RoR: Forum

Neil: I think what Mr. Firehammer is asking is what you are going for?
Obviously, you dissagree with Rand on some point or other. I can't exactly figure out what it is, since you haven't really stated YOUR views on the subject.
I would, however, venture to say that your attempts to "make nice" with religion are somewhat suspect, given the fact that you then cite SCOTT RYAN'S book, as support.
(the "Anti-Rand" persons you mentioned ALL have vested interests, NOT just in tearing down 'her' epistemology, but in undermining the entire system -- and putting forward their own.)

Mr. Ryan is a neo-platonist. On his webpage, before he took it down when the book got published, he had a 'critique' of Rand's Aesthetic theory, on the grounds that "many musucians believe that the 'songs almost seem to play themselves', and/or originate OUTSIDE of the person creating them.

I'm not going to make too many assumptions here, Neil, but you seem to have a decidedly pro-christian bias (and a very strenuous need to assert benevolence to the Christian creed).

If you were attempting to explain what's GOOD about religion, then do so, but a lengthy, misquoted 'critique' backed up by Scott Ryan and some guy from a FUNDAMENTALIST organization isn't going to cut the mustard.

Good article, however.

Merry Christmas!

Post 21

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 2:07pm

Regi & Henry,

I am a conservative/libertarian in the tradition of Robert Nisbet. I am not a member of any church or denomination. I am a theist.

If you read the list of works cited in the final part of the series, you will see that I reference supporters and critics of Ayn Rand. On the other hand, I am unaware of any writers who have sought to defend Rand's particular view of religion (her definition of mysticism, her view of the Renaissance, etc.). I would have been happy to interact with defenders of Rand in this area, if I had known of any.

Merry Christmas!

Post 22

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 2:17pm

Interesting topic but what a chore to read. I don�t know how others feel but mysticism, for me, is simply a lazy excuse to discount reality and human glory. I don�t believe Neil understands in what manner the concept of superior mystical being is offensive to anyone who has a profound sense of self-esteem.

I find the article suspect also because of the lack of the writers understanding of how reason worked in Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, and throughout the 19th Century. In art historical terms there are so many brilliant reason-orientated achievements in those eras: proportion, anatomy, natural looking forms, the science of art history, perspective, integration, universal themes, grandeur, monumental symphonies, grand opera, and etc. I am sure that there other people here more knowledgeable than me in general and scientific history that can confirm the incredible advancements in those eras.

Just because Neil can�t see or understand it doesn�t mean that there is anything �problematic� about connecting reason to those phenomenal achievements�I find his approach, though it looks like a scholarly approach, rather cheap.

Michael

Post 23

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 4:38pm

Neil:
To be honest, I don't know what you want. You are a "theist?" In what sense? In Spinoza's "everything is God" sense? In the thinly-veiled "christian apologetics" sense? What exactly is your agenda? I'm not casting aspersions, simply trying to find out WHERE you are at...where you are coming from.

You can site "supporters of Rand" and "critics of Rand" all you want, but that will not make your presentation balanced or fair. I myself have some problems with Rand's presentation about Religion....but I am at least up front enough about it, to explain where I'm coming from.

We didn't ask who you sited, did we?
We asked what your agenda was. You obviously have a specific reason WHY you are posting the article. I just wonder why you are posting it to an OBJECTIVIST board. If (for example) a Fundamentalist Christian decided to post an article to an evolutionist board, you'd think there was an agenda. And if the Fundamentalist Christian in question cited mostly FELLOW CHRISTIANS in his article, you'd be even more justified in your assumption, now wouldn't you?

Neil: just come out and explain what you're trying to do. You're "a theist" (for all the good that term does you. It can mean ANYTHING.)
Are you a Christian apologist? Quite likey, given your tendency to excuse Christianity of scrutiny or culpability for it's own history (crusades, inquisition, the killing of "heretics" etc.)
No matter what anybody can say about the Objectivist movement, we have NEVER killed 'heretics.'

In that way, we are at least 1000 years ahead of Christianity.

Post 24

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 4:57pm

I don't believe in movements. And some Objectivist probably did kill someone. But that's wholly irrelevant.

The point is that Christianity is conductive to murder and disrespect of human life because it is based on altruism, collectivism, sacrifice, and anti-materialism.
Objectivism is none of these things and teaches us that our interest is highly compatible with other people's well-being. It is against war and violence (well, some Objectivists would disagree, but they're idiots).

It has nothing to do with movements. It's about ideas.

Post 25

Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 12:18pm

Francois, Neil,

No matter what anybody can say about the Objectivist movement, we have NEVER killed 'heretics.'

In that way, we are at least 1000 years ahead of Christianity.

And we never advocated slavery, so on that score we are well over 2000 years ahead of Christianity and 4 to 6000 years ahead of Judaism.

And we oppose all repression by force (oppression) of all individual behavior (except defensive, of course), and on that score Christianity will never catch up, since it is for government forced regulation of at least some private practices, such as what people consume, read, watch, and do with their own bodies.

Oppression is oppression, and Christianity is for it.

Regi

Post 26

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:16pm

If I may be so bold as to quote C. S. Lewis:

In a way Lewis was very similar to Ayn Rand. (perhaps only in one way!) Both wrote fiction - but within their fiction they presentd their philosophies and world views. Each also wrote a series of short essays, and longer books on philosophy and ethics. Their views of the world were "worlds" apart. The quote:

"I think a Christian is sitting pretty in his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms"

This sprung into my mind when I was about half way down this list of messages. You debate these little issues as people once debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Meanwhile Christians bask in the glory of a real God - not one made out of words.

You may now proceed to tear me apart...may I suggest you attack me first upon my use of the word "faith"!

Post 27

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 8:02pm

"I think a Christian is sitting pretty in his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms"

Where did Lewis ever say that? (The awkward grammar makes me doubt it is quoted correctly, in any case. Is it, "I think a Christian who is sitting ...?")

C.S. Lewis is one of the two religious writers who did not mean by, "faith," what is otherwise universally meant by faith in religion, believing something is true without clear reasoning from evidence, that is, credulity or superstition.

C.S. Lewis had reason behind all his beliefs, and repudiated all irrationality. If you doubt it, please read his book, Miracles. (The other who repudiated credulity as faith was Charles Finney.) Whether Lewis' reasoning was correct or not, is another issue. So, if you mean, "faith," as Lewis or Finney meant it, not allowing any feeling, desire, or whim to interfere with one's dedication to known and understood truth, please have all the faith you can.

It seems very odd that you should say, "Meanwhile Christians bask in the glory of a real God - not one made out of words," when the source of Christian belief is declared to be "the Word," with a supposed double significance, the Word of God (the Bible) and the living Word, Jesus Christ. (John 1:1)

It seems to me, you God is only based on Words.

Regi

Post 28

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 8:48pm

>>Where did Lewis ever say that?

You may read it for yourself in is essay "Religion and Rocketry". My apology I did inded make a typo - but not in the way you expected:

"I think a Christian is sitting pretty if his faith never encounters more formidable difficulties than these conjectural phantoms"

>>C.S. Lewis had reason behind all his beliefs, >>and repudiated all irrationality. If you doubt >>it, please read his book, Miracles.

I have read all his works and I agree. Isn't it interesting how "reason" can lead one in so many different directions!

It seems very odd that you should say, "Meanwhile Christians bask in the glory of a real God - not one made out of words," when the source of Christian belief is declared to be "the Word," with a supposed double significance, the Word of God (the Bible) and the living Word, Jesus Christ. (John 1:1)

>>It seems to me, you God is only based on Words.
("your God" I assume??? - unless you think I am God?)

People saying saying "your God" always annoys me a little. It is usually followed by someone either assuming, or outrigt telling me what "my" God is - followed by an attack on this weak "straw God".

Based on words, or described using words? When we worship God there is no set of words in mind anymore than when we smell a wonderful fragrance there are words in our mind...it is only when we have to tell someone else what it smells like that words come into play. The world exists whether or not we describe it - such is also the nature of God.

Post 29

Monday, December 29, 2003 - 9:05pm

By the way - try reading "Bishop Spong" for a more modern religious writer who puts a lot of emphasis on the use of reason in his faith. I think that many buddhist writers (particularly "American Zen" writers) have a strong emphasis on reason and experience - eg. Charlotte Joko Beck (sp?)

Post 30

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 9:27am

Mary, Neil

People saying "your God" always annoys me a little. It is usually followed by someone either assuming, or outrigt telling me what "my" God is - followed by an attack on this weak "straw God".

I did not mean to annoy you. I was referring to the God you said, "Christians bask in the glory of..." which you characterized as "... a real God ..." as opposed, I suppose, to whatever other kinds there are. (Of course, everyone's own God is the real one, which automatically makes the others something else.)

As you noticed, I had nothing to say about your God, because you haven't defined what the nature of your God is. I suppose your God has some nature. If you care to say something about that, I think it can be quite easily shown, whatever qualities you ascribe to God are not rationally possible.

That is the problem I have with Lewis. His reasoning pointed out some interesting and important philsophical questions, but he didn't reason far enough.

I despise Spong. Anyone who could say, "No word is objective; hence no word ever passes from the lips of one person into the hearing of another without being changed in meaning. � Words are never the truth." is a purely evil person. [Resurrection: Myth or Reality? pp. 34�35)]

With the exception of who's credulity it is, there is virtually no difference between faith and superstition. Here's my view on, "faith," in a nutshell (from The Autonomist's Notebook):

# There is a difference between faith and superstition. What you believe is faith, what other's believe is superstition.

# There are those who scoff at the school-boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school-boy who said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ---Mark Twain

# It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. ---Bertrand Russell

# The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. ---H. L. Mencken

Regi

Post 31

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:55pm

"If you care to say something about that, I think it can be quite easily shown, whatever qualities you ascribe to God are not rationally possible. "

-similarly if you come up with any description of your own mind, or indeed the world itself - by "clever" arguments I can show that your ideas are not rationally possible.

-a sceptic can pull holes in a granite wall and doubt his own existence . It is no suprise that you could pull apart my flimsy idea of God....but that does not pull apart God anymore than Descarte REALLY pulled apart the world in his meditations!

-words, despite many philosophers beliefs, are not the same as the world. Why Spong is an "evil" man becasue he points out that langauge has limitation for getting across ideas I do not know. I am astonished that the word "evil" is used here! What word have you reserved for really evil people ?

-Words are a tool to communicate what we THINK we know about the world to oter people. The words themselves are not the world - never will be.. Such is also the nature of God. If you want to play fun intellectual games I can provide you with a definition of "God" to pull apart - but so what...I can pull it apart myself..as I can also pull apart the world, and my very existence if I really want to...but when i have finised these games, finished pulling down castles made of words, to my great suprise...i am still here, the world is still here, and God still smiles down on me.

lol

M

Post 32

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 5:08am

Stop blabbering and answer this : "what does "god" mean ?"

If you can beat 2000 years of theologians to it, then we'll listen to your claims. Otherwise, what's your point ?

Post 33

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 7:15am

Mary: I applaud your use of "the map is not the territory" dictum by Alfred Korzbyski in your argument; nevertheless, words have meaning and are the only means we have to communicate. The only alternative is to point to God, which of course, we can't do, or point to objective reality, which you would argue is overlaid by God.

Post 34

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:04am

Mary,

words, despite many philosophers beliefs, are not the same as the world. Why Spong is an "evil" man because he points out that language has limitation for getting across ideas I do not know. I am astonished that the word "evil" is used here! What word have you reserved for really evil people ?

Spong said, "words are never the truth!" Every evil that has been put over first requires men's minds to be twisted, to make them doubt the efficacy of their own minds to understand the truth. It was the mind-bending, "no one can really be sure that what they know is true," philosophy of Kant that made Hegel possible, that made Marx possible , that made Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Hitler, and Pol Pot, and the 128,000,000 murders (not counting war victims) they were responsible for, possible. [ R. J. Rummel, Death by Government].

To enslave men you must first enslave their minds, Ayn Rand said, and to do that, you must first destroy the only tool of the mind, language. You do that be teaching men they cannot know the meaning of words, that words cannot give them knowledge, that the truth cannot be known using words. You tell them what Spong tells them, "words are never the truth!" As evil as Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Hitler, and Pol Pot were, they only destroyed men's bodies. Men like Spong destroy men's minds, making the Stalins of this world possible, and destroying the lives of all those the murderers do not. That is what I mean by evil. I do not expect a religionist to understand it. Death, slaughter, and tormenting people is what religion is all about. When they aren't doing it, their God is.

Since you seem to agree with Spong, I will take your word for it, that your words, "are never the truth!"

Regi

Post 35

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 2:16pm

Mary,

What is your point posting here? If you think you can rationally pick apart reality with clever tricks...have fun. If you feel that your God is still smiling down on you, why care what we post here? Your whole message seems to be that nobody can know or understand anything, but Gos is real blah blah blah. You can't reason with the unreasonable. So I ask you again, why do you post/read here if it means nothing?

Post 36

Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 5:55am

Regi,

No one takes Spong seriously as a theologian, not even fellow liberals.

The Soviets and Chicoms accepted two of Rand's central beliefs: materialism and atheism. Therefore, more murders were committed by regimes based on materialism and atheism than any religion. (Stalin probably killed more in a day than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 400 years.)

I'm not saying Rand was really a commie or a totalitarian, but likewise I think it's a stretch to say that Kant or Hegel made the evils of Nazism "possible."

Post 37

Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 9:37am

"The Soviets and Chicoms accepted two of Rand's central beliefs: materialism and atheism. Therefore, more murders were committed by regimes based on materialism and atheism than any religion."

Wrong. Materialism (which they did not believe in anyway) and atheism do not imply a specific political system. It's a statement as meaningless as saying "Stalin breathed from his lower belly, therefore breathing from your lower belly is correlated with murder". Completely irrelevant. What is relevant is their disrespect for human life and the freedom of each individual.

Post 38

Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 6:36pm

Mary, Neil,

No one takes Spong seriously as a theologian

Mary does. Argue with her.

Regi

Post 39

Thursday, January 1, 2004 - 6:54pm