Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
    I posted this in part to see how others would interpret the author. It was clear to me that she was asking "can one be an Objectivist and believe in god"; and the answer, by definition, is NO.
    But if you think she was asking "can one accept some tenants of Rand's philosophy and believe in God, then YES.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 2 months ago
      You either do not understand Objectivism or are delusional and so are your point givers. The very foundation of Objectivism is a repudiation of irrationality, and high on the list of that repudiation is religion. You certainly can follow the tenets of Objectivism and religion, but you will find yourself breaking another tenet which is non contradiction. In order to be honest, as I see it, you must either drop the religion and be an Objectivist, or incorporate the tenets of Objectivism into your religion. Get off the see-saw. Believing both at the same time negates them both, or else settle for the tdechaine religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 2 months ago
    The foundational principle for Objectivism is that "Existence exists." Theists will agree with that, but are unsatisfied with leaving it there. Theists have a yearning for an understanding of both how, and more importantly, why, "existence exists". Objectivists could reasonably ask, "What difference does it make?" To the theist, the answers to those questions make all the difference.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      No, theists do not agree with that. They hold Consciousness comes first - that's the primary. The difference is more fundamental than you suggest.
      And that translates in Epistemology to reason vs faith.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 2 months ago
        I presume that by "They hold Consciousness comes first", you mean that theists believe that what exists had a prime mover. If that is the case, then we agree on that point. I will not pursue the "something comes out of nothing" argument, or its counterargument. What is ... is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
        Are you speaking for all theists or are you speaking as an Objectivist? I'd strongly avoid trying to speak for someone else in what they believe or how they think - especially in groups. The only question that really matters is how an individual thinks and what the individual chooses to believe.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
          A belief in god is a belief that consciousness precedes existence. And that is clearly in conflict with Obj.ism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
            So you do claim to speak for others even though you may not have any idea what they believe - only what you think they believe. Two reasons this is a bad idea: most of the time you'll be wrong, and it's just easier (and more polite) to ask. To assert that you know what someone else believes or thinks is both arrogant and borderline coercive and when you project onto others what you think they believe they can turn right around and do the same thing. Nobody benefits from that. Stick to what you believe - don't try to assert for others what they believe unless you have asked and are re-stating what they have told you. I also strongly discourage the aggregation of large groups of people into labels - there is no faster way to fall into the fallacy of association. Stick with principles rather than broad generalizations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
              2 things are for sure:
              1. You don't understand Objectivism.
              2. You have totally missed the point. I never implied knowing about anyone's beliefs - except Objectivists who necessarily hold a well-defined set of beliefs.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
                Um, you asserted unequivocally that theists hold that consciousness predates existence at least twice. Now I've talked to a lot of theists and not one of them holds that position. I freely admit that I do not know the mind of every other theist on the planet nor do I know whether or not they have ever even considered such a position. But that's why I question your assertion in the first place. I allow that all men are free to decide for themselves what they believe and that questions of belief are individual - not congregational. I don't try to put someone in a labeled box just to dismiss or ridicule them for believing differently than I do - unless they're a Progressive and those I will mock without hesitation ;).

                But I will also point out that Shakespeare pontificated your very question with the poignant observation: "I think, therefore I am." To me, worrying about and defining one's entire philosophical worth on the predication of thought before existence or existence before thought is ridiculous. If you can't think, does it matter if you are? Does a rock care if it exists? The other obvious conundrum with the entire position is what happens if there is no time? You can not have a predicate without linear sequence.

                The entire argument to me is a red herring - even more so since I have yet to hear someone claim he/she has invented a device which can detect or measure the presence of consciousness (which would solve several debates I can think of and help us put qualified people in political office!). It's an argument made for the sake of trying to put someone in a box and nail the lid shut just to make one feel good. I don't choose to make that the hill I die on.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                  I have never known a person who believes in god who didn't think god created the universe. Why else would they argue that existence of things is evidence of a god?
                  Regardless: the question that many have gotten away from is can you believe and god and be an Objectivist, and that answer is clearly no!

                  I'm not sure if people here do not understand Obj.ism, or if people here who call themselves Obj.ists believe in god and are trying to rationalize away the conflict.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
                    "I have never known a person who believes in god who didn't think god created the universe."

                    Maybe you need to get around more. I would also ask "Which god?" The way you use it refers almost exclusively to a Christian mindset. So you have a beef with Christians. Big deal. So did Rand. What I am pointing out is that there are a lot more deists than just Christians. Heck, when I was in Greece the old Greek gods were making a comeback. Most of the people who just want to argue do it because they think that it will make them feel good about their own choices. It never does. It is not a question of who is right. It is a question of what is right. If you follow what is right, you have no need to worry about what others do or think because you will side with Reality.

                    I would also offer a third option for consideration: that consciousness and being are simultaneous - not linear. Why? Because in my opinion both other theories have serious flaws. One can not be conscious and non-existent. There is nothing to exist and be conscious, I agree with you. But the other flaw of existence first followed by consciousness has a flaw of its own: that of origination, i.e. how did consciousness come to be if it at some point it did not exist? How does a once-inanimate object suddenly acquire consciousness? The law of conservation of matter/energy clearly states that something can not originate from nothing. Therefore consciousness either is neither matter nor energy (dark matter?) and so transcends the given laws of the universe...

                    Which right there brings back into play the whole notion of forces acting in our universe outside the boundaries of known physics, i.e. what some refer to as God. Now do you see why I view the entire argument as ridiculous? It is a red herring - or straw man - or circular logic - depending on how one wants to look at it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                      Existence just is, independent of a consciousness.
                      It needs no explanation - philosophically.
                      Also, I said earlier that it does not matter which god; we are talking generally about mysticism vs. reality, emotion vs reason.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
                        Yes, yes. It's a tautology. But existence without consciousness is meaningless, because meaning is value and value can only be derived when one can separate and distinguish one's self from the rest of the universe. If there is no consciousness to pose the observation "I think, therefore I am", it is a completely moot point! You exist and you are conscious. If you existed and were not conscious, you would neither know that fact nor care. I'm done with that argument. If you wish to beat your head against that particular wall, I'm done telling you all you're going to get out of it is a headache.

                        "it does not matter which god; we are talking generally..."

                        Is precision in language important, as you claim? If so, we must studiously avoid generalizations and stick to specifics and principles. "Mysticism" is an rather ridiculous boogeyman: a term used as a scare tactic. Why? Precisely because it is an inherently vague and generic term. I strongly suggest that if you want a precise response, you use precise terms in your arguments.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                          Existence is everything; you are stuck thinking only of humans.
                          2. "Mysticism" is a belief in anything without evidence or proof. No boogeyman or scare tactic or vague; that is nonsense. It is an appropriate generalization - includes all gods....

                          If you claim to be an Objectivist who wants to believe in a god, check your premises.
                          If you do not even pretend to be an Obj.ist, then this is a meaningless conversation.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 2 months ago
    One who loves God can appreciate many (but not all) of the themes (like self-reliance, entrepreneuship, freedom) in AR's novels, but ... when one who loves God reads her non-fiction and learns her philosophy, one who loves God cannot simultaneously be an Objectivist. That would be contradictory.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
    A WSJ article today posed this question.
    The writer made 2 errors in the first paragraph:
    1. She pointed to a contradiction between AR's philosophy and religion; then falsely believed that that refuted her axiom that contradictions do not exist. She clearly does not understand what an axiom is.
    2. She believes that the fact that some Objectivists answer this question "yes" gives credence to that answer. She fails to see the rationalization on the part of those Obj.s.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 2 months ago
      She also made a statement that those who love Atlas Shrugged and the Bible should be "welcomed with open arms". Whether an Objectivist chooses to welcome theists with open arms is up to the Objectivist. If the Objectivist deems that not welcoming theists is not in his/her self-interest, then that is the Objectivist's own business to decide.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
        Show me the quote - I don't believe she would say that, but I'd have to see the context.
        What does "welcomed" mean here?
        What is for sure is that Obj.s cannot also be religious - contradiction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ TomB666 4 years, 2 months ago
          I invite you to delve deeper into what it means to be 'religious.' Many people think being religious means believing in a god or gods, but that is not so. A more accurate definition of religious is found at: http://www.church-of-reason.us/ Even though we generally do not use the term, many objectivists are in fact religious.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ TomB666 4 years, 2 months ago
            I hope at least some of you looked at the link. Here is the reference: "To be religious is to is to effect in some way and in some measure a vital adjustment (however tentative and incomplete) to whatever is reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern."
            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

            Have you never hear some one refer to things like "watching football every Sunday religiously". Religious has for a long time been exactly what is stated in the cited quote. If you chose to use a very limited definition of the term, you miss the bigger picture. Here in St. Louis there is a group of people who call themselves Objecivists who are probably more religious then most Catholics. I can't help it if people insist on incorrectly interjecting the supernatural, mystical, and stupid into the concept of what it means to be religious. I included the link in the hope that people would read it before making these sorts of comments. There is nothing abnormal, Orwellian, or mystical in what I wrote.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
              Ironic - a religious book attempting to downplay the mysticism of religion. Clearly that is not the way it is being used and has no place in this blog.
              The whole premise in the article deals with mysticism, not some concocted definition of religion.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by IndianaGary 4 years, 2 months ago
            So, in order to make it possible for religion and Objectivism co-exist it is necessary to redefine what "religion" means? Shades of George Orwell!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 2 months ago
              All things can coexist, just as all things can be opposites, cancel out one another be poison to one and delicious to another. The rational persons will decide for themselves which is good or bad, rational or irrational, etc. This discussion is winding down into reductio ad absurdum.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
              If one argues that a religion is nothing more than a code of conduct - regardless of its source - than everyone is religious. Objectivists tend to use religion and theism synonymously, which is IMHO a grave definitional error. Better to be precise, as there are so many trains of religious/philosophical thought that generalizations are nearly always fallacies of association. Even "theism" is a broad over-generalization, as I would never place the Islamic god Allah in the same vein as any of the hundreds of Hindu gods and goddesses nor would I mix either of those with the Gaiaists, Druids, Wiccans, Satanists, Christians... Well, I hope you get the point.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by IndianaGary 4 years, 2 months ago
                I'll bet you can get more angels dancing on the head of a pin than I can, too.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
                  Whose angels? ;) The point is that it's an unnecessary fight to pick with no purpose. There are too many individual philosophies and religions to sort through them all. The simpler and easier method is to identify correct principles and see which - if any - are left standing.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                Religion is much more: it is mysticism. Obj.ists reject that totally.
                Note that theism is a belief in god; and that is religious. What does it matter which god?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
                  As I said, I view religion as the inclusive set of values by which one sets his course in life. It is a goal or destination just as much as a path. Viewed that way, religion and philosophy are exactly the same thing. The real question is the goal.

                  Look at this another way: "god" is an ideal represented in what one hopes to achieve. For some, their god is money. For others, it is power. Some abstract their notion of "god" to be an idealization of the perfect being: man or woman. Rand did that with John Galt just as Christians do it with Christ and Buddhists did it with Buddha. So if you look at it that way, there is no such thing as an atheist - a true atheist would hold no values whatsoever. The only other option would be to hold themselves up as the pinnacle of value - effectively promoting themselves as a "god". I've had enough of those with politicians. ;) Thanks but no thanks.

                  Pick who you want to become: what set of values is going to rule your life. That concept is your "god". It is your ruler - your standard.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                    That is pure nonsense. Words have precise meaning. Atheism is the opposite of theism - a belief in god as a mystical being.
                    The author of the article in question was really asking can you believe in such a god and be an Objectivist. You are way off the point.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 2 months ago
                      It is not nonsense. If words have meaning, define "god". I am entirely serious. Define precisely and exactly what "god" is. Just waving your hand and saying either "mysticism" or "a supreme being" isn't precise. That is part of the overarching problem with your statement: there are too many definitions of "god" in use in the world! If you want to be specific and say "I do not believe that one can believe in the god of Islam and be an Objectivist", THAT is a specific statement because one is directly referencing a specific set of virtues or characteristics attributed by those of the Islamic faith to their deity. If you want to be specific and say "I do not believe that one can believe in the god of the Scientologists and be an Objectivist", that is also a specific statement. And so on and so forth. But if words have precise meaning, one can not generically reference "god" because there are too many idealizations of the concept of "god"!

                      If you want others to respond specifically, don't use generalizations yourself. If you have a notion of the type of "god" that you say is irrational, paint us that picture so we can agree with you. Don't just stand in a corner waving a brush around with no easel and no canvas and proclaim yourself an artist.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                        All of that does not matter. Mysticism is well-defined and that is where the fundamental conflict lies. All reasonable uses for "god" imply mysticism, and that was what the article was referring to.
                        Enough playing with words.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 2 months ago
          I was referring to the author of the article, not to Ayn Rand. You may want to look at the article that was the subject of your post. Rand never said that those who love the Bible should be welcomed. She showed open hostility to theists, and I am not saying she was wrong to do so.

          Objectivists cannot be religious, as both you and I said.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 2 months ago
            Open hostility? Vehement hostility would be a more accurate characterization. She found religion to be one of the foremost exponents of irrationality, she never wavered or softened her position as far as I could tell.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
            Sorry about that - I had just read a post that was talking about AR. "Welcoming" is still undefined. Can we have non-Obj. friends for ex? Sure.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 2 months ago
              Objectivists can have non-Obj. friends if they deem it to be in their self-interest.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Maritimus 4 years, 2 months ago
                I have read that article and concluded that it was an incompetent attempt to say that both adherents to Objectivist philosophy and theists, using the Bible as their philosophical guide, should be able to work together for the benefits of all. Which should be obvious.
                What does "loving" Atlas Shrugged and Bible mean? Love has nothing to do with the whole subject.
                As pointed out above, what does "welcoming" each other mean in this context? Passion has no place in a philosophical conversations deserving of that name.
                I respect you, jb, very much, even as I believe that you might be a theist, while I attempt to adopt and live by the Objectivist philosophy. I will welcome you in my home any time, just let me know when is your arrival. I will even pick you up at the airport, to save you trouble.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 4 years, 2 months ago
    I think too often when we say God, we mean Christianity, and even then multiple belief systems.. We mean the doctrines of each religion. Some religions are not very Godly today. However, we need to ask what version of God we would be loving. We also cannot say we love Ayn Rand, rather Objectivism. I am all in with her doctrines, but not everything about her personal life. Until we define the terms, we really cannot answer that. We have to ask what our idea of God entails and limit the other to Objectivisim.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      We're talking about any form of mysticism as being opposed to Objectivism.
      I don't know why you bring AR personal life into this; but she certainly lived by her own philosophy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Stormi 4 years, 2 months ago
        It was not "Do you Respect Any Rand" or "Dou love Ayn Rand's phlosophy?" It was can you love God and love Ayn rand. That is not a clear cup question. To love Ayn Rand, eans all aspects of her life. To love her philosophy, no issue, absolutely. If a preachers asks if you love "his" god, which is often what they say, they really mean do you love their way of defining God, which varies from religion and sects to others..I thik even Rand would want the question narrowed and clarified, and the addendum of this is about altruism, further complicates it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
    To me this question is a curious one. If man has sole dominion of his choices and his will then the question is a non-starter. Free will, and respect of the individual, allows for many possibilities.

    The individual has the right to choose what he believes, even if that belief is ala carte from a variety of sources and influences.

