RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Atheist Internet Outreach Response

Sunday
April 4, 2004

Atheist Internet Outreach Response by Luke Setzer

Ayn Rand’s unique viewpoint manages to stir the awe and ire of both ends of the cultural spectrum in the United States. Leftists admire her staunch atheism but remain horrified with her advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism. Rightists adore her support of free markets yet detest her atheism. Both sides miss a central... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (98 messages)

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:26am

I am surprised no one has addressed Bill’s basic reason for believing in God, which he listed in another thread: his inability to reconcile volition, life, and consciousness with causation and the world of matter with which he thinks science deals. Objectivism certainly has something to say on these questions, but so far no one has spoken up in that thread.

Perhaps I will do so myself, when I find the time. For now I will ask Bill to note these key contentions of Objectivism: science is not the study of matter, but of reality; and causation is not a relationship between actions and actions, but between entities and actions--not every action is a mere reaction.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/12, 10:19am)

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 9:42am

Hi Rodney,

I noted Bill's remarks and determined that I haven't the endurance to explain what he will likely ignore/illogically reason around. You have a better ability to explain it thatn I have in any case!

Ethan

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:41am

One problem with forums like this is that everyone wants to have the last, ringing word. We may take consolation in the fact that one need not pin one's hopes on converting the person one debates--undecided readers are Objectivism's best audience, and they will tend to discount the rhetorical flourishes and consider only the totality of each side's case.

For example, if one's interlocutor does not accept the absolutism of logic, or of reason, there is no need to argue further; but it may still be helpful to do so for a while, because those struggling minds who are listening in may be led to a deeper understanding of the issues. A side benefit is that one's own understanding is improved. Perhaps, also, one has made errors in presenting one's own case--I have seen this happening in many threads! Not all Objectivists know the philosophy too accurately. And, of course, AR did not cover all the issues, just the ones she needed to for her novels, plus those that came up in the ensuing firestorm. Nor was she always in "strict speaking" mode, or indeed always right.

Thanks for the compliment, by the way!

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 11:08am

Hi Rodney,

"For example, if one's interlocutor does not accept the absolutism of logic, or of reason, there is no need to argue further; but it may still be helpful to do so for a while, because those struggling minds who are listening in may be led to a deeper understanding of the issues.

I agree! The "third audience" is always important to consider. Trying to find time to type lengthy replies is usually my problem. I've been trying to write an article for awhile now, but getting around to finishing it up is troublesome.

In any event, your welcome for the compliment, though it was a simple statement of fact. My hardcore research into the ins-and-out of objectivist metaphysics and epistemology is as subject to time constraints as well. In time I'll get fully up to speed!

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:52pm

Ethan,

In case you are unaware of this site:

www.importanceofphilosophy.com

this site has streamlined my study time a great deal. As a fulltime student and fulltime worker Its been a great quick reference for me.

It was of course made by two of the locals here at SOLO: Joe Rowlands and Jeff Landauer

Eric.

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:57pm

Thanks Eric,

It's one of my favorites actually! A great reference that I constantly go back to and send other to.

Ethan

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:54am

Joseph:

You wrote: >>Faith is just believing what you want to believe.<<

I agree that faith defined as such is a poor foundation for understanding the world. The problem with this definintion is the same problem as the Objectivist definition of "altruism". It is a straw man. What you describe as faith has no semblance to what serious-minded people hold as faith.

Faith is what one believes to be true in matters essential to the good life where one's knowledge is incomplete. There is much about human nature that we do not know, and maybe can never know, scientifically. Therefore, faith is a rational resolution to such gaps in our knowledge.

The problem with Objectivism is that it claims all possible knowledge is scientific -- that is, the entirety of reality is objectively knowable and reducible to falsifiable statements of truth. However, this proposition is based upon a matter of faith -- to wit, reality is nothing more than that which is material and mechanical.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 6:12am

Rodney:

You aptly summarized my position: >>I am surprised no one has addressed Bill’s basic reason for believing in God, which he listed in another thread: his inability to reconcile volition, life, and consciousness with causation and the world of matter with which he thinks science deals. Objectivism certainly has something to say on these questions, but so far no one has spoken up in that thread.<<

You then stated: >>Perhaps I will do so myself, when I find the time. For now I will ask Bill to note these key contentions of Objectivism: science is not the study of matter, but of reality; and causation is not a relationship between actions and actions, but between entities and actions--not every action is a mere reaction.<<

It is indeed a complex subject. I am aware of what Piekoff had to say regarding volition in order to avoid having Objectivism categorized as a materialist philosophy. So I am aware of the Objectivist notion of "focusing" one's consciousness. However, that does not get around the conundrum of how such an uncaused event can occur if reality is entirely reducible to matter and mechanics.

Personally, I have reconciled this by concluding that reality is not restricted to mere matter and the forces that act upon it. After all, my own experience of free will and consciousness demonstrates that these things are not subject to the determinism of physics. If experience is a valid source of knowledge, as Objectivist epistemology posits, then my experience, which is the universal human experience, is something that must be reckoned with. My conclusion about reality then is not irrational, because it is grounded in my experience and is not contradicted by any scientific knowledge we have.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 6:19am

Rodney:

You replied to Ethan's comment about not wanting to waste his time arguing with someone he believes is immune to argument -- i.e., yours truly:

One problem with forums like this is that everyone wants to have the last, ringing word. We may take consolation in the fact that one need not pin one's hopes on converting the person one debates--undecided readers are Objectivism's best audience, and they will tend to discount the rhetorical flourishes and consider only the totality of each side's case.

Precisely. Your further comment that solid argument will prevail against unreasoned resistance and thus be persuasive to serious-minded readers is also spot on. I might add that having to organize your beliefs into a cogent argument is always helpful in better understanding what you know to be true. Grant that's a selfish reason, but I suspect it is acceptable to Objectivists.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:41pm

Citizen Rat,

I'm not surprised you try to defend faith, but you have no chance.

You talk about faith being important to the good life, but then admit it has to do with what we don't know, and maybe can never know. If you don't know it, how can you possibly say it has anything to do with the good life? There can be no way to show that. And worse, if you can't possibly know it, it can't possibly have anything to do with life. If this so-called "knowledge" has no effect on reality (i.e., you can never know it), then it can't possibly impact your life.

Again, your understanding of Objectivist epistemology is lacking. Objectivism argues that you should only accept that which you have evidence for. That which you have reason to believe. If it's not objectively knowable, you can't know it. That's a truism. The only question is whether you should pretend to know it anyway (one example of faith). And the answer is no, for a lot of reasons. Accepting the arbitrary as equal to the objectively knowable clutters your mind, and destroy's your objectivity. When eventually faced with a contradiction between what you actually know, and what you've accepted on faith, which wins? Even having to sort it out is disaster. The more arbitrary beliefs you have, or the bigger the beliefs, the more contradictions. Your entire mental framework is shoddy. When that happens, you have to either ignore contradictions, or try to reevaluate your entire belief system. Both are serious problems.

Faith has nothing to offer but mental destruction. Even in the smallest instance, it's a diversion from "what is" to "what I want there to be". It's a rejection of the primacy of existence, and objectivity.

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 5:09am

Joseph:

You indict me: >>Your entire mental framework is shoddy.<<

Well, this is certainly one of the reasons I rejected Objectivism: The arrogance it breeds in its adherents. It is breathtaking how you can feel confident enough to assess my mind from a handful of posts over the course of a few weeks. I suspect such confidence is akin to that of a fundamentalist Christian who thinks he has all the answers from a few pages of text from authority.

I do not wish to be so obnoxious, Joseph, but the fact is you did not READ what I wrote. I stated that proper faith -- rational faith, if you will -- is how we acquire and apply knowledge essential to life when our grasp of the facts is incomplete. This is entirely different from believing in a thing contradicted by experience, which is irrational. Rational faith is in contrast to scientific knowledge -- i.e., the deduction of falsifiable rules from a sufficient set of facts.

The problem with Objectivism is that it claims all true knowledge is scientific and only scientific. While it is possible that we may discover that all knowledge is in fact scientific, because reality consists of nothing more than the material universe, we do have evidence in the form of our volition and consciousness (and I would argue animation also) that there is something more to reality than materiality. If so, science will never explain everything we need to know about life.

Therefore, Objectivism may well be founded upon a faulty premise. To the extent that you deny such, it is only on faith that you do so: The same "shoddy" mental framework you have attributed to me.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:19am

"rational faith"
"uncaused causes"

Saying your mental framework was shoddy was being quite polite.

Ethan

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 6:49am

Either reason is an absolute or it is not. If it is acceptable to abandon reason and endorse an idea based on "faith", then anything goes. There is no basis for declaring any one party's faith valid and another party's faith invalid. Thus, Citizen Rat's decision to believe in god and the 19 hijackers decision to murder 3000 Americans are equally valid. Citizen Rat (I predict) will say that this is not so because he can "prove" that murder is immoral whereas I cannot disprove the existence of god. But this evasion is an epistemological switch from proving a positive -- man's right to his life -- to demanding proof of a negative -- which is an impossibility. And the impossibility of proving a negative cannot be claimed as proof of anything.

The Christian morality is blatantly evil. A few examples: Charity -- the giving of the undeserved -- is the opposite of justice and is therefore unjust. Mercy is the sin of forgiving sins; it is a declaration that those who choose to be evil will not be held accountable for their actions; it is the declaration that the evil will be treated the same as the good. (Actually, it is worse than that. In Christian mythology, the ideal man was killed for the sake of the sinners). Tolerance is always advocated as an excuse for the intolerable.

I see nothing benevolent about discarding persuasion, endorsing injustice and punishing the good for the sake of the evil. I see nothing compassionate in a philosophy that demands obedience to the arbitrary whims of an omnipotent being under penalty of eternal torture.

Rand stated over 40 years ago that faith and force are the destroyers of the modern world. Today's Islamic terrorists are proving that point horrifically. People like Citizen Rat are endorsing the terrorist’s fundamental premise: the validity of faith.

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 7:01am

Let me give a good example of how conservatives like Michael Novak help destroy capitalism:

The Heritage Foundation did a study of those living below the official poverty line in America:

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

“Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.”

Source:Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Understanding Poverty in America”, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

In a speech titled, “The Moral Case for Capitalism”, Michael Novak uses the data from the Heritage Foundation study to praise capitalism, but concludes:
Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor. That means that 88 percent are not poor, and we still have about 12 percent to help. (emphasis added) This is not to say that the task of eliminating poverty in America is finished. It isn't. But it is crucial to grasp that the task of capitalism is measured by how well it enriches the poor.¹³
There you have it. Cars, air-conditioned homes, color television, VCRs, microwave ovens, cable TV and stereos are not enough. This conservative agrees that the “poor” need more of your money and that the task of the American economy is to enrich them. Novak concedes the premise of statism. He is not an ally of capitalism.

When conservatives like Novak agree that government must provide food to the starving poor, they are powerless to resist when liberals then demand that the poor be housed. After all, if the poor are entitled to food stamps to avoid starvation, are they not also entitled to housing assistance to avoid freezing? On what principle are they entitled to one but not the other?

And if the poor are entitled to food and shelter, surely they are also entitled to medical care. What need could be greater than the need to survive a deadly illness? So, we must have Medicaid.

And if the poor cannot afford food, shelter and medicine without government help, they surely cannot afford to educate their children properly. So we must have public education, Head Start programs, school lunch support, etc.

And what about the disabled? Are they not also entitled to food, shelter, medicine and education?

And it is not just the poor and disabled that are in need: what about the elderly that can no longer work enough to pay their doctor bills? Are they not entitled to see a doctor? So we must have Medicare.

And what about people that lose their job -- with their income gone, are they not just as “needy“ as the poor? Not to fear, we have unemployment checks.

Such is the power of a moral premise. When a Michael Novak agrees that “helping others“ is a proper function of government, there is absolutely no way to draw a line on how much of your money will be taken for such programs. It is futile to agree that a moral premise is valid -- as the conservatives do -- then argue that it should only be practiced part time.

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 2:33pm

Citizen Rat, FYI, you read too much into that. I was explaining what happens when someone accepts major premises on faith, and how it destroys their minds. When that happens, there is no solid foundation to fall back on when you get confused. I'm not saying that doesn't apply to you, but you took that line out of context.

I still reject all this talk about "rational faith". You're trying to define faith to include valid speculations based on real evidence. The problem with that is (and you can't chat with Marc Geddes if you want), it's easy to suggest that most/all knowledge is based on incomplete information. If you uphold omniscience as the standard, anything goes.

So it sounds like you're trying to define the most borderline uses of reason as faith, opening the door for two arguments. First, as mentioned, that all knowledge is based on faith. And second, that faith is justified. Both are false, and so this line of reasoning serves only to confuse and destroy coherent thinking. Or another way to put it is you're trying to take the respect reason has, and apply it to faith, while attempting to destroy reason in the process. Your constant declarations that Objectivism is grounded on faith is an excellent example.

