Are Objectivists happy?
http://experts.umich.edu/pubDetail.as...
R. David Hayward has developed a survey that attempts to define happiness and correlate it with many factors (nationality, religious affiliation or lack thereof, income, wealth, etc.). The goal is to predict future health and well-being.
From Hayward's abstract:
"Religious non-affiliates did not differ overall from affiliates in terms of physical health outcomes (although atheists and agnostics did have better health on some individual measures including BMI, number of chronic conditions, and physical limitations), but had worse positive psychological functioning characteristics, social support relationships, and health behaviors. On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."
My purpose in posting this is not to say anything derogatory about atheists or Objectivists, but it is part of my personal self-assessment of whether I would be happier if I did decide to become an Objectivist. At this point, I am not an Objectivist. One question that is an entirely logical counterargument to the possibility that Objectivists might not be happier than the general population would be, "Are people who are happier than the general population delusional about their reality"? I am sure that many Gulchers would presume that most Christians are happily delusional in their mysticism, for instance.
R. David Hayward has developed a survey that attempts to define happiness and correlate it with many factors (nationality, religious affiliation or lack thereof, income, wealth, etc.). The goal is to predict future health and well-being.
From Hayward's abstract:
"Religious non-affiliates did not differ overall from affiliates in terms of physical health outcomes (although atheists and agnostics did have better health on some individual measures including BMI, number of chronic conditions, and physical limitations), but had worse positive psychological functioning characteristics, social support relationships, and health behaviors. On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."
My purpose in posting this is not to say anything derogatory about atheists or Objectivists, but it is part of my personal self-assessment of whether I would be happier if I did decide to become an Objectivist. At this point, I am not an Objectivist. One question that is an entirely logical counterargument to the possibility that Objectivists might not be happier than the general population would be, "Are people who are happier than the general population delusional about their reality"? I am sure that many Gulchers would presume that most Christians are happily delusional in their mysticism, for instance.
SOURCE URL: https://michiganhappiness.wordpress.com/
My biggest problem with Objectivism, however, is with regard to how Rand redefined atheism very cleverly such that she had no burden of proof. While I know that most in this forum will disagree with me on the following point, I consider that an avoidance (a form of blanking out) of one of, if not the, most important philosophical question, "From whence have we come?" I find it completely illogical to see that there is a cause for everything else in existence, yet not ask how such existence came into being. It is far easier for me to conclude that a being of superior intelligence and power is responsible for the universe than it is to not conclude that. I can agree that since the big bang that existence exists, but the cause for the big bang effect remains elusive. Until proven otherwise, atheism as defined by non-Objectivists requires more faith than anyone should have. Arriving at agnosticism as a conclusion until further knowledge is obtained is valid (at least temporarily). I think that Rand's conclusion in favor of atheism via inventing her own definition was a copout, and I fully expect to be downvoted accordingly by the atheists in this forum.
And your posed "most important philosophical question" of "From whence have we come?" ignores the most basic and powerful principle of Objective Philosophy--Existence Exists and A=A, and leads you to search for answers to your question, from a being (or those that claim, with no objective or factual proof, that they are his prophets to whom God spoke and explained) that by definition "is beyond man's power to conceive". So you've placed yourself in a contradiction of premises that you can never resolve or escape from, much as the age old 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'.
I'll go further and question your 'agreement' that 'the big bang' happened and brought 'existence to existence'. A theory that has never matched with observational evidence and has required continuous adjustments to fit and the additions of more godlike answers like 'Dark Energy and Dark Matter' and 'instantaneous expansion/acceleration'. Furthermore, a theory that originated from a French Catholic Priest astronomer, from the Catholic theologian concept of the 'Primeval Egg'.
But most of all, I think you're continuing to misunderstand Objectivist philosophy. It's a philosophy of life for the individual. It's not an answer or study of what can't be conceived, it's a system of how to gain knowledge of reality and can never give one direction on searching for answers within the supernatural and non-conceivable.
I am glad to see your questioning of the big bang theory. CBJ and I are in a discussion elsewhere in this thread in which I say that the big bang theory is inconsistent with the idea that existence has always existed. I agree that A = A and that existence exists now, but as I said previously, I am intellectually unsatisfied with a philosophy that does not address the question, "From whence did we come?" I pondered this question long before I had ever heard of Rand. Likewise, I am not demanding proof of a negative. I am willing to accept that there are some things that I just do not understand at this point, and may never understand.
Yes, I am looking for answers. Just because you and Rand consider my question not worth pursuing does not mean that I or anyone else have to agree with you. To not pursue the answer to my question, that would truly make me unhappy and would be a denial of whom I am.
I'll note that you use the term "superior being" rather than supernatural being. I take that to be based on a belief that man is NOT a or the superior being of the existence we find ourselves in. And that concept is one that I totally reject, until someone comes up with some type of proof otherwise. That's the type of thinking that has led to AGW and other anti-human concepts.
Thank you so much. Your discussion is the one I enjoyed the most ever since I joined the Gulch. These kind of questions are the ones I was hoping to see discussed and so frequently disappointed with missing them.
The things I am going to write here may not be as crystal clear as those you addressed, but the issues are happiness and the nature of human life in the existence which, obviously, exists. Look at them as an attempt to contribute, however modestly, to your discussion.
1. Each human being is a unique instance of humanity. Nobody ever existed that was "carbon copy" (i.e. completely identical) of any one of us and no such identical copy will ever exist.. That is an inevitable consequence of the nature of the phenomenon we call life (living matter). Thus happiness is a very complex (and not quantifiable) concept pertaining to each and only one individual. To talk about atheists or objectivists as being happy or happier is nonsense to me. As we have, sadly, observed recently, too many times, some people are happy to blow themselves up.
2. We know that it is in the nature of our solar system to have arisen and that it will result eventually in the sun exploding and engulfing our planet. Recently there was news about people being able to measure the tremor from the gravitational waves caused the collision of two black holes. That collision occurred some billions of years ago. What I am proposing for your consideration is the non-simultaneity of possible occurrences of life in this existence.
3. I consider myself an objectivist rookie. And to the best of my ability to understand this is consistent with everything I ever learned (during my 80+ years), but I accept readily that there is an infinite supply of concepts that I never formed. To many questions I am willing to answer I don't know.
4. Not so long ago I went to a whole day lecture about Augustine of Hippo. At one point in the afternoon the lecturer, a known authority on the subject went, step by step, through Augustine's proof that God created man. It occurred to me while listening to that and I told the lecturer at the following questions period. "This is only a glimpse from what I just heard you say. But it seems to me clear that I could turn over 180 degrees that set of argument steps and prove that man invented God." I was thrilled to see him pose for a few seconds and then say: "Yes." I am too lazy to search anywhere (quick attempts did not work) in writing that series of steps. I have known for long time that God is a human invention. That is good enough for me.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful and very interesting discussion.
Pursuit of understanding the nature of these questions does not require or allow adopting the religious mentality. To understand with self-honesty that mentality is to reject it.
I am willing to listen to a reasoned argument. The best that I have heard on this subject is "Nothing can be proven one way or the other, so why waste time on it?" This is a reasonable response.
You said: "I reject your argument (and those of many theologians and accepted by Rand) regarding that a superior being is 'beyond man's power to conceive'. That is a logical fallacy. Many men have conceived of a superior being."
Those are your own words, not a "misrepresentation"
Contractions do not exist and cannot be "conceived": The contradictory parts cannot be integrated into a conception, only stated separately. Identifying that is not a "logical fallacy". It is "why theologians historically ran from their contradictions into the realm of denying that God can be conceived at all, while continuing to talk about It, as if that mysticism could save them.
You do not get to impose the pronouncement that a "reasonable argument" can only be what you say it is as "nothing can be proved one way or the other". The prospect of proof does not even arise for the incomprehensible. Before proving something, one must state what it is that is being talked about, without contradiction.
This is not the first time you have falsely accused me of "misrepresenting" you, only to have your own words quoted back to you and your own misunderstanding revealed. Your false, personal accusations of motives you make up as "continual intentional misrepresentations" piled on with juvenile soap box geek taunting "where n is now beyond count" are dishonest and inappropriate, "professor". They do not belong here.
1 decade than in all the previous centuries of it's existence" Nickola Tesla
Arguably the greatest producer during the most rapid growth period the world has ever known and maybe because of him.
At this point, I reject Rand's premise that there is no evidence of a creator. The fact that the universe exists at all, let alone in all its detail from the nano to the scale of the universe is argument enough for an intelligent, powerful cause.
Regarding the infinite regress argument, it is the best argument on behalf of atheism. The argument fails if an intelligent, powerful being has always existed and was self-sufficient on its own. The question is whether a creator has always existed, or whether matter invented itself. The concept of matter creating itself is an absurdity.
Bohr and Tesla made similar comments. And Einstein went further to state that (paraphrased) 'Energy can neither be destroyed or created'.
So, quite possibly the greatest mind(s) of the 19th and 20th century, kind of answers your question about the applicability of Objective philosophy to the issue of life. And I'll note, (though I have serious questions about the recent report of gravity wave detection), every prediction of Einstein's Relativity and Special Relativity has passed the test of observable proof.
Physics coveys to us the conservation laws of mass-energy. momentum, angular momentum, charge, lepton number, and so on. They are the conclusion to the primary of existence, not some primary that enforces existence to exist. The conservation laws don't prove existence, but, as they must be, they are non-contradictory with existence.
Transformation of mass to energy or energy to mass is hardly some special case of anything. Nuclei are constantly intra-trading minute amounts of mass-energy. Mass "transforming" into energy is merely a re-reference of equals, per E=mc³. It is no different from a kilogram of vegetables transforming into some equivalent number of pounds of vegetables. Or in the style of a current presidential campaign, "My genitals are not a mere 6 inches. My measurement is terrific. It's 152,400 microns, and that's an awesome number."
But yes philosophy precedes the special sciences like physics. There could be no science and no logic at all without at least implicitly recognizing the axioms of existence, identity, its corollary of causation, and consciousness, and the relation between them with consciousness as awareness, not creation, of existence. The axiomatic concepts existence and identity refer to everything that is, was or will be, not laboratory measurements from experiments prior to the axiomatic concepts. The axiomatic concepts were required before the laws of physics could be formulated or any process of experiment and measurement.
And yes, he got it backwards to say the least. I was not "wrong on multiple points".
I started writing a bunch of other stuff to argue against the primitive (Newtonian) world view of physics, but it came out looking like an argument by intimidation via relativistic quantum mechanics. So I deleted it. Instead look at the next sunrise. Is what came up the sun or a mass to energy conversion system. We're normally pretty casual about the mass-energy transformations of everyday phenomena in macro and micro scales.
It is not logical to state that an argument fails if something exists for which you provide no evidence. It's the equivalent of my saying, "There is no invisible elephant standing next to me," and then your replying, "Your argument fails if there really is an invisible elephant standing next to you."
Worse are his false attacks against Ayn Rand claiming she "cleverly" redefined atheism to evade a "burden of proof" in a "copout" and that it "requires more faith than anyone should have". He has a creationist "design" religious mindset and neither understands Objectivism nor knows why Ayn Rand wrote what she did. His hostility to Ayn Rand is becoming increasingly evident as he makes bald pronouncements misstating what she wrote and invents false motives arbitrarily attributed to her in his attacks. Accusing her of "blanking out" for rejecting Creationism is really stupid, but typical of the religious mindset regardless of its shifting terminology. A sign of rationalizing is claiming what someone else's motives he knows nothing about 'must have' been along with what 'must have' been involved in a 'creation' of the whole universe.
Atheism means a-theism, the nonbelief in theism. Atheism and theism are exhaustive and mutually exclusive. You have to believe theism to be a theist and if you don't for any reason you are not and therefore atheist. A slightly narrower use is the explicit rejection of theism, an active refusal to believe.
In the broadest form, if someone (like a child before indoctrination) has never heard of theism, he doesn't believe it and is atheist. If someone is aware of it but hasn't pursued it and doesn't believe it he is an atheist. If he doesn't know what to believe or thinks it is impossible to know and doesn't believe the theism he is actively an atheist. If he realizes the lack of evidence or proof for theism and rejects it he is an atheist; and if he rejects it because of a mistaken understanding of the alleged proof he is still an atheist. If he realizes that particular notions of God are self contradictory and therefore incapable of existing he is an atheist -- contradictions do not exist, nor are attempts to "conceive" them coherently meaningful. If he sees the claims as vague and meaningless and rejects the theist claims as cognitively vacuous he is an atheist.
None of it requires "faith" in anything to not believe theism. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive position and requires no burden of proof. The sole exception is someone who mistakenly claims that a coherent, non-contradictory notion of a god cannot possibly exist in addition to refusing to believe the unproven, but that is rare because coherent, non-contradictory notions of gods are rare, and do not include the Christian God. They are also irrelevant and have little to do with theism because vague, non-committal claims renaming god to mean some unspecified aspect of nature without the supernatural trappings are not what is meant by religion. But the burden is always on the theist to meaningful describe what he is talking about, without contradictions and fallacies, and then to prove it without fallacies.
