RoR: Forum

Jason,

To comment on your last post it clear that YOU have not refuted Christianity in your own mind.

Now take a step back and think about this. I know what is in my own mind. So what should I make of someone who insists that he knows that something is there that isn't? Are seriously going to claim you know my mind better than I do - the same way you claim to know the beliefs of others better than they do? This is the sort of foolishness that descends into irrationality.

You are drawing conclusions based upon knowledge you cannot possibly have - i.e., what is in my mind. Because this knowledge you claim not only has no foundation in fact (I can emphatically state that what you believe about the contents of my mind is wrong), but is by its nature unknowable to you (no one but I can know what is in my mind), you hold your belief by faith alone.

If you think Objectivism sanctions nonsense like yours, then I must conclude you understand it about as well as you understand Christianity.

Andy

Post 61

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 12:49pm

Andy, you are claiming that we should take seriously nonsensical and arbitrary assertions. You are using these assertions to back the claim that Christianity does not ultimately lead to the dead end ideological viewpoints that Marty listed. Since you claim that arbitrary statements provide legitimate counter arguments to this I can only come to the conclusion that you haven't worked out in your head that they are in fact arbitrary. That is the only logical conclusion I can reach on this topic. Let me give you an example.

Marty said that religon works under the premise that :

"1. a fictitious character without identity created the world"

You claimed that this wasn't true and that Christians would say as a counter argument :

"1. Not true. The creator is Yahweh who became incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ."

Is this statement any different? Can you grasp the arbitrary nature of this so called counter argument? If not then I think I'm justified in my previous statement.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 10/26, 12:51pm)

Post 62

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 12:54pm

Michael, I'm sorry but you can't attack reason and have Objectivism too.

--Brant

Post 63

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:13pm

MSK:

that to sell the message of Objectivism, you have to know the enemy

That would be it, right there. And know who the enemy is not. I am also convinced that the true opponent (let's use the Christian Fundamentalist Right as an example) is, at the level where it would count, not salvageable. As a matter of fact, their influence is so pervasive that it is difficult at any layer. That is because true intellectual freedom is anaethma to their operation. Freethinkers are not desirable nor useful recruits.

I find that Objectivist principles are very easy to gain buy-in for, by-and-large. It is easier if you don't talk about philosophy or terminology, which is not really necessary anyway. So many times I hear average working people talking about the whys of what they do, and you hear Objectivism. Well, what you really hear is classic American common sense and work morals, and of course that is no coincidence.

The important exception is something I recall Joseph Campbell wrote about as early as 1962. He pointed out that our spiritual base, which is that of the individual, is virtually unknown outside of the western hemisphere. It is completely meaningless and valueless in most traditional eastern cultures. If you look at that in light of the current conflict with the Arab world, this is very clear. What we champion and know to be rational and appropriate is scorned.

Hey, nice to see you made it through, hurricane-boy. As you can see we threw a party for you while you were gone.

rde
Unitarian Universalist, with a concealed-carry permit.

Post 64

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:17pm

Brant,

I'm curious. Where have I attacked reason? I always defend it.

The real enemy is faith, not even dogma.

Michael

Post 65

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:25pm

Jason,

You probably wouldn't feel the need to read my mind if you'd read what I wrote.

I plainly stated my purpose behind my participation in discussions of Christianity in this forum. One, I will oppose anyone using Objectivism to rationalize bigotry. Two, if Objectivists must engage in the refutation of Christianity, then I will offer my advice that they should do so intelligently. My interest in the second purpose is spare the association of Objectivism with the loud-mouthed ill-informed blathering of village atheists.

I understand all of this is lost upon you, Jason. You feel you have the power to read the minds of others and the acumen to expound upon the merits of the beliefs you think you have found there. You have neither, but if you insist upon making a fool of yourself, I will let you go upon your merry way.

Andy

Post 66

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:29pm

Andy,

I hadn't come accross the term "villiage-atheist" since Bill Tingley left SOLO. I hadn't realized until now that you knew him. For a second I thought you were him. :-)

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/26, 1:30pm)

Post 67

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:31pm

Andy --

Nice little diversion.

But I will ask you again. Is the above statement that you posit as the proper understanding of Christianity any different from the first statement made by Marty?

I certainly don't have the power to read minds but I can read your posts and come to conclusions about your understanding of the issues you are talking about. I can also see when people are trying to divert the discussion to avoid having to back up their previous statements.

- Jason

Post 68

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:41pm

Ethan,

My source for the term "village atheist" was, I think, from the National Review many moons ago. I took it to be a play on "village idiot". I liked the term's distinction between principled rational atheism and the sort of atheism that is nothing but anti-Christian faith.

Andy

Post 69

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:50pm

Jason,

You are exasperating. You just don't get it. I'm not making the case for Christianity. I was offering friendly advice on how not to make a foolish case against it. I have no interest in arguing for something I do not believe. This is the last time I will tell you this. Now stop pestering me.

Andy

Post 70

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:49pm

Michael, you said "...what Rand said about many moral principles needs to be given a larger context than the faith-versus-reason one she always stressed."

That is the largest context possible. An attempt to expand it is to equivocate the very concept of reason.

--Brant

Post 71

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 2:10pm

Marty said that religon works under the premise that :

"1. a fictitious character without identity created the world"

Uh, no, not necessarily. Almost everytime you anti-religion guys come out of the gates, it's with some silly-ass statement that instantly reveals barely rudimentary knowledge of theology. Here, let me fix this one for you: I am religious, no doubt about it. I am a card-carrying, highly active church member, I belong to a globally recognized church that traces its history back to the 13th century. And yet, I do not believe #1. Ooops!!! Marty was not even talking about creationism properly! He is thinking maybe about some very unfleshed-out interpretation of ancient scripture, which is enough of a pain in the ass to deal with even if you understand it as myth and treat it as myth, which is what, by the way, is going on with all that.

So, maybe it wouldn't be a bad plan to not tell people what their beliefs and practices are, if you do not know what their beliefs and practices are. Eureka!

When you talk about faith, you talk about it in a way that sounds ass-backwards and archaic to what's really going on, at least in the free church. No, I do not blindly believe in something someone told me is "there". Nor do I follow the Bible like a procedural manual. That is not what the Bible is for. The Bible is a big thing, and there is both beautiful and fucked up crap in there. Everytime the religion issue comes up, the first thing people do is trot out some Bible tract and say "see? the Bible is telling you to (horror)..." This is as silly as the Fundamentalists who actually do that. It's hard enough to study the Bible even if you are interested in finding out what's doing in there. I don't spend that much time with it, because there are better things to read. When I do lately, it's been studying the gnostic scripture, which in turn requires a couple of days learning translator notations. And the only reason I did that, aside from it being an interesting intellectual exercise, was to study the evolution of various myths, how they compare to similar myths elsewhere in the world, and so on. Oh, and the other reason was so that I was better armed to fuck with Fundamentalists. It's amazing to talk to novice Fundamentalists about gnostic scripture, particularly the gospel of St. Thomas- you'd think you were slipping them a Penthouse magazine.

Post 72

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 2:13pm

OK, Brant.

I was on another standard with that appraisal of "larger." I was talking from a perspective of communication. (I was talking about the "hard sell" tactic at that point.)

Within the context of logic, you are correct. Within that context, I could have said "narrower" and still meant the same thing as what I was trying to say.

Good point for clarity.

Michael

Post 73

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:09pm

Andy-
I see what you are trying to say, or at least I think I do. We should treat each person as an individual and not stereotype. I understand the wish and, indeed the very need to do this. However, we do legitimately criticize 'christianity' as a philosophy. Not every Christian is a Jerry Falwell, but philosophically, we must be able to speak about the term christian or it becomes meaningless and an anti-concept. I do not think it absurd at all to accept a general meaning of christianity as a philosophy based upon the teachings of Jesus(hence the very root of the word), especially since in numerous polls a vast majority of professed Christians subscribe to very beliefs that you say apply to a 'straw man'. If we take this approach to philosophy, then likewise we must forgo any criticism of 'existentialism', post-modernism, marxism, socialism-all discussions of these terms qua philosophy become 'straw man' discussions. If we are guilty of ignoring the beliefs of some christians in our discussion of "Christianity" then you are equally guilty of ignoring an overwhelming majority of christians in your anti-straw man version.

1. Christians believe that God is a real physically distinct being who created the universe. He is their answer to what caused the Big Bang or whatever science determines to be the starting point of our universe, which astronomical observation clearly shows has a history of evolution. But they go no further. They admit to having no knowledge of the realm external to the universe that God must inhabit as a creator. So the infinite regression arguments about who created the creator are not going to refute this belief. For them the buck stops with God. No less an expert in Objectivism than Leonard Piekoff stated that the existence of such a godlike creator is metaphysically possible.

I've never attended a church service(and I've attended many, of different denominations) where they sat around trying to address all the things that were metaphysically possible. The metaphysicaly possible is potentially infinite-the philosophy of christianity is not infinite, the philosophy of Catholicism is not infinite(though some have attempted almost infinite exegetic salvaging maneuvers). If christians merely postulate and admit to having no knowledge, what's the point. It's meaningless. However, if you do make postulations, as christians do, based upon the metaphysically possible, then you(christians) are irrational. The only rational way to live ones life is based upon what is metaphysically actual and evident(otherwise metaphysics and epistemology become an anything goes based upon whatever metaphysically possible speculation one wants to pursue). What is known to man via reality is the only legitimate philosophy and any criticism of a philosophy that relegates man to the arbitrary and speculative is properly open to vehement criticism. Because of that, even if one white-washes christianity of Christ and his teachings, they are still open to this criticism. If they live their life by a proper metaphysics and epistemology, then there is no god to discuss, as any postulate of such would be meaningless.

By the way, the infinite regression argument is valid. It is valid, precisely because it is what creationsist use to get to god. You can't call the argument valid and then abandon it's logic once you arrive at a god of your liking which exists beyond knowable reality. You may say the argument does not apply to the unkwown, but then again neither does anything you say about the unknown, because it is nothing more than wishful thinking with no basis at all in reality.

Post 74

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:09pm

I posted this on Linz's article but would like to say it here as well.

Linz, your argument is dead on, but ease up on the insults. You sound like a headbanging caterwauler. (And yes I did just call you that :P )

Mike, I think you're a decent guy, but I read the article and just thought it wasn't one of your best. Send it to the trash and start over.

What I had a problem with is that it was a collection of different points and ideas that never came together to form an integrated theme. I was left more confused after reading it. First of all, can you specifically define your 'objectivist' version of turning the other cheek because I took it to mean acceptance of coercion against oneself without defense in absence of an explicit definition. The examples you mentions I found were problematic.

For example, if Galt were to truly turn the other cheek to his enemies (meaning he accepts their irrational, inhuman, and immoral treatment of him) he clearly would not have had the courage to withdraw his support (not to mention that of all of the other atlases who followed) of an evil world so that it may collapse. He would have stayed in Starnesville and starved with the rest of the plant of 20th Century motors. If he suddenly decided to do that in the torture room, he would just accept the fact that he was a prisoner of theirs and capitulate to their evil and stupid demands rather than mock them and let them face the hell that they created.

If Roark accepted the lower standards of his contemporaries he would have put his talent in the service of designing whatever his clients wanted at the price of his own self-respect. But let's say that he followed his standards up until the Stoddard lawsuit and then decided to turn the other cheek. He'd apologize and gladly pays Stoddard the money needed to rip his artistic masterpiece to shreds.

Keep in mind that if Rand had written those scenes *shudder* the whole plot and theme of both books would be incomprehensible due to inconsistencies in the characters of Roark and Galt.

As for using cheek turning as a tactic vs. a strategy, I was confused by the way these terms were used. As best as I could surmise, you used your own beating as a 14y.o. as demonstration as its failure as a tactic, then to use the principle to find common ground with the Christian religion as a demonstration as a strategy. If that's correct, then why not call both a strategy or a tactic and then define the context in which it fails and the context in which it doesn't? It seems you're setting up a weird dichotomy between tactic and strategy.

As for using the idea of cheek turning as a way to find common ground with Christianity just doesn't make sense. Isn't the whole point of marketing is trying to differentiate your product from your competitors and prove that it's better? There's nothing wrong in trying to spread Objectivism to non-Objectivists by using language that they can understand, but saying Objectivism shares many principles with Christianity is just bad marketing and bad philosophy. If you try to dress Objectivism in Christian rehtoric, you are bound to fail as your audience will be able pick up on the fact that you're faking it. They'll just conclude that you're trying to fashion a secular version of their religion and conclude that the original is better. Objectivism is fundamentaly different. It is better, it is right, and I know it for a fact. One of the ways Christianity wins converts (even in a world with abundant scientific proof against it) is that the evangelists are unflappably certain and maintain it by targeting the uncertain. They give the uncertain the hard sell. It almost worked on me in seventh grade (ooh a good article to write). You can't turn the other cheek, especially not when you are right. If you find a soul in need of guidance, don't be wishy washy and show how it agrees with someone's religious hack. This is the greatest philosophy and it is the only philosophy worth living by. Don't sell it short.

Post 75

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:10pm

============
Andy,

I hadn't come accross the term "villiage-atheist" since Bill Tingley left SOLO. I hadn't realized until now that you knew him. For a second I thought you were him. :-)

Ethan
============

Andy & Ethan, I had had it all (rationalistically) worked out that our Bill "Tingley" was actually the popular TV show host: Bill O'Reilly. Am I wrong in this? Our "Bill" here had, initially, went under the pen-name: Citizen Rat -- and Bill O'Reilly had long made a popular quip that citizens are like lab rats (either due to new environmental toxins, or to new political toxins -- I don't recall). O'Reilly is a man of God, like Tingley. A conservative like ... etc, etc.

If anyone really knows "Tingley" -- please fess up (did I merely pull a Hegel here?).

Ed

Post 76

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:04pm

"Watson, you never cease to amaze me..."

Post 77

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:20pm

"Elementary, my dear Holmes, elementary."

"Watson"
[Arthur Conan Doyle ain't got nuthin' on me!]

Post 78

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 1:34am

Andy --

Yes you are right. I was a bit exasperating and I appoligize for chasing you around. I could have made my points in fewer posts. Jody performed much better then I did in this discussion.

Jody --

Great post. Everything was very well formulated. A couple of your points here would make excellent articles. I think an article explaining why "God" is an empty (arbitrary) term, the regress argument and faith vs. reason would be useful for people still trying to clarify why it is rational to be an atheist. The two of us I think are well versed and can refute most of the theist arguments but a lot of people haven't really studied this topic. This is a good exercise because it clarifies important elements of Objectivist Epistemology -- like, the arbitrary, the primacy of existence etc.

- Jason

Post 79

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 5:17am