Of course, your whole line of "reasoning" is muddled. In the actual case where you have very limited information, not enough to draw a conclusion, reason would suggest either not drawing a conclusion, or tentatively forming a hypothesis. You could then properly investigate further, but you can't accept the hypothesis as true, or at least you have to reserve serious doubts towards its validity.

Where faith comes in is when you say "I'm going to believe that it's absolutely true!". The evidence doesn't warrant that kind of belief, but you do it anyway because you feel like it. However, there's nothing at all rational about this, so calling it rational faith is incorrect. It might be an example where the two are mixed, since there is some evidence, but not enough. But mixing them is like mixing food and poison. It's still poison. Faith is still the destroyer of minds.

I have to quickly comment on your ridiculous free-will excuse for believing in god. This is nothing more than the old primitives who worshipped the thunder gods because they didn't have an explanation for lightning and thunder. It's nice to know that some things have never changed. Instead of seeking knowledge, you blindly attribute everything you don't understand to "the sky spirits". And just like the primitives did, you pretend that your ignorance proves there's a god. God is not the answer, and never has been. He's just been a convenient substitute. An omniscient, intelligent being in the sky can explain any mystery. But that's not an actual answer. It's a quick fix. It's a cheat. It's a declaration of ignorance, and that from this day forward it's willful ignorance.

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 5:30am

Joseph:

I'll take your backtracking on how you meant to apply the "shoddy framework" epithet as an apology. You are forgiven.

Again, I appreciate the time you have taken to explain things for my benefit. Especially this time. You concluded with a remarkable statement, which I think is fundamental:

It's a declaration of ignorance, and that from this day forward it's willful ignorance.

Bingo! You are absolutely right that a belief in God is a declaration of ignorance, and you are just as wrong that that ignorance is willful. This is because a person's knowledge of reality will always be incomplete. In other words, we are all ignorant and will always be ignorant of the fullness of the truth.

Now there are different ways to deal with that ignorance. An Objectivist can simply deny it: Such ignorance does not exist unless its willful. The Objectivist basis for this is the naive faith that all knowledge is scientific -- i.e., obtainable through observation, induction, and deduction -- because nothing in the universe exists that cannot be quantified and measured. Essentially, the Objectivist believes that humans exist in an utterly material world and so nothing is beyond their ken.

Others are not quite so sure. Experience of volition and consciousness are evidence that reality is not utterly material and so things do exist critical to the good life (as opposed to mere survival) that may not be reducible to scientific knowledge -- in other words, falsifiable beliefs. Sometimes things must be taken on faith -- for example, good and evil -- because we cannot know these things scientifically. Yet experience tells us these things are true, even if in our fundamental ignorance of reality, we cannot know precisely why they are true.

Faith is a person's rational response to his inherent ignorance of the truth in its entirety. Objectivists do it by believing that reality is nothing more matter and mechanics. I do it with a belief in God. I prefer my faith because it does not contradict my experience of volition and consciousness, which are evidence that reailty does consist of something more than matter and mechanics. The Objectivist faith requires the denial of this experience.

Faith that contradicts experience is, in all likelihood, irrational.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 5:41am

Michael:

Playing the post-9/11 version of the Nazi card, you wrote: >>Thus, Citizen Rat's decision to believe in god and the 19 hijackers decision to murder 3000 Americans are equally valid.<<

Objectivism is truly Orwellian when it comes to the description of evil. But such are the hazards of any system of belief that encompasses thought crimes in which the slightest deviation from the party line consigns a person to damnation.

Instead of your blanket condemnation, Michael, please explain to me why my religion, Roman Catholicism, is evil. It forbids me to take any force against another, except in defense, because I must respect the dignity of all other human beings. The reason why I must have such respect is that no other human being is my creation, and I cannot destroy that which I did not create.

Where's the evil?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:57am

Bill,

(this ended up being a bit long - to shorten it, read just the first sentence of each paragraph)! :)

I am not the right person to explain why Roman Catholics are evil, but I will point out some things I've since noticed, as a former-Roman Catholic and who still has most of her friends & family who are Roman Catholics... I also work at a Catholic hospital (I was still Catholic when I started and do like it here still, even though I don't agree with everything).

Some Catholics go around these, by being 'selective' of what they agree with in the religion. I was one of these folks myself.

Michael Smith mentions a few of the things that objectivists might find repulsive about the religion. The worship of charity, mercy, forgiveness against all evidence, etc.

