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 7.
  • 1
    Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    isn't it fun, trying to wrap your head around the most
    expansive thoughts in the cosmos? -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by Enyway 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It confuses me, as well. I have discovered if you follow the vertical dotted line straight up 'till it ends, you will be beside the message to which you're responding. Even then, I still hit the wrong one occasionally.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 0
    Posted by hvance 8 years, 10 months ago
    I assume that everyone believes what is written by historians, at least for the most part. Christ was seen by over 400 people after His resurrection, His disciples and many other people. His miracles were witnessed by 1000's of people yet people today won't believe that because no one today can copy what Jesus did. He is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. If He is such a threat to everyone why do grown men cringe at the mention of His name? The Bible will turn the foolish into wise men if people will simply follow its teachings. And yes, there is something greater that nothing which takes more of faith than to believe in Jesus Christ. This is one thing the Ayn got wrong, she insisted on proof but would not accept written history authenticated by countless people. Each of us has the free will to accept Christ or reject Him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well said. As demonstrated by many comments on this topic, "compartmentalizing" is a common human behavior. The real accomplishment is when our personal ability to reason melts those "walls" into a better, rational understanding.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by jconne 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You say, "Actually quantum rooted terms do in fact apply in this context...problem is many are not ready to see it, except it or even get it."

    Sounds like a religious assertion rather than a factual one. Plus a superior victim posture. When you have evidence and a case to make, be sure to let us know. Until then, this is just arbitrary assertion - throwing around big, impressive words and name dropping.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 4
    Posted by lrshultis 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Space is just a way of referencing things relative to each other. Time is just a referencing of motion or change relative to other things. Even the classical vacuum is not empty. It is full of EM radiation. Since energy is not some kind of stuff but is a measurement of a type of relationship between matter which in interactions is conserved, the quantum vacuum must have relative energy relations which might/maybe did fluctuate into a big or wimpy bang creating matter and radiation in relatively longer lasting amounts than the virtual particle vacuum stuff.
    It is amazing how bright minds can, without a rational philosophy, run off in smelly brain farts about spooky happenings at the quantum level.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 3
    Posted by jconne 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Suzanne - the point is not to agree with Ayn Rand any more than it is to agree with Newton, Einstein or another discoverer. The point is to agree with reality.

    Good philosophy provides tools for thinking. That is - using ones direct perception and rational ability to identify what's real and what's not.

    One Objectivist I know uses the phrase, "Users of Objectivism". I like that - as in "users of the periodic table" or "users of geometry".

    The real challenge of philosophy is validation of one's premises. Rand has done that better than anyone I know while standing metaphorically on the shoulders of Aristotle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by Enyway 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sadly, the logical side of their brain believes in Objectivism, but the common sense side takes a vacation. Common sense is not what most people think. Common sense is a sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts. If a cat sits on a hot stove, it will never sit on another stove, hot or cold. Common sense tells us that a cold stove is safe. But, that common sense comes from experiencing a hot stove at some point, unless, of course, your parents were intelligent enough to explain the difference and you were intelligent enough to understand. If you were not, the first scenario comes into play.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by jconne 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It looks like I linked this response to the wrong msg. in this very nested thread. Sorry.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by jconne 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wouldn't go there:
    "If you add in Einstein's theory of relativity, our universe could be a grain of sand on the beach of some other reality."

    Now that's quite a stretch ;-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    RE: “If "MY OWN MORALITY" is based in Religion and God, then I am obligated to act accordingly even if that view differs from yours and the the atheists view.” Do Islamic terrorists qualify, since they are acting on their religious beliefs?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    RE: “it is no coincidence that America's embrace of socialism has coincided with its least religious time.” Is it a coincidence that America’s embrace of human slavery, extermination of Native Americans and suppression of women’s rights occurred during more religious times? America’s embrace of socialism (and flirtation with Communism by many intellectuals) began in earnest during the New Deal era, which was much more religious than today. And religion and socialism are hardly mutually exclusive – Pope Francis is proof of that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    J what a bunch of BS.. What was key was Deism Most of the founding fathers were Deist and Thomas Paine who probably wrote the most important books in support of the revolution was a Deist and wrote a book on point
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And to top it off...the concept of a "Big bang" is probably wrong not to mention space is not a vacuum...but we would still have fun discussing all this stuff.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by robinrises 8 years, 10 months ago
    ""Religion and Capitalism are completely incompatible. Capitalism is built or reason. When religious people say they are for capitalism they are being contradictory and eventually when push comes to shove they side with religion and against freedom.""
    I think capitalism and religion are compatible.
    I define Capitalism as the honorable use of capital to make more capital. Religion is nothing more than a group of individuals sharing common grounds.
    In the case for Christianity, pure capital (Jesus) was sacrificed in payment of debt (sin) to free the debtor.
    After the legal tender act of 1862 was passed, pure capital (gold) was sacrificed in payment of debt (greenbacks) to free the ultimate debtor (government). There is compatibility between the two groups of thought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The bible does not and the OT is not the basis for the organization of what is referred to as "The Bible". The OT is only history past on and collected from all that remembered. Understand Jaynes and you come to some understanding of pre-conscious man...not to mention the meme or paradigm of those times. It's all part of our mental evolution and we've only just begun...we should of had these conversations millennia ago but we had no "Mind" to do it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Now you have an example and understanding of pagan Bicameral man.
    The goods are real and delivered by earthly means but the whole process to them is "supernatural".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 4
    Posted by $ puzzlelady 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Douglas Hofstadter reported on an experiment that pitted two computers against each other in a game of war-like competition. The game that won was "Tit for Tat", where neither took the offensive of initiating an attack, and where each responded to the other in kind if aggressed against, and forgiving when the other played nice. Close to the golden rule. This appeared in Scientific American some decades ago. Sorry, I don't have the link.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    After reading the above, you'll note that the topic was posted today. Look at the responses. It's going to take a while for me to digest a lot of this stuff.,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Read: Spiral Dynamics if you care to...you'll see the road we need to travel and travel we must, out of our chosen memes or levels of awareness.
    We must gather up all that was valuable in our ascension from prior memes or levels and keep on climbing. We were not meant to stagnate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To answer your question; they can't. That doesn't mean that they can't utilize the principles of Objectivism while being religious. But they are not Objectivists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 5
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello OA:
    I must confess that I love the Gulch. The posts can range from intolerable to brilliant with everything in between. But through it all, there is surprisingly little nonsense. As you know, I have particularly enjoyed your offerings, and I have learned much. Posts have sent me scurrying to my books or to our wonderful little library. Actually, Nerds are a better description for Gulchers. Why am I not surprised to find that so many have enjoyed the same books, movies and presentations that I have?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo