[Ask the Gulch] Knowing what an Objectivist is can a Objectivist be Religious? What is your opinions?
Posted by ScintiaSitPotentia 7 years, 9 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
again,I do not agree with either of these individuals on many issues. However, both are astute and respectful of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. carry on :)
I'm catholic (as some of you noticed in the past), and I have been beated a little bit (no resents though :)) for some opinions. Even my nickname (Fish) which I proudly bear (another time for that story) was sometime beated as well, funny :)
This is very simple. Ayn Rand founded Objectivism and she said it is incompatible with religion. Period. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So the plain and simple answer is NO! So what? I'm not an objectivist, but I share with objectivism many values. That's why I enjoy most of the posts here. I guess nobody thought I'm a masochist, right?
So again, why is it so important to discuss it? Hopefully it is not to purge the Gulch from subhumans hahahaha (please, allow some room for humor).
As a devout atheist and ex-Catholic, I think it’s an important topic because it relates to two core principles of Objectivism, the primacy of existence over consciousness and the superiority of reason over faith. Religions typically require belief in a conscious deity that preceded existence as we know it and brought such existence into being. Objectivism uses existence itself as the starting point. If one believes in a conscious deity, it is only a short step towards believing that this deity’s “commandments” take precedence over one’s rationally derived moral choices. At best, these moral choices will agree with those adopted by Objectivists, but they will rest on a less secure philosophical foundation because these moral choices will be superseded by any “commandments” that conflict with them.
Objectivism doesn't just "use existence as a starting point". Religionists often themselves claim to 'use' existence to start with, arbitrarily claiming that their god is existence and plunging in from the beginning with arbitrary claims of existence as 'evidence' of their faith.
Objectivism begins, in its systematic organization, by explicitly recognizing the relation between existence and consciousness as awareness of existence, and the necessity of obtaining knowledge by reason through non-contradiction in logical thought, which does not permit the arbitrary. For the meaning of the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness in Objectivism see the chapter on it in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. It isn't just "using existence" and the axiomatic concepts are not arbitrary.
This has consequences for all knowledge, not just ethics. The basis of a philosophy is its metaphysics and epistemology, from which one then formulates an ethics and then a politics.
Accepting "commandments" from religious authorities claimed to be intrinsic from a god in place of rational knowledge of moral standards is only one destructive consequence of religious faith. The whole notion of religious duty is anathema to rational understanding of the very source -- in the nature of man as a being who must make choices in order to live -- of the need for ethics in human life, and consequently the role of causality in ethics, which any duty ethics replaces. See Ayn Rand's essay "Causality versus Duty" in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It?.
They aren't just telling us to accept commandments as a standard of ethical choice that may or may not happen to sometimes agree depending on whose arbitrary commandment attributed to a god. That is destructive enough, but they corrupt the whole concept of ethics and its purpose. It isn't just a "less secure foundation".
The religious ethics of faith and duty is from there hopelessly destructive in formulating a political philosophy, not only in political principles that may or may not be adopted for the wrong reasons in agreement with rational principles, but which fundamentally undermines the very possibility of a rational system of political principles, conceding rationality in politics to the statists and pragmatists who constantly tell us they have the rational approach.
In your reasoning above you make a bunch of assumptions that would go off topic and I would get "strike 1" (cute), so this is not the space to expand on that. I will only say that "existence exists" is a tautology under whatever system you put it. I don't buy it as is. I claim my right to think rationally further that belief and ask why.
Anyway, as I said before, I'm not objectivist but I share so many values with Objetivsm that I enjoy most of the exchange here. I will never push anyone to "convert". However one of the values I share with Objectivism is to demand from others to think rationally. If I can't ask why, I'm being limited.
His claim that the axiom of existence is a "tautology" and is "very close to admit[ting] that Existence is God" are false, showing that he has no idea what the axiomatic concepts mean and is replacing them with his own mysticism.
Wrapping up. The principle "Existence exists" is very close to admit that Existence is God. It doesn't make any sense to say that "your car exists". Your car was manufactured using energy, materials and knowledge. Regressing with "enough" whys we get to this point: Existence exists.
The question now is just for oneself. Can I admit that the very principle of all is an Entity or just stop asking that question under the assumption it is not possible to know. The last conclusion leads to agnosticism, and it is quite reasonable since I assume the impossibility to know when we are talking about the metasystem from within the system. It is a valid assumption, unless.... God revealed these things. And there we come to Faith. Notice the capital F to distinguish it from the definition you find in a dictionary. Faith (the Catholic definition) is a Christian virtue that allows the intelligence to know God. It is important to see that nothing in that definition says "against reason". On the contrary, your reasoning led me here. But, it is a virtue in another sense that "a good habit", maybe that's a source for more confusion.
Anyway, I claim we are not very afar. It is the choice we make that leads to agnosticism, (and then atheism as ideology), or to recognize that we are creatures and there is a God. If it was a selfevident truth, being atheist would be equivalent to be irrational (or not so smart). Do you agree?
I tried to be synthetic. Sorry for the length, but you deserved the courtesy of an, as complete as possible, answer. Thank you for making me think a little bit more.
Furthermore, one cannot rationally debate the existence of God without agreement as to this God’s defining characteristics. But any defining characteristic attributed to God (physical extent, power, mental state such as “an angry God”, for example) is also a limitation, a boundary between God and not-God. And any limitation ascribed to such a God undercuts the claim that an all-powerful God brought existence into being.
Atheism is a rational response to such claims, not an ideology of its own.
If either the existence of God or the non existence of God was a self evident truth, one of us was irremediably stubborn, irrational, dumb or all of the above. As I recognized in you a rational and thinking personality, and I guess you did somehow the same, let's agree to disagree on our choices just after the fact that we both agree on: existence exists. I chose to ask why so and found God. Now religion is another thing that I will spare for this thread.
A good reading from a former atheist and converted to christianity is The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis. The first chapter starts explaining why he didn't believe in God and uses the same arguments to say the opposite. Interesting. Thanks for a good exchange.
"So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or virtue: therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it. At the same time we must never allow the problem of animal suffering to become the centre of the problem of pain; not because it is unimportant - whatever furnishes plausible grounds for questioning the goodness of God is very important indeed - but because it is outside the range of our knowledge. God has given us data which enable us, in some degree, to understand our own suffering: He has given us no such data about beasts."
If the rest of the book is as evasive and dismissive as this passage regarding such a serious objection to God’s alleged goodness and mercy, I’m not impressed.
"... nothing in that definition says "against reason". ..."
If not "against", I would argue "beside" or "outside" reason.
I would also argue that the history of religiosity (to make it more general than any particular religion) shows good evidence that Gods are human inventions.
I hope that you do not mind my intruding into your conversation with CBJ.
Best wishes.
Maritimus
I liked tour description of faith as reasoning without checking the truth of premises.
You touched here on something I was observing for very long time. It has to do with the quality of thinking.
Our minds seem to me enormously complex. We have an incredible logic processor. But we also have a fabulous imagination generator.
I somehow conclude that the logician in us is more of a governor over all other functions of the mind. But that interaction, which I think is required for expression (i.e. communication to the others in the "tribe") among the logician, the imaginator,the emotioner etc.
requires a meticulously careful (honest?) logician.
The contamination that can comes from the other components must be recognized and given allowance. Please note that without those contaminants, no art would exist.
Which brings me to another observation. Note that without proper acknowledgement and valuing of those contaminants, the art of development engineering would be indistinguishable from casino gambling with dice.
And I have not even mentioned consciousness and sub-consciousness!
You see how confusing it can get to just think what careful thinking means? Yet, we are all capable of doing it, if we are willing to learn it. Reminds me of what it takes to be a masterful piano player.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
A trance state is what is obtained by any wrong headed approach where one discards ones critical faculty and starts a process of selective thinking. A trance state permits a person to go through life normally except in the area of the selective thinking . That is why some of us, who are not comfortable with religion and believe that one should not be able to have a good life believing such stuff, are somewhat surprised by how well and apparently happy many religious persons are (not including my aunt who spent her whole life in fear of her God's wrath)
In philosophy, a similar thing can happen when one runs with an idea without being critical about it, possibly ending in a society of seekers of death. How to get the critical faculties started again is the big question for the world. Open Objectivism might do it, but closed Objectivism already has a partially discarded critical faculty.
Your remarks could apply to faith as appears in a dictionary. I said explicitly what Faith I was talking about. Which is nonsense for someone without Faith... I know, this sounds now a Gordian knot.
Again, if any of the two positions was self evident, we wouldn't be discussing it.
Anyway, the answer to the original question remains: NO! An objectivist cannot be religious.
I have four younger brothers.
#2 became an atheist who now believes there is a God but I think that's about as far as that goes. By the way, he's a libtard.
#3 became a nondenominational Protestant, who introduced me to Ayn Rand with the AS1 DVD for a Christmas present. He followed up with AS2 and AS3 as Christmas presents but I had already rented them via Netflix. A lot of Christian respect Ayn Rand's philosophy and writings despite her being an atheist.
#4 and his family are members of the United Methodist Church. He's the only one not retired.
#5 became agnostic for at least a decade but now calls himself a "reconvert" for a Catholic. He is the only one who knelt at the appropriate times during Dad's funeral mass and took communion.
My personal definition would be someone so irretrievably hung up in liberal idealism that any common sense fact-based attempt to dissuade him is a total waste of time.
then, you are not doing so); Objectivists can some-
times, in certain matters, get along with religious
people. This is not Northern Ireland.
We both resented it.
We are both ex-Catholics but not solely for that altar boy reason. Even our individual reasons differed.
I lean fairly well toward the philosophy but I will never take that final step.
I keep learning a lot in the Gulch.
Recall atheists not at all being in the closet about their opinions but they weren't crybaby going to court offended over the sight of religious symbols
May be against board rules for me to write further about that.
And if I have knowledge of such a disclosure? If I personally experienced such? If I know others who also experienced such? What then? The contention is that there is no proof. I simply say that such a claimant hasn't looked in the right place - or has already predetermined not to find what is there.
Yes, the truth can be very uncomfortable. For any more than that, I point you to a private thread.
I agree with you that many who form churches do so for the reasons you correctly identify: to create for themselves a notion of God which justifies their lifestyle or as a scapegoat for what they can not explain any other way. There are most certainly churches and religions of all persuasions. So what is one to do? The answer is both deceptively easy and intellectually challenging: one must ask God to answer the question.
I would also add that in any scientific endeavor, one must put in some time to attempt to quantify, qualify, and otherwise identify what exactly one is attempting to discern the reality of. One does not go looking for the Higgs Boson by sifting through a pile of sand with a child's beach toy. The would-be observer has to outline the attributes and qualities of the intended object/persona of observation. A failure to properly identify these can mean looking for the wrong thing, looking in the wrong place, or looking without the proper tools. All three are key to a valid, scientific inquiry.
I will offer one observation via this (rhetorical) question: what value/benefit does having the answer bring to you? What are you willing to give in exchange?
The question is whether or not God exists. You pointed out that simply asking other people is not valid proof. I agreed and said that the way to resolve the matter was to go to God directly. Ultimately, all cognition and observation are individual.
Your next comments were to question the validity of the individual response. Now please feel free to clarify if that was not your intent, but what I took this to mean that you would not be satisfied with an individual response. My point was that a response at all indicates Existence - the primary question at hand. The content's value as communication was completely dependent on the nature of the relationship between the two parties. Thus evaluation by a third party did not negate the fact that Existence was demonstrated in the mere fact of interaction.
The rest of my comment was to point out that the reason most people fail to find something in any inquiry is because they fail 1) to identify what they are looking for, 2) look in the wrong place, or 3) do not utilize the correct tools. One must spend some time trying to figure out what they are looking for, where to look, and how to look. The inquiry into God is no different.
I have no paintbrush. I am not creating anything - simply ascertaining that it Exists. But to do that I must first identify in at least some detail what I wish to identify the Existence of. If I am going looking for yellow sphere, I have to know I am looking for a yellow sphere and not a blue cube, a black pyramid, or just taking in the sights generally. I have to know that I am searching for an object 1) in the form of a sphere and of a yellow color, 2) separate and distinct from myself in some general vicinity, and 3) using my eyes as the method of perception.
Now, I can walk you through 1, 2, and 3 with respect the inquiry in question. I can tell you what to look for and how to go about looking, but I respect the rules of the forum, so any further inquiry I will direct to a private conversation.
Please tell me what scientific inquiry you made?
It is not Objectivism that demands a lack of contradiction but reality which can have no contradiction, the human mind is quite capable of logical contradictions when one toys with reality but if may bite you back if you try to make the contradiction real. The only compliance required is from the nature of reality, do not try to contradict it.
My experience is different than Rand's. Through my experiences, I know differently. As to the inquiry made, the process involved, or the evidence I have, that is for a private channel. What I will say is that the question must be resolved individually. Beliefs are personal or they are meaningless.
1. Existence exist, reality is real. In other words there is no room in Objectivism for the non existent.
2. Consciousness is that which perceives reality.
3. A is A. A thing is what it is and can not be what it is not.
Since religion is dependent on Faith, which insists that you believe something without reason or against reason, it is completely inconsistent with Objectivism and so NO you can not be an Objectivist and religious at the same time.
I will use wind. You cannot see wind or touch wind, but you can feel the effect of wind and you can measure wind. Define non-existent.
You cannot touch your brain while standing in front of a mirror, or see your brain but I am willing to bet you know it does exist.
Outerspace. You cannot see "space", touch "space", or measure "space", but you know "space exists, and ironically you know why they call it "space?" Because there is so much of it.
out by their connections with other things percept-
ible through the physical senses.
If you have to "figure out something" based only on effects, then you are using circumstantial evidence which is not really empirical proof of something existence.
wer. But there is no point in assuming the exist-
ence of something that has no perceptible effects,
or in agreeing to just have faith in it.--And it is
the existence of that claimed thing that requires
proof, not the non-existence of it.
Other in this thread have stated clearly everything must have a causal effect. Something cannot be created from nothing. Big Bang breaks that rule in the theory claiming that everything burst into existence spontaneously from nothing,, i.e. no causal effect.
Evidence all rules and laws of physics prove cause and effect. What caused the theoretical big bang then? Something had to because if could not have started from nothing.
From a search in this thread, this is an expression only used in the post above by HBD.
Proof would naturally be considered total and complete.
Which is the epistemological root of the legal
principle "innocent until proven guilty".
What empirical data can you prove the existence of that emotion.
What surprises me is that some people here who declare allegiance to Objectivism as the ultimate in "reality" fail to recognize this applies to Objectivism equally. As though Objectivism is also not just a simple construct of the individual mind.
Reality for whom? If your reality the same as mind as has been pointed out is the construct of the individual mind.
Now if your reality differs from my reality that does not invalidate either of ours, and yours is every bit as valid as mine is.
Fascinating.
I can go home this evening and drink just as much
Coke as I want, regardless of caffeine or my epil-
epsy, and regardless of having enough money to
replace it, and that I will have a job, or all the good things that come from a job, without do-
ing anything to try to get it.--But then, when I
wake up nauseated from a seizure, or without
enough money to get a good supply of food for
the rest of the week, then the feelings might
change.
I think the genderisms are translations from Hebrew which does not have-gender neutral expressions as does English.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is a philosophy of reason, which consequently rejects all belief by faith, mysticism or any kind of supernatural.
Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged summarized her philosophy but in a semi-fictional form to fit with the novel. You will understand that speech and its significance much better after reading her non-fiction explanations.
She once gave an "Introducing Objectivism" explanation in which she summarized the basic ideas "while standing on one foot" and then elaborated: https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1962...
She was an excellent and very clear writer and you should not rely on second-hand accounts to understand her philosophy. Non-fiction original sources for reliably reading her philosophy are described on this forum at
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
But personally, if you feel that they are and wish to identify with objectivism and still hold religious beliefs, then I say go for it.
If you consider Ayn Rand as someone who taught you something important, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It does not matter whether that is your pastor or somebody on this forum. I encourage you to keep trying to figure this out for yourself!
There is a difference between a philosophy and a cult. Rand said accept everything she said or take none of it. That came from years of her personal study, you can't be expected to come to the same conclusion with that same conviction overnight (if you ever do). If you can reconcile the two world views then good for you. If not, and you face a contradiction, you will have to deal with it personally! Good Luck!
some tenets of Objectivism but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give
proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with, and engage in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own." I am not absolutely certain
how she would define a "tenet", or if it is more
fundamental than some other thing she said; I
cannot say that she would necessarily accept
me as an Objectivist. But basically, I accept
Objecitivism.
realm inaccessible to reason; some realm where
natural law does not apply. Of course not.
Certainly you can be religious and adhere to many principles of Objectivism. But you would almost certainly have to ignore part of its metaphysics (I say "almost" because it depends on your concept of what God is), part of its epistemology, and you get into real trouble with some of its ethics.
You could, however, be religious and adhere to other parts of it, including its politics and aesthetics; and for that matter, significant parts of the rest.
However that makes you a partial Objectivism-sympathiser, not an Objectivist. Mind you, I have nothing against Objectivism-sympathisers as long as they really do hew to reason (albeit, of necessity, having made a rather large error) and full respect for the rights of others.
Just wondered, objectively asking?.
Now slowly....Objectivism is a system of evaluating, and validating any other belief system. Doesn't matter what kind. Secular, religious, political, commercial business model, running the olympics. doesn't matter.
It is not a belief system in and of itself So can use it where religion is concerned but it's not part of religion. same with political systems.
However the price you pay is complete honest with your self. you must observe the nature of whatever, decide what is factual and what is not factual even what is a fact, decide if the result is something useful or not useful or might be useful, continue testing through observation that never stops, AND then apply your morals values ethics. Yours not the cabbage patch version. It's your kumquat it is not a rutabaga it's not an apple nor an orange.
The outcome is validate, invalidate, and add if it's useful required changes. Lighting whole cities was valid but not useful with candles along came Edison and Tesla, more observation and testing voila whole cities were now lit up. Was it ethical and moral? That's your call.
Some would make it a belief system but only i the context of believing in the value of a yardstick to be overy simplistic.
We currently our featuring two types. Open and Closed. The close Objective discussions are pure philosophy near as i can tell. Open version applies findings directly to practical applications. Both are needed.
So yes you can be religious and use objectivism. You can also be religious and apply subjectivism replacing hard facts throuogh observation and testing with mysticism. Personally I don't recommend it. Bungee jumping does not work well without the bungee.
.
I hold your opinion in high regard, because you have worked to come to your conclusion. As an Objectivist we are to hold reverence to those who work for their wage and their happiness. These are the heroes of our society, this is what separates us from others who lack motivation and simply ask for their share. I however feel some vexation, you simply placed a fallacy on my topic. Is my question truly “a complete lack of comprehension of objectivism” I have looked through and religions and Objectivism can co-exist in my perspective. Many religions suggest to work for a happiness (although through a figure of higher importance) but has Ayn Rand not transcended the working individual? Isn’t your own goals what you work for? A religion is the same principle but with some greater being. Religions and Objectivism also get into the respect for human beings. I myself see many similarities (even if I listed two) Can you see where I am coming from as a fellow objectivist?
To the first question and my response: Objectivism holds that all knowledge can only be based on reality and life lived in this reality--that knowledge derived from mysticism/supernatural/revelation is not knowledge, but is supposition/imagination at best, either one's own or someone else's. So, No, an Objectivist can not be a Religionist, and again, the question denies one of an Objectivist most basic starting points in the use of his mind.
To your second question: Of course, Objectivism and religions can co-exist. They do now. But such co-existence is not based on commonalities or similarities--it's based on Objectivism's refusal to initiate force for any reason or cause, and the necessities of life.
As to " reverence for those who work for their wages and their happiness" and "respect for human beings": I, as a proclaimed Objectivist, only respect those of the human race that use reason. I hold absolutely no respect for those of my race that either can't or won't use reason. Such, to me, are not much different than the other animals of this life. As to reverence, that's only an exaggerated respect, I reserve that word for the accomplishments/ inventions of men of the mind that have bettered the existence of all humanity on this Earth, usually accomplished at peril to themselves and with great opposition from the institutions of the time.
Please don't take my responses as denigrating your questions, particularly if they're honest and well thought out. Sometimes, my responses can be taken as acerbic and too curt, but these questions, in one form or the other, have been asked so many times on this site that it's become somewhat routine and even tiring at times to respond to them. But again, if the question or response is honest and well thought out, I'll always gladly respond with sincerity. Though, I must caution that I take those two qualifiers as very important.
By the way, welcome to the site and keep posting.
The statement 'religions and Objectivism can co-exist' is correct only when it applies to people rather than to modes of thought. People can sit at a dinner table, vote in the same booth, exchange jokes, work together on projects and support the same footy team even tho' some are believers and followers and some are rational and individualists.
" A religion is the same principle but with some greater being", not so, a religion does not need a deity or some contrived greater being, religions are based on faith which is antithetical to Objectivism.
Personally in religious terms the Bible defines faith very specifically in the context of religion. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for and the "evident demonstration of reality" though not beheld."
In principle, gravity cannot be seen or touch, yet you KNOW if you stepped off a cliff gravity that thing you cannot see or touch will pull you to the ground. You have 100% certainty of faith this will happen even though you have not actually stepped off the cliff to PROVE that is what will happen. THAT is the context and definition of faith in the Bible.
Now if you want to use the secular definition of faith where this is no evidence to support that faith then you may have a point.
As I point below you arguments are specious at best and totally inconsistent with Ayn Rand's ideas.
I have to say your displayed attitude toward any who have a view that differs from yours, seems to me to promote a total collectivist attitude where nobody can differ in opinion.
I would suggest then you take action then and summarily remove the accounts of anyone who dares to mention God, Religion, or questions theories.
although this is exactly what the socialist leftist elitists like to do.
So is this a site that promoted individualism, or collectivism.
Those two concepts apply to thinking and discussion as well.
TAKE THEM TO ROOM 101 and FORCE THEM TO CAPITULATE TO EWW's will...
EWW where the hell do you get the above post was proselytizing? WHERE? Are you that insecure?
What you just did above is no different in principal than the Democrats who yell RACIST at the first sign they are losing an argument.
You should DEMAND anyone who uses the word God, Religion, or Faith in any context be banished forever from this sight.
You really need to get a life.
2) I think you need to read what the definition of Proselytize means.
3) You seem to be the "jihadist" whenever it comes to even the word God in any context.
Next I will question EVERY philosophy since there is no person that is perfect.
If you are promoting Ayn Rand as infallible then you, my friend, are placing Ayn in the realm of a deity much like Catholics declare their Pope infallible.
Your attitude is the one that fits the definition of proselytizing not mine.
Next, your declaration of demanding people leave for their belief is "forcing" through coercion capitulation or force to YOUR will and thinking.
THAT IS contradictory to Objectivism.
You cannot prove gravity, you can only prove the effect of gravity.
In your own statement, you indicate that our Universe and everything in it MUST have had a "cause." Religionists/Deists have faith that cause was God.
You cannot create something from nothing, and the Big Bang suggests everything came from nothing spontaneously. Based on your own statement God must exist then
1) Your epistemological argument that we can know the effects but not that gravity itself exists, is epistemology of a pure empiricist (such as a caveman). If we know it has effects, we know it exists - period.
2) A theory in science is something that explains a large number of facts, it is not a guess - that is called a hypothesis.
This is a website related to the ideas of Ayn Rand, if you are here to undercut her ideas with specious arguments please leave now.
There is some code there ....
It is good to see well written comments.
I hope to be excused for this off-topic comment-
We have both a Tim Minchin (entertainer, progressive) and a Nick Minchin (retired conservative senator) in the Australian public eye.
In the recent election, David Leyonhjelm's party, ldp.org.au, libertarian, had a weak campaign, all where we stand but nothing on current issues at least in my state. The complex counting still has Leyonhjelm's chances on a knife's edge.
The only REQUIREMENT of a viable religion is the set of rules for how to interact with each other. If in reality there is not deity, rules for interacting with him/her/it are moot. These rules are seen as specific cultures. The problem is CULTURES CLASH. If your culture/religion says "live and let live" you will not do well when you clash with a culture/religion that mandates "convert or die."
At this most basic level no one can avoid "religion;" it dictates how you are treated by others and how you are expected to treat others. Objectivists (which I am not really well enough versed in to comment on the content) are as subject to the "rules of engagement" as our Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims, Hindus, Daoists, Taoists, Buddhists or atheists.
The most important thing is there is not separation of "Church and State." State is the natural and logical consequence of Church/Religion. State has to be subservient to the "rules" (for interacting with each other) that are religion.
Here’s a simple question for all the theists. Do you believe in Zeus and the rest of the Roman and Greek gods? How about Odin and his Norse gods? Well then how about Rae and the other Egyptian gods? How about the gods of the Aztecs?
NO?
Then my being an atheist means I believe in one less god then you do. And when you figure out why you do not believe in any of the above mentioned gods, you should be able to understand why I do not believe in your one god.
Who here does not have the legitimate right to determine their own code, their own ethics, what sources they derive their ethos from? Which individual has a right to tell another what they should and shouldn't believe or how and where they have a right to fit in?
You should not call.... bah, you should not dictate.
No, I'm not an objectivist but my path crosses with the objectism quite a bit. I'm a Constitutional Conservative and, I know who I am and why I believe as I do.
have it me.
No one can drive to conclusion via logic, everything.
Somethings in life must be assumed, at least for a time. There has to be a mechanism to allow assumption in to fill the gaps, just like one's eye fills in the where the optic nerve and blood vessels are to provide a continuous image. Another example is in interpersonal behaviors. I very much rely on my intuition rather than logic for basic interactions and initial opinion forming. Why? Because it works, and I do not have the intellectual discipline to logically reason through every interaction. As I get older, I find that most of these intuitions are logically right when examined, but some are flawed. I doubt I'll ever get good enough to reason through each one in real time. If I do, I'll write book (more likely, I'll talk about writing a book).
However, vehemently choosing a specific religion (e.g. shite, sunni, catholisism, popah vuh) is simply not logical. There is far too much contrary evidence to the truth of all the dogma.
when I was 15 and immediately became atheist. . my mom
nearly had me committed. . I did not care.