Some things that I find pretty repulsive since becoming atheist are (in no order):

1. Realizing what it does to people when you are taught to worship the humble and meek, the poor, the addicts, the homeless; when you are taught that the meek shall inherit the earth, that suffering on earth is good, and that you must go through this 'torture' to seek redemption.

2. That you are taught that life on earth is a punishment. Sometimes they tell you that life is a gift, but how can you think that life is the greatest gift, when you assume it's hell compared to what you'll get after you die?

3. That you are taught that life on earth is a punishment, because of a girl's curiosity to eat 'forbidden fruit' before mankind really came into existence. Even if you think it's true, it's a horrible test.

4. That you can have an omnicient god have free-will on earth at the same time.

5. That you are born with an original sin, and if you are not baptized, you will go to hell upon death.

6. Children are god's gift to a couple. You cannot prevent it, nor seek help to become fertile if it wasn't meant to happen.(i.e. no birth control, no fertility treatments allowed).

7. Abortion is evil. (This is one of those big ones I didn't even buy back then).

8. Gays are evil and going to hell. (Again, didn't even buy it back then, one of the big ones that I'm quite ashamed to have been associated with, even though I didn't believe it).

9. Want of material things are bad - we should still be living in grass huts and dying at age 30 I guess...?

10. Thou shalt not want for anything... I don't really understand how you function unless you desire a job, a house, a car, etc...

11. I used to love this one -- treat all men as brothers, you never know when Jesus will appear at your door... yeah, I think Elizabeth Smart's family took well to that one! When I was younger, I almost picked up every hitchhiker, _just in case_! :)

12. What God wants is enough to have you do it. This is where Joe was saying before that it's dangerous. You have people thinking they are answering to a higher authority and therefore murdering, taking slaves, treating women as objects, whatever their religion says and having justification for it. And it just changes, whenever a high priest has a revelation.

13. We won't even go to the whole priest molestation thing, because it's not quite the fault of the church, except for the cover-up parts and denials...

14. No suicides allowed, no matter how little your quality of life, or how close to the end of life you are. Do you know that I just read an article, that the pope has announced that we must keep people on life-support and feeding tubes at catholic hospitals, no matter what their living will says, no matter what their family wants, no matter if they're catholic or not, no matter how much it costs the family or hospital, and no matter if there is any hope of their recovery? This may go into effect soon. On a side note, I find this a bit ironic and contradictory to a few catholic theories, where you shouldn't want for anything, the idea that "there is god's way" (and he'd let you live if he really wanted to, feeding tube or no feeding tube).

15. Forgive everyone, everyone can be forgiven if they ask for it from the lord. Let me tell you how much better my life is now that I know it's okay to not forgive people who don't deserve it! And I love many of my best friends, but I see the struggles they go through trying over and over to forgive and be nice to people who don't deserve it and end up using & hurting them over & over. We won't even get into the fact that serial murders can just see the light before they go to the electric chair and be forgiven of all.

16. Divorce is bad.

17. Everyone has 'their time' to die. Sort of has that predestined 'fate' idea. And there were plenty of times I used to not pay too much attention while driving, thinking that if it wasn't my time to die I didn't have to worry anyways. And if I was in a car wreck, well then god must have a reason for wanting me to go through that. I pay a little more attention now.

These are some that come to mind as of now. You look at catholics and think that it's a good thing. That people are taught to love life, to have hope, to believe in miracles, to help each other and to treat each other with love. But it also teaches some horrible things that you can't ignore. And the outcomes of a lot of these are just disgusting, even if you don't realize it at the time.

I won't even try to argue the case against god with you. People tried it with me to no avail, until one day I just got it (well, thanks to Rand). And there are whole books out there that can do it better. I know when I was catholic I believed what I wanted to and ignored any contradictions. Just thought I'd share a little of my journey with you!

-Elizabeth

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 7:02am

Citizen Rat:

Just read my post above for a few examples of the evil of christianity.

The best expose of the evil of the Roman Catholic Church may be found in Rand's "Requiem for Man" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

By the way, cheap smears such as "Orwellian", "thought crimes" and "the Nazi card" are not argument, but an attempt to avoid argument.

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 7:13am

"This is because a person's knowledge of reality will always be incomplete. In other words, we are all ignorant and will always be ignorant of the fullness of the truth."

So belief in anything without proof is ok, because it can't be proven false? You are very funny in a sad way :-)