Rand and Religion
Interested to hear how others have dealt with the anti-religion aspect of Objectivism. I agree with Rand that most religious institutions tend to be very heavy on self sacrifice. However, I feel that most of that comes from financial interest in the church itself (ie. Catholics selling indulgences). When reading the actual bible, I don't see as much about self sacrifice as I see lessons on how to treat others. I'm not a fanatic by any means, but I do find it hard to overcome 37 years of religious teaching that there is something greater than ourselves. Do other's believe that you can square any portion of your religion with your Objectivist ideals? I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. Thoughts?
We are talking on this thread about religion and/or anti-religion and whether or not there is any Objectivism in the consideration of concepts beyond A=A. (So I hope I won't be blocked again for this). But I must ask: Is Life not more than what is experienced objectively via the senses? Is life even experienced via the senses? Is it as simple as A=A? Is it not possible that there is some objective validity to exploring spiritual, and even what appear to be "super-natural" concepts too? Moreover, isn't the spiritual and/or supernatural objectively experiential? (I suspect it is, and that we all know it). Does the Objectivist not consider the conceptual as viable? What of the object of thought? (Is thought not an object?) If not, than what? Can we even experience anything beyond thought? Are not the conceptual, the spiritual, and the realm of thought all facets (or objects) of the reality in which we live? Consider the thoughts of Descartes, who (after a full life of productive work) set out to prove all he could "objectively." The conclusion he ultimately arrived at was that the only thing he could objectively prove was his own existence. And even then, only to himself. "I think, therefor I am." is his most famous thought. (Descartes realized that all else could be an illusion, and many great minds before and after, including Einstein's, have enunciated and/or commented on this notion in one way or another.
Think: If I close my eyes, or am born blind, though I see nothing, I exist nevertheless. I have life, just as any other man. Right? If I am deaf, or lack smell, the same is true. Right? I am still existing, experiencing life, etc. But, If we mentally reduce our own senses, one-by-one, until even taste and touch is gone,.. have we lost our existence entirely? If I have but one sense am I less alive than someone who has all 5 physical senses? If we observe a concept mentally, is it any less an object than that which we think we observe physically? AND, since we're going down that road now... What do we really observe that is not actually a reconstruction of a concept? Consider again that all that we think we observe, sight, sound, touch, etc. is actually just our brain interpreting binary code. The wave of sound for instance: It travels through the air and strikes our outer ear. From there it is funneled to the tympanic membrane which in turn pulsates, striking the hammer, the anvil, and the stirrup, converting the "sound energy" into a series of x's and o's, or on's and off's. This is binary code (not unlike the kind we use in our DVD players and computers, which reinterpret it as movies, music etc. Is that Supernatural?). The binary code of the inner ear is transmitted to the cerebral cortex where it is interpreted as sound. The eye works in a similar way... light strikes the photo-active cones at the back of the eye, and each responds by sending an "on or off" signal to the optic nerve... then, cerebral cortex... and bam: WE SEE! But is this actually sight? Is this actually hearing? Is it actual experience, or is it the illusion of experience? (Something on the inside interpreting what is supposedly happening outside). Thus, the question: Is the concept that we experience in our brain the reality, or is the "supposed objective reality" the reality? How can one even know the difference? Yet we undoubtedly effect reality. When we think about it, Touch is the same (nerve endings). Scent... binary interpretation of olfactory neurons in the cilia. Taste buds... Again... combinations of binary. Light/Dark.
The problem I'm running into is that, if I say "Experience is an interpretation of binary code". some will say "Scientific." But if I say: "In the beginning God said Let there be light." Some will cry "proselytizer!"
The point is this, there is more to the understanding of how to develop a sound socio-economic model than merely finding others with whom we agree and yelling "Eureka! Hurray for our side!" And then silencing the voices of those who share a different perspective on Truth. Let's not silence them, let's learn from them (if there is anything to be learned). If we seek first to understand the perspective and the knowledge of those with whom we are interacting, we may find that we don't even disagree.
In closing: I'd like to Zenphamy for giving us the modern definition of philosophy: "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as and academic discipline" but would remind us all that philosophy is an an Anglicization of 2 old greek words: "philo" meaning "love" and "sophos" meaning wisdom. Thus: philosophy is the love of wisdom, and a philosopher is one who loves wisdom.
May we all be so fortunate as to love wisdom.
Thank you for a concise and consistent illustration of how well focused and properly prioritized Objectivist thinking ought to be and has been conducted.
I envy you the skill in expressing your thoughts. On second thought, this means that I admire your clarity of thinking
With admiration and gratitude,
Sincerely,
Maritimus
Likewise, the climate hysterics are trying to manipulate people to submit to control, but that is a different issue than the intellectual status of their arguments for a theory. There is good science within climate and biological topics, but it is improperly integrated into the viro religion in accordance with their misanthropic nihilism and nature worship premises.
