16

The God Question

Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
349 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

As some of you know, there are a number of people in the gulch who follow a religion, but also follow the principles of Objectivism. At least that is what they say. The following is an except from Rand which clearly states her position when it comes to God. I would be interested to know how the religionists get that square peg into the trapezoid hole.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth.---To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling us what it is not, but never tell us what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say - and demand that you consider that knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There's more, lots more, but knowing this, I would be interested in finding out how one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    RE: "I also NEVER said better for humanity that was YOUR input. I simply said 'better.'"
    Without the presence of any value-related metric, the word "better" is meaningless, a free-floating abstraction. The only standard you're applying to capitalism is "more", and "more" by itself does not automatically equal "better". Is being obese "better" than being skinny? You're also using an implied standard that capitalism is "better" for human beings. This automatically brings your assertion into the realm of human values, i.e. morality. And if you don't believe that capitalism is "better" for humanity, then who or what in the world is it "better" for? It has to be "better" for someone or something.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All your metrics prove is that capitalism produces more than other economic systems, a quantitative measurement. It says nothing about whether producing more is “better” than producing less. Better for whom, and in what respect? Is it “better” because it enables people to have a greater ability to use their rational faculties and exercise their free will, to enjoy more control over their lives? Capitalism can only be “better” in the context of human thriving or the lack thereof. The very term “better” is a value judgment. And values are the province of morality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I also NEVER said better for humanity that was YOUR input. I simply said "better."

    Feel free to pick metrics devoid of material things. You can establish millions of fixed metrics absent of morality and subjective content and Capitalism comes out far ahead.

    I put it to you, your Christian God is a Capitalist God.

    2 Thessalonians 3:9,10
    9 Not that we lack this right, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 For even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.”

    So if you do not work, you do not eat, therefore you starve. So is God cruel for telling m=people they should starve? No, work is trading your time/skills, for monetary gain or "consideration" of some kind, i.e. value for value.

    Ephesians 6: 1 - 3
    1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may be long-lived on the earth.”
    Extremely unruly children could be stoned by their parents. So this is a point of rational self-interest.

    Old Testament Isaiah 65: 20 - 22
    20 "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed. 21 "They will build houses and inhabit them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.…

    Private property rights and owning the product of your own labor.

    Even in contract law.
    Jeremiah 32: 10 - 15
    10 I recorded it on a scroll, sealed it, called in witnesses, and weighed out the silver in the scales. 11 I took the purchase agreement—the sealed copy with its terms and conditions and the open copy— 12 and gave the purchase agreement to Baruch son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah. I did this in the sight of my cousin[c] Hanamel, the witnesses who were signing the purchase agreement, and all the Judeans sitting in the guard’s courtyard.
    13 “I instructed Baruch in their sight, 14 ‘This is what the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: Take these scrolls—this purchase agreement with the sealed copy and this open copy—and put them in an earthen storage jar so they will last a long time. 15 For this is what the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, says: Houses, fields, and vineyards will again be bought in this land.’

    Galatians 3:15
    15 To give a human example, brothers:[a] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

    Bible recommends contracts, contract law.
    I can go on and on how ALL biblical principals are capitalistic and "selfish from a "rational Self-Interest" standpoint.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    “Money is the root of all evil.”

    "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." is the correct translation, and in Greek love being all consuming.

    But you digress to a religious debate, and I am pointing out that the metrics used to state emphatically Capitalism is better, are totally empirical as compare the rest of the world.

    Choose any fixed metric, Money per capita, Cell phones , Air Conditioning, Food availability, Utility availability, Opportunity, pick one and I can apply completely metric based criteria to prove Capitalism is better without ever having to bring up morality at all. Morality which is totally subjective, as is ethics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: “If I have evidence that a fundamental premise is wrong, on which side do my objections fall?” If you believe that a fundamental premise of Objectivism is wrong, my opinion would be that your disagreement falls on the side of “those who disagree with one or more of her philosophy’s basic premises." The question is whether this is a proper forum to debate the merits of Ayn Rand’s philosophy as a whole. There are numerous websites and forums that do just that. Should the Gulch be one of them?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course it’s morality related. Many mainstream moral codes regard economic prosperity as evil .

    “Privation is good for the soul.”
    “Suffering builds character.”
    “Money is the root of all evil.”
    Religious “vows of poverty.”
    Just about anything Pope Francis says.
    Matthew 19:21: “Jesus said to him, ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.’”
    Matthew 19:24: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

    The empirical data you cited shows that capitalism is better only if you use a moral standard that “more material prosperity = better for humanity”. When applying the opposite moral standard, which billions of people subscribe to at least in part, your empirical data shows that capitalism is worse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not sure I understand your question. What "easy concept" are you referring to?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "There’s a big difference between those who disagree with Rand on specific conclusions and applications of her philosophy, and those who disagree with one or more of her philosophy’s basic premises."

    If I have evidence that a fundamental premise is wrong, on which side do my objections fall? That is the fundamental dichotomy of the "God question".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Using every empirical monetary measurement.

    Direct financial opportunity each citizen has availability to, All empirically measured against all other countries in the world.

    Even if you take the empirical measure of simple HVAC units in homes to provide comfort, this can be measured empirically and has no "moral" bearing on the determination of better.

    Empirically measures the poor people in this country's biggest health concern is obesity, vs. other countries where the biggest issue for poor is disease and starvation.

    No morality, ethics or any measure other than empirical data. To have food and go hungry on purpose is a different thing from not even having the choice.

    This is empirical not subjective or anything morality related.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The competitive programs were written by humans. It was a contest for simulating human relations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Einstein might have understood that the physical laws that made life possible may very well be a reflection upon the image that created them...?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Super hero's...some sense of reason for being here and the good ole nonaccountable bicameral brain have long been comfort food for mankind.

    Ha...I just described government!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Take white willow bark instead...your head ace will go away without damaging your body...we like having you around...it's just rational self interest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago
    Except you run out of other people's money and then everyone becomes poor, starving and will resort back to their pagan barbaric bicameral roots.

    Oh wait!...that's exactly what their doing...no matter how you spell it, where it came from, I say "Evil" is an apt description.

    And actually...the concept of good and evil/ order and disorder was realized by bicameral man way before some idiot decided to organize it into a religion. If mankind did not observe that if I take your stuff, you'll take mind or at least kick my ass...therefore...maybe I shouldn't take your stuff unless I can kick Your ass. We would of never survived this long if we didn't make that observation.

    Early form of Reason by caveman perhaps? Laughing...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago
    I think, right from the get go...Rome's "Organization" of the teachings and history was to keep their flock from fully ascending into consciousness. That's why they still pander to the bicameral, mystical, superstitious brain.
    Never mind all the perverted inclusions that attracted all those is the other paganized religions of the time.
    They wanted to be Government and had no mind to advance mankind into higher states of awareness because that would have put them out of work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by robinrises 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If capitalism is as you say "an end in itself - stand-alone" than why does capital still exist? Maybe capital is like matter, it can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred? I think capital follows the law of conservation of mass.

    And if Capital is a stand-alone, there is reason to believe that God does exist. God fractionalized thyself into parts in the form of credit which pulls the demand forward into new stand-alone parts (us) which the parts act to do work (interest) in exchange for energy in order to grow.

    As for Lazi fare. I am all for free market forces driving socio economic growth. However, there is a big problem: people cheat, steal, corner markets thru force, and fail to appropriately compensate the exhaustion of capital at proper value.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Alleged "miracles" prove nothing. "Thousands of people witnessed Christ's miracles, therefore He is the Son of God" is not a syllogism. A forum for the promotion of Ayn Rand's philosophy is not a proper venue for religious proselytizing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Given your premise above, in what respect is capitalism "better" than any other economic or social system? What standards do you employ to evaluate "better"?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 10 months ago
    Define betterment of human life and functioning, that is totally subjective and not at all something that is universally quantifiable. Subjective as is morality...which is not objective at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good and Bad, vs. Good and Evil are two different comparisons...

    I suppose the berry was EVIL and intended to maliciously kill the eater?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Send him over. He can bring wine which he seems to favor in ceremonies. By the way is God a he or an it? Goodyear, Goodrich, I get confused. You are talking about Yaweh, the invisible Hebrew volcano God are you not?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Capitalism is “better” by what standard? The betterment of human life and functioning? Oh wait, that’s a “moral” standard! Sorry, capitalism is not better after all. Socialism is just as good.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Hot_Black_Desiato replied 8 years, 10 months ago
    • Olduglycarl replied 8 years, 10 months ago
  • Posted by 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All you know about Jesus is what certain advocates wrote about him. Everything in the "new" testament would not be admitted in any court because it is all hearsay. It matters not if it is 400 or 4,000 people because it is whatever a person wrote about it some hundred or so years later. Maybe longer. That is why among many other things, the entire story of Jesus is questionable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When I was a kid, I was very bothered about God's genitalia. Did he have them? If so, why. If not, then the image isn't perfect. Of course, after a certain point, I didn't care.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo