[Ask the Gulch] "Can you love God and Ayn Rand?
Posted by tdechaine 8 years ago to Ask the Gulch
- 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...
The writer made 2 errors in the first paragraph:
1. She pointed to a contradiction between AR's philosophy and religion; then falsely believed that that refuted her axiom that contradictions do not exist. She clearly does not understand what an axiom is.
2. She believes that the fact that some Objectivists answer this question "yes" gives credence to that answer. She fails to see the rationalization on the part of those Obj.s.
What does "welcomed" mean here?
What is for sure is that Obj.s cannot also be religious - contradiction.
I was beginning to think I was the voice of the turtle.
From The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilious Ferm, Ph. D., copyright 1945 by
Philosophilical Library, Inc., Published by Popular Books, Secaucus, N.J., ISBN 0-89009-746-1
Have you never hear some one refer to things like "watching football every Sunday religiously". Religious has for a long time been exactly what is stated in the cited quote. If you chose to use a very limited definition of the term, you miss the bigger picture. Here in St. Louis there is a group of people who call themselves Objecivists who are probably more religious then most Catholics. I can't help it if people insist on incorrectly interjecting the supernatural, mystical, and stupid into the concept of what it means to be religious. I included the link in the hope that people would read it before making these sorts of comments. There is nothing abnormal, Orwellian, or mystical in what I wrote.
The whole premise in the article deals with mysticism, not some concocted definition of religion.
Note that theism is a belief in god; and that is religious. What does it matter which god?
Look at this another way: "god" is an ideal represented in what one hopes to achieve. For some, their god is money. For others, it is power. Some abstract their notion of "god" to be an idealization of the perfect being: man or woman. Rand did that with John Galt just as Christians do it with Christ and Buddhists did it with Buddha. So if you look at it that way, there is no such thing as an atheist - a true atheist would hold no values whatsoever. The only other option would be to hold themselves up as the pinnacle of value - effectively promoting themselves as a "god". I've had enough of those with politicians. ;) Thanks but no thanks.
Pick who you want to become: what set of values is going to rule your life. That concept is your "god". It is your ruler - your standard.
The author of the article in question was really asking can you believe in such a god and be an Objectivist. You are way off the point.
If you want others to respond specifically, don't use generalizations yourself. If you have a notion of the type of "god" that you say is irrational, paint us that picture so we can agree with you. Don't just stand in a corner waving a brush around with no easel and no canvas and proclaim yourself an artist.
Enough playing with words.
Objectivists cannot be religious, as both you and I said.
What does "loving" Atlas Shrugged and Bible mean? Love has nothing to do with the whole subject.
As pointed out above, what does "welcoming" each other mean in this context? Passion has no place in a philosophical conversations deserving of that name.
I respect you, jb, very much, even as I believe that you might be a theist, while I attempt to adopt and live by the Objectivist philosophy. I will welcome you in my home any time, just let me know when is your arrival. I will even pick you up at the airport, to save you trouble.
But if you think she was asking "can one accept some tenants of Rand's philosophy and believe in God, then YES.
I guess I'm easily confused.
I don't know why you bring AR personal life into this; but she certainly lived by her own philosophy.
Don't drop the context.
The individual has the right to choose what he believes, even if that belief is ala carte from a variety of sources and influences.
Who has the right to impose on another a system of belief (that includes philosophies system)?
Rational thought does not allow for contradictions.
After-life vs free will - huh?
Also, your entire life is consistent and without contradiction? My had is off to you.
There are no natural contradictions; only those created by the mind. In principle, Rand;s philosophy and God are contradictions -period.
Yes, I don't live with contradictions because I don't allow them to be created. That is not the same as temporary conflicts.
If you don't grasp this, then let's stop here.
See my last post below to get the essence of the original post.
And that translates in Epistemology to reason vs faith.
1. You don't understand Objectivism.
2. You have totally missed the point. I never implied knowing about anyone's beliefs - except Objectivists who necessarily hold a well-defined set of beliefs.
But I will also point out that Shakespeare pontificated your very question with the poignant observation: "I think, therefore I am." To me, worrying about and defining one's entire philosophical worth on the predication of thought before existence or existence before thought is ridiculous. If you can't think, does it matter if you are? Does a rock care if it exists? The other obvious conundrum with the entire position is what happens if there is no time? You can not have a predicate without linear sequence.
The entire argument to me is a red herring - even more so since I have yet to hear someone claim he/she has invented a device which can detect or measure the presence of consciousness (which would solve several debates I can think of and help us put qualified people in political office!). It's an argument made for the sake of trying to put someone in a box and nail the lid shut just to make one feel good. I don't choose to make that the hill I die on.
Regardless: the question that many have gotten away from is can you believe and god and be an Objectivist, and that answer is clearly no!
I'm not sure if people here do not understand Obj.ism, or if people here who call themselves Obj.ists believe in god and are trying to rationalize away the conflict.
Maybe you need to get around more. I would also ask "Which god?" The way you use it refers almost exclusively to a Christian mindset. So you have a beef with Christians. Big deal. So did Rand. What I am pointing out is that there are a lot more deists than just Christians. Heck, when I was in Greece the old Greek gods were making a comeback. Most of the people who just want to argue do it because they think that it will make them feel good about their own choices. It never does. It is not a question of who is right. It is a question of what is right. If you follow what is right, you have no need to worry about what others do or think because you will side with Reality.
I would also offer a third option for consideration: that consciousness and being are simultaneous - not linear. Why? Because in my opinion both other theories have serious flaws. One can not be conscious and non-existent. There is nothing to exist and be conscious, I agree with you. But the other flaw of existence first followed by consciousness has a flaw of its own: that of origination, i.e. how did consciousness come to be if it at some point it did not exist? How does a once-inanimate object suddenly acquire consciousness? The law of conservation of matter/energy clearly states that something can not originate from nothing. Therefore consciousness either is neither matter nor energy (dark matter?) and so transcends the given laws of the universe...
