Is religion required
Posted by tkstone 8 years, 7 months ago to Ask the Gulch
Objectivist claim that a objectivist society must be religion free. It seems a statist society requires it. The Soviet Union tried it without and failed. ISIS is counting on it. Statists and religions depend on absolute obedience. Just an observation.
The great horror of George Orwell's 1984 was not just the oppression of the the masses. It was not even the torture and death of Winston Smith and Julia. It was Newspeak, the reduction of human thought. It began with short, declarative sentences for which no context was given, and no further explanations were necessary. Public education in America is a prime example of that. Who was the 16th President? When was Neptune discovered? What is French Impressionism?
What do you mean by "religion"? What do mean by "an Objectivist society"?
The words are the posters, not mine--if you don't understand what an Objectivist 'means' by the word "religion" or the phrase "an Objectivist society" at this point on this site, I certainly can't and further, won't attempt to help you.
when we got to organic chemistry and tried to pray our way through it. -- j
.
Just as religion has pre-empted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. ..."
[Exaltation, worship, reverence, and sacred do have meanings, she says, but not the ones given by most religions.]
But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling...
[...]
It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man worship.
[...]
The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth."
Read the entire extract here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man...
Zenphany was not accurate. He is uninformed. Here is a set of examinations on Objectivism. http://thecultureofreasoncenter.com/t...
See how well you do.
This thread of this post concerns 'worship' as Salty Dog uses and expressed it, which is the religious context, regardless of your obvious attempt to 'blow air up your skirt' with a tenuously related quote from AR and criticism of my response to Salty.
And once again I'll state that, 'Objectivism is not 'worship' (as used in Salty's comment) of anything.'
That's Objectivism.
Also, if someone was to raise the issue of Schrodinger's Cat, as Mike may be alluding to, I would add that our understanding of the nature of A is also irrelevant. It is what it is, regardless of our capacity to see it, hear it, feel it, taste it, touch it, or understand it.
That's what we as Objectivists mean when we say "reality." We mean it in the strictest sense. We mean that which exists independent of perception.
that she would applaud your accuracy and direct, honest
reply. . Thank You!!! -- john
.
That's reality.
I'm not suggesting my perception is correct. I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. I'm saying that perception and reality are unrelated. Hence the need for the scientific method ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti... ).
RE: "three blind men touching a different part of an elephant"
Whether it's 3, 30, 300, or 3000, perception of the elephant will in no way impact the nature of the elephant. It doesn't matter who observes the elephant or how the elephant is observed. The elephant will be exactly as it was prior to observation. Our inability to perceive or understand reality for what it is remains without influence on the nature of reality.
Perception doesn't affect reality. There are two and only two possible answers to any question in our binary universe...yes and no. Everything else comes under the category of "don't know".
"A" actually doesn't require anyone's approval. "A" is "A" regardless of one's ability to perceive it or what one thinks of it. To illustrate more clearly, an apple is an apple not because everyone agrees it's an apple. It just is an apple.
David Kelley delivers a great lecture titled the Primacy of Existence ( http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a... ). He'll be the first guest on Radio Interrupted tomorrow here in the Gulch. You should call in and bring up the topic. Could be fun.
sdesapio: " 'A' actually doesn't require anyone's approval."
I completely accept the idea that reality exists independent from perception. My interpretation of Salty's comment was that objectivists bringing up "A=A" when discussing other issues is pointless. (This is my view and I'm probably wrongly reading it into Salty's words.) When discussing something, we have to dig into the logic and facts. Stating A=A without explaining what I'm saying would just be an epithet. If I'm going to abandon logic in favor of epithets, I might as well pick a colorful one like "your mama!"
Your belief that we cannot be sure if something is real cuts off your ability to learn anything, and it leaves you in a 'world of opinion'.
Going to bed now. Night all!
We're simply going to have to agree to disagree.
Pleasant dreams Mama!
As it turns out Mach was wrong in his challenge, though he might have been correct to the limit of his understanding at that point in time, though I believe that by that time, there existed sufficient knowledge generated and/or developed by others that by rights, should have informed Mach had he been able or so inclined to maintain his level of comprehension.
This entire statement, I consider to be pedantic and unproductive, particularly related to this post and this thread.
pretty well in 1945 when millions were split at Alamogordo. -- j
.
The rest are dancing on the head of a pin.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
.
Many great scientists claimed to believe in God, but, clearly, their behaviors were much different from the actions of others who would too easily be called "co-religionists." I point out once again, that although Einstein and Schroedinger rejected the Copenhagen Theory of Bohr and Heisenberg, none of them, and none of their students killed each other over it. No Bierstuben full of followers were bombed by Copenhagen Fundamentalists or Relativistic Reformists. At the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries, most of the leading physicists denied the reality of atoms. "Have you ever seen one?" was the most withering remark heard in a debate. No one was burned at the stake, or denied the right to own property, or denied the right to vote.
Now with most religions, the outcomes are not so civilized. So, you can appreciate the easy rejection of religion in general. However, most philosophies are just as wrong-headed. Perhaps the differences are to be found in - or measured by - how a body of beliefs reacts to new ideas. Thomas Kuhn pointed out that as science advances, new paradigms are accepted and old paradigms are abandoned. So, we do not have a Journal of Phlogiston Physics even though we still have journals of Aristotlean and Platonist philosophy. Of course, there are those Two (or Three) Testaments that some people claim are impossible to improve upon.
Some altars are bloody with sacrifices. Perhaps most are. But not all are. Sometimes, an altar is a just a stand for a big book, like the one in the library with the Oxford English Dictionary on it. Sometimes, an altar is just a big smooth cube tempting you to make another twice its size.
"So you see, Mr. Roark, though it is to be a religious ediface, it is also more than that. You notice that we call it the Temple of the Human Spirit. We want to capture--in stone, as others capture in music--not some narrow creed, but the essence of all religion. And what is the essence of religion? The great aspiration of the human spirit toward the highest, the noblest, the best. The human spirit as the creator and the conqueror of the ideal. The great life-giving force of the universe. The heroic human spirit. That is your assignment, Mr. Roark."
...
"Mr. Stoddard, I'm afraid you've made a mistake," he said, his voice slow and tired. "I don't think I'm the man you want. I don't think it would be right for me to undertake. I don't believe in God."
...
"That doesn't matter. You're a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark--in your own way. I can see that in your buildings."
...
"That's true," said Road. It was almost a whisper.
...
"I wish to call it God. You may choose another name. But what I want in that building is your spirit. Your spirit, Mr. Roark. Give me the best of that--and you will have done your job, as I shall have done mine. Do not worry about the meaning I wish to convey. Let it be your spirit in the shape of a building--and it will have that meaning, whether you know it or not."
Objectivists are rationalists and realists. Note, however, that when we say "rationalism" we are not aligning with Continental Rationalism of the 17th century. When we say "realism" we do not mean British Empiricism. So, too, with "religion" do you need to define what you mean by what you say.