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 4.
One thing that might help is to understand a document called the Nicene Creed, from the early 5th century AD. Basically, it was where a bunch of "scholars" and theologians tried to get together and compromise on the nature of God. It is this document that asserts contradiction upon contradiction such as the invisible nature, the formless nature, the 3-in-1 and 1-in-3 nature of God and attributes all of these contradictions to the inconceivable power of God. But none of it is scripturally based. It's like an Act of Congress: so full of pork and concessions that it is almost useless. To me, the Creed is just as useful as most Acts of Congress - according to one Dave Barry! =D And it is this Creed which Rand refers to and rightly condemns.
Hey, somebody else gave me a point.
It's a 2 at 11:14 AM.
Is someone trying to rehabilitate my Christian evil?
Here’s how I interpret what you’re saying, and it has nothing to do with Objectivism – as far as I can see, it is the complete opposite.
1) Values, ethics and morals exist outside of objective reality – they are totally subjective.
2) A person can only be objective “within the constraints” of his values, ethics and morals – his values, ethics and morals cannot themselves be derived by objective reasoning.
3) Being truly “objective” is impossible, since a person’s “point of view” exists prior to and independently of his thinking about ethics and morals (or anything else).
4) Fear is superior to reason as a means of apprehending reality: “There are no atheists in foxholes.” (A false statement, by the way, likely dreamed up by a religious mystic who approved of using fear to compel adherence to some religious doctrine).
This is your basis for asserting that Objectivism is “flawed”?
Circumcision was given as a law with a helpful health side-effect, as was much of the Mosaic Law. Back in those times, bathing was uncommon to say the least. Circumcision was actually a huge benefit to the women because of the significantly lowered risks of bacteria (and therefore infection) in those extra folds of skin. Look up the health reports in modern medicine if you don't believe me. That law was remanded (by Christians) as times changed and health codes of society in general have improved.
Studies have also shown that a regular, periodic day of rest is of tremendous benefit to the human body and psyche. Those who take one day off a week tend to go back to their labors refreshed and motivated.
The last observation I would make is that the original Mosaic law was given because the people refused the higher law Moses originally brought down. They refused to police themselves, so they were given what they asked for: a whole set of laws, rites, etc. Sounds kind of familiar to today's day and age now that I think about it...
There are far too few people in this world who actually think. I applaud you for attempting to spur some action in "the little grey cells" (- Hercule Poirot)!
Excuse me while I go off to do more evil with another independent thought.
"And I think this forum is much more tolerant of theists than most religious forums would be of atheists."
For the most part the people in this forum use their brains, but I've still seen significant intolerance. I think trying to compare one forum to another is an effort in futility, however. Ultimately, popularity does not declare truth. Truth is. Popularity contests are a distraction for the mindless masses. Philosophy is ultimately a personal decision. And those who are comfortable in their decisions advocate for their position while allowing others to decide for themselves.
I don't see any wiggle room around that and I must make amends.
Think I'll start by no longer donating to Christian organizations who try to help help beat up wives and abused children.
It's evil to help all those whining women and snot-nosed little brats who need to get by on their own.
Now retired, I don';t know what to do about brave Christian groups and individuals who go into scary prisons to help bad men become more evil.
During the 90s I never should have used a Christian organization to sponsor an impoverished kid in Africa until he grew up.
There's other evil Christian things that I can tell on if I had all day.
Oh, we misguided Christians are so freaking evil that I am now thoroughly ashamed of being one. Excuse me while I go outside and kick this feral cat I've feeding. It's black, you know, just like my goodie two-shoes Christian soul.
Atheists on the other hand prayed to God when they were in foxholes pinned down and they thought they were going to die.
The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as during war ("in foxholes"), all people will believe in, or hope for, a higher power (and there are therefore no atheists).
There are no atheists in foxholes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...
Word origin
C17: via Latin from Greek: opinion, belief, from dokein to seem good
In my younger days when at a party or a forum, I would provoke a discussion ranging from religion to economics opposing what I knew the group espoused. My wife would just roll her eyes as if to say, "there he goes again." Now, I just threaten to do it in order to see the eye-roll.
I read them all and saw damn little dogma. Sounds like talking points to me.
To the Jedi the Sith are evil..."Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.” These concepts lead to an objective morality."
To the Sith the Jedi are Evil..."Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.” These concepts lead to an objective morality.
Each opposing side has their own solid defined set of values, ethics and morals. Each are objective within those constraints.
The complete individual applying the same means that each individual's ethics, morals and definition of good and bad are then all co-equal.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
American Psychological Association (APA):
objective. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obje...
Reasoning and "objective" depend in large part on the point of view you are approaching it from.
Subjectivist.
noun
1.Epistemology. the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible.
2.Ethics.
any of various theories maintaining that moral judgments are statements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of the individual or the community.
American Psychological Association (APA):
subjectivist. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved June 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subj...
Also "Good" and "Evil" are premises and concepts that originate with religion...
Load more comments...