But it isn't just religion: They have always used the same diversionary method exploiting any real, imagined, or context dropping misrepresentation of her ideas to deflect consideration of her philosophy. The religion gambit has been more prominent lately because of religious conservative politicians or tea party people who have found so much of fundamental value in her writing.
Religion was important to Ayn Rand only in recognizing the damage it has done and to unequivocally reject it as a negative, including emphatically rejecting politicians trying to base their campaigns on it and seeking to impose it in any way by government -- such as the anti-birth control and abortion prohibitionists. But religion is not an important intellectual position that requires endless refutations and crusading the way some almost "professional atheists" do today.
Ayn Rand had much more important ways to spend her time and energy, including developing and spreading her own ideas for what they are, not regarded as a substitute for anything else, and explaining what was wrong with current trends in the culture and in politics, which was and is much broader than religion. She defined herself as what she was for, not as a negative of what she was against.
She was more than clear about what is wrong with religion and contemptuously dismissed it as not worthy of further intellectual efforts other than when it posed a very specific threat (such as some prominent politician promoting it) and in a few key articles like the one's revealing the meaning and consequences of the papal encyclicals. Those articles were not devoted to arguing theology, or its fallacies, but the destructive meaning for human life that she regarded as the good.
I speak only for myself,but through my understanding and study of Objectivism for 40+ years.
Your first sentence contains a premise that is incorrect. Why assume, with no proof, that the "primordial ooze" as you call it, had to be created by "someone/something"? It is more valid, based on evidence, that the primordial ooze,or Universe, it that which has always existed, without beginnig or end, and without the help of some consciousness.
And that was has evolved through billions of years, out of this ooze, and not by design, is, as far as we know now, but will eventually discover in other galaxies, Man's consciousness and conceptual intelligence.
Having been raised very religious, IMO the tragic reversal, bordering on hubris, is the teaching that "Man was created in God's image and likeness". It's actually the reverse: Man created God in Man's image and likeness, only a more perfect, e.g., "omniscient" version. We see, in our limited vision, that men create things, and wonderful things, to our glory. But I see no evidence whatsoever that the Universe had to be created by anyone, and that it did not exist always, and, predates what we call consciousness.
I could never, ever confuse you with anyone else. K=K, just as A=A and existence exists.
I may have subconsciously used the first and the last characters of his name in the fashion of Byzantine religious art. I have been thinking about that lately in a totally different context.
Without carefully thinking, I came close to the disaster of offending you. Clumsy! ;-)
All the best, dear K.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
I cannot resist pointing out that the people who produced the warnings of an ice age, as well as those who now predict the demise of the arctic etc., are not behaving according to the principles that are the foundations of all true scientific progress.
Years ago Langmuir made a presentation at the GE Research Center about "pathological science". Stories about cases which he witnessed of "scientists" who, consciously or not, tweaked their experimental procedures to consistently obtain the results that they wished. In our times it seems to be more what their paymasters wish.
Religions may or may not demand a belief in something supernatural. What all religions (that I can find out about) have in common is that they bring like minded people together - its a social thing. When you belong to a religion you know that there are others who generally think as you do, and while an objectivist may not need the reassurances of others, it is nice to be part of a community that thinks as you do. Why else are we all here in Galt's Gulch?
Zenphamy wrote an excellent response in my opinion.
Great post, PL.
And just in case a person might still have a twinge of doubt, a lingering question. the Catholic Church (and others) made it a mortal sin to doubt or even to question. Apostasy! And since there is no cure, and doubt might infect others, too, some religions pass a death sentence over the body, not just the soul.
If there is a God who engineered us this way, it is a pathetic failure of a designer. Some bugs were left in the system; the prototype was released too soon. (There--now you know what is meant by original sin.)
Thinking about all that later, I finally decided that I "don't know, can't know, so why bother?" which makes me agnostic. My main thought is that blind faith is both useless and damaging.
Of course, there are exceptions. When my mother tried to make me believe, at the age of three, that my guardian angel stood behind me, I didn't believe her any more than I was willing to believe in the Easter Bunny or other invisible entities.
I sincerely apologize for assuming, without any reason that I can identify, the wrong gender for you. The mistake does not affect any of the rest.
You can learn more about the attempts to explain through thermodynamic reasoning the beginnings and propagation of life. It is in the thread entitled, if I am not mistaken: "A New Physics Theory of Life" in the category Science. It refers to a popularizing article in Scientific American, but there is a link to the original scientific report, with all the references. I would be interested to know what you think about it.
Good luck, Mr. KS!
Also, ARI free philosophy courses.
Load more comments...