The God Question
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.
"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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 12.
Believer: Why must I do this, O God?
God: Because I said so.
Believer: OK.
In Objectivism, it goes more like:
Objectivist: Why must I do this?
Rand: A concise rational and expertly crafted reply.
Quite a difference.
For example, while I believe in quantum physics I cannot agree with every new theory that comes along to prove a certain point. That doesn't mean I don't believe all the other stuff. (I'm not sure that's even clear to me.) Is it?
BTW, how many times are we going to have this "religious" discussion? It really is rather pointless. I'm a Christian, and lots of people in The Gulch aren't. So what!
so slowly, in little chunks, eureka moments, Albert Einstein
revelations, inventions, hypotheses and proofs ... it's the
awesome glue which holds reality together everywhere
which we just see a corner of, as we grow along! -- j
.
light at the end of a looooooong tunnel, and then,
through the light, I saw God. . . . . and she was black." -- j
.
No mysticism, = not a religion. Then faith no longer works and reason must support the tenets.
The important thing is that we recognize 10 simple rules that took mankind 10's or 1000's of years to integrate; culminating during a purely natural event...Those 10 simple rules, articulated in a conscious language aligns with everything Rand stood for. Prager University has great video on that. Add to that the observations of quantum entanglements, value, order and disorder and it all comes together quite logically.
1. Existence and termination (the idea of annihilation of consciousness)
2. Existence and origin (abortion)
3. Existence and purpose, which then define "right" and "wrong" (morality in general)
4. Who we are (our individual relationship to the rest of the universe)
Rand posits and disavows the existence of God (primarily the Judeo-Christian definition), attempting to show metaphysically that it is impossible. Given the answers to the questions above and their absolutely profound implications and Objectivists' insistence upon observation and proof as the only acceptable standard, I fundamentally disregard the notion of an unprovable hypothesis as either intellectual laziness or intellectual avoidance. I also recognize, however, that each individual must make the journey themselves and come to their own conclusions on the matter because the consequences are literally life-changing.
I will only say that I have tested the hypothesis that God (the Judeo-Christian one) exists (the positive assertion) and found it to be true - not just once, but many times. In the presence of this evidence, I must disagree with Rand's hypothesis (a negative assertion). If I am to remain logically consistent, I must conclude that when presented with facts in opposition to a provided hypothesis, I must conclude the hypothesis to be false: the result of invalid definition(s), inference(s), or conjecture(s).
I believe that many people start with invalid definitions when asking themselves the "God question". Rand's statement above is an illustration "All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say...". I completely identify with her in asserting that this is rubbish. Either a thing exists and is knowable, or it does not exist at all. I agree with her that many of the common definitions are non-definitions, absurdities, or assertions of other such dubious thought processes.
The danger lies in asserting "Nothing I have been presented with seems reasonable" -> "Nothing exists and the search does not warrant the effort." First of all, one must accept that our own preconceptions can be our own worst enemies. Confirmation bias is a big problem and is compounded by the gravity of the question being contemplated. Second, we must examine ourselves to determine if we want to acquaint ourselves with reality - no matter what reality may present itself. This is probably the single most difficult question we can ask of ourselves because it requires 100% honesty and commitment to truth. It is the admission to one's self that no matter what one has previously studied, no matter what ideas and/or conclusions one has reached previously, one is willing to accept that one could be wrong. It is the quintessential conflict of self vs self.
Load more comments...