    Who has the right to impose on another a system of belief (that includes philosophies system)?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      You obviously do not know Rand's philosophy.
      Rational thought does not allow for contradictions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
        Please, I'm no ones drone. I'm a Constitutional Conservative, never hid that here. A person has the right to believe whatever they wish in the United States (First Amendment). I see your/her position and understand it. However, I see no contradiction since Rand doesn't consider there to be an after-life and free will is the bedrock of Christianity.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
          No one said you can't believe what you want. This is about beliefs without contradiction.
          After-life vs free will - huh?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
            After life just mean life after death. Lets not read more into it than what I stated. There is no definitive proof until we die. Where is the contradiction to Rand to believe man is something greater than a collection of cells, potentially eternal in some capacity?

            Also, your entire life is consistent and without contradiction? My had is off to you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
              You don't understand philosophical principles.
              There are no natural contradictions; only those created by the mind. In principle, Rand;s philosophy and God are contradictions -period.
              Yes, I don't live with contradictions because I don't allow them to be created. That is not the same as temporary conflicts.
              If you don't grasp this, then let's stop here.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChestyPuller 4 years, 2 months ago
    Of course!
    I love Ayn Rand's writings and her philosophy on economics/capitalism and I understand God uses imperfect vessels for His Works; I being one of those imperfect vessels.

    I love and give praise to the One True God 'I AM' for all
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 2 months ago
    What is it that you want Tdechaine? An argument? An agreement? Comfort? You don't seem to be comprehending what people are saying? What is the answer you are looking for? First communicate clearly. What idea of God are you talking about? What do you mean by God? Why would you love Ayn rand? Are you talking about her philosophy? Is your question "can you believe in objectivism and believe in god? Until you have a clear question and communication, this entire conversation is futile.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 4 years, 2 months ago
    To answer your question, i do; therefore, the answer must be yes.

    I think what you are really asking is if the ideas of Ayn Rand and Christianity are opposed? And to answer that I would have to say that it depends on how you approach Christianity. If you see Christianity as a religion of simpering fools who always turn the other cheek and practice self sacrifice to the point of martyrdom. Then no obviously not. I was raised in a household where the Warriors of God were uplifted. I believe in forgiveness but NEVER forget.

    I could go on for quite awhile but I personally find that Christianity and Ayn Rand go very well together.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 4 years, 2 months ago
    I would have to answer "yes", since I've also read of a number of scientists who believe in God...whether or not that makes them guilty of some sort of hypocrisy, I don't know.

    Personally, my belief in God (or not) remains unaffected by Rand's works. Everyone knows her books, like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were fiction and, as such, have no direct impact in the debate over religion.

    Besides, Christians would believe Ayn Rand to be a child of God (regardless of her own beliefs) and, therefore, doing God's work...even in the establishment of Objectivism.

    The way I see it, there is no right or wrong answer to this question as the only way to prove the answer is for the questioner to die and find out. Not exactly my first choice for a research project.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      Scientists can be irrational too.
      Your belief may not be affected...but you are not an Objectivist. That is based on definitions and what we know today - which is all you can base anything on.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 4 years, 2 months ago
        There are Christians that refuse to believe Christ died on the cross to pay for their sins. Are they not "real" Christians, because of this?

        What is an Objectivist? Is it one who follows ALL Ayn Rand's principles, to the letter, or can it be one who uses his or her reason to deny one or two of them? Don't Objectivist principles ever change? After all...they had to begin somewhere.

        John Galt does not exist...he can't. The human being, regardless of how hard one tries, can never achieve perfection in any discipline...even Objectivism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
          Quit playing with words. It's about mysticism in all forms.
          Yes, an Ob.ist has to accept and practice all of Rand's principles. Do those don't and can't change; she created the philosophy and named it.
          John Galt is the depiction of one who fully lives by her principles; he is fictional but the ideal for one to strive to become.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 4 years, 2 months ago
    If your premise is wrong then all that follows is wrong. The common picture of religion and God is your premise. What if our society put up a false religion and God? If a hero is called a dictator do we rejects all actual heros? What if the entire picture of God is wrong? What if one has thrown out reality together with throwing out what is based on the false perception?
    What if there actually exists something that is not what we have been conditioned to regard as as God? What if Religions have gotten it wrong? Do we reject actual practices or rituals that are correct and in line with reality?

    Keep an open mind. We confuse our brain's image of reality with objective reality. Be careful.

    It is more accurate to say the the Current false view of Regions and the picture of what constitutes God is not compatible with objectivism. However the universe is still mostly unknown. Is the Universe itself intelligent? Some scientists think so or otherwise intelligence could not arise.

    How do complex systems, that require many parts, none of which are individually useful to evolutionary selection, and programming of chemical reactions, timing etc. arise without a built in intelligence that seeks out complexity?

    There are many questions whose answers might surprise you. Instead of arguing compatibility of false notions, let's agree that the notions are false or incomplete and find the truth and reality. first.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 2 months ago
    Well, if we understand what exactly the pagans were referring to, ( in a non conscious bicameral way...which was the meme of the times), then Yes, appreciating "Existence" and the philosophy of Rand is not a contradiction at all...in fact, they kind of depend upon each other. Rand's premise starts at the cellular level does it not?...so does existence.
    It's not mystical, it's quantum physical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      Ridiculous. Existence as a primary is in contradiction with Consciousness as a primary (religion).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 2 months ago
        Actually no it isn't...you have to realize how bicameral's thought. They had no awareness of themselves nor their mind. They were not Conscious, therefore everything was outside themselves and the only way they could relate was to humanize everything...much like present day liberal progressives and the majority of the worlds rulelessers right up to today.
        It's likely that only 50% of western society has achieved consciousness and access to their minds; however...doesn't mean that they use them all of the time...laughing, even though that's sad.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TomSwift 4 years, 2 months ago
    An Objectivist cannot believe in God since Objectivism disavows the belief in the irrational. If you allow an irrational belief into your life, you are then open to any other irrational idea that you are introduced to.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 4 years, 2 months ago
    I take the question as a singular "you" since I have no idea of what those other yous are capable. For me the answer is no. If the question were whether an Objectivist can have friends who are theists, I would look at the definition of 'friend' that I like the most. I prefer the way Aristotle put it in the Nicomechean ethics:
    "Therefore, since each of these characteristics belongs to the good man in relation to himself, and he is related to his friend as to himself (for his friend is another self), friendship too is thought to be one of these attributes, and those who have these attributes to be friends. Whether there is or is not friendship between a man and himself is a question we may dismiss for the present; there would seem to be friendship in so far as he is two or more, to judge from the afore-mentioned attributes of friendship, and from the fact that the extreme of friendship is likened to one's love for oneself." from
    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nic...

    Because of differences in understanding, it is near impossible to have another self friendship. So I have tend to have acquaintances who usually have theistic beliefs and just a modicum of rationality to keep them sane.
    Since Objectivism requires that one believe only what can be defined from existence and since a god belief would need some kind of evidence for existence other than just a mental feeling or emotion or an abstraction about 'nothingness' needing a god thing to produce existence, it would be impossible for me to be an Objectivist (open version) and a theist at the same time without going insane.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 2 months ago
    Sure you can. But you certainly would not be an Objectivist. The human brain is a marvelous organ that will allow your consciousness to hold myriads of contradictions. However, fantasy is not reality. (Unless you're a quantum physicist trying to explain the universe.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 years, 2 months ago
    Good article in the WSJ on this the other day.

    I would say "no".

    However, no one is perfect, and unless they go so far as to impose their views on me by force or legislation, I'd rather pick another fight since just reading Rand provides enough common ground for a good discussion over beer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 4 years, 2 months ago
    You can do/believe anything you want as long as it does not initiate force or fraud and it makes you comfortable. Sometimes, a little irrational thought can be fun. But you have to recognize the value of being a bit irrational.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 4 years, 2 months ago
    You can do/believe anything you want as long as it does not initiate force or fraud and it makes you comfortable. Sometimes, a little irrational thought can be fun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo