Dennis Prager's False Alternative and Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Life
lots of interesting questions to explore in the article. from author Craig Biddle: "Why is it that more than a half century after the publication of Ayn Rand’s bestselling books Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, conservatives such as Prager remain unwilling to acknowledge and grapple with the fact that Rand put forth a secular, observation-based, life-serving, rights-grounding, capitalism-supporting philosophy? What’s to fear about her ideas?"
1.the example of inner city youths and whether as practicing Christianity or Judaism insulates them from joining gangs
2.Without God how can there be morality?
3.Objectivism as an alternative to the above
1.the example of inner city youths and whether as practicing Christianity or Judaism insulates them from joining gangs
2.Without God how can there be morality?
3.Objectivism as an alternative to the above
Like the terms conservative and liberal they are encrusted with so many barnacles as to be unusable.
However in a limited historical sense yours make about as much sense as any of them.
What doesn't make sense is the constant attention to something by people who claim to be constitution supporters. If that were true the subject wouldn't be brought up....at all. It's called freedom of religion.
Something sadly lacking in the former USA.
To put it bluntly it should be nobodies business.
The most you traction you can get would be the business of each of the 50 states without establishing a state religion.
To many Pinnochio's spoil the broth.
If it were important then even more important would be full disclosure of political party affiliation or political leanings. I refer to the candidate races called non-partisan such as Judges and Sheriffs.
It can be stated fairly that political and religious and secular philosophies guide each individual and will affect their performance in any of those jobs to one degree or another. But the list should not be limited to religon or political party but include such things as membership in ACLU, Acorn, Supporters of Secular Progressivism and which division of the former Republican Party.
That would enable a voter to make a considered and well informed opinion
So the question is which Pinnochio is the public's business and how long the nose before it's worthy of consideration.
It's either whole hog or no hog. No one's business or everyone's business.
The only restriction is specifying a 'state' religion to which all must belong. The rest of the claptrap is unconstitutional. but then that doesn't much matter anymore anyway.
What the Founding Fathers recognized, however, was that in a land where freedom of thought and expression was bound to lead to disagreement, there would be the opportunity for tyranny of thought by the establishment of a national religion and a corresponding return to the failures of the Old World. To head off that course of action, it was expressly forbidden by the First Amendment to establish a national religion. However, this did not establish an anti-religious government.
On weekends when Congress was not in session, religious services were commonly held in those buildings. And of those involved in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution itself, to a man they were of a wide variety of religious sects. Regardless (or in spite of this), they managed to create the most effective system of government the world has ever seen. I think that is truly remarkable.
Does the US have a secular government? I would argue that it does, but with secular meaning one which respects (theoretically) the diversity of thought - including religious thought. What I think Prager was getting at - to bring this back to my original point - was that he feared the establishment of an atheistic government in place of a secular government because of those in evidence in the past hundred years, they had led to ruinous and outright murderous results.
While an atheist concept is generally going to be secular, a secular concept is not necessarily atheist.
Some would say what is the value of a candle? Why it could light the room, an auditorium, a city, the world (and a little left over for we who thought of it.)
I'm happy if it lights up a room. BUT i don't stop there. My next question is how do I light up the house, a city, the world. Edison gave value for value inventing a new form of electricity, how to produce it, how to use it giving mankind a way to indeed light up the world. Read a book at night? Yes that means teaching how to read and providing something worth reading for now mankind had the time and ability to make use of his gift of light.
A subjectivist would then argue ...but it was there all the time. It should be free! No the opportunity was there Edison observed, tested, and found a practical use. Value for Value....Wishful thinking did not invent, manufacture nor install switches on the wall nor the wires behind the wall board nor Ohm's Law. anything else of much value beyond a wish...What if we could walk on the moon?
Could we then find an easier route to heaven? Yes, No, but you could have just created heaven on earth instead of a living hell so the rest of us could create a mop, a broom, a disinfectant and medicine.
And most importantly find we had freed ourselves from fear of the dark rather than chaining ourselves to our unfounded fears forever. The number one fear of the dark we face today is the fear of being ruled by subjectivist mysticism. But see how they use our ideas and inventions to subjugate .... us.
Objectivism creates world wide light. Subjectivism is the art of creating darkness. In that Plato was correct.
(if memory was better I could cite where she wrote
that.........maybe another gulcher can remember)
You were the one who presented the claim that the Enlightenment was brought about by atheism. I refuted that claim by showing the true history involved. You can choose allow your emotion to control you and become defensive or you can research the matter for yourself and confirm that I have only told you the truth.
"I am arguing that it there is no causal relationship between being theistic and being moral."
And the converse is similarly true, I agree. Neither position in and of itself is morally justified - that was my point! Each must be accompanied by additional principles of behavior. You were trying to argue atheism for the sake of atheism and I was pointing out that such was an easily debunked narrative.
