RoR: Forum

Jeremy,

Uncaused causes was the slayer for me as well :-)

Post 81

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:55pm

Citizen Rat: Do I understand correctly that your position is that god must exist because only the existence of god can explain free will?

Post 82

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:36pm

Citizen,

Let me recap your comment...
============================

My dear Orion:

You offered a cunning tactic for silencing those who believe in God:

To which I then add: "You choose to believe in God, because you are the type of person who finds enticing the constant presence of a bullying alpha male in your life... Religion is a sado-masochistic kink, and this God fellow is your dream sadist... you clueless or dishonest masochist. You subscribe to the God dynamic, because it allows you to be bullied BY God, while also bullying others in "His" name. It's a sadomasochist's dream."

Yes, they love that. And it usually shuts them up, too.

I do not doubt that "shuts them up". Most sensible people walk away from those who are insulting them.

==================

If that's "insulting" them, then I'm quite glad to be "guilty" as charged.

What you call "insulting", can be defined as "explicitly and operationally defining". And I don't think that's a matter of perception or interpretation. With that in mind, "insulting" such people is, in my estimation, quite a massively noble calling. By addressing their deeply-buried objectivity centers, I'm convinced that I'm possibly even doing them a huge favor with my psychologically-cleansing reality check.

So, when I tell Christians that which I mentioned above, I'm not being dishonest or unfair in the slightest. If the truth about a person's own agenda is unpleasant and toxic to them and everyone else, then it makes no real sense for any of us to suffer through that in silence like a good boy, so that the damaging parties can continue on their merry ways, with no feedback discomfort while they try to guilt others into doing so. They should have a mirror held up to themselves, so that they have to face their true ugliness and destructiveness. It's called "a-c-c-o-u-n-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y", and all people of quality choose it as a course of life.

The only sensible tactic on such people is to force empathy on them, with interest. Let them "walk a mile" in their victim's shoes, and experience the discomfort that they so callously cause others and dismiss with a wave of their hands and a "Fiddledy dee...".

Post 83

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 4:42am

Michael:

You asked: >>Do I understand correctly that your position is that god must exist because only the existence of god can explain free will?<<

Not precisely. I acknowledge that materialism provides a plausible explanation of volition: It's an illusion; an epiphenomenon of a material universe. But the materialist has no scientific foundation for that explanation; just his faith that reality is nothing more than that which material and mechanical.

Because my experience of free will contradicts the materialist explanation -- there is simply nothing I have encountered to indicate that I'm living under an illusion -- I do not subscribe to the materialist's faith. However, I must account for the fact that my free will is then evidence that reality does extend beyond that which is material and mechanical -- i.e., that which is subject to causation and so reducible to scientific explanation.

That means reality has room for God, so to speak. While that alone is not the sole basis of my faith, it is a necessary part of it.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 84

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 4:47am

My dear Orion:

You claim: >>What you call "insulting", can be defined as "explicitly and operationally defining".<<

No, it's insulting. However, if that's how you choose to use your God-given liberty to speak your mind, do be man enough to accept what that reveals to others about your mind.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 85

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:14am

Hey, stop that! Stop that! Now now, guys. You shouldn't be arguing anything just yet. Bill's still got to explain his own "uncaused cause". You know, God. Let him start there. The rest comes later, if necessary.

Thought and Speech Commissar,
J

Post 86

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:03am

Hi, Jeremy.

Worry not. Orion and I are not fighting. We are being clever.

As for proving to you that my "uncaused cause" exists, all I can do is point out that it is reasonable to believe there is room in reality for God. The knowledge derived from the experience of free will is no small matter in this regards. Beyond that requires a grace I cannot deliver.

In any event, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on the subject. As said before, I desire to learn how central atheism is to a person's adherence to Objectivism. Our discussions have been useful to that end.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 87

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:25am

Citizen Rat, the Objectivist explanation for volition is that it is an inherent attribute of man's consciousness, i.e. that man is the only cause of his own volition. The fact that physics and science cannot yet explain the exact biochemical mechanism by which this occurs does not mean that no explanation is possible -- it simply means that man is not omniscient or omnipotent and that the mechanism has yet to be understood.

So your position amounts to saying that since man is not omniscient or omnipotent there must exist a being who is omniscient and omnipotent. Curious.

By the way, the determinist's demand that one prove free will is a demand that one prove a negative -- i.e. that one prove there are no external forces determining the content or action of one's mind. Proving a negative is impossible -- that which does not exist will not manifest itself in reality in any way, it will not generate anything that could be cited as proof. And the fact that a negative cannot be proved cannot be cited as proof of anything else.

All of which also applies to the often heard demand, "Prove that God does not exist."

Post 88

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:10pm

Citizen:

Let's recap...
=====================

My dear Orion:

You claim: >>What you call "insulting", can be defined as "explicitly and operationally defining".<<

No, it's insulting. However, if that's how you choose to use your God-given liberty to speak your mind, do be man enough to accept what that reveals to others about your mind.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

===============================

Citizen,

While "man enough" is an easy and usually reliable trigger phrase to manipulate the typical, easily-suggestible and insecure male into doing just about anything to alleviate his societally-programmed masculinity neurosis out of irrational terror of never being "man enough" (which is of course an eternally unwinnable proposition, and of course therefore it has enormously delicious, irresistable appeal as a control phrase), I'm afraid it doesn't quite work on me. Because, well, as you can see, I understand it too well.

And in this case, what my "insults" reveal about my mind, is that I have the courage to call a spade a spade, regardless of what sort of conformist mob movement is backing that which I am criticizing. I routinely do not balk at the 800-pound gorilla that nobody else wants to deal with.

"Hugs and kisses",
Orion

Post 89

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:56am

Michael:

You wrote: >>... the Objectivist explanation for volition is that it is an inherent attribute of man's consciousness, i.e. that man is the only cause of his own volition.<<

Granted that because a person is free to choose, he is the "cause" of his choice. But is that cause behind the choice just the last one in a series of causes and events stretching back to the Big Bang (or now perhaps the "Big Slam") that have been deterministically decided by the laws of physics? Or is a man genuinely free to make that choice -- i.e., that the laws of physics play no role, that his volition is neither material nor mechanical?

If you believe the former, then you believe that reality consists of nothing more than matter and the mechanical forces acting upon that matter. Hence, the apparent freedom of volition and consciousness are nothing but illusions, epiphenomena of a complex interaction of matter predetermined to have occurred at the outset of the universe.

If you believe the latter, which is consistent with your experience of volition and consciousness, then you must acknowledge that reality includes things which are not material and therefore not subject to the mechanics of the universe -- i.e., these things are uncaused.

You continued: >>The fact that physics and science cannot yet explain the exact biochemical mechanism by which this occurs does not mean that no explanation is possible -- it simply means that man is not omniscient or omnipotent and that the mechanism has yet to be understood.<<

Perhaps, but your belief is not falsifiable. It is faith that science will prevail. That's fine. Reason may have lead you to such faith in science. But it's faith nonetheless.

You concluded: >>So your position amounts to saying that since man is not omniscient or omnipotent there must exist a being who is omniscient and omnipotent. Curious.<<

No, you cannot gather that from what I have written so far. The only thing I have argued is that my experience of volition and consciousness, which is the same as everyone else, is evidence that reality is more than that which is material and mechanical. Therefore, reason permits the idea that there is room in reality for God. That's all.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 90

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:59am

My dear Orion:

You explicated:

While "man enough" is an easy and usually reliable trigger phrase to manipulate the typical, easily-suggestible and insecure male into doing just about anything to alleviate his societally-programmed masculinity neurosis out of irrational terror of never being "man enough" (which is of course an eternally unwinnable proposition, and of course therefore it has enormously delicious, irresistable appeal as a control phrase), I'm afraid it doesn't quite work on me. Because, well, as you can see, I understand it too well.

Good, then you understood the joke.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 91

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 6:44am

Citizen Rat:

You wrote:

Granted that because a person is free to choose, he is the "cause" of his choice. But is that cause behind the choice just the last one in a series of causes and events stretching back to the Big Bang (or now perhaps the "Big Slam") that have been deterministically decided by the laws of physics? Or is a man genuinely free to make that choice -- i.e., that the laws of physics play no role, that his volition is neither material nor mechanical?

This is the fallacy of the false alternative. The answer to both of those questions is no. Man is not determined nor does his volition violate the laws of physics.

If you believe the former, then you believe that reality consists of nothing more than matter and the mechanical forces acting upon that matter. Hence, the apparent freedom of volition and consciousness are nothing but illusions, epiphenomena of a complex interaction of matter predetermined to have occurred at the outset of the universe.

If you believe the latter, which is consistent with your experience of volition and consciousness, then you must acknowledge that reality includes things which are not material and therefore not subject to the mechanics of the universe -- i.e., these things are uncaused.

This is an attempt to take the false alternatives to their logical conclusions and imply that the least irrational of the two requires the admission of mysticism. Since I don't believe either of these things, this is irrelevant.

You continued: >>The fact that physics and science cannot yet explain the exact biochemical mechanism by which this occurs does not mean that no explanation is possible -- it simply means that man is not omniscient or omnipotent and that the mechanism has yet to be understood.<<

Perhaps, but your belief is not falsifiable. It is faith that science will prevail. That's fine. Reason may have lead you to such faith in science. But it's faith nonetheless.

Nonsense. A belief that is not falsifiable is an axiom, i.e. a statement of truth that underlies all truth and is implicit in any claim to knowledge. Faith is the suspension of reason.

You concluded: >>So your position amounts to saying that since man is not omniscient or omnipotent there must exist a being who is omniscient and omnipotent. Curious.<<

No, you cannot gather that from what I have written so far. The only thing I have argued is that my experience of volition and consciousness, which is the same as everyone else, is evidence that reality is more than that which is material and mechanical. Therefore, reason permits the idea that there is room in reality for God. That's all.

The lack of a physical/biochemical explanation for one phenomena is not evidence of the existence of another. An absence does not prove a presence. If you wish to suspend reason and accept god on faith, go ahead. But there is such thing as a reason that justifies the suspension of reason.

(Edited by Michael Smith on 4/15, 1:46pm)

Post 92

Friday, April 16, 2004 - 9:10am

Michael:

Me: >>Granted that because a person is free to choose, he is the "cause" of his choice. But is that cause behind the choice just the last one in a series of causes and events stretching back to the Big Bang (or now perhaps the "Big Slam") that have been deterministically decided by the laws of physics? Or is a man genuinely free to make that choice -- i.e., that the laws of physics play no role, that his volition is neither material nor mechanical?<<

You: >>This is the fallacy of the false alternative. The answer to both of those questions is no. Man is not determined nor does his volition violate the laws of physics.<<

It would be a false alternative if there existed something other than good ol' deterministic physics to account for volition. There isn't.

Sometimes a materialist reaches for quantum mechanics as a way out. Two problems with that. First, quantum mechanics in NON-deterministic, which is an entirely different animal from the SELF-determination of volition. Second, even if a non-deterministic mechanism could in theory allow for a self-determining one, quantum fluctuations are of such an incredibly small scale that they can have no effect upon the matter of the brain.

So you are left with the two choices I have put forward. Either volition is a non-material, therefore non-causal, phenomenon as we experience, or that experience is an illusion, nothing more than an epiphenomenon of mere matter deterministically driven by the laws of physics.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 93

Friday, April 16, 2004 - 11:53am

Citizen Rat:

You wrote:

It would be a false alternative if there existed something other than good ol' deterministic physics to account for volition. There isn't.

Physics is not "deterministic". Biology and biochemistry and physics tell us that a sufficient number of brain cells arranged in the proper pattern and kept under the proper conditions will give rise to volitional consciousness. No other "accounting" is needed -- unless you are desperately searching for some way to maintain a veneer of reasonability over your decision to suspend reason and cling to faith.

Your entire argument amounts to pointing to some aspect of reality and demanding, "Now explain this to my satisfaction or I will assert that your inability to do so is proof that god exists!"

Go ahead. Assert away.

Post 94

Friday, April 16, 2004 - 3:46pm

This is, once again, my official explanation for why people believe in God:

"The only compelling appeal for choosing to promote the fantasy of the existence of God, is the character's appeal as, and as a license to practice, sado-masochistic domination. I have never known a real 'believer' in God, who did not live their lives around the perverse fascination with bowing, scraping, and lording over others.

You can argue against this all you like, but throughout the entire time that I have lived on this earth, and in all my awareness of the history of Judeo-Muslim-Christian (JCM) history, all that the mass belief in God has brought, is widespread and inescapable sado-masochism.

Any time that the JCM consortium preaches that God's wish is love and kindness, they're deliberately making that up and contradicting their own Bible, to trick a local culture into accepting their S&M prescription for inescapable living. It's a Trojan Horse, a 'To Serve Man'-style trap."

In light of all this damning evidence, I refuse to easily surrender this conclusion. My loathing for religion is righteously without limit, as it has ruthlessly achieved the TRUE rational and ethical destruction of the human race without self-restraint, shame, or limit.

Post 95

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:28am

Michael:

Me: >>It would be a false alternative if there existed something other than good ol' deterministic physics to account for volition. There isn't.<<

You: >> Physics is not "deterministic". �<<

Of course it is. That�s one reason why, for Objectivists, A=A. That�s why we can speak of causation in the material universe. Given a certain mass and a certain acceleration, the force of the that accelerated mass is ALWAYS the same. The passage of everything through spacetime is determined by the immutable laws of physics. No choice. No chance. Just the relentless arithmetic of nature�s laws dictating the course of everything that is reducible to matter.

You: >>� Biology and biochemistry and physics tell us that a sufficient number of brain cells arranged in the proper pattern and kept under the proper conditions will give rise to volitional consciousness. �<<

They tell us nothing of the sort. Sure, there is some study in this area. Some brilliant scientists have taken a stab at it. Francis Crick�s �Astonishing Hypothesis� tried to make the materialist�s case for free will and self-awareness, but failed. (Still get the book. His exposition of the current science behind vision is fascinating. Indeed most of the book is actually about that.) Stephen Hawking�s colleague, Roger Penrose has also put his toe in the water with �Shadows of the Mind�, which offers quantum mechanics as a materialist explanation of consciousness. Yet, he does not bridge the tremendous gap in scale between the quantum world and synapses of the brain.

Even if he did, then we would have an emergent physics that should manifest itself in ANY system of sufficient complexity, and we simply have not observed any phenomena like self-awareness except in ourselves. For example, why doesn�t the electric soup of a thunderstorm give rise to a mind of its own? Too short-lived? How about the Great Red Spot of Jupiter then?

You: >>� No other "accounting" is needed -- unless you are desperately searching for some way to maintain a veneer of reasonability over your decision to suspend reason and cling to faith. �<<

Insult me all you wish, Michael. However, I have no fear of the facts, even when I can�t rely upon trusty, objective science to explain them. Fortunately, by embracing the facts (e.g., my experience of free will and self-awareness), I can see how reality is something more than mere matter, and so I can recognize that science has not only frontiers but in some places limits. Therefore, I won�t try to shoehorn everything into science (which in practice means reliance upon authority � after all, I�m not a scientist). Instead, I�ll trust my wits to sort out the truth of those things beyond the realm of science � such as free will, good and evil, and morality.

What I will not do is engage in wishful thinking (e.g., science will explain all) and ignore or make up facts to protect that wishful thinking from reality (e.g., biochemistry and physics have explained consciousness).

You: >>� Your entire argument amounts to pointing to some aspect of reality and demanding, "Now explain this to my satisfaction or I will assert that your inability to do so is proof that god exists!"<<

No, my purpose here is much less ambitious than that. I am not here to evangelize. I am not here to persuade you that God exists. I am here to see if atheism is what really drives Objectivists to embrace Objectivism. I think I have seen evidence of that in this discussion. To wit, God is not necessary to explain that which science is competent to handle � that is, the mechanics of the material universe. By the same token, atheism explains nothing that science can. However, to square their atheistic metaphysics with the reality, Objectivists restrict reality to that which only science can explain. And so, they must deny their experience of free will and self-awareness to maintain the materialistic implications of their atheism.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 96

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:36am

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS REFRENCES TO ALIEN ANAL PROBING WHICH MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR OUR YOUNGER READERS. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

My dear Orion:

You declared mightily:

>>This is, once again, my official explanation for why people believe in God:

"The only compelling appeal for choosing to promote the fantasy of the existence of God, is the character's appeal as, and as a license to practice, sado-masochistic domination. I have never known a real 'believer' in God, who did not live their lives around the perverse fascination with bowing, scraping, and lording over others.�<<

Very Freudian seeing the world through the lens of sexual perversion.

Also interesting are the scare-quotes around �believer� immediately preceded by �real�. This suggests a believer who in fact does not believe, but only purports to do so � in a word a fraud. Such a real fraud would, I suppose, be the type of cad to promote the existence of God as a fantasy.

Under the circumstances, I�m not sure how this fraud lures his marks in with bowing and scraping to later lord it over them with sado-masochistic domination, but I�ll have trust you have more experience with such bizarre behavior than I do, Orion. I certainly agree, it ain�t rational.

But then, I don�t find any of this particularly rational either:

You: >>You can argue against this all you like, but throughout the entire time that I have lived on this earth, and in all my awareness of the history of Judeo-Muslim-Christian (JCM) history, all that the mass belief in God has brought, is widespread and inescapable sado-masochism.<<

A couple of things, this �JCM consortium� must be a construct of your own devising. I must confess to have never encountered it anywhere else. Of course, Judeo-Christian is a well-understood term, because of the fact there is a great deal of commonality and continuity between Judaism and Christianity. As for Islam, it is a religion of the Book as they say, and some have even argued that it is not a religion in its own right but rather a Christian heresy, but the fact remains its theology marks a wide departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition and maintains a jealous exclusivity to the truth (kinda like Objectivists) that is absent from Judaism and Christianity.

Just a guess, but is it possible that you have lumped Islam in with the other two, because you need an irrationally violent element to make your case against all religion? If that is your objective, why not lump in the secular religion of Communism? The Nazis while you�re at it, too.

As for this �mass belief� business, Orion � tsk tsk, Rand should have taught you better than to believe in such things as �mass minds�. Finally, while sadism and masochism are well-documented sexual perversions, they aren�t at all widespread, let alone inescapable. Indeed, having traveled around this globe of ours, I must admit to never having encountered anyone in the clutches of such. Of course, I could have simply missed what was obvious to see; just like this JCM mass mind you are alerting us to.

You: >>Any time that the JCM consortium preaches that God's wish is love and kindness, they're deliberately making that up and contradicting their own Bible, to trick a local culture into accepting their S&M prescription for inescapable living. It's a Trojan Horse, a 'To Serve Man'-style trap."<<

Exactly who is this �JCM consortium�? After all, organizations don�t act; people do. Who are they?

What I find very interesting, Orion, is that these nefarious individuals manipulating the JCM mass mind must be very powerful and yet you somehow know them well-enough to read their minds. How else would you know what they are �deliberately� doing?

Perhaps you do not actually have to know them if their overt actions smack of conspiratorial intent. If so, a few questions: Who shot Kennedy? Is there a monster in Loch Ness? And finally, have you had the feeling you were probed during your sleep recently?

You: >>In light of all this damning evidence, I refuse to easily surrender this conclusion. My loathing for religion is righteously without limit, as it has ruthlessly achieved the TRUE rational and ethical destruction of the human race without self-restraint, shame, or limit.<<

Indeed.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 97

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 9:45am

Fortunately, by embracing the facts (e.g., my experience of free will and self-awareness), I can see how reality is something more than mere matter, and so I can recognize that science has not only frontiers but in some places limits.

This is a leap from the unknown (frontiers) to the unknowable (limits). This is the claim to know enough about the nature of something (volition) -- to know that its nature is unknowable. Since he possess volition, nothing can stop him from making this leap -- and the subsequent leap to a belief in god. Fortunately, we do not have to go with him.

Therefore, I won�t try to shoehorn everything into science (which in practice means reliance upon authority � after all, I�m not a scientist). Instead, I�ll trust my wits to sort out the truth of those things beyond the realm of science � such as free will, good and evil, and morality.

And this is the pay-off for those leaps -- the declaration that the entire field of ethics is off-limits to reason. As Rand said, "Never bother examining a folly. Just ask what it accomplishes."

This is the purpose -- to place the catholic morality, in all its horrific evil, outside the bounds of rational criticism. We are not dealing with an error of knowledge here.

Post 98

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:33pm

Michael, Michael, Michael:

Unmasking me for the evil whim-worshipping wretch that you just KNOW I gotta be, you thundered: >>This is [Citizen Rat's] purpose -- to place the catholic morality, in all its horrific evil, outside the bounds of rational criticism. We are not dealing with an error of knowledge here.<<

Talk about leaps of faith! Oh well. Now that you have invoked the proper Randian rituals, you can treat me as a non-person. When you do decide to back out of this hole you've retreated into, you may want to review the discussion here to see who has been relying upon reason and who has been placing his faith in authority as to what reality may or may not encompass.

Meanwhile don't let that reality, which your blinded-by-science Objectivism won't let you see, bite you in the ass.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 99

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:38am