About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 10:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You cannot have reason (rational identification and integration of reality) and faith (intellectual acceptance of an idea without any supporting rational evidence, essentially a negation of rationality), coexist.


You're package dealing the concept of "faith", failing to distinguish "blind faith" (what you described) from other forms of religious belief.

For example, consider the phrase "I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow". Such a statement is not based in "faith" as you described it. The speaker observed the sun rising every day of his life, and has heard accounts of it rising every day of recorded history. He inductively reasons that it will rise tomorrow.

Nowadays, we know the process which creates a "sunrise". But would the statement have been illogical if it spoken 2500 years ago, before the cause of the sunrise was identifiable? No. The speaker has observed a phenomenon, identified a phenomenon, and although cannot know the cause of the phenomenon, derives a principal from the observed effect of the phenomenon. The speaker's faith is quite rational.

Atheism involves a failure to take these logical steps when presented with apologetic evidence of a Creator. The atheist says "I do not know the cause, so I'm going to explain away the effect."

Multiple historical accounts of miracles and epiphanies? "Lies, myths and hallucinations!"

Thousands of biblical prophesies--thousands of years before their fulfillment--eerily exact as to timing and description? "Wishful interpretation of scripture!"

A universe which inexplicably contains logical order, from the subatomic to the galactic level? "A reflection of your own intelligence . . . and bias!"

Consciousness inexplicably present, able to identify, and not just reflexively react to, the surrounding universe? "That's what you think! It's only a feedback of neurons!"

Rand taught not to evade reality. During my intellectual life, I've been presented with compelling apologetic evidence of a Creator. It would be evasion to ignore it. I don't know how God does what He does (the cause), but I observe what He does (the effect). The logical conclusions I draw from those observations is the basis of my faith.

Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Protagonist,

When you quote someone out of context, you can then make of it what you wish. My quote should have been prefaced with: "On basic metaphysical issues,..."

Here is the full paragraph and context:
On basic metaphysical issues, you cannot have reason (rational identification and integration of reality) and faith (intellectual acceptance of an idea without any supporting rational evidence, essentially a negation of rationality), coexist. It is either-or. Some things are absolute and that is one of them. You cannot believe in God and not believe in God at the same time - or accept existence as primary and accept consciousness as primary at the same time.
As now can be seen, there is no package deal at all. You either choose non-rational faith to believe in God or you choose reason and accept the primacy of existence as an axiomatic concept. You can't have them both, although from your post it sounds an awful lot like you want them both.

Your example of using the word faith as a colloquial synonym for reasonable expectation takes it outside of our discussion. I am referring to a cognitive method for assimilating and integrating primary metaphysical issues. Reasonable expectation is not a manner of thinking - it is merely a small part of one (reason to be exact).

There is no way to arrive at a Christian God through reason. Almost any preacher will tell you that. Either you accept the Bible as divinely inspired on faith - or you view it rationally as a group of historical documents that have been handed down through the ages through countless copies made by countless scribes. By the way, not one original copy of any one book in it survives, so all we have are hand written copies of hand written copies of hand written copies and so on.

Once you have accepted the Bible on faith, then you can do what most do - use your reason to try to find evidence to back that premise up. That is where I think you are. However, such evidence simply refuses to be forthcoming from reality. That is why modern Christian reasoning is so mired in testimonials and personal anecdotes.

Using Objectivist catchwords like "package deal concept" or "evasion" to argue for Christianity is an exercise in futility. They fall apart for such arguments when you define your terms. These words have very specific meanings and should be used according to their definitions. Since you say you have read Rand, I am sure you can find the pertinent passages in her writings where they are defined. If you can't, read Atlas Shrugged again - or even just John Galt's speach.

From the tone of your post, which gets very close to sounding like a sermon, I suspect that you are posting here not to learn about Objectivism or discuss it - but to convert some of us to Christianity or your form of faith instead.

The responses with exclamation points to your formulations, of course, have nothing to do with my thinking - or Objectivist thinking for that matter. Around here we call that method setting up a straw man and knocking him down. Sermons generally use a lot of that.

