"If I grant your “belief set” idea, then I can still show you are wrong because I can then say that a ‘belief set’ built with false principles is bad, while a ‘belief set’ built with true principles is a good one"

My point was that one must separate and individually identify true principles, but that individually true principles can and do exist even in "packaged" ideological/belief sets which overall are "false". To use your example, just because the one engineer came up with a faulty battery doesn't mean that the other engineers who worked on the screen, sound system, etc. produced bad products.

"Your example of Ramadan is not a good example. Just because MODERN science has proven fasting to be a good thing, does not mean this was the knowledge that ancient Muslims, or even ancient Greeks, were working with."

Principles are true regardless how much of the principle is understood. Knowledge is not a prerequisite of truth in a principle, it is an acknowledgement of the truth of a principle. If one was to go back in time to the glory of Rome armed with a loaded handgun and give that handgun to a Legion Centurion, would the gun still fire? Of course - even though the Centurion would have no idea why one of his Legionnaires suddenly fell over dead following a large bang. The principle of combustion leading to the principle of Pascal's law (pressure and temperature of a gas) leading to Newton's laws of motion didn't suddenly spring into existence simply because they were scientifically identified and studied centuries later.

"And just a philosophical lesson for you, you said, “the principle is true”. That is incorrect. The stricture to fast is a commandment; commands are not true or false. It is true that someone commanded it, and it is true that there is a benefit from fasting, but that principle wouldn’t be called true, it should be called good, or valid."

Truth is universal. You are trying to argue that the messenger or vehicle of delivery affect the truth of a principle. I'd point out that your own words acknowledge "The world exists apart from our consciousness, meaning it is not our consciousness that creates reality. Reality exists and we interact with it." We don't create truth simply when we recognize it. It existed independent of us and will continue to do so. The only thing recognition changes is us. The universe goes on about its merry business.

"In understanding if a system of knowledge is good or not, delve deeper with the disciplines of metaphysics and epistemology."

Ah, but neither metaphysics nor epistemiology can answer the question of good and evil. It never makes the attempt. It simply tries to tell one whether or not the arguments being made adhere to a system of rational thought. In order for "good" or "evil" to exist, one must be able to delineate purpose. (FYI, existence in and of itself is not purpose.) Purpose demands change - a starting point versus an ending point and some method of traverse from point A to point B. The epistemiology of Objectivism only helps to identify Point A. It does nothing to address point B or the path from A to B. That task falls to the philosophy rather than the epistemiology. The "why" versus the "how". Both are important.

"You mentioned that a belief set is condensed and used for our benefit. But is it really for someone’s benefit if he lives a life of austerity, when he doesn’t have to, for a world that supposedly exists, like heaven? No."

Again, you have to go back to purpose. I'm not arguing for or against Christianity or Islam here. I'm pointing out the philosophical questions which are fundamental to any ideology. Answer the question of purpose first. Then and only then will you be properly equipped to distinguish good from evil - whether in principle or in practice.

"Some religions, like Objectivism, have an objective metaphysics, though quite flawed. They believe that a god, or God, actually exists in the world, universe, whatever. But if that being does not actually exist then principles founded on the axiom that God exists are not good, or not well founded."

Let's walk through this statement.

First, you state an argument heavily laced with opinion and with the ambiguous conditional "some". You'd be better served to be specific in your argument by naming the precise topic of address, i.e. the religion/principle with which you find issue. The second is a re-state of a position or principle but again needs to be specific to be most effective. The last is a conclusion that I would agree with as a valid statement: that if something does not exist, it can not be the origin of something else.

Validity, however, is separate from soundness. Any argument that follows from its premises is valid. Only valid arguments based on proven premises, however, can be sound. The premise in this case is the primary bone of contention, because that "existence" makes or breaks the soundness of either side's argument. And once again, purpose becomes a primary avenue of determining the question of existence.

One of the main things to remember in this discussion is that a philosophy or religion is a “system of knowledge”. This also includes any science, art, business, etc. Anything that has multiple principles that work together can be seen as a system. And a system can be bad or good. A clock is a system of multiple mechanical parts that work together to make 2 or 3 hands spin in a circle for the purpose of time telling/keeping. A cell phone is a system of different electronics working together. The cell phone can have an excellent screen, an excellent speaker, and an excellent microphone, but if the battery is bad, the system will be bad, so the cell phone will be a bad one. It is not “throwing the baby out with the bath water” to call a system, or a generalized set of beliefs, bad. Religion is based on faith and some philosophies too. This faith is the focus when defining them as bad.

If I grant your “belief set” idea, then I can still show you are wrong because I can then say that a ‘belief set’ built with false principles is bad, while a ‘belief set’ built with true principles is a good one. Your example of Ramadan is not a good example. Just because MODERN science has proven fasting to be a good thing, does not mean this was the knowledge that ancient Muslims, or even ancient Greeks, were working with. Modern science has shown that there are certain benefits from going without eating for some time, based on biology. This knowledge was not available to ancient Muslims and Greeks. The closest thing that can be biologically based is the Greek’s recognition that going without eating for some time fostered better thinking, which has a modern explanation. When we eat, more blood is directed to the stomach for better digestion. So, when we don’t eat that blood that would otherwise be directed to our stomachs, is used by other parts of our bodies, like our brains. But this knowledge was not available to Greeks. I have experienced this clear thought from not eating, it is apparent.

Did Muslims know this? Maybe, another principle of Ramadan is introspection, so this fasting may foster better introspection.

Whatever the reason, most of the people accepted it on faith, and do not fast for introspection but because it is a commandment from a god. And just a philosophical lesson for you, you said, “the principle is true”. That is incorrect. The stricture to fast is a commandment; commands are not true or false. It is true that someone commanded it, and it is true that there is a benefit from fasting, but that principle wouldn’t be called true, it should be called good, or valid.

In understanding if a system of knowledge is good or not, delve deeper with the disciplines of metaphysics and epistemology. Some religions, like Objectivism, have an objective metaphysics, though quite flawed. They believe that a god, or God, actually exists in the world, universe, whatever. But if that being does not actually exist then principles founded on the axiom that God exists are not good, or not well founded.

The huge contribution to philosophy was Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Its epistemology has the 3 axioms: existence, identity, and conscious. I will not go into the second 2; I want to focus on existence here. Making existence the fundamental axiom is what enables us to found our knowledge in metaphysics, the supposed first philosophy, the discipline that discusses things “about the world” (for any student here that has taken a philosophy class, I know metaphysics can be confusing especially when you compare the Objectivist metaphysics with the idea of metaphysics that is taught in these classes. I will help clear that up. There are multiple definitions for the prefix meta-, it means both “about” and “after”. It got its “after” definition from the people that organized Aristotle’s student’s notes. They had found a bunch of things that did not fit into Aristotle’s Physics, so they put it AFTER the physics, thus metaphysics. So, often teachers teach metaphysics as if it is not about the world as it is, but about the world as we define it. The important distinction with Objectivist metaphysics is that when Ayn Rand spoke of it, she was using the prefix meta- using the ABOUT definition, so this is why she says metaphysics is about the world.) For those of you that don’t know, epistemology is the study of how we know. There are also other more nuanced applications of epistemology but I will not go into them here.

The world exists apart from our consciousness, meaning it is not our consciousness that creates reality. Reality exists and we interact with it. That is the Objectivist metaphysics.

You mentioned that a belief set is condensed and used for our benefit. But is it really for someone’s benefit if he lives a life of austerity, when he doesn’t have to, for a world that supposedly exists, like heaven? No. Austere living is a principle of Christianity. A lot of Christians, especially rich ones, are not living austerely, but some of them think they should give more of their money away to the “less fortunate”. If there were abundance available, use it, to renounce it for an afterlife that doesn’t exist would be stupid.

This is why we should look at systems of knowledge, philosophies and religions, as complete wholes. It is okay to scurry the works to find some perhaps good things, but to say that a religion isn’t bad because some principles are good, is the opposite of your “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, you are saying we should keep the bathwater. Distill the bad ideas out and keep the babies. But still know that the religion from which those “good” principles were distilled from is still a bad one.

Ewv: Thank you Ewv for the links.
This will be helpful to better understand.

Well said.