There have been different usages of the word 'atheism' with different degrees of narrowness, mostly because of theists trying to impose a burden of proof, but regardless of word usage, the rational concept employed by Ayn Rand is not a "clever" evasion of logic or "copout" and obviously does not require "faith". The evasions are by those with a religious mindset taking their fallacies and fantasies as the starting point and demanding that someone who doesn't buy it has to prove an incoherent negative.
Just as obvious is that rejecting theism does not mean refusing to ask or sanction scientific questions about how the universe came to be as it is -- provided that is not converted into the equivocation of the religious, primacy of consciousness fallacy of demanding an "explanation" for a "source" of existence in terms of non-existence, which incoherently steals the concepts "explanation", "design" and "non-existence".
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/s...
Certainly no one prior to Rand defined atheism in her way as succinctly as you quoted her. “There is no evidence of a creator, so there is no reason for me to believe in one, so I don’t.”
On the agnosticism vs. atheism issue, the Atlas Society web site states, "Agnosticism—as a general approach to knowledge—refuses to reject arbitrary propositions. This is the general position behind the agnostic approach to the question of God's existence. Agnosticism holds that claims should be evaluated on the basis of evidence, and that claims should not be rejected unless there is sufficient evidence against them (in other words, a claim should not be rejected outright even if no evidence exists either to support or refute it).
The primary problem for the agnostic is that he allows arbitrary claims to enter his cognitive context. The fully rational man, on the other hand, does not seek evidence to prove or disprove arbitrary claims, for he has no reason to believe that such claims are true in the first place."
I reject atheism because I do not accept the premise that no evidence exists. The very existence of what exists begs for an explanation for both how and why it exists.
– Eyal Mozes, “Existence, Time, and the Big Bang.” Atlas Society website
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
"To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe — from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life — are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved."
– Ayn Rand, “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”, in Philosophy: Who Needs It.
And lo it came to pass that old dino volunteered to face a firing squad.
And I'll still freakin' say something can't freakin' come from nothing!
You just asserted that existence is eternal. And modern physics knows that mass/energy is indestructible and is not created. Do you agree?
Hey, I'm suddenly thinking of one of my most favorite songs. Ta da~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x9o...
God.
This is when Mr. Mystic ducks missiles made of assorted vegetables and rotten fruit,.
It's like what a famous ancient Greek philosopher (can't recall which) said about telling a story (albeit a play or The Odyssey): It needs to have a beginning, a middle and an end.
I submit the same is true of all natural things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthet...
According to complexity theory, given an appropriate environment, a complex system or structure can spontaneously arise from the combined interactions of simpler structures or elements. Complexity scientists refer to this process as “self-organization” or “emergence.” Stewart Kauffman’s 1996 book, At Home in the Universe, discusses how life could have emerged in this context.
I said not that it truly matters. In the great scheme of things one truth is that if there is a Supreme Being and that Supreme Being wanted me to be to act or believe in a certain way He/She/It would have created one of us to be the discoverer or inventor of such a way.
We find out that one of the Staph bacteria (Staphyloccus Epidermidis far from being the bodies immune systems to defeat it's cousins. Without such discoveries it would be killed along with it's family with the opposite result. Or the same with the substance floating in the air that allows bread to rise - yeast a fungus can cause infections as well.
Or the simple kitchen match.
So it's enough to thank those who search such things out and refine them into practical use. Thank you Mr. Edison implies a thank you to whatever caused him to invent the incandescent light bulb.
But to agree to that one has to accept the opposite, yeast infections or staphs. Does that imply a dark supreme being make the supreme being concept a fallacy?
Render unto Ceasar....and concentrate on what has been bestowed. Which brings us back to Socrates versus Plato.
Regarding the ability to discover the existence or will of a supreme being, I am not going to make the claim (that Christians and Jews do) that there is a prescribed way for doing so.
Resonance is energy transfered from sound
Through vibration .
528 hz is a frequency that is shown to repair DNA .UCLA lab.
528 hz is what the sun resonates
Green grass same resonance.
Solfeggio Scale do-396Hz re-432Hz me-528Hz Fa-639Hz so-741Hz la-852Hz
Our hearts resonate at 258Hz 33 harmonics or 32 overtones above the earths 7.83 Hz resonance confirmed in 1954 known as the "Schumann resonance"
5280 feet in a mile
Symbolically very important 33/32 33 feathers left wing 32 feathers right wing on the American eagle on the dollar bill - 33degree Scotish Freemason-- runway 33 at Cape Canaveral angled 33 degrees west from due north the only runway there. - tree of life 33 circles and pathways -33 miracles performed
I won't even ask how 5,280 feet in a mile has something to do with resonance, because it doesn't.
The foot and the mile both come from simple human anatomy, but use different scales..
A "foot" of length (guess how the word was picked) was derived from the length of a human foot, set to its precise size originally per a (presumed) noble foot.
And the word "mile" comes from the Latin word for 1,000. Its length comes from the standard measured step in which Roman legions paced off the Roman empire. Try it yourself. March left-right-left-right. From one step of the left foot to the next will be close to 5.28 feet, the double stride unit of measure. One thousand of those paces became the mile. The Romans were very effective at pacing distances to their standard.
So a mile is merely a metric multiple of a standard legion step, at a reasonable scale for the kinds of distances foot soldiers and horseback riders would find useful.
Leads me to believe some Ancient people were
Very advanced.
As to The 33/32 symbol examples, I believe it refers to our hearts reasonance above the Schumann resonance and the importance there of to modern Freemasons as well as people thousands of years ago.
By the way, what physical property of the sun resonates at 528 Hz? The acoustic behavior of sound in air hardly models the properties of the surface plasma of the sun.
Remote control . World changing inventions.
Each nautical mile originally referred to one minute of arc along a meridian around the Earth. It's a scientific term dealing with time and navigation.
But why not cosmic accidents or better put happenstance. Because it takes forever - pun intended - Add a thinking reasoning human being or humans in being and the odds of time doing it are shortened. Serendipity loses out to Synergy.
Those who mostly think and behave like ordinary Americans in their personal lives, while otherwise paying lip service to religion and vaguely believing in some creation having nothing to do with ordinary life, escape most of the damage -- they are not living out the original religious Dark Ages, especially those attracted to Ayn Rand -- but the the philosophical corruption continues to influence politics for the worst, especially through the influence of altruist sacrifice equated with ethics. Those who take religious thinking seriously are limited in being able to understand and consistently apply a philosophy of reason, regardless of how "Ayn Rand's objectivism blows [religion] out of the water". The aspect that should be "dropped" is not discussion, but the obsessive promotion of religious fallacies on a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.
Call me a mystic if you wish. I have looked up "mysticism" and have read it defined that the word covers all religions.
Recently I was not at all impressed when a so-called Objectivenist dissed a lady Christian here by calling her a zombie.
She left the Gulch over that, though she came back to say "Happy Easter" to me last night. I asked her to stick around but don't know if she is going to.
I have been influenced by Ayn Rand and this board since I had Netflix mail me AS1 and the others I never heard of her before then. Thought I was renting science fiction.
Way before that, I became a "born again Christian" during my 20s. I turned 69 last week and I ain't ever going to disbelieve in God.
So I'm wondering-- is this board supposed to be an atheists only club with no one else to be tolerated?
Still, I weather splashes now and then.
I'm retired from being a corrections officer at a maximum security prison for 21 years.
I can take some rough weather. In fact, I'm kinda used to it.
I just got irritated over a Christian woman with a different background than I for having to take heat just for stating what church activities she and her husband had planned for Holy Week.
The post she responded to was about Easter.
I can't cite erased for sanitized history.
Yesterday I replied to a PM that asked why did Suzanne leave the Gulch.
I stated that being called a zombie really stuck in her craw. In other words, she could not cope with that..
I'm suddenly reminded of what I used to hear about Alabama Department of Corrections incident reports: "If it is not written it did not happen."
I guess in the Gulch that also goes for things edited, erased and deleted,
Stuff I wrote you probably would not consider appropriate.
I swear to god I'm an atheist (a word joke) and have effectively been one for most of my 60-something years. During my very early years (say, up to 7 years old), I hadn't thought much about the topic, other than that IF there was a god, he did a lot of mean and stupid things. Since then, I have never understood the belief in deities by other than third-world un-sophisticates, but it happens a lot. As long as others don't force their mysticism on me (particularly by law) I'll be okay.
I would not abandon this forum, nor should you, merely because some portion of the members are variously atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, or what have you. Many people here are good people with sound arguments that are worthy of consideration, regardless that some notions about religious topics (from either side) may be looked on with disdain.
So, no, this is not an atheist-only club, and your opinions are welcome, at least by me, and surely by many others of differing beliefs or non-beliefs.
My conclusion: No origin is required, it simply is; existence exists, it always has been and ever shall be.............ponder it, examine it, investigate it (as our rational faculty acquires the means to do so), explore it, deal with it.
The question of how the universe as it is now evolved is a scientific question, not for "philosophy to answer" as speculation -- which is the religious mindset, not objectivity. In particular, JB's speculations, previously pushed on this forum and claiming that to account for the complexity of the physical universe space aliens created it, are a bizarre Creationism through Space Aliens invoking the fallacy of the religious "Argument from Design". It is not science, not rational philosophy, and has nothing to do with NASA and whether or not there is other life in the universe.
"The question of how the universe as it is now evolved is a scientific question,......."
Agree with both.
The answer is that it is the best answer that you have at this time, but at this time, you cannot know whether "There is no place outside existence for anything to come from, let alone existence itself." with undeniable certainty. Thus I will classify this as a premise, NOT an axiom.
One of the more intense debates in physics currently is the possibility of multiple universes. If such a concept is considered, then the possibility of the existence as we know it could indeed come from a parallel universe. Such a concept has been formulated into a testable hypothesis.
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-paral...
I await the answers, and I think I will find them out during my lifetime.
However, the Objectivist philosophy forces (word chosen carefully) us to reject the possibility of multiple universes (or the possibility of Earth being a colony of an ancient, distant world) because it allows an arbitrary claim to enter an Objectivist's cognitive context. This automatic rejection of "arbitrary claims" is what I find most unscientific about Objectivism, and is my reason for not being a student of Objectivism. When there is data that is currently unexplained or data for which the underlying cause is unknown, a scientist will formulate and test a range of possible hypotheses, eliminating those that are inconsistent with the data as properly designed experiments are conducted.
No scientific theory can contradict the concept of existence. Whatever the rationalistic "multiverse" speculation winds up as, nothing can be "outside existence".
Valid science does not proceed through the literally abitrary. A "range of hypotheses" is not the "arbitrary".
There are a lot of reason you refuse to learn and understand what Ayn Rand's philosophy is. You are no doubt correct that your desire for the aribtrary is one of them. But it isn't science.
There is a problem, in my opinion, in how you use your terms. For instance, you seem to equate universe and existence. If you are allowing the possibility of multiple universes, then you must redefine the term universe. To my understanding, existence means EVERYTHING that exists. In your view of multiple universes, I see just more than one "system", each of which has some as yet unknown delimiting physical characteristic, analogous to a multiplicity of planetary systems within a galaxy.
I am not completely sure, because I did not take enough time to think about it. But my strong impression is that these kinds of "definitional shifts" in your expressions are consequences of your, seems to me, firm belief in the concepts of supernatural and extra-existential as valid concepts reflecting a reality. Needless to say, I disagree with you on this.
Please, I have no personal animosity here. From what little I know about your work, I think that I admire you for that.
Also, I sense an emotional reaction in you toward disagreeing statement. It reminds me of what I learned very long time ego. You cannot deny religion to religious people without causing anger. An illustration, tragically, might be in how the global warming deniers are treated in our culture and country these days. Or, try to disagree with Stalin about communism. Dogmas.
I am delighted. In a response to anther of your comments, I tried, a minute ago, to propose also the polite disagreement. At least I think I did. Did you see it and agree? All the best.
The best conclusion (simplified) of the unknown.
If it's a theory it is not conclusive is it?
that there is some sort of alternative to existence.
If nothing could come from nothing, then where did
God come from? Did He come from nothing? Andwhatever He came from, where did that come from? And so on back. You either accept
existence, or you don't.
If your issue is " It is far easier for me to conclude that a being of superior intelligence and power is responsible for the universe than it is to not conclude that." you're in the wrong place.
We're not here to find Easy Solutions.
And if anything, atheism 'believers' or should I say 'followers' or use some other word?.. tend to be VERY "scientific" if they're like ME at all!
We're looking for proof. Evidence that could/would/Might Explain the "where did it all come from?" question! Any other "easy answer" is going to be a belief in an explanation that's not provable other Than By Faith, and at least for me, that's No Proof At All.
Science (scientists) are very curious and have put tons of energy (no pun intended, maybe) into trying to Answer That Class of Question!
There are hints and conflicting data on the subject, and there's no consensus, agreement or anything of the sort, YET.
If THE Answer Is Discovered, this atheist will decide for himself if the proof is valid (and hopefully will agree,) and the Question Will Be Answered.
If the answer is God Did It, atheists will be out of business completely, but I'd Love to see That Proof!! If scientific experiments, theories and proofs really make it look like God DIDN'T Create It All.... Well, shit, guys... the religious Believers won't change Their Beliefs at All!!!
I find the discussion hilarious.
Enjoy! :)
The Socratic method is what I have always followed, long before I had ever heard of Rand.
Personally, I sneer with disdain and contempt at Progressives. But I don't see how secular vs non-secular carries so much weight in the media, politics, etc. Would you consider me to be evil (or Progressive) because, for example, I want courts to honor honesty as a virtue rather than the commands of some particular religion?
If I am on a jury deciding a civil matter, should my judgment process rest, as some courts display with prominence, on which of the parties at odds had chosen to "remember the Sabbath"?
Yes, I fully understand that you are not responsible for the rampant use of "secular progressive" throughout the media. But you linked them, so I'm asking.
Given that I am secular, but not a progressive, do you despise me, half despise me, reserve judgment until you know more about my character, consider me to be an argumentative pain in the ass (I am—it's true), or what? Just curious.
Persnally I eschew secular or religious falling back on the old First Amendment guarantee of freedom and implied freedom from religion in government.
Christian versus Secular? What's the difference? Shall we cut to the chase and use abortion as an example. One side wants to use that procedure up to enrollment in first grade and the other bans the procedure for prospective parents back as far as puberty.
Neither side is going to get their way.
The latest ruling seems to be working except among those who haven't bothered to take notice of the latest ruling. For them......!? Interrabang they are a distinct minority who can't make up their minds which of 50 choices they have for colonization.
Why is secular progressive rampant? Read their Handbook to Life As the New Soviet Serf, have a decent laugh then get back to reality.
While your at it turn off ABC, CBS, NBC and the rest of the former main stream media or in anti SecProg anti PC speak 2MF. (Major Middle Finger.)
JB has done this several times in the past, talking about "deciding" to "become" something without first understanding first what it is, let alone if it is true. Objectivism isn't joining, or adherence to, a competing religious sect. You don't decide to "commit" and then begin rationalistically thinking in terms of it. You understand principles and why they are true or you don't, and you don't believe more than you know at any stage of learning and knowledge.
He has also described Objectivism as an abstract "structure" and "deductive system" as its big virtue, as if it were a free floating mental construct. That is pure Rationalism. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a hierarchical structure because of what it is, based on facts that give rise to the concepts and principles. It is not "deduced" from First Principles.
Ayn Rand's ethics is based on the nature of human requirements to use one's mind in order to live. The standard is human nature; the goal is happiness. She did not make pronouncements which, if dutifully followed in accordance with a subjective "worldview", result in success. That is the religious approach. Whether or not one achieves happiness as a state of mind depends on rational choices and effort, correctly, consistently and habitually applied across time. Happiness, as depicted in the heroes of Ayn Rand's novels, is the state of consciousness resulting from achieving one's goals in reality across the course of your life and despite setbacks, not a result of belief in "worldview" or temporary pleasures turning on and off in the range of the moment,
The spectacle of someone who thinks of himself as a scientist and admirer of Ayn Rand proceeding to rationalistically decide in advance whether to "become an Objectivist" -- by deciding on a commitment to a "worldview", in advance of understanding and without regard to what is true, in order to attain inexplicable happy consequences -- is not intriguing, it's sad. No one can understand Ayn Rand's philosophy, let alone become a person who lives by rational principles, with such a subjectivist, Rationalistic approach.
Beliefs can be chosen evidenced by those who convert from one religion to another. My issue is, if I am going to "believe," which beliefs improve my quality of life, adds to my ability to function in the world, allows me to think when needed, gives me the most "margin" to function. (Thoreau said, "I love a wide margin to my life.")
Margin (Howard McCluskey) is the difference between the burdens I bear and my power to carry those burdens. There is so much irrational crap in religion, I simply increase my margin by not considering it.
I's not the party of Roosevelt, T. anymore but it is the party of anti civil rights and
that can't be right my family is staunchly pro liberal objectives.
I just stated one.
Huh?
Nor is it the party of FDR and especially not the party of JFK
You forgot LBJ
On purpose I'm not much of fascist supporter.
What about Carter?
he wasn't much of anything.
Clinton....uhhhhhhhh hmmmm maybe you have a point.
Not any better in the dumbo party
Things change.
I was very happy to contribute....
Live your life and continue to learn all you can about what is. We're human...let's be that.
We read philosophy and physics they get fairy tales. What's not to be happy? Good old subjectivism saves the day. Whoever can spin the best yarn is their new hero. Besides they can always blame the other side.. If they can remember who the other side is or was. Definition 1357 went into effect yesterday. It will be replaced on Wednesday.
Now I'm sure they have their own version.. So to keep it fair remember they use PC dictionaries and are not required to stay on track nor have a clue what about much of anything. It will be difficult but the opportunity should be afforded.
So are Subjectivists really happy? Start off with What is Happy?
Cantril Ladder 68.1 70.0
Satisfaction With Life 64.5 82.5
Psychological Well-Being 69.6 75.0
Health 65.0 62.5
Time Balance 50.6 75.0
Lifelong Learning, Arts & Culture 68.3 37.5
Community 51.6 53.6
Social Support 69.9 43.8
Environment 66.6 56.3
1 / 2 Government 50.5 25.0
Standard of Living - Economy 65.6 93.8
Work 59.4 70.8
One has to hold Obj. beliefs sincerely and for the right reasons; e.g. a rational atheist must integrate his position from metaphysical and epistemological facts and premises.
I agree with Mamaemma: choose rational principles first, then achieve happiness. If you hold irrational priniciples, you can't achieve true happiness.
I agree with khalling. Atheists and agnostics are not a monolithic group. In addition, they are operating without the comfort of faith, without railings so to speak. Therefore, it is not surprising that on average we are a little less happy, having to do a little more work to find our way with a lot less camaraderie, X-mas, easter, etc. Druids are probably happier.too. It doesn't help much that calling oneself an atheist brings raised eyebrows and some shunning from some in the mainstream. Not all of us have the think skin not to care, or to banter on the subject. No doubt this will change as well, as more and more people continue to find religion not believable and unnecessary. It would do us all good to document the objective reasons for proper behavior to provide a logical basis for morality that people can rally around.
In my case, I made up for the philosophical strain with pets. I am much happier with dogs than dogma.
Since Ayn Rand slipped out of the grip of such a regime, I find her own atheism to be kinda ironic.
I've read and heard conservative commentators state that some, not all, atheists practice their disbelief like a religion, especially those bent on intimidating and suing the very sight of religion, especially the Christian one, out of sight and mind.
We used to have such a thing called freedom of and from religion. Far as I'm concerned even commenting on religion, sex, or race is un American starting with the US Government forms. That attitude was pre loss of Constitution and Bill of Rights so it probably means squat anymore. Looks like the leftists just folowed the refugees and started over in the USSA.
How could Ayn Rand leave before the anti-church communist party fully took over but could see the results first hand?
I'd look it up but I need to eat before The Walking Dead wraps up a season with a special 90 minute episode.
11,000 US Troops.
U.S. Army, American North Russia Expeditionary Force (also known as Polar Bear Expedition, 310th Engineers, 339th Infantry, 337th Field Hospital, and 337th Ambulance Company)
U.S. Army, 167th and 168th Railroad Companies (sent to Murmansk to operate the Murmansk to Petrograd line) 1918 to 1920
did you ever stop to think as the hearse drove by
that you might be....
LMAO
Big Grin (can't find emoticons)
If you understand "subjective" as "arbitrary" and "objective" as "in accordance with your best interests" then the seeming contradiction is resolved. Happiness is personal; it is not arbitrary. While slipping on a banana peel is a time-honored gag, laughing at a car accident is not "subjective happiness" but an indication of neurosis, i.e., the non-objective in personal psychology.
Objective happiness stems from reflections of yourself and your selfhood in the external world.
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
My point is that your denial of statistical fact is a statement of ignorance.
"Yet there is much in this universe that is beyond our capacity to design, let alone create."
It seems to me pretty obvious that this sentence implies that everything needs to be designed or created. Which, to my mind, directly says nothing can be eternal. It also almost defines an intelligent designer or creator. That is what, more or less clearly, all religions say. I do not need to, but want to point out that such ideas are incompatible with the objectivist philosophy. Why not agree on that and part friends as before?