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?
Previous comments...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/22...
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.
Nothing in her philosophy or the true belifs and teachings of Christianity or for that matter most other religions contradict each other. Those that believe that they can't live side by side are fools in my respectful opinion and allow themselves to be fooled.
The philosophy of objectivism and Christianity are in fact fundamentally the same.
Fred Speckmann
Once again I receive an argument about angels dancing on the head of a pin. While I have no problem respecting the opinion of an atheist and have nothing against atheist, I must remind you that I was not claiming that objectivism and Christianity were the same. I was stating that they are not conflicting in my opinion as a Christian whatsoever. In fact objectivism despite what Ayn Rand's beliefs were are very compatible and attempt to serve the same purpose of freedom for all men. Note, I wrote compatible and not the same.
The question when trying to communicate between Christians and atheist is always the same. Why do atheist spend their precious time trying to make Christians feel inferior and foolish for their beliefs, not to mention often trying to ban Christianity when we don't want to interfere in your lack of belief at all.
Fred Speckmann
You wrote above: "The philosophy of objectivism and Christianity are in fact fundamentally the same."
I tried to point out that they are far from "fundamentally the same".
Now you write: "I must remind you that I was not claiming that objectivism and Christianity were the same."
Which is it?
This kind of discussion is a total waste of precious time.
I agree, you are a total waste of time as you continue the argument of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.
Your only point is your continuing argument with Christianity which you wish to destroy and sadly don't understand.
By my using the word fundamentally the word following is qualified to be not quite the same at all. While I certainly without qualification see similarities between the two philosophies such as freedom of agency (i.e.the choice to follow one's own wishes) to keep what is one's earnings from work performed or businesses created are in fact identical. The only difference is the manner in which objectivism is applied by purely individual choice and Christianity is a guiding moral principle and philosophy.
Fred
You can do better than that Fred. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq1...
On another note, I need to ask you to stop posting your email address and website url in your comments as it could be considered spamming. Thanks.
It would be interesting to know what it specifically is that you consider a waste of time?
Spam is normally associated with someone trying to sell something, that is definitely not the case with the information I include in my comments.
Furthermore I would ask you who you believe gives you the authority to tell anyone how to post. I post my name and email address as well as a website to encourage further commentary and in order to not hide behind a pseudonym as so many people tend to do. I find that habit to be used mostly by people who like to slander other people instead of having a reasoned exchange of ideas.
Of course if anyone doesn't like what I or anyone else has to say, they are free to ignore my post.
Fred Speckmann
Scott manages this site and is its moderator. He was also a Producer on the movies. In other words, this is his house.
Kaila
Thak you for that information as I had no knowledge of who that person was. I would suggest that he should have identified himself as such.
Furthermore, if he believes that censoring the people to communicate in "his house," than he should say so and I will politely say good bye and communicate with those that can understand why i choose to publicly identify myself instead of hiding behind internet pseudonyms.
Identifying myself properly is something I do because I'm frankly sick of so many people who use perjorative and vulgar name calling and language in general. Not so much on this particular site, but throughout the net and I have taken on many of these people over time. I can't do that by being anonymous and hiding the same as they do.
I do realize that you and many "producers" have publicly identified themselves and I respect that.
To summarize, if "Scott" has a problem with me, he is free to say so plainly and I will sadly say good bye to all those with whom I have corresponded and engaged in debate on many subjects. I do however strongly object to the accusation of my adding my name , web and email address as spamming.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Speckmann
See that little red badge next to my member name (sdesapio)? If you click on it, it'll take you a brief description of what it represents ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq4... )
RE: " if he believes that censoring the people to communicate in his house'... "
Not really censoring Fred. We're just asking that you try to keep the bar raised to a higher standard.
RE: "Identifying myself properly is something..."
We get it Fred, but unfortunately, putting a name at the end of your posts is not "identifying yourself properly." Typing something in a comment doesn't make it true.
RE: "I do however strongly object to the accusation of my adding my name , web and email address as spamming."
I know you're not spamming intentionally Fred. Just do me a favor and don't add your website URL or email address to any more comments ( See: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq1... ).