"Any philosophy based on faith is bad."

Define good and evil. Define faith. The problem is that in both of these you are starting out with erroneous definitions. You insist that the definition of faith is an anti-definition: "the opposite of reason". That's nonsense and it's a false definition. And you can't define good and evil until you identify purpose. You want to insist that the purpose of life is death and oblivion. If that is the case, neither "good" nor "evil" can exist. If there is no benefit to living life according to lasting principles, then there is no reason to qualify any belief set as better than another.

"Principles are not "packaged into containers" and not classified for someone's subjective "benefit"."

They absolutely are. Objectivism is one package. Christianity is another. Judaism is yet another. And there are hundreds more. They may be called "religions". I use the broader term ideologies or belief sets, but each one of these labels doesn't describe a single principle, but rather a collection of them. The argument of being contrary just to be contrary is the argument of the idiot.

"Atheism is not a form of religion, not faith, and not a philosophy."

Sure it is, it's just like I said, you don't want to be associated with the word religion. But it absolutely is a belief set that influences your values, how you go about your life and how you think you will end up. It affects the choices you make and the policies you support. If you deny this, you only deceive yourself.

I don't know how much you found; I didn't have time for that post to provide more specific links on the danger and history of government attempts to ban and undermine cryptography, or the farcical accusation that Snowden caused Islamo fascists to start using cryptography or spurred the ongoing advances in technology. Here is more:

Paris Attacks Blamed on Strong Cryptography and Edward Snowden
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...

History of past terrorist use of cryptography:
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/e...

The Risks of Mandating Backdoors in Encryption Products
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...

What is the DoD's Position on Backdoors in Security Systems?
https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/...

Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...

Technical review by 15 security experts:
Keys Under Doormats: Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications
https://www.schneier.com/paper-keys-u...

Ewv: I think you have misinterpreted Blarman's message.
It is also disingenuous to "pick and choose" parts of the whole and thus interpreting them out of context and imbuing them with the opposite of their intent. And furthermore, sarcasm, which you could have avoided, closes the door to discussion. Those of us who remain dedicated to this forum are here to participate and advance our knowledge in objectivist reasoning. It is an arduous path and you might be more advanced on this objectivist path than others here but the path is the objective and the importance is to stay the course.

There is no security without freedom. Security for what? Giving into the false alternative as it is being pushed on us means trading one group of terrorists for another.

Your reaction was correct, and so is your ambition to find out and understand.

Principles are not "packaged into containers" and not classified for someone's subjective "benefit". Valid concepts classify in accordance with essentials and are formed objectively. Objective concepts are essential to knowledge. See Ayn Rand's Introduction Objectivist Epistemology.

Faith and reason are opposite concepts. Any philosophy based on faith is bad. It is destructive in its essence regardless of the form and particulars of its dogma. See Ayn Rand's "Faith and Force" in particular.

Atheism is not a form of religion, not faith, and not a philosophy. "A-theist" means rejection of belief in the supernatural. It says nothing about what one's philosophy is or whether it includes faith.

Scientific understanding of laws of nature in general and sciences like evolution are not "faith". That is in contrast to environmentalism which is based on nature worship, regarding it as an intrinsic (mystical) value superseding human objective value.

Altruism is not "government forced subsistence", it is a concept of ethics meaning living for others as the fundamental standard of ethics. Socialism is political philosophy for those who take altruism seriously.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism is not a hodgepodge of rationalizations in a competing religious "belief set". This is a forum for advancing Ayn Rand's ideas and their understanding, not for trashing and misrepresenting them by eclectic religionists pursuing "bits and pieces of truth scattered all over". Blarman's post is not a "reference". Those who are serious about the purpose of this forum and a systematic understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy can find guidelines for where else to look here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Even short ones! Narrower columns increase the line count, leading to denser text as we read down the page.

And, seldom, if ever, is that "equal" place in society realized when the dust settles. Except for the elite, who have been leading the charge to the promised utopian goal. They benefit, not the individuals in the trenches.

Well said RevJay. And "any body different than me is on the wrong side".

