so much confusion about Bible quotes and/or teachings. It's much simpler than religion makes it out to be. In fact, it dovetails with Objectivism. (Believe it or not.)
You need to subtract from what you think about the word in order to glean meaning from the word.
This conversation reminds me of when Ayn and a theologian were arguing about universals. "What makes a rose a rose?", was the thought. The theologian said: "It's "rose-ness" is what makes it a rose."
Ayn correctly retorted: "There is no such thing as "rose-ness"!"
Then the theologian asked: "Then what is it?"
This is when Ayn discovered the Objectivist principle of universals. You have to subtract in order to find the meaning.
It's the same thought here. You need to subtract the "implied and inferred" meaning to get to the universal truth.
I'm sure that you will make it.
It's not about subtracting reality, it's about removing your pre-conceived notions.
Extrapolation is the ability to take existing thoughts and glean meaning from the patterns.
Abstraction is to use those patterns to see the future.
If you can picture that your mind is an abstraction of a VERY great mind, you will see my point.
If not, I'm certain that you will still have good thoughts and premises because you can get to where Ayn was ... and a more brilliant mind has rarely existed.
It's an abstaction.
Then: Think about yourself being the life that was created and how you would
create more and better life from the pattern that you have been given. That is extrapolation.
Faith is extapolation and abstraction.
This reminds me of the conversation between Ayn and the theologian about universals. The argument was: "What makes a rose a rose?". Ayn concluded that you need to subtract inferred meaning in order to grasp fundamentals. It's the same thought here.
NOW: Faith is a
Einstein said, ""I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." (G. S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), quoted by D. Brian, Einstein: A Life , p. 186.)
If one chooses not to address the subject of a deity or no deity, then one can do that and acknowledge that some things are not knowable in this life. One can do that and be non-contradictory. You are correct, khalling, the existence or non-existence of a deity does not have to be addressed, but if you choose to not address it, then you cannot simultaneously claim an answer other than agnosticism on the issue.
to Einstein's quote: it is perfect for literary points but miserable from a physics point of view. But people will use analogies.
Rand's answer was by the very definition of God, it was nonsensical. What definition would you give for God, J?
Einstein did not think that it was unreasonable from a physics point of view. He actually wanted to be an atheist and defined a constant to avoid dealing with "the beginning". He then acknowledged that as a mistake.
I could give numerous definitions from multiple religious cultures, but I will readily admit that I could not convince most (or even any) people of God's existence. I will gladly acknowledge my lack of knowledge in this area.
We all know what a BS degree means. An MS degree is more of the same, and a PhD is piling it higher and deeper. The other story about a PhD is that you realize that you don't know anything and neither does anyone else. It is kind of sad, but regrettably true.
Rand's answer of God being nonsensical is an evasion. Ultimately those who attempt to solve this puzzle will either evade the issue or ask someone to take a step in faith.
"God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." -Galt's Speech
Why can we not be comfortable with no origin? Conservation of matter and energy implies things have always been. adding God doesn't solve a puzzle. who created God? no short cut
That's my opinion.
Piling on top of that the notion of an indefinable god outside of existence, but existing to create existence out of a literal non existence is even more preposterous. If the fact of existence is supposed to require and explanation, then this concoction still explains nothing and makes the problem much worse -- far worse than the infinite regress of 'who created god?'.
That's why it always winds up with the likes of an image of a man with a long beard sitting on a cloud described in mystical terms as having indefinite powers and which makes no sense at all, and is why you are then told to suspend your rational thought in a series of floating abstractions and just accept the ineffable in a trance of mysticism.
and reject others, and I will explain the points separately as follows.
"God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that
invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . .
Christians should reject much of the above portion of the definition. If one accepts that Jesus was the son
of the Biblical god, then the Biblical god has made a reasonable attempt to give Christians the power to
conceive of the Biblical god through communication with his son. This is an indirect communication that is
admittedly unacceptable to Objectivists. Christian teaching actually validates man's consciousness and his
concepts of existence in that Christians believe that they are in made in God's image and likeness.
"Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . "
While Christian men and women are expected to use their minds, they ought to be subordinated to the will of
God. It is for this reason that I have said, to the disagreement of Fred Speckmann, that Christians should
not be able to take all of Galt's oath.
"Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s
power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . "
Christians should reject much of the above statement. The standards were laid out in the Ten Commandments.
One does indeed have to have faith that Moses actually did communicate with God at the burning bush.
However, the person of Jesus reinforced such standards of value.
The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for
reasons he is not to question." -Galt's Speech
This part of Galt's speech should be rejected by Christians completely. Christians (yes, including
Catholics) are encouraged to read the Bible as God's handbook on how to live a proper life. I have never
found reading zombie-like. The purpose of such reading is precisely to discover God's purpose for the
Christian life. Moreover, the reasons for such instructions are also laid out. Such reasons included "so
that you may live long in the land". The best reason that the Biblical god gave was in Exodus 20:5-7.
"You shall not worship them (false gods) or serve them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
but showing loving kindness to a thousand generations to those who love Me and keep My commandments. You
shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes
His name in vain.…"
Why can we not be comfortable with no origin? Some people can be comfortable with no origin, particularly
Objectivists. Admittedly, this is a significant problem that theists must confront. However, even atheists,
as noted by the number of people participating in this blog, want to know from whence they came. The
JudeoChristian tradition teaches that God made us to seek God. While that may be true, it is not
particularly satisfying.
Conservation of matter and energy implies things have always been.
This, of course, is true since the "big bang". Before such a big bang, if there was such a time, is not
answered adequately by atheism. Deism's answer for such a time isn't all that great either.
Adding God doesn't solve a puzzle. Who created God?
The addition of God into the equation doesn't solve all puzzles.
It would solve many puzzles, but it creates another that cannot be solved satisfactorily either.
ok, let's start here. somehow man is made in God's likeness. However, without God's knowledge. He is at once everything and all knowing-you are not. therefore, how can you be made in his likeness?
The 10 Commandments and in particular following the Bible. There are so many anti- concepts in the Bible you can't get two theologians to agree. Hence Aquinas coming up with the false doctrine of the trinity to purposely confuse in order to resolve a dispute. To assume the Deuteromonists were not politically motivated in writing down the first texts would be naive. Yet, Man is asked to give up his own consciousness to follow a set of rules derived not from logic but from a mystical all-power he cannot know fully yet has to accept in order to ensure himself a place in the afterlife.
I am ot saying there are not universal truths in the Bible, but the tests of faith are all control mechanisms. and have been used as such throughout history.
She did reject arbitrary assertions, and no amount of dressing them up as "testable hypotheses" justifies them. The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. The burden is on he who asserts it for it to be taken seriously at all, let alone demand that a commitment to belief be made.
.
Atheism means not believing in a supernatural deity, not denying that anything we don't know about must not exist, which is ridiculous.
Agnosticism says: you have just made an arbitrary statement with no evidence and no proof so I don't know whether to believe it or not. The rational response is to reject it out of hand and not believe it.
That does not mean denying outright that it could be true, provided the assertion is specific enough to be meaningful. When the arbitrary assertions of the existence of a god ascribed with contradictory characteristics or characteristics described as indefinite, i.e., no identity, then it is logically required to deny it _can_ exist. There are no contradictions in reality and everything that exists exists as something in particular, which means it is definite and specific in every respect -- that is 'identity'. No identity, no existence. The history of the Church is filled with fallacious assertions with contradictory notions of a god, which led to all kinds of endless and irresolvable disputes and official accusations of heresy. The proper response is to deny the whole approach as knowledge and leave them to their own devices.
"...the philosophy of The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is that, if you can't see it, it can't see you."
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Raveno...
I think most people are capable of being like foxes; not too terribly bright but very, very clever. But if your brain is not operating properly the function of abstracts and the resourcefulness of cleverness are moot points.
Medieval times were filled with church scholastics who were very facile with rationalisticaly manipulating floating abstractions detached from context and reality -- they could easily fill volumes with exegeses on the likes of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' -- and so are many modern analytic philosophers, if you have ever seen them in action. (Robert Nozick was one of them, giving dazzling displays of stream-of-analysis classroom performances that led nowhere.) They are "bright" in the sense that they are quick and glib, but that's about it. They do not, as you put it, have "well-functioning brains" if that means using their brains to understand the world.
All normal humans can easily form abstract concepts, but a measure of intelligence is the ability to understand and work with higher level abstract concepts and principles (that are valid), such as in physics or engineering. The ability to detect and isolate patterns is part of that as an act of abstraction. Most people could think in higher level concepts more than they are, but don't because they don't know how, leaving themselves with vague imagery as a substitute.
A metaphor is one kind of abstraction, but you can't understand it initially if it is only stated literally. How could you? It either has to explained or used in a clear enough context making it possible to see the connection. (I don't remember how I learned it the first time.)
Dave Harriman is not wrong that great scientists had radically new ideas and conclusions. The time it takes for others to catch on or drop competing inferior ideas does not imply that what happened in the mind of the individual creator did not happen.
Validated scientific theories change as they are expanded with additional knowledge, not reverted, unless an outright mistake is discovered, which is relatively rare.
When someone responds by belligerently trashing what he calls "to propagandize on behalf of their idea of a religion-free rationality" and claims that "Newton's religious speculations completely underpinned his scientific investigations, and it's impossible to understand his approach to science without taking that into account" he is not just arguing that they were able to pursue science without it being compromised by religion. He wants religion in it and wants to believe it was necessary.
He's advocating a notion of rationality somehow including religion, and that religion is essential to Newton's science. That is the usual false apologetics for religion: They are trying to make religious belief essential to the science and to steal the prestige of science for religion by exploiting the name of famous scientists who also held non-scientific beliefs, but who in fact did not let it compromise their work. Sometimes it's even cruder, as in "Maxwell believed it so you should, too."
It isn't religion that makes it possible for someone to want to learn about the universe, no matter how he mixes it in his own mind. Newton, for periods of working in genuine science, wanted to understand something in rational terms (i.e., not religious) and pursued it by rational ("religion-free rationality") means.
For whatever reason, _he_ wanted to do it and he knew what rational understanding meant. The religion, whatever he thought of it, was cognitively irrelevant. It didn't make him do it, it didn't make it possible for him to want to understand, it did not help regardless of what he thought of it, and the science has been understood ever since without reference to it. If he had permanently confused religious notions of understanding in his desire to understand subjects like dynamics and optics, he would not have been able to succeed. The early conceptual confusions in Newton's dynamics that required further work are more important in the history of science than his religion.
Likewise for the claim that religion provided an ordered universe designed by a god so that scientific understanding of regularity is possible. The universe _is_ regular, with everything doing what it does because of what it is in accordance with its identity. Everything is what it is and acts accordingly. All knowledge, including science, depends on that. Otherwise there would be nothing to know and we wouldn't be here discussing it.
Positing a god pulling strings who made it that way might have done it differently is irrelevant and potentially harmful to a proper understanding because under that view you never know when a fickle god, whatever it is supposed to mean, may change everything so there is no law of identity: "A is A except when god wants otherwise".
Belief in a religion and a supernatural realm have nothing to do with either the possibility of science or the methods by which it is done, but have done much to obstruct it. When a scientist recognizes that the universe is orderly and natural laws can be formulated to explain and describe it, it doesn't make any difference to either that awareness or his scientific methods if he also holds some religious belief about a deity creating it -- unless he tries to mix them in which case the attempt fails to the extent religious dogma and faith are allowed to intervene. Newton and Maxwell succeeded because they didn't mix them.
As for the survival of the Jews despite the long history of persecution, it is remarkable that humanity has survived at all, let alone advanced so much, in the face of the routine barbarism.
I haven't brought up the genesis of life or the issue of human sentience. This troll would have no answer but claim it nothing more than a statistical coincidence.
regardless, I am NOT offended by the statement above. I said that clearly below. why are you changing what I said? The exchange above is a bad form of argumentation and actually strengthens an atheist's viewpoint. I made the comment to get you off that kind of exchange and back to the central, key issues. I also said that I appreciated your frustration.
Besides, the comment was made to an individual. You are "eavesdropping" in essence, and as such, cannot now claim to be offended because you or others "overheard" something. Wasn't addressed to you or about you.
I tried several times to engage honestly and rationally. Those attempts were not met with the same consideration. After several attempts, I write off the encounter and feel no need to treat those posters with respect. You have my respect, until your actions demonstrate you no longer deserve it. At that point, all bets are off, and I'll treat them as they have demonstrated that they deserve.
I am not in the least offended by the exchange. I understand your frustration. you miss my point
But again, what's the problem? Many of us often make these side comments (merkins, songs, hats, etc.), so I'm not getting why this particular comment is being singled out?
I like golf, but don't like the airs people put on at country clubs.
:)
2) It is timely that you should bring up the doctrine of the trinity, as this is the time of year for it to be discussed traditionally. Even if there were a father god, Jesus, and a holy spirit, that does not necessarily mean that they are all godlike in their abilities. The trinitarian concept is either the least or second least defensible position within Christianity. +1 for khalling.
Regarding the giving up of one's own consciousness to follow a set of rules not derived from a logic, I will argue that the commandments that only involve human-human interaction are utterly logical. I can see Objectivists complaining about one or two of the human-human interaction commandments, particularly with regard to adultery, but even adultery has its own consequences.
