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 8.
  • 3
    Posted by $ puzzlelady 8 years, 10 months ago
    To hold (or profess to hold) Objectivist principles and religious dogma is called compartmentalizing. In one's psycho-epistemology a wall is built so as not to admit that one is holding on to contradictions. One may even rationalize that on certain values the two compartments agree. But there is no way to integrate faith and mythical belief with objective reality. It is utter self-deception. There is no reason to deify natural phenomena as primitive men did for lack of scientific understanding. Yet in that context a great many people are still at the earliest hominid level, believing and defending the myths they were indoctrinated with in childhood. It's time to put away those fictions along with the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

    Where religion has a stranglehold on the mind is by implanting guilt for doubt, by intimidation of authority, and impending punishment after death. The promise of immortality is the ultimate con game.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hard to say. The Dinos made it for millions of years, Homo Sapiens has only been around some thousands or less, and we've been to he brink a few times already.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately, non scientists write unscientifically. That would make someone with your training unable to see through the "gobblrgook" to the possible germ of the idea. It may well be mystical crap, but it also may be a good idea hidden in the inability to express it in scientific terms. I have been reading everything that has been written in the Quantum for Dummies genre and I have certain ideas about it that I hesitate to expess for the very reason that I don't have the kind of training that will allow me to put it into acceptable wording, and certainly unable to do math to back it up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 6
    Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. A = A. The only era in American history that has rejected Christianity is the current one.

    Please examine
    http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding....

    While there were several deists amongst the founders, please look through the list for atheists amongst the signers of the founding documents. I don't think you will find one. This is not to say that all of them might not have been in error. The founders may have been in error, but to say that religion and capitalism are incompatible is most definitely an error.

    When Ms. Rand emigrated to America and embraced it for coining the phrase to "make money", do you think that America was an atheist country?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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. Although I do know and work with some quantum physics folks that do get it and are trying their best to help me articulate it and gather experimental data for resource material...toughest things of all are the original experiment done by Einstein and Edison on the subject matter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suspect that if humanity continues to evolve both intellectually and physically, you will not recognize it in a few hundred years -- or sooner.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Tenets are found phrased differently in most religions. Judaism borrowed a lot from previous religions and both Christianity and Islam borrowed from Judaism, etc etc etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your history seems to miss the point that in fact Capitalism, the Constitution, and the Revolution happened when christianity was not well accepted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 4
    Posted by $ puzzlelady 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those tenets are not a religious monopoly. They are objectively good principles by which to run a free, just society. Galt's oath is a more specific formulation of "the golden rule". "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a statement of equality (neither sacrificing to the other, mutual respect, honesty). Rational values when expounded also by religions does not render them religious.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What little I know of what you are doing, I find fascinating. We've got to do some private discussion in the future.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Laughing...pre-conscious man...or today, people in government, I call parasitical humanoids, meaning they are only two parts of a three part equation; just a brain in a body with a fake identity and never creating or producing value...taking from others to survive. The part they are missing is of course is the Mind...also called the "I".

    I am using consciousness in the idea of being aware of one's own awareness and that has to do with the mind...the brain cannot do that...mankind could understand the concept two without being aware of it prior to the period between the Iliad and the Odyssey as discovered by Julian Jaynes. Obviously...not everyone participated...right up to today...shaking my head and laughing again.
    I think those that study the brain, even today, still don't recognize that the mind is different than the brain and is a quantum field generated by the transceptions of vibratory energy produced by the brain. They are still trying to account for it all in your head. -and- yes, each 1/2 can take over for the other when damage or disease occurs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 4
    Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism is founded on reason. Religion is founded on faith. Your religion is mysticism which requires no evidence, Objectivism is founded on on proven truth, that is, that which corresponds to reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's about as simple as it gets right now...still trying to simplify further. These are specific points which require specific language...some of these things like say "Consciousness" require one to know that it is expressed as being aware of one's own awareness and requires a mind to be conscious...otherwise it's just animal like awareness of one's environment...see what I mean?...there is no pretense on my part and I am always looking to simplify the complex..but so far, I have not discovered an articulation that everyone might understand.
    Everyone here are the smartest people I have come to know but if your not familiar with the subject matter...your starting from scratch and I am forging new frontiers here, combining philosophy, psychology, anthropology, history, quantum physics, etc, etc...to explain and understand it all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 1
    Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I thought so, but did not want to put words in your mouth. I have heard it all too often, too.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo