What is the Objectivist Position on this Philosophical Quandry?
Here's a scenario based on a variation of Pacal's Wager [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_... ]:
An atheist lies on his deathbed. Suddenly, he calls for a priest, so he can "confess" and obtain absolution.
It seems to me that this behavior is completely logical. The man reasons as follows: If, by even an infinitessimal chance, his philosophy is mistaken, and there is a "god", he will then be able to go to "heaven". If his philosophy is correct, then he has lost nothing by "confessing".
An atheist lies on his deathbed. Suddenly, he calls for a priest, so he can "confess" and obtain absolution.
It seems to me that this behavior is completely logical. The man reasons as follows: If, by even an infinitessimal chance, his philosophy is mistaken, and there is a "god", he will then be able to go to "heaven". If his philosophy is correct, then he has lost nothing by "confessing".
For an illustration of the problem, see The One True God: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/the-one-tr...
There is no "quandry". The "Objectivist position" on it was described long ago. It rejects the supernatural out of hand.
Hell, it even won some football teams the game. Of course, the quarterback knew the goal, knew exactly how much time he had, saw where he had to throw the ball and wasn't just praying for some angel to fly out there and catch the ball and run it in for a touchdown.
He would be better not confessing to any god, lest he choose the wrong one and further offend the right one.
"most people that have been raised in a Christian culture instinctively recognize ... "
Please explain why you misidentified as "instinct" the results of environment.
It is impossible to disprove a negative and irrational to make such an attempt.
Socrates dispatched Thracymachus' notion that justice (or right) is whatever is in the interests of the stronger party. Being a fallible human, the "stronger party" may be completely ignorant as to what, in fact, is in his interests. A feeling is factual but it is not a fact nor is it knowledge.
Intellectual Ammunition Department, "Who is the final authority in ethics?', Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965.
Lecture 9, "The Objectivist Ethics," from Basic Principles of Objectivism taped lecture series by Nathaniel Branden (transcribed in The Vision of Ayn Rand, Branden, 2009)
Lecture 4, The Concept of God, ibid.
Robbie 53024, I hope you find an interest in the above.
For those who don't believe in a deity, if they are right, then those of us who do and live a moral life as specified by most major religions (leave Islam out for the moment), then at the end of said life what has been the result? We've all lived together amicably and with mutual respect. But what if the deists are correct?
As you say, we have to die to know the truth. But what about the life before death? I argue that Objectivism does not provide the answer to the "Baddest Ass on the Block" phenomenon. Thus, the rational/logical outcome of atheism is tyranny and oppression.
I can show you innumerable instances in history where that has been true. There are damn few where the opposite has been true, and our own experiment in individual rights and freedom seems to be sliding back towards that situation described above.
And where do you come up with "Theocracies otoh see everyone as a potential tyrannous traitor?" Nowhere do I see that in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism. I'm sure you can cite Islam and fringe groups, but not the modern major core religions.
In a truly free market, competitors can easily exploit bullies. Bullies can only thrive if they are working with a corrupted govt. Or are you talking about a physical self defense? In a true free market the people will be the "biggest "
You seem to be confusing atheism with amorality. One does not need to believe in a deity to live a moral life. If anything, living a life based on a morality given to you by an imaginary being is more likely to lead to tyranny and oppression. Want to violate someone’s rights? No problem, say your invisible friend told you to do it.
Your original premise was that atheism, and somehow by extension objectivism, would ultimately lead to tyranny. To prove that, you tell me to look at history. Yet when I do look all I see is case after case of people using a belief in some sort of supernatural being to wage their oppression.
I understand that your morality is to be the ruler. I also understand that there are other people out there with a similar morality. That has nothing to do with atheism. That amoral subset of the population will use whatever -ism is currently popular to accrue power. **As history shows.**
You stated “that Objectivism does not provide the answer to the ‘Baddest Ass on the Block’ phenomenon” but then argue your point from a different morality — you’re own. If you subscribed to an objectivist morality then you wouldn’t be attempting to be the baddest ass on the block to begin with.
You count on your AK to protect you, but if I have a .50 cal who will win? You also assume that you will have others to back you up. What if I've already corrupted them and they support me for protection and to receive my benevolence?
You use whatever moral code you want, that does not shackle me to the same.
Well, bless your heart.
http://www.atlassociety.org/atheism-pasc...
"Is it rational live a life in fear, and obey a moral code that is divorced from the needs of life on this Earth, for the sake of an idea that is most basically an arbitrary assertion?"
I agree with this objection to Pacal's Wager, But it does not apply to the scenario I proposed. In that case, there is no "down side", since the atheist is not going to live any longer.
the actual god could be both a rewarder and punisher. Knowing that the confession is contrived, this god could send the scheming atheist to hell whereas a steadfast honest atheist may go to limbo or heaven even. So for an atheist weighing up even remote probabilities there is a downside to switching.
You claim, "it's not the same thing," which is the common refuge of those who don't want to accept that faith is as real as love or freedom or other such concepts. If freedom and love can be real, why can't faith? Don't hide behind "it's not the same thing." Why?
Here, I'll give you another easier question. Have you ever loved someone?
First God may be nothing like what pascal assumes. Second, even assuming it is correct Confession may be useless. That's a Catholic idea.
Third. What if there is no Hell?
Factually, I know for certain, since I am fluent in Ancient Hebrew, that the 5 books of Moses have not been interpreted properly and certainly not fully. Hell is not mentioned. God is not mentioned, only existence and the forces of nature. In fact we are cautioned NOT to imagine as most religions do. Would it not behoove the wagerer to first learn exactly what is involved and not assume.
Your presumption is incorrect. The Greeks were not fluent in Hebrew at all. They relied on the Septuagint (70 Translators) who translated the simple meaning in the format that the Greeks would understand. Mythology, Gods etc.
Even if the translators were fluent in Hebrew, word roots have multiple meanings, abstract and concrete, including Hieroglyphic and context based. In Genesis , for instance the word Mayim - water, which did not yet exist, means the abstract liquid or dissolved state. Just as science tells us. In the heat of the initial stage of the Universe everything was mixed and dissolved and stuck together. Nothing could yet combine into molecules or even emit quanta of energy. But the ancient translators did not know that meaning yet.
It changes things because the new testament is a summation of what Jesus taught, which came from the Books of Moses. Jesus was an Israelite. The new testament is subject to the writer's understanding and later translation errors. (A camel through the eye of a needle...actually a thick rope going through the eye of a needle. It was a saying that got lost in the translation) Even the usage of the word Lord to mean God, where the Hebrew means the owner as in "Lord of the manor".
So an incorrect assumption can be corrected by going back to the source, the five books.
The interpretation of the Hebrew flowers based on advances in Science and understanding. What seemed like an inscrutable "and the spirit of God hovered over the waters" becomes "and the energy that expands space expanded the outer space (face) of the the dissolved liquid state." or something similar.
How Moses could possibly have known information about the expansion of space, that we only discovered in that last two decades, should raise some questions and perhaps temper your dismissive scorn.
The current backward Church of 'scientific' Atheism, based on the dogma of evolution without intelligence is an impediment to free scientific inquiry into the the true origins of our Universe. Evolution solely by chance and natural selection is scientifically impossible. No complex system, based on parts that have no use until all are assembled can arise by accident. Nor can the programming in the dna that controls the timing of chemical reactions result from chance mutations. Only an intelligent program towards more and more complexity explains evolution.
So science leads to research into what constitutes this intelligence. How did it arise? Moses explains that the universe is imbued with intelligence and these forces of nature are a manifestation of the intelligence of existence which we are sheltered from inside our bubble of time/space.
Not so mystical. Just incredible, as is the Quantum reality.
I am not arguing Religion and you are not arguing Science. In fact you have made no arguments. Only denials and denigration.
Pre-civilization? Where do you think our civilization comes from? Our Moral and legal code, ethics, even the concept of a weekend. Goat herders? LOL
You obviously know more about this than I do but I will mention my initial reaction is to find it troubling to interpret anything through the lenses of advances in science, and culture for that matter. Even if there is no language barrier a difference in time and cultural evolution can lead to very different feelings/understanding of the exact same words. While not possible, the ideal would be to have things interpreted by someone with the exact same knowledge and culture as those typical at the time of the writing. Any additional knowledge the translator posses could potentially make the translation less accurate, while doing nothing to increase the chances of a more accurate interpretation.
When did I ever say because I said so??? Stop painting me with this brush. I KNOW what I LIVE...my existence and daily events tells me so... real events.
Leave them alone." AR
One last point. Did Love or Freedom ever have a beginning and will they ever have an ending? Be intellectually honest and not merely flippant. I have been abundantly patient, logical, and rational in this interchange. I have participated in good faith, I hope that you do as well.
No, those ideas are not reasonable. Christ said that "what so ever you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." Thus, living a moral life where you are compassionate to your fellow humans is all that is required (and compassionate does not mean "living for them" or being their slave, so you radical O's out there, just lay off).
If you look at the basic beliefs of most of Christianity I believe they are all pretty consistent as to what makes a person good. They may quibble about some specific items and how to handle some specific situations or how to pray, or a thousand other things. But these are all rather superficial. They agree in the core essence of what it means to be good. This includes; honesty, not stealing, no physical harm to others merely for your own advancement or pleasure, and etc.
Islam and other religions may or may not believe in these (I do not know them well enough top say) but most people that have been raised in a Christian culture instinctively recognize these aspects of "good" even if they choose to go another direction.
Maybe someday I will tease this definition out further. Or maybe someone has already done so and you can direct me to it. Thanks