The basis for the Sabbath is also logical in that one who works too hard without at least some rest will eventually wear him/herself out.
Getting theologians to agree has always been challenging, and is why the Catholic Church sought to control Biblical interpretation for as long as it could. Such disagreement has been the reason for as many denominations existing as there are. The existence of so many denominations is a fair knock on Christianity.
With regard to the image and likeness question, you make some fair points about the Biblical God's abilities far surpassing human abilities. Here is something to think about, however. If one looks at the degree of commonality of the DNA code for humans vs. most animals, one sees remarkable similarities. From that perspective, we aren't as different from single cell organisms as we would like to think of ourselves being.
http://reason.com/24-7/2014/06/11/dave-b...
Who's buried in Ayn Rand's grave?
And doesn't it put the other students off?
Alien abductions? Inconclusive.
Big Foot? Unlikely given the sightings are in areas where man habitually resides as well, and not finding conclusive evidence would tend to negate such existence. However, we do continue to find new species all the time. Generally in locations where man has had little interaction, but occasionally in places that we have inhabited, so if we did conclusively find proof I would be intrigued but not surprised.
Claims of living in another body? If there is an omniscient deity, then within the realm of possibility.
I, at least, will try to form a reasoned response.
Time has meaning only to life.
Here is my opinion: If all life was obliterated, existence would still exist and changes would still occur. "Time" would still progress although no life would exist to recognize it. Eventually, new "life" would be created.
This discussion should be a different post entirely.
From your original comment that I responded to: "I'm very comfortable with existence exists, has always existed and will always exist.
That's my opinion."
That indicates an infinite universe. Thus my response stands. You cannot have an infinite universe and have time that means anything. If the universe is infinite then all possibilities have already happened, and are currently happening. That's non-sensical.
There are many theories about many things. There is a theory that this universe is only a part of existence. I do not reject this theory. I also do not reject some infinite time theories. I do reject conflicting theories of infinite super beings, such as the one (or three) characterized in, “The Bible.”
Others have theorized that it grows and collapses in cycles, recreating itself each time.
I accept these theories as possible much more then infinite super beings.
In my opinion, existence would not stop existing even if this universe fully collapsed on to itself.
From Merriam-Webster:
Universe - the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated, and, all of space and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Thus, the universe cannot cease to exist on its own, nor could it have come into existence on its own.
I still think that multiple universes are far more likely then infinite super beings.
I choose logic.
It's been awhile since I've said this, but soon enough we will all know. If you are correct, what have I lost by having my perspective? However, if I am correct, think about what you might have lost.
That's not a guilt trip, nor am I proselytizing, merely posing a question.
You are open to your views, and I hope that you'll respect that I am open to mine as well. My guess is that, beyond this question, since you are on this site, we probably agree on most other things.
Time's a funny thing...
Where is wealth before it's looted, mooched... or created?
deltaG = deltaH - T*deltaS
If deltaH is sufficiently negative, then deltaS can actually be negative, resulting in increased order. Such cases do happen. They don't happen often, but are not impossible.
"But is disorder really the best word to use to define entropy? I don't think so. There are several problems with using disorder to define entropy. The first problem has to do with systems having multiple levels of organization. A system might be more or less "orderly" on one level and not at all on another. Take the example of the ice cubes flying around in space. On the level of the ice cubes, the system is disorderly, but on the molecular level, the ice molecules are locked in place, neatly in order."
Neither of these mean that such situations cannot exist in that state; it does mean that such conditions are metastable. Life itself is metastable. Your equilibrium condition is the dead corpse described in that web site, and indeed that dead corpse has fewer degrees of freedom and thus has a lower entropy. Another common example of a metastable condition is a huge pile of snow in a parking lot at several degrees Celsius. Eventually it will melt, but not until the atoms rearrange themselves. Often such conditions are diffusion-limited. Diffusion becomes significant at about 1/3 of the melting point.
Regarding the term "disorder" to define entropy, that isn't a great definition. The number of degrees of freedom definition, however, is sound.
Boltzmann's "degrees of freedom" definition has been proven adequate to describe the physical chemistry of a wide variety of atoms, molecules, and solids. The biggest reason why "order" has been associated with entropy is that a well-ordered crystal requires a very high energy to disrupt the symmetry of the crystal. Crystals are typically at energetic minima, with any impurities phase segregating to surfaces and grain boundaries.
This is the rational perspective I've tried repeatedly for you to see and you irrationally toss aside as mysticism and/or folklore.
A religion could start up tomorrow and promise eternal life and anyone subscribing to it would be doing so for selfish reasons.
Load more comments...