Which right there brings back into play the whole notion of forces acting in our universe outside the boundaries of known physics, i.e. what some refer to as God. Now do you see why I view the entire argument as ridiculous? It is a red herring - or straw man - or circular logic - depending on how one wants to look at it.
It needs no explanation - philosophically.
Also, I said earlier that it does not matter which god; we are talking generally about mysticism vs. reality, emotion vs reason.
"it does not matter which god; we are talking generally..."
Is precision in language important, as you claim? If so, we must studiously avoid generalizations and stick to specifics and principles. "Mysticism" is an rather ridiculous boogeyman: a term used as a scare tactic. Why? Precisely because it is an inherently vague and generic term. I strongly suggest that if you want a precise response, you use precise terms in your arguments.
2. "Mysticism" is a belief in anything without evidence or proof. No boogeyman or scare tactic or vague; that is nonsense. It is an appropriate generalization - includes all gods....
If you claim to be an Objectivist who wants to believe in a god, check your premises.
If you do not even pretend to be an Obj.ist, then this is a meaningless conversation.
I love Ayn Rand's writings and her philosophy on economics/capitalism and I understand God uses imperfect vessels for His Works; I being one of those imperfect vessels.
I love and give praise to the One True God 'I AM' for all
I'm just trying to help those who can't see the answers. But I'm done.
I think what you are really asking is if the ideas of Ayn Rand and Christianity are opposed? And to answer that I would have to say that it depends on how you approach Christianity. If you see Christianity as a religion of simpering fools who always turn the other cheek and practice self sacrifice to the point of martyrdom. Then no obviously not. I was raised in a household where the Warriors of God were uplifted. I believe in forgiveness but NEVER forget.
I could go on for quite awhile but I personally find that Christianity and Ayn Rand go very well together.
Personally, my belief in God (or not) remains unaffected by Rand's works. Everyone knows her books, like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were fiction and, as such, have no direct impact in the debate over religion.
Besides, Christians would believe Ayn Rand to be a child of God (regardless of her own beliefs) and, therefore, doing God's work...even in the establishment of Objectivism.
The way I see it, there is no right or wrong answer to this question as the only way to prove the answer is for the questioner to die and find out. Not exactly my first choice for a research project.
Your belief may not be affected...but you are not an Objectivist. That is based on definitions and what we know today - which is all you can base anything on.
What is an Objectivist? Is it one who follows ALL Ayn Rand's principles, to the letter, or can it be one who uses his or her reason to deny one or two of them? Don't Objectivist principles ever change? After all...they had to begin somewhere.
John Galt does not exist...he can't. The human being, regardless of how hard one tries, can never achieve perfection in any discipline...even Objectivism.
Yes, an Ob.ist has to accept and practice all of Rand's principles. Do those don't and can't change; she created the philosophy and named it.
John Galt is the depiction of one who fully lives by her principles; he is fictional but the ideal for one to strive to become.
What if there actually exists something that is not what we have been conditioned to regard as as God? What if Religions have gotten it wrong? Do we reject actual practices or rituals that are correct and in line with reality?
Keep an open mind. We confuse our brain's image of reality with objective reality. Be careful.
It is more accurate to say the the Current false view of Regions and the picture of what constitutes God is not compatible with objectivism. However the universe is still mostly unknown. Is the Universe itself intelligent? Some scientists think so or otherwise intelligence could not arise.
How do complex systems, that require many parts, none of which are individually useful to evolutionary selection, and programming of chemical reactions, timing etc. arise without a built in intelligence that seeks out complexity?
There are many questions whose answers might surprise you. Instead of arguing compatibility of false notions, let's agree that the notions are false or incomplete and find the truth and reality. first.
Mysticism vs Obj.ism - can't you keep it to that question?
If this is supposed to smoke believers like me out for a bashing, I don't really have to respond to what anyone has to say.
Why? I'm free to do that to.
Psst, there's a bunch of us already here.
Some don't post. Some just PM me.
And I am free to be one if I want to.
Well, I'll be gone for hours. Bye for now.
Me dino came back to further laugh at the boohoohoo LOL post I fully expected to see a 0 on downstairs.
Even came back with the triangle symbol (on a war flag) representing misfit who is my favorite Seven Samurai character.
https://www.google.com/search?q=seven...
It's not mystical, it's quantum physical.
It's likely that only 50% of western society has achieved consciousness and access to their minds; however...doesn't mean that they use them all of the time...laughing, even though that's sad.
"Therefore, since each of these characteristics belongs to the good man in relation to himself, and he is related to his friend as to himself (for his friend is another self), friendship too is thought to be one of these attributes, and those who have these attributes to be friends. Whether there is or is not friendship between a man and himself is a question we may dismiss for the present; there would seem to be friendship in so far as he is two or more, to judge from the afore-mentioned attributes of friendship, and from the fact that the extreme of friendship is likened to one's love for oneself." from
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nic...
Because of differences in understanding, it is near impossible to have another self friendship. So I have tend to have acquaintances who usually have theistic beliefs and just a modicum of rationality to keep them sane.
Since Objectivism requires that one believe only what can be defined from existence and since a god belief would need some kind of evidence for existence other than just a mental feeling or emotion or an abstraction about 'nothingness' needing a god thing to produce existence, it would be impossible for me to be an Objectivist (open version) and a theist at the same time without going insane.
I would say "no".
However, no one is perfect, and unless they go so far as to impose their views on me by force or legislation, I'd rather pick another fight since just reading Rand provides enough common ground for a good discussion over beer.
Load more comments...