As far as apologetic evidence goes, I presume you are referring to the word apologetic in the sense of the writings of early Jews and Christians, i.e. the Bible. Despite the following not being Objectivist, I personally have found the work of Earl Doherty to be extremely useful in understanding why an historical Jesus is so hard to document and is probably a myth. And there is an amazing book called Dare To Think For Yourself: A Journey from Faith to Reason by Betty J. Brogaard, which recounts her journey from Christianity to athiesm. You can find it at PublishAmerica. There (and in Mr. Doherty's work), you will find discussions of how the Bible was written and copied, prophesies, faith, doublets (evidencing multiple authors of the same books in the Bible) and a host of other points you raised and doubts you may have.

I do wish you well, Protagonist. I do not hold much faith in your Christian witnessing on an Objectivist forum, though.   //;-)

And you be careful around here if you want to maintain your faith in God. Reason has a way of sinking in over time. And once it starts, those darn little false premises just won't let you alone at night...

Michael


Post 22

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
"Nowadays, we know the process which creates a "sunrise". But would the statement have been illogical if it spoken 2500 years ago, before the cause of the sunrise was identifiable? No. The speaker has observed a phenomenon, identified a phenomenon, and although cannot know the cause of the phenomenon, derives a principal from the observed effect of the phenomenon. The speaker's faith is quite rational.

The first part doesn't work.  The key elements involved in the sunrise were all observable.  The cause and effect all take place within reality.  "God" is supposed to be somehow seperate from our existence and cannot be observed or seen.  There is no way to verify "God".   The Sun and the Earth and their movements are all observable (given the right tools) by man and thus we are able to form valid concepts relating to the earth's rotation around the sun.  

"Atheism involves a failure to take these logical steps when presented with apologetic evidence of a Creator. The atheist says "I do not know the cause, so I'm going to explain away the effect."

There are a couple of bad elements to this line of argument but it all boils down to the fact that existence does not require a cause.  If you argue that it does then I could make the argument -- well what created "God"? and we could go on forever like that.  Every new "creator" would require a cause given that arguement.  Interestingly though, if these causes were valid they would all exist.  Thus they would all be part of existence and would still prove that existence does not have a cause it simply exists.  You are welcome to try "apologetic evidence" but the fact remains that you must have a valid definition of "God" if you want to posit this entity as your cause for anything.
 
"Multiple historical accounts of miracles and epiphanies? "Lies, myths and hallucinations!"

Exactly.  There are all sorts of people who claim all sorts of things.  Didn't the virgin Mary appear in a piece of toast?  Did those guys really get abducted by aliens?  Are there really haunted houses?  I suggest Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World".
 
"Thousands of biblical prophesies--thousands of years before their fulfillment--eerily exact as to timing and description? "Wishful interpretation of scripture!"

Yes, this does strike me as wishful thinking considering that the Bible itself is incredibly vulnerable on several levels to intellectual and historical assaults.  It is a wonderful piece of historical mythology and nothing more.
 
"Consciousness inexplicably present, able to identify, and not just reflexively react to, the surrounding universe? "That's what you think! It's only a feedback of neurons!"

Rand taught not to evade reality. During my intellectual life, I've been presented with compelling apologetic evidence of a Creator. It would be evasion to ignore it. I don't know how God does what He does (the cause), but I observe what He does (the effect). The logical conclusions I draw from those observations is the basis of my faith."


If you want athiest arguments from a generally Objectivist standpoint I again point you towards George H. Smith's Atheism :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087975124X/qid=1115278111/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6845005-8755125?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

He does an excellent job of eliminating the apologist arguments one by one.  Job #1 though is for you to create a valid definition for "God" based upon legitimate knowledge.  A failure to do that eliminates any possible arguments right from the beginning.  Reason must then be replaced with faith. 

 - Jason
 
 
 


 


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 4:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

I read your post by copying it and pasting it into a text editor, because otherwise I would have to scroll left and right for every line of your post.

Did you actually mean to say "Faith must then be replaced with reason."?

Jason & Michael: Thanks for suggesting the reading material, I will look into them. Might I also suggest The Bible Unearthed Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. It discusses the archeological evidence surrounding the Old Testimate/Torah, and the situation in which its constituents were probably created.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 5/05, 4:24am)


Post 24

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean, that is strange.  For me it reads fine in 2 different browsers. 

What I meant by the last section of my post is that if someone decides to argue the position that "God" created the universe, existence, ect he is bound to fail.  His arguements are entirely illogical so he must rely on "faith" as the basis of his belief.  Most religous people openly admit to this.  Looking at the post now I can see that I should have been more clear as to my meaning in that last sentence.

 - Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 5/05, 8:55am)


Post 25

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Many people who are religious have faith because they feel that events and experiences in their life justify it, rather than simply a belief per-se.  What I mean is, that there are many people who have experienced "supernatural" events of one kind or another that they take as evidence of their beliefs.  This takes many forms, and for the person who has experienced it is very real to them.  This is something that can't really be discussed with reason, because it is something they witnessed and unique to their experience.  I am not saying I think these are true or are proof, just pointing out that since there is no explanation that can be offered, many have faith because these experiences actually happened to them. 

Also, in discussing my views with one religious person, they did not feel the need to convince, either, but simply said this was my experience hence I believe.  Another note is that they feel that reason is a tool and science as well, and that these are meant for us to use to understand the universe/reality/God better, so are not incompatable. 

Just some food for thought, I don't agree, but have not seen this presented.


Post 26

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt, you experience seems to mirror some of mine with religious people.  It's awfully hard for someone to outright reject reason.  Some very otherwise reasonable people proffer this argument and it's a hard one to refuse - precisely because it's context-driven.  Not saying it's irrefutable, of course - just that this wrinkle makes it harder. 

Jason


Post 27

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What I don't understand is why things that are as yet inexplicable are attributed to "God" in these cases.  It seems people feel more secure in believing an invisible spiritual entity exists, rather than accepting that science has not yet discovered an explanation for everything around us.

This baffles me.


Post 28

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Much of that is because most perceive the world [universe] to be far more simplistic than it, of course, is.... so, there is considered a need for a god to explain the 'extra' complexity.... and this simplistic viewing is because historically, the world was rather simplistic in most of what went on around everyone.

Post 29

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

Sometimes they feel more secure with God, but more often it's because humans have purpose on the brain. When most people look out at existence they don't first ask what is it, they ask why is it? When I read Atlas Shrugged as a sophomore in high school, I didn't become an atheist right away. It took reading Darwin's Origin of Species during my junior year. Natural selection, for me, answered the why about biology.

Jim


Post 30

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 9:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It seems people feel more secure in believing an invisible spiritual entity exists, rather than accepting that science has not yet discovered an explanation for everything around us.

This baffles me.


What baffles me is how, if sciece is going to provide an explanation for everything around us, how is science going to provide an explanation for science.

But it whether science needs an explanation that is the main bone of contention here, is it not?

The fundamental difference between theistic Christianity, and atheistic Objectivism, is disagreement over where the causal "cutoff point" is. Atheism says that existence is innate has no origin. Theists say that existence is cause by God, and God is innate and has no origin. Reason leads me to the latter choice.

The material world runs by constant, set principles and rules.

Scientific "rules" "laws" "principles" and other set axioms, by necessity, are not made by those entities upon which those set axioms apply. An apple does not make the law of gravity by deciding to fall down, nor can it change the law of gravity so that it can fall up.

These set axioms are ideas. They act upon the material world, but are not a part of the material world. They are the subject, and not the object, of the material world

Ideas are the product of identification. Someone says "It is, and it is what it is".

Identification necessitates an Identifier. Someone who makes identifications is a person. This person would also be independent of the material world.

So what do we have? A person, independent of the material world, who sets axioms, which become the rules upon which the material world functions. 'Round these parts, we call that a God.

Since the identifier is itself an idea to be identified, this would be the circular innate "cutoff point" without a cause. Thus the axiom "existence exists" would be a secondary truth to the axiom "the Identifier identifies".


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 11:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Protagonist,
A person, independent of the material world, who sets axioms, which become the rules upon which the material world functions.
This is a pretty good description of the Neumenal Realm and the Categorical Imperatives of Immanuel Kant - except with a personification.

Try reading Critique of Pure Reason. If your position is as you state, you will probably like him.

Ayn Rand expended a good deal of effort to brand him as one of the most evil men in human history.

Michael


Post 32

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What baffles me is how, if sciece is going to provide an explanation for everything around us, how is science going to provide an explanation for science.
Science doesn't do anything. People do. People use science to provide... Now where we disagree is whether people are completely composed of the material realm or not. Since you do not consider the capability of material beyond the capability of rocks... how about we discuss your proposed non-material realm, where "spirits" (or insert your mysticism here) "exist".

So there is no material in this realm... then what exists? What holds information? What processes information and makes decisions? How does it interact with the material world? You said that "This person would also be independent of the material world." Now if God is independent of the material world, then how can he send or receive information to it/from it? Do you have any evidence supporting its existence?

What is your evidence? I have measurable empirical evidence which supports my positions on intelligence and perception coming from material alone. I assume that all you have is a book which claims to be divine, popularity, ignorance, and faith. Please do provide evidence for the existence/truth of *something* mystical, so that I can adjust my knowledge to include more of reality.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Protagonist.

Where does God come from? If everything has a begining, and comes from somewhere, how about God?

You said:

Yet everything that can be perceived--everything that exists--must come from Something that cannot be perceived and does not exist in our world, but transcends it in a way we cannot imagine.

Throughout history, God has been held as the cause of everything, until proved otherwise by scientific experimentation. The bar is constantly moved to keep God one step ahead of what we know. Will theists ever run out of precursors to attribute to God?

Now theists want us to beleive that Reason has led them to accept God. But statements like your's above lead me to beleive that theists only take reason so far. Just far enough to where it would invalidate their faith. Then the blank out evasions come in.

If God were real he would show himself/herself/itself as he supposedly once did to Moses and others. Faith is useless. If this creator existed why does he hide? Which faith is right? Why the contradictions? If He created us, why did he make us flawed. What is the point?

If God exists and is a being such as described by Christianity, then he has a lot to answer for. For he and he alone, as the all knowing creator is responsible for all the evil in the world. But you don't buy that do you?

Yes, reality, existence, they show us that its very unlikely that a creator exists. What are the origins of the Life, The Universe, and Everything? I'll wait and see what we discover, rather than proposing some blank out contradictory idea that I'll probably have to change later when we discover that its wrong. Faith is a constant redefinition of the unknown into the unknown.  Its a retreat from Reason, not an emracing of it. Its a denial of the mind.

Ethan


Post 34

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Protagonist,

I agree that it's difficult to fathom the notion that existence has always existed (it is for me, anyway).  Accepting this notion is to essentially say that existence has no cause, this (for me) flies in the face of basic reason in the real world, which generally suggests a cause-effect relationship inherent in all observable phenomena.  My own belief right now is that the existence of existence is simply mysterious, and might always remain that way in terms of human understanding.  That said, I believe that reason is far and away our best guide for living in the world. 

Attempting to answer grand questions about a potential cause for the existence of the universe automatically implies a realm beyond human perception, and therefore beyond the purview of human reason.   Therefore, any human claims to knowledge of this unknowable realm are concoted from nothing more than imagination and wishful thinking.  Religion is nothing more than superstition. 

So, even if you have philosophically arrived at theism as your belief using intellectually honest methods, what gives you any reason to believe that the Christian bible is the revealed word of God, and not the Koran for example?