Thanks again.
If I understand your reference and it's not easy as I posted several comments, that individual did not quote me correctly, what he did was infer something I didn't imply therefore causing the disagreement on our views. If you disagree, please quote or reference the statement i made in its entirety.
Fred
I was quoting you Fred ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/25... ). I was telling you that you can do better than telling another member they are a waste of time. It does not add to the discussion and lowers the bar. Let's shoot for keeping the bar higher than ad hominem.
RE: "Spam is normally associated with someone trying to sell something"
Not necessarily. I know it is not your intention to Spam Fred, but regardless of intention, repeated link posting is not permitted. Comment Spam definition: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/comment_...
RE: "Furthermore I would ask you who you believe gives you the authority to tell anyone how to post."
Me Fred. I give me the authority. I run the place.
RE: "I post my name and email address as well as a website to encourage further commentary and in order to not hide behind a pseudonym as so many people tend to do."
I appreciate that Fred, but without going to great lengths, no one can verify who you say you are in an online forum. It is in fact possible for anyone to claim that they are indeed the real Fred Speckmann - who we've all come to love and appreciate here in the Gulch over the years.
RE: "Of course if anyone doesn't like what I or anyone else has to say, they are free to ignore my post. "
That's right Fred. Now, please do me a favor and don't post your personal email address or links to your personal website on any more comments ( See "Galt's Gulch Code of Conduct": http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq1... ).
Thanks Fred,
The Management ;)
I am the one who, in this sequence, originally used the phrase "waste of time". It came out because I was frustrated by the contradictory terms arising form an original comment, my disagreeing comment to that and the following response to my comment. If my use of that description can be construed to be personally offensive, I sincerely apologize. Throughout my short "life" in the Gulch I have tried strenuously to respect everybody. Of course, some more than others, based on my subjective evaluation of their contributions and the quality of their reasoning. I do not think that I have ever been disrespectful to anyone, but that is not for me to judge.
Every participant here has heard the AR being quoted as saying: "If you find a contradiction, check your premises." When one observes a contradiction, points it out and the observation is ignored or the re-examination evaded, the discussion, in my humble opinion, quickly becomes a waste of time. Another producer here pointed out to me the value of helping others understand their mistakes (I call it a good day when I make less than hundred mistakes.). But you only can try to teach others, you cannot "learn" them.
Because of lack of reasoned responses, or evasive approach to the points of the discussion or going around and around in what I call "circular reasoning", by now, there are three participants in the Gulch with whom I refuse to have any further conversations. Three out of tens of thousands sounds to me as a pretty strong evidence for the general quality of the conversations which we conduct here.
Please, keep up you great work. I envy you your patience and eloquence.
All the best.
A great read on this is Richard Rubinstein's, "Aristotle's Children". He is a theist, a great story teller and historian. It shows a much deeper view of the attempts to integrate reason and faith in history. It never gets to Rand even though her work proceeded this book.
Thank you for the reference to the book and author, I will try to get my hands on it and read it.
From your description of the authors efforts to " integrate reason and faith in history," it sounds very much like he is writing about the very thing I believe, that reason and faith are not necessarily contradictory.
Fred
As I write this, I'm on a conference call about the ideas that tamed Christianity from its early barbarism to today's state that does't find it necessary to "kill the infidel". The question is, are there principles that tamed Christianity which can be applied to the current Islamist jihadists or those vulnerable to their ideas, who think they MUST kill the infidel. Thus they are striving for a theistic-totalitarism to integrate their ethics and politics. In fact, their ethics is wrong based on an erroneous epistemology and metaphysics - the foundation universal issues.
One point made was that, prior to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, there has been no consistent, comprehensive system of ethics other than the intrinsicism of religion. People rejecting the slop and arbitrariness of subjectivism had no alternative to a religious system of ethics.
If you want to understand this, learn to distinguish the intrinsic, subjective and objective basis of value. This is one of many trichotomies Rand identified as an antidote to false dichotomies.
Many feel the need for religion as their only means of being moral. Objectivism answers that concern - how to be moral and be in objective reality - with one consistent standard of what is true and false.