I stayed atheist until I worked through the possibility
of a philosophical bridge, in my 30s. . when I became
confident that the bridge was legitimate, I married
a Christian woman and tried to make a family. . no kids,
the the marriage is solid. . so is the bridge. -- j
p.s. my bridge is roundly rejected in the gulch, but
a whole lot of people responded positively when I asked
if a Christian might be welcome in the gulch. . we had
over 700 comments on that post.
.
Why can't Objectivism be a religion, in itself? Much of it is based upon faith, because we can't truly know everything. Besides, along with worship of a God, Merriam-Webster also defines religion as:
"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"
I rest my case.
-or just intentionally redefining a definition being used to another definition (that uses the same letters/word) to create a strawman argument.
RR selects "definition 3" of a word, when the discussion is about the use of "definition 1". A group with an "interest" in something is hugely different than a group that worships a non-existent/extra-existant/supernatural being.
As for proven "facts", I've been taught that the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, but I've never proven it for myself...I just take it on faith, at this point. That's why I stated that "we can't truly know everything".
I still don't see Objectivism as a religion. Objectivism is not worshipped or really that important in itself. It is simple a term that is used to say something exists. A=A and it is true. It can be proven. That is not a religion in my book.
to the sun in confidence, not with faith. -- j
.
What I take on faith are those things that I have not proved for myself, but let others prove to my satisfaction. If I'm told I will burn my hand in fire, I will have faith in the truth of it, because I can see the fire and feel its heat. I also have faith that all matter is made up of atoms...at least until a better theory comes along.
Defining Objectivism as a religion was not really my goal, so much as showing how it might be described as such, by following conventional definitions, like those in Merriam-Webster.
I also just wanted to stir the pot...
Your statement about Objectivism that "Much of it is based upon faith, because we can't truly know everything" is patently false. You evidently have no idea of what Ayn Rand's positions and explanations are, nor does a lack of omniscience imply that Objectivism or anything else is only "faith". Not having infinite knowledge of "everything" does not mean that you can't know what you do know.
But what you do know takes effort in accordance with required method. If you don't know what fire is and don't understand atomic physics and the validation of it, then you don't know and should simply admit that to yourself without accusing everyone else of believing by faith. It is a nihilistic blurring of essential distinctions between reason and faith, between Objectivism and religion just to "stir the pot". Take it somewhere else.
I have no faith the libertarians will even attempt to grab the brass ring being offered this year though.
From The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilious Ferm, Ph. D., copyright 1945 by Philosophilical Library, Inc., Published by Popular Books, Secaucus, N.J., ISBN 0-89009-746-1 (http://www.church-of-reason.us/)
By this definition I'd say a lot of objectivists are religious.
Or maybe you are asking can an objectivist believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some other equally absurd mystical/mythical beast?
It is easy to get lost in a discussion if terms have not been defined ;-)
I think a better way to ask your question would be rather to focus on principles.
" ..atheism as a religion in and of itself."
No. An absence of some thing is not a type of that thing.
BTW, I speak and read Demotic Greek. The "a-" prefix is generally used as a negation - in some cases meaning "without" but in most cases meaning "against" or "in opposition to". This latter definition is more accurate when referring to "atheist". When used in "agnostic" (from the negation prefix "a-" and the root word "gnosis" meaning knowledge), the word was used with the softer "without" form to mean "ignorant" rather than the harsher "anti-knowledge". The emphasis was that they recognized a lack of knowledge. Whether or not they actually did anything about it...
I'm being completely candid in this question: why would anyone seeking to understand the nature of God ask for advice or understanding from someone who denied God could exist in the first place? That's like an explorer being told not to find a new route to China because he would fall off the edge of the world...
" Atheism openly declares there is no god and then goes on to say that there can be no proof."
Opinions and definitions of atheism by the religious may be misleading.
The word means only an absence of belief in god or gods or deities.
Objectivism goes further by denying belief as a source of knowledge and that believing has any merit.
The agnostic position of "I don't know" is like saying, 'I cannot be sure that there is not an invisible miniature elephant in this room'. Such statements are worthless and solipsistic. (I hope that is the word I wanted!).
Very true, and I would certainly hold the opposite to just as accurate. It is why I do not ask a Baptist about the beliefs of a Buddhist.
"The word [atheism] means only an absence of belief in god or gods or deities."
Here I must quibble. Beliefs become actions. If one is atheist, it means that one takes certain actions based on that belief (that no god or gods exist) just as a theist is one who acts based on the belief that his/her version of god (or gods) does in fact exist. One can not disassociate action from belief. This is why beliefs are so foundational and important. Philosophy is all about belief, but not because of the belief, but because of how people act as a result. It is the same for mathematics. We know that 2+2 = 4, but it is how we use the concept of the strength of a triangle which allows us to build fantastically strong structures.