"I was stating that a religious society will be inherently immoral by objectivist standards"
Of course they will be. Objectivism defines them as such! But in the article, Prager isn't looking at the matter using Objectivist standards! That was my whole point: Prager ignores Objectivism as an alternative because there is no history of it ever being adopted by society and therefore no history on which to evaluate its effectiveness!
"And finally, if I gave the impression that I thought an atheistic society was going to be more moral than a theistic one, I apologize. It was not my intention."
I take no offense and appreciate the clarification.
"illogical premises with lead you down a path of destruction."
Building upon invalid premises is a foundation for disaster, I completely agree.
I commented merely on Prager's analysis and I pointed out that he failed to include Objectivism as an alternative, presenting a possible reason for that omission. My comments were not about the relative moral values of "religion" vs "atheism". That was initiated by John.
You and I completely agree that being atheist is not an indication that one has a consistent or even defined philosophy. We must know a great deal more than that. The same goes for being a theist or any other form of mystic. Both secular and theocratic governments and societies have committed atrocities. It is only the more recent in history that we have secular examples. I can point to cavemen and tribal warfare and human sacrifices if you want.
I am arguing that it there is no causal relationship between being theistic and being moral. Most of Christianity is actual immoral by objectivist standards. If your only standard is how many people were killed under each type of regime you are being too narrow.
And finally, if I gave the impression that I thought an atheistic society was going to be more moral than a theistic one, I apologize. It was not my intention. Sometimes I don't properly edit when typing on my phone.
I was stating that a religious society will be inherently immoral by objectivist standards because they reject reason and embrace mysticism. This is immoral because reason is our only tool for understanding the universe, including values. If reason is rejected, you will eventually come to value things that are actually vices. If you come to the correct conclusions with a religious perspective, it is by chance and in spite of your illogical premises, not because of them.
That was the point I was trying to make, and I hope I was more clear this time. Basically given enough time, illogical premises with lead you down a path of destruction.
"I was merely giving a particular example to contradict what I interpreted to be support for the notion that a religious people is going to be more moral than a secular one."
It was your assertion that a religious people was less moral than a secular one - not mine. My observation was simply that with only a Communistic atheism to compare against a Constitutionally-founded government, I found no fault in Prager's logical conclusions. My only comment on the comparative morality of societies was to watch them over time and see how things went as evidence of their effectiveness or not. You argue foregone eventuality. I argue observation and conclusion.
"There is simply not enough evidence on either side..."
If you come to that conclusion, you are pointedly ignoring the evidence of the past century. The atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others are evidence that simply being atheist is not enough. They used their atheism to justify the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people and countless atrocities. I would also point out that simply being theist is not enough, with Exhibit A being Islam and the murders, rapes, and atrocities committed there. Philosophy is about principles and discussions must focus on principles or they devolve into pointless name-calling and hyperbole.
Again. Go back and read my post. Then comment. You will only get out what you are willing to put in. Value for value.
Great find! I would like to hear a reply from Mr. Prager.
Religion is a substitute for a moral philosophy based only on reason. Morality does not require a dictate from upon Mount Olympus. Every two bit dictator, tyrant or president will tell you the moral thing to do; it is to give them more so they can help... usually themselves, though they lack the integrity to say so. They will even use your God's morality against you... twist it to their immoral purpose.
Religion that preaches non violence and a generally wholesome morality is better for society than no philosophy at all. America has undoubtedly benefited from such in the past compared to alternatives in practice at the time. Religion for most has been the primary source/foundation of their philosophy, with little introspection. From birth to death most do not examine their epistemology or metaphysics and when you use those terms their eyes glaze over. I believe, as did Socrates, that "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Since morality based on natural rights and a corresponding philosophy of this type has not been inculcated from an early age like religion has, how do we know that the masses would not take to it? Why haven't more men adopted such a philosophy over religion for their source of morality? Religion has had a big head start and better organizing. Fear is a powerful motivator. The wrath of God is more terrifying. Reality absent God can only punish you in one life. Religionists can scare and guilt you into attending and listening. Good Philosophers hardly get an audience by comparison. That must change.
Respectfully,
O.A.
None of that really matters though because the supernatural does not exist. If reality exists, then gods cannot. That is all. That is the central point of objectivist atheism... Not that intelligence ends at death.
Objectivist atheism focuses on enjoying your life while you have it, because it's all you have. Theists state that this life is only a temporary stop before the eternal afterlife (or something similar depending on your particular mysticism).
Mysticism is incompatible with objectivism.
I do not label anyone with anyone either. I was merely giving a particular example to contradict what I interpreted to be support for the notion that a religious people is going to be more moral than a secular one. There is simply not enough evidence on either side to support a conclusion, and so the conclusion we must draw is that vein religious or secular is not a major defining factor in the general morality of a people. We must look at other values and philosophies they hold to find a more causal relationship.
"However I must stick to my point that theism, because it is mystical and illogical, can only lead to destruction in the long run."
Uh, atheism takes as its most basic premise the termination of intelligence/consciousness/etc. at the point of death. And you want to argue that theism argues for long-run destruction?
"I would to praise the specific parts of a religion, such as the work ethic of renaissance Protestants, but that does not mean the religion itself is praiseworthy..."
***
That is precisely my point. You are separating the notion of "religion" from the individual principles and concentrating on the principles. FINALLY!!!
*****
"It was therefore not a reimagining of Christianity that produced such a work ethic, but the Enlightenment that did so..."
So a little history lesson for you on Christianity and the Enlightenment, because you are focusing only on about the period from the 1600's on.
Christianity (as it is known to most) began with Christ somewhere around ~30 AD. At that point, there was a fledgling "Christian" religion consisting mostly of converted Jews. The unconverted Jews - aided by the Romans - actively persecuted this new religion by having them incarcerated and executed. The original "Christian" leadership were all wiped out (or exiled) by the end of the second century AD (probably earlier). Along came Emperor Constantine (a pagan sun-worshipper) who was still having to deal with some of the uprisings caused by stalwart followers of "Christianity". Instead of trying to fight them, he simply combined elements of "Christianity" with elements of pagan worship and set that up as the new Christianity - a state religion from whence both Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy were born.
In the Fifth Century AD, the leaders of the various Christian sects got together at a Council at Nicea and wrangled over the philosophical doctrine of Christianity as it had come to be. They produced a document which is truly one of the most confusing and illogical works ever to be published, but the Christian churches of the world at that time accepted it as doctrine even while the two primary sects continued to dispute over authority. Over the next thousand years, these two sects grew to control most of Europe and Western Asia and had frequent battles with another new religion called "Islam" (which started around the same time as the Nicean Council but really started to take off in the ninth century AD, growing to control much of the Arabian and Persian areas as well as much of Eastern Africa).
What changed in the Western World? First, the translation of the Bible from Latin and Greek into English via King James. Regardless what one thinks of the Bible, it is a philosophical work first and foremost. Second, the publishing of the Bible was made possible en masse. Up to that point, religious interpretation - and even literacy - was restricted to the clergy (and the very wealthy) and the masses were left to simply go along with things via blind faith. Chaucer openly pans the Church of his time in his literary work "The Canterbury Tales". The Enlightenment (as it came to be known) was a time when suddenly the dissemination of knowledge of many kinds was suddenly enabled by perhaps the second or third greatest invention in history - Gutenberg's printing press (I rank the transistor above it). People then began to be able to read for themselves what had been intentionally concealed and distorted for more than a thousand years.
What really changed? People began to investigate for themselves the principles of religion and life. And as they did so, they found that what they read in the Bible contradicted much of what they had been told by their priests. So they did what any student of logical thought would do: they left to form Christian sects according to their interpretations of the Bible. Thus were born Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, and many others (packaged together by the Catholic Church and referred to as "Protestants" in recognition that they were "protesting" the Catholic Church). As people began to shed the control of the Catholic Church - which openly persecuted such visionaries as Galileo - they found freedom in looking at things as they are and not through the lens of predefined doctrine. That was the period we now refer to as the Enlightenment, but what is notable is that these people did not turn to atheism. Atheism really only got its start in the 1800's - centuries later.
What I point out is that the term Christianity is too broad to be used in any argument persuasively, as there are simply too many flavors of it to consider. Thus, I resort to principle and ignore appellations. It is more precise and - more practically - it is just simpler.
"And atheism is atheism. There are not different kinds like with religions. However not all atheists are the same."
You do realize that not only do you step into the trap I warned you of, but you directly contradict yourself in back-to-back sentences. You can either assert that atheists are the same (as you assert in the first two of the three sentences here) OR you can assert that they are different as in your third sentence, but you can not have it both ways. It is a logical contradiction.
If you hold to your first assertion, you label Objectivists with the Socialists, Fascists, and Communists. If you hold to your second assertion, you distinguish Objectivists separately from Socialists, Fascists, and Communists, but you must also separate Baptists from Catholics, Muslims from Hindus, and Rastafarians from Wiccans - just to name a few.
I would to praise the specific parts of a religion, such as the work ethic of renaissance Protestants, but that does not mean the religion itself is praiseworthy... Or that the positive part was really a function of the religion at all. A much more convincing argument can be made that it was actually the enlightenment ideals of individualism, reason, etc that influenced the inherently collectivist nature of Catholicism to produce various Protestant reformations.
It was therefore not a reimagining of Christianity that produced such a work ethic, but the Enlightenment that did so, and it found its home in a new religion. Perhaps this is a chicken and egg argument, but as an objectivist I find one argument far more convincing.
And atheism is atheism. There are not different kinds like with religions. However not all atheists are the same. One's religious beliefs do not determine the entirety of ones character... But it can go a long way in helping unravel one's basic assumptions and values, and that is what determines your character.
Which is exactly what many, many people "wish " to avoid.
Load more comments...