If one cannot question the guilt-laced dogma, there is no next step. The good news is that people can if they choose to. Ahh - free will at play. And that is a sign of the fundamental character of people.
Edit: clarity
The big challenge in philosophy is- first premises. That is the foundation for all the rest. And that's Aristotle's most profound contribution to our civilization.
See descriptions and consequences of:
- The law of identity and
- The law of causality.
Also, ARI free philosophy courses.
I think you made a very important statement here. I have read a lot of the posts and comments in the atheist/theist vein very carefully, seeking to clarify my own opinions concerning same.
The statement you made that I quoted above describes an attitude that I have seen many times in these discussions, but my interpretation is not that atheists are trying to make Christians feel inferior, but rather that some, not many, of the theists have a chip on their shoulder and must feel inferior within their own minds.
While I don't necessarily agree with your entire point here, you have hit on one of my issues with atheist. I am very willing to have a conversation about my beliefs, but many atheists begin the conversation with "you must be the biggest idiot on earth if you believe in God." These are the people I refer to as militants preachers of atheism. I love a good intellectual debate, but when you start from the premise that my currently un- provable premise is the only possibility, it's hard to have a debate.
While an atheist, I certainly don't identify with "the group." I want to be known by so many other identifiers and qualifiers. lol. But- "but when you start from the premise that my currently un- provable premise is the only possibility, it's hard to have a debate.." this is the point. Why is it up to the atheist to even recognize the concept of god? Acknowledging the possibility, in science, means that there needs to be an hypothesis, tests, evidence, and logic. Your issue with atheists demanding proof, is my same frustration with the religious demanding faith. The debate will always hinge on that-unless we are talking about the brand of atheist who enjoys being defined by atheism, which strikes me as irrational. Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim of a God. Nothing more. It is not a philosophy, a way of life, a creed. We all should be focusing on a philosophy of living. and it should be soundly based in reason and logic. I'd say, in my opinion, but I think it's more important than that. Great post. It's unusual for a newbie to create such good discussion right off the bat. I'm enjoying it. :)
I claim that each individual should develop their own, personal philosophy. Whether it an adoption of the one someone else developed, modified or not, does not matter. The key is that it becomes one's OWN. Thoroughly understood and faithfully adhered to.
This is a perfect example of what I wrote about above. you used my name at the top which leads me to believe that you are addressing something I wrote, but I'm not sure what comment you are specifically referring to.
Aside from that confusion for me, I do certainly agre with your point about many atheist starting their comments directed at Christians with, "you must be the biggest idiot on earth if you believe in God."
Your further description of them as "militants
preachers of atheism." Whether a belief in God is un-provable of course is really irrelevant to the debate as a belief in God is based on the clear concept of "faith," and by definition whatever one has "faith " in is an unprovable concept.
Fred
The key is working with the fundamentals of the philosophy and seeing where they cannot mix, else, the conclusions and corollaries will disintegrate.
Overall, you need to determine whether there really is immutable Truth and where it comes from. If you are not searching for that, then you are awaiting the inevitable death of the unfit (evolutionary doctrine).
However, in my search for understanding of my own being, I think it would be unwise to rule out one theory over another until one can be proven. There is no scientific evidence to prove the theory of evolution or the big bang theory, or the theory of a divine creator led to our own creation. Since none can be proven YET, it would be intellectually lazy to rule any of them out simply because their proponents can be evil at times. Look at global warming. Most of the proponents of global warming have evil intentions of securing unearned wealth and power for themselves. However, in that case, there is real science to disprove their theories of man-made climate change, so we can safely reject them. If there weren't real science behind their rejection, we would be putting ourselves at a disadvantage by disregarding them simply because of their motivations.
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.
THAT, is the really thing that needs clarified at the beginning of a discussion such as this. Religion, Belief in God "Intelligent Design", Philosophy, they are all very much different, even though in many ways share some of the same core principals. Analogy would be like saying "vehicles." Well a Car and Truck have many of the same principals and can serve some of the same functions, but are no the same at all. Too often people lump "Belief in God" with religion and that is not always the case.