The "loot and plunder" you mentioned were in the interest of power over others. Still is today. We fight to remain free and the other side seeks to subdue us for the power of controlling our lives. And enriching their own coffers, much like the present administration, and cohorts, who are no different than many others down through history. The $$$$$ equal the power.

RevJay4: Yes, power and subjugation to their beliefs/religion.

Perhaps, the word "sheeple" could be applied to those who are not "individual thinkers".
Hmmmm.....actually, even those who follow other's thoughts in doing something are still making individual choices to do so. And at any point in the act of following that other's thoughts, further choices could be made to deviate from those thoughts. To see the error of their ways, so to speak.

As "Sarge Schultz" used to say, "verrrry interesting".
Thank you, Blarman.

Just off the top of my head, I would hazard a guess that what keeps Islam going is power. Power over others, women, children, infidels, etc.
The "religion" which is Islam gives them the excuse to let the worst of their nature to rule their lives. Utilizing the dictates proscribed by their holy book, and various leaders(imams) of that faith allows all sorts of atrocities in the name of Allah.
The followers of Islam don't seem to be able to use logic and reason to guide them in life. Just an outdated book based on the writings of a degenerate from 1400 years ago, or something like that. Much like other "religions" still around today.

Thank you.

Thank you Blarman. I will keep your commentary as a reference. Well done!

Philosophy/religion is wholly about principles. We just tend to package them into little containers for our own benefit. That packaging, however, can lead easily to fallacy because one may look at the package and disagree with one tenet only to throw the baby out with the bath water. That is why I point out that it is a gross fallacy of inclusion to simply label "religion" as "bad". You have to go back to the principles involved and discuss their merits.

For example, there is a principle in Islam that calls for fasting - the voluntary abstention from certain foods for a certain time - during Ramadan. Science has shown that periodically abstaining from food for 24 hours allows our body to flush out toxins and return to a healthier state, so the principle itself has merit. The problem is that the fasting as exercised by Muslims only happens during the day, and when night falls the fasting period ends and becomes instead outright gluttony. To me, the principle is true, but it's exercise in practice has become perverted.

Let's look at altruism. Some want to equate that with charity, but really, altruism is government forced subsistence of others rather than voluntary assistance. Getting government involved perverts the principle and practice of true charity.

I can go on and on, but I hope these examples show why one must look at the individual principles in play and not necessarily the imperfect practitioners.

"An atheist that puts faith into nature or evolution, has a thought process that is comparable to religion-based thinking, but his faith in nature is not a religion."

Actually, by many definitions, ANY belief set put into practice is a religion. There are just many atheists who can't stand the word religion and so want to avoid its use, but in reality, it's all belief sets.

Man is constantly looking for betterment. His ideals of what that betterment consists of shapes his life and thought processes. That movement from "I don't represent what I want to" towards the ideal is the exercise of religion, with the ideal in the distance being one's god - whether it be nature, "spiritual enlightenment", or the coalescence of those concepts into a human or human-like form. Objectivism is no different, holding up the 100% logical being such as Rand or Galt as that ideal one seeks to emulate. If one worships nature (which I find to be quite ridiculous and backward), isn't one in fact saying that they believe that a return to nature and the abandonment of the advancements of humanity is their ideal? Yes.

So the real question is this: what is the ideal you are seeking for and what is the path to it? That is the discussion of philosophy and religion both. It is the study of the aggregation of individual principles (owning one's self, value for value, etc.) which lies at the heart of philosophy and religion. But the more I study them, the more I find that there are bits and pieces of truth scattered all over. And they are mixed up with lies as well. The task is to ferret out the one from the other.

A perfect evening Winterwind!

mmmmmmm. my favorite.
a glass of cognac, a bowl of nibblements [milk chocolate, dark chocolate, nuts, and sometimes raisins], a crackling fire, a BIG glass of ice water, and some intelligent, like-minded company --
time spent like that is a reason to work at other things.

After I posted my comment, I was feeling that I missing something. You have showed it to me. I could see that this fallacy has some sort of legitimacy, but I hadn't heard of it. And I tired to look it up before I posted the comment, but I couldn't find it. I could see that equivocation was paramount to it, but I couldn't put it all together. Thanks for telling me this.

Okay, I will remember this the next time I post a long comment.