"The agnostic position of "I don't know" is like saying..."
That all depends on whether or not one is satisfied with not knowing the answer to the question at hand. Some questions like whether or not there is an invisible miniature elephant have a relevance and value which is equatable to the size of said elephant! Other questions such as the notion of continued existence after death have far more significance. The question is really about how bad does one want to know the answer. The extension is are they willing to act on what they discover...
In the god existence debate, there are only two outcomes, either they do or they don't. So Theism and Antithesism are flip sides of this coin. However, in any debate you only argue one side of the issue. It is similar to our court system in the US. Even though a defendant is either guilty or innocent, we only address the guilty side of the argument. And the jury declares the defendant either guilty or not guilty. And they use the same method an atheist uses, if the evidence is compelling enough to overcome the burden of proof, then they are to return a guilty verdict (a god or gods exist). If not, then a not guilty verdict (they do not exist).
Also gnostism deal with the knowledge of a subject, while theism deal with belief on a subject, specifically a god or gods. They however are not mutually exclusive. You can have the agnostic theist (which I categorizes all theists as because none have any real knowledge to the existence of their god or gods) The impossible gnostic theist for the reason I mentioned above. The agnostic atheist (this is the null position in regards to god or gods. Also referred to as soft atheism). And lastly, the gnostic atheist (the antithesist. However, I believe they have a similar problem to the gnostic theist in that they need to provide evidence for the non-existence of a god or gods).
Most of the atheists I have dealt with make no differentiation between what you are calling hard anti-theism vs soft atheism and what I am differentiating by naming them atheists and agnostics. Call it semantics, but I think we agree. I take people at their word when they say they are atheists and their faith is to deny that there is even a possibility that a god could exist.
"In the god existence debate, there are only two outcomes, either they do or they don't."
Yup. Binary outcome. Existence is - or isn't. No halfway states (boy - wouldn't that make things confusing ;)
"However, in any debate you only argue one side of the issue."
Some choose to focus on one, but there are always two sides. Debates always deal with merit or value, which must always be a comparison of one thing against another. Thus two must always exist for debate to be possible. ;) I would also caution against the method in which you would set up the argument. Courts and juries aren't called "opinions" for nothing. I would suggest that a more definitive and objective method is to apply the scientific method: postulate a position, design a test, execute the test, examine the results, check to see if the test was executed properly.
I like your description of the options, but I would skip the editorializing about what other people have or have not done or proof they claim to have but which you may deny. Opinion isn't fact, and speaking for what others may or may not have done in such a broad context would force you into the unenviable position of knowing enough to put you in the position of "god". It's again one of the reasons why I think it much safer just to go with the agnostic position. Then you allow the truth to be what it is.
Other end of the scale I'm called before a Congressional commitee. Not subpoened. Two different things. They ask the same thing. I explain can't answer that directly without violating a contract agreement but I can provide the information indirectly it will be in tomorrow's NY Times. Then I take the stack of one thousand Ben Franklines and buy the restaurant. Under subpoena i would let my lawyer answer - same answer and he would get $50,000 I would buy a hot dog stand and charge him double.
Government made speech not free but a valuable commodity why not make a few shekels here and there?
The best part is if you are right then asking is a right not granted and I still stiff NY Times for the hundred grand for something they could have had for free by reading The Gulch. TANSTAAFL applied NY Times paid and received something of percieved value. The congress got what it wanted at no charge and I'd send a hot dog to every Gulch active members house.
Not suppression it's payment on demand
I agree. I took your comment to be one of "the subject of God is off-limits." My mistake. I agree with you that speech should not be coerced - except in the rare case when you are a government official reporting to Congress about your conduct in office. There, I fully support penalties of imprisonment, termination, etc. for repeated non-answers.
It really all comes down to how one interprets The Bible. Many want to claim that The Bible is a book that only espouces love and self sacrifice. There are several examples of Godly men living the life of a warrior or leader who do not live a life of self sacrifice. Yes the highest example of Christianity is Christ himself who sacrificed ALL for Mankind but he is part of the Holy Trinity of God and therefore WAY BEYOND anything that man can aspire to. I myself live to the best of my ability following the tenants of Christianity, talk with God on a regular basis (pray), and ask him for guidance and forgiveness in my failings. I look to God much as an invisible Father figure. Best case I am right and I get into Heaven. Worst case I get some psychological comfort from my faith.
Load more comments...