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 14.
Eny (nickname)
There are some important philosophical issues that those who agree with Rand's type of atheism often choose not to address, particularly with regard to how and why we exist at all. Moreover, there are a lot of facts of reality that lack unsatisfactory answers at this point in our existence, and understanding of it. It is entirely reasonable to say that those questions are not presently answerable, and move on with our existence.
Religionists like to "fill in the blanks" with regard to anecdotal, often personal, evidence of what is currently beyond their ability to understand purely by observation and reasoning. Often this is like forming a hypothesis. The biggest difference between atheists and religionists is that religionists believe their own hypotheses until proven wrong (which is not scientific), whereas atheists believe nothing until "forced" to confront an objective reality that is inconsistent with their previous understanding. The atheist approach is consistent with the scientific method.
Fortunately, no guy in the sky stuff...the word: "God" is a pagan concept but I guess one can call the ether and quantum events what ever they want.
Also, I was hoping to discover something new in ideology. Since learning about Quantum physics I have opened up to many strange possibilities, not to mention some fascinating ideas put forth by "Old Ugly Carl." Of course, you guys are still a bunch of wimps, but what the hell, you are my kind of wimps.
This topic has been explored several times here previously. It has naturally caused some rifts. I am of the opinion that it is of importance to those that wish to be doctrinaire and completely faithful in their Objectivist philosophy and those that wish to be faithful in their belief in a prime mover. I find that I am ambivalent about the matter. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. For myself, I am agnostic on the question, because it doesn't bother me what someone believes about another plane of existence as long as they live by reality on this one. A is A. The Objectivist position is, because there is no empirical evidence the question does not merit examination. It is arbitrary and faith is not proof. Thus no discussion is warranted.
A few interesting questions that will unfortunately seem pointed to the believers: Why is it too fantastic to believe that things evolved from nature and that we are just the lottery winners that became conscious of things enough to question our beginning, yet it is not too fantastic to believe that there exists a supernatural being that brought it all about? If a prime mover is required because of disbelief, then why isn't there a need for a creator of the prime mover? This supposition of course logically leads one to an endless paradox. Also one of the best arguments I have heard from an atheist was, "if you are a believer in one God, why don't you believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? Once you answer this question, you will understand why I don't believe in your one God."
For the believers, it has been my experience that St Thomas Aquinas has made some of the best arguments. In his work, Summa Theologica, he employed deductive reason to produce five "proofs" that demonstrate the existence of God. Some believe and see proof.. others see only unproven theory...
Such is the nature of faith. Logic can't answer faith; It can neither prove nor disprove such a theory based on faith. IMHO
Respectfully,
O.A.
and rightly you shouldn't...all that's quantumly required is that you at least "Appreciate" your existence along with existence itself. If there is a quantum response to that, it would be the reflection of value created and perhaps more to appreciate...You've heard it before..."It's Not mystical...it's quantum physical".
I agree that everyone should have access to the Gulch. The only ones that I dislike are those who wish to challenge the atheism.
Cannot be done honestly. 1. From the system of thought known as Objectivism which rejects belief in favor of fact, evidence and reason. 2. From authority, it was what Rand said (tho' this is contrary to the precept of not using authority as a basis).
Now, I am one of those who accept the principle of fellow traveling. That is, it is worth discussing and hearing opinions of those with whom many if not all basic ideas are shared.
So, no belief test for the Gulch.
Another comment. Religion does not require a belief in the supernatural, just the acceptance of ideas with no base in evidence and only in belief.
The movie "Oh, God" touched on this theory (very funny movie) Consider how old this universe is. Consider the dinosaurs who lived millions of years before man. If you put Earth's life on a clock face, the first 55 minutes would be the time of the dinosaurs and the last five minutes would be the length of time humans have been here. If you put the universe on a clock face, man's existence to date would be a fraction of a second. That is how long we have been here. To be honest, we don't really know how old is the universe. If you add in Einstein's theory of relativity, our universe could be a grain of sand on the beach of some other reality. The bottom line is, our minds have evolved to the point where we no longer believe in a god. or, at least, we shouldn't. My God is Mother Nature. Science. The search for something better. There is no other God.
Funny...just this morning I thought I could finally bridge the gap between this bicameral brain type thinking and the conscious quantum mind... the cosmos... the big picture...I failed again. The person I was talking to is interested in my work and supports my effort but cannot understand that the organized concept of a god in bicameral times, (pre-conscious) and now; which carries a connotation of something that created everything...to what I am describing as quantum entanglements; it obviously was intended that way but, Look, it need not be mystical, excepted by faith, humanized nor mystified. Nothing is watching over you.
But, we sure do have many connections; energy/matter entangled and you are but one half of that connection and each effects the other no matter the distance. Quantum events in which one might get insights or premonitions. Quantum pairs, family's of quantum pairs, temporary and permanent...it's simply mind blowing. Becoming conscious, gaining a mind, gave us reason and an opportunity to grow and create, for our own sake which has a beneficial consequence for others.
Religion is just an organized teaching of what our bicameral ancestors figured out, expressed in a bicameral language and taught to the bicameral brain with that bicameral language...they never considered consciousness, the mind, increased understanding nor conscious growth...it just stagnates dead in the water. Stuck in that meme, one ceases to evolve.
But it's still valuable history, a valuable story to learn basic concepts that can be applied to the now, Conscious Mind in a quantum way.