Post 35

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's hard to tell whether O'ism is creed-based or covenant based. It seems to me to be creed-based. And with that, it shares challenges similar to creed-based religions. Objectivism teachings also intersect with a number of those found in doctrines like humanism, and yes, even religion. Objectivism says (I borrow from Branden's listing of basic principles):

  1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions — that existence exists, that A is A;
  2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
  3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
  4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
  5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
  6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
  7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
  8. That no individual — and no group — has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
  9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
  10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.
Let's take the God stuff out of there for a moment, and compare it to another set of principles. I'll use the Unitarian Universalist 7 principles and purposes:

  • The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
  • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
  • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
  • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
  • The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
  • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
  • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
Quite a bit of overlap, if you look at it.

As has been said here earlier, Objectivism is mainly pointed with how to live here, with what is, and each other, in responsible freedom.

It seems to me that where Objectivists often trip up is in their overly- literal and often incomplete understanding of spirituality, what mysticism really is about, and the nature of what faith is and where it comes from. A good place to start on that might be the lectures of William James, particularly "On the Varieties of Religious Experience." There's a number of places to read that work online, one is: http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/james.html .

I find (and I am speaking as a person that has been heavily influenced by Objectivism for about 25 years) that many O'ists are deficient in due dilligence as far as the area of spirituality. It is also worth noting that there is a very large contingent of "religious" folks who are in vigorous disagreement with dogma in general, and the threatening whitebread fundamentalist climate that currently enables majority politics.

It is equally difficult for the faithful and the pure rationalist when they set to argue with one another. More accurately, the faithful is less likely to mount an argument. I'll use James again for this (italics mine):

"Nevertheless, if we look on man's whole mental life as it exists, on the life of men that lies in them apart from their learning and science, and that they inwardly and privately follow, we have to confess that the part of it of which rationalism can give an account is relatively superficial. It is the part that has the prestige undoubtedly, for it has the loquacity, it can challenge you for proofs, and chop logic, and put you down with words. But it will fail to convince or convert you all the same, if your dumb intuitions are opposed to its conclusions. If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. Your whole subconscious life, your impulses, your faiths, your needs, your divinations, have prepared the premises, of which your consciousness now feels the weight of the result; and something in you absolutely knows that that result must be truer than any logic-chopping rationalistic talk, however clever, that may contradict it. This inferiority of the rationalistic level in founding belief is just as manifest when rationalism argues for religion as when it argues against it. That vast literature of proofs of God's existence drawn from the order of nature, which a century ago seemed so overwhelmingly convincing, to-day does little more than gather dust in libraries, for the simple reason that our generation has ceased to believe in the kind of God it argued for. Whatever sort of a being God may be, we know to-day that he is nevermore that mere external inventor of 'contrivances' intended to make manifest his 'glory' in which our great-grandfathers took such satisfaction, though just how we know this we cannot possibly make clear by words either to others or to ourselves. I defy any of you here fully to account for your persuasion that if a God exist he must be a more cosmic and tragic personage than that Being. The truth is that in the metaphysical and religious sphere, articulate reasons are cogent for us only when our inarticulate feelings of reality have already been impressed in favor of the same conclusion. Then, indeed, our intuitions and our reason work together, and great world-ruling systems, like that of the Buddhist or of the Catholic philosophy, may grow up. Our impulsive belief is here always what sets up the original body of truth, and our articulately verbalized philosophy is but its showy translation into formulas. The unreasoned and immediate assurance is the deep thing in us, the reasoned argument is but a surface exhibition. Instinct leads, intelligence does but follow. If a person feels the presence of a living God after the fashion shown by my quotations, your critical arguments, be they never so superior, will vainly set themselves to change his faith."
 
Often, as I have seen here, Objectivists advise Christians that the first and hardest thing to do is lose the fear. True enough, in the cases where they have been exposed to the dogmatic, the fear based, the fundamental, the misinterpreted. But that goes for just about anything, doesn't it?

When a person of faith comes into an Objectivist forum, they are often inexperienced and ill-prepared for the "state your premises" and "provide your evidence" world that they have entered. And, unfortunately, there are some O'ists that are quite impressed with their superiority, their finesse, in that area. That's true in a lot of places- you can find people like that in A.A. meetings- they've trading their addiction (or compulsive behavior, if you wish) for addiction to A.A. itself. That does not really diminish the system itself, though it may make it smell funny to newcomers.  
 
 


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Since Objectivism became a factor that can no longer be overlooked, religious people came up with the following notions:

 

a)      Objectivists do not understand religiosity and spirituality, and

b)      Objectivism is just “another type” of religion

 

I call this “notions” since they do not constitute intellectual arguments under any possible point of view. A notion is a vague thought, a fancy lacking any solid base.

 

Notion a) gives religious people a sensation of being surrounded by a shrine, a make believe of a not existing superiority.

 

Notion b) reveals the desire to escape the intellectual responsibility of having to confront a philosophy based solely on Reason, this in itself constituting an unprecedented phenomenon in history up to the appearance of Objectivism. Hence, the procedure of simply throwing everything into the same pot.

 

Objectivists confronted with the religious mentality immediately recall Ayn Rand’s deep insights revealed in her writing “The Missing Link”. She states there:

 

“The main characteristic of (the anti-conceptual) mentality is a special kind of passivity: not passivity as such and not across-the-board, but passivity beyond a certain limit – i.e. passivity in regard to the process of conceptualization and, therefore, in regard to fundamental principles. It is a mentality which decided, at a certain point of development, that it knows enough and does not care to look further. What does it accept as “enough”? The immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background – “the empiric element of experience”.

 

What is this “immediately given”, this “empiric element of experience”? It is what children and youngsters have been taught by their parents and other elders, by schools and by religionists in general. They hold to what has been implanted into their brains to avoid the shame of being sneered at by others. From there on they refrain from thinking beyond what has been fixed into their mind by what Rand calls “The Comprachicos” procedure. Do they apply reason? Only up to a certain point, to what they absolutely require to survive. Beyond that, they blank out. Robert Bidinotto recently analyzed this with keen precision in a related forum: (http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0472.shtml).

 

With religionists Objectivists have to deal with a mentality that, on the evolutionary ladder, is on a lower level. It’s a mentality that has not reached the state of independent thinking. Hence, religionists entering an Objectivist forum find themselves for the first time in their life facing most difficult adversaries who don’t accept whims, caprices, whim worships, etc. as arguments. Objectivists only accept the hard facts of reality in all their implications and consequences. It is good that this so happens, for when we take a look at history we find that it is nothing but a sad tale of religionists persecuting, torturing and bringing to their untimely death each and all of their possible opponents. Since they lack arguments they kill, forgetting that as well in the past as nowadays and in the future a dead man will never be a man convinced. Their “procedural tactic” reminds us of Rand’s statement: “(They) have been using fear as (their) weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting (their) morality. We (the Objectivists) offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.”

 
Basically there is no need for Objectivists to enter any debate with religiously minded people or even reply to their writings. It is also unnecessary to supply any additional details to induce a change of position in favor of Objectivism. The facts of conviction are here. They are available to anyone wanting to take them. Following Occam’s razor principle it is unnecessary to multiply the facts. Whoever wants to reason can avail himself to the facts presented. After all, those who don’t want to accept the truth cannot be convinced. The fault does not reside on the Objectivist side at all but on those who reject the proofs of reality. This relates, as Ayn Rand showed already, either with a cerebral inadequacy to think or, else, with a barrier set up early in the child’s life by the elders and the existing institutions to hinder the adult from abandoning the mentality induced and accepting, in replacement, the infinitely ample territory of reason with all of its gifts of knowledge and accomplishments.



Post 37

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich Engle,

I do not add an idea to the context I base my decisions on, unless I have verifiable evidence that supports it. That alone differentiates me from a religious person.

Anyways-- welcome to solo. Nice talking with you.

Post 38

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Manfred Schieder writes:

Since Objectivism became a factor that can no longer be overlooked, religious people came up with the following notions:

 

a)      Objectivists do not understand religiosity and spirituality, and

b)      Objectivism is just “another type” of religion
 
Was this intended as a blanket generalization?  Because, if it is, it would be very difficult to prove. Being a religious person, I would say to the first sentence, maybe some religious people- probably so, not me for sure on "b," and with a limiter on "a".  To "a": The range of understanding likely ranges from zero to a hundred miles per hour. To b: Definitely not, it is a philosophy for living that does not address spirituality per se. That would be goofy to say- Rand was an atheist. But, see, I'm a Unitarian Universalist- we have atheists attending our churches. If you can figure out the why to that one, it's easy to understand what a spiritual atheist is. 
 
Actually, that all being said, I'm looking up there at it, and it looks like a...notion!
 
With religionists Objectivists have to deal with a mentality that, on the evolutionary ladder, is on a lower level. It’s a mentality that has not reached the state of independent thinking.
 
Hmmm... "You shall be measured by the measure by which you measure, and it shall be added to you." :) I'm religious, and last time I checked, my independent thinking skills were just fine, thank you very much...  That is a very superior way of looking a people- dismissing them as lower levels of humanity. And, of course, another generalization. But, thanks for looking out for me in advance... :) I guess I just "shut down" and decided I had looked far enough. Oddly enough, I've heard the same statement leveled at O'ists. Suprising the attention and praise given in O'ist circles for evolutionarily-challenged thinkers like Thomas Jefferson, for instance. They usually do have the good sense to stay away from Emerson and the other Transcendentalists, though...
 
What is this “immediately given”, this “empiric element of experience”? It is what children and youngsters have been taught by their parents and other elders
 
I never got any of that handed over. I must've missed that day. Or, maybe I'm repressing. Between the repressing, and the evolutionary lowness, I'm thinking it's time to sink some hot lead into my head...
 
Lots of organized religion is filled with fear and hatred. I find right-wing Fundamentalist as flawed and as miserable as I do Kant (ever read how much AR loved Kant? ;). My enemies are the same as any freethinking, tolerant man.  Lots of organized religion is filled with Orthodoxy and dogma. O'ism has its own equally miserable factions.
 
It is entirely possible to be a rational spiritual person. You don't have to call it religion. Call it sense of life. Remember, not all religious people are deists, for one thing.
 
And, you are right when you say there is no burden on Objectivists to debate with or reply to the writings of religious people. You know you can't convince them via written or spoken logic (but for a different reason than you give). More importantly, why would you trouble yourself with lower life-forms? Dialogue is pointless with such creatures. Also, it keeps you from having to push into other areas of inquiry.
 
 
 
 


Post 39

Monday, May 23, 2005 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean Gores writes:

I do not add an idea to the context I base my decisions on, unless I have verifiable evidence that supports it. That alone differentiates me from a religious person.

Anyways-- welcome to solo. Nice talking with you.

 
And nice talking with you as well!

I know you don't. Neither do I.

But (and conventional language gets lacking and tricky here, I'm not dodging), like many people who have had what you might call mystical or consciousness-altering moments (not dirty or irrational terms in areas outside of O'ism), I view the subject/object experience entirely differently, and also know it changed how I experience life, and how life experiences me, on the whole. It is literally impossible to accurately convey that to another person, even someone who has had a similar event. Call me a pragmatist. My evidence lies within change of internal state, and in the external changes that followed. That's evidence. It is a paradigm shift incomparable in magnitude to anything else. The nature of religious experience is not about talking snakes, and all that other fun stuff. Fundamentalists, for instance, remind me of people that read poetry like it was a piece of prose- they lose all the music in between the lines. The problems that many spiritual people share with yes, even Objectivists, often come from people that don't understand that metaphors aren't literal, they are metaphors. When people wrap themselves around the metaphor, that's where the trouble starts. There are good places to look for a better understanding of the spiritual perspective, rather than simply writing it off un-researched. Joseph Campbell is good. William James works to a great extent. Jung. Gurdjieff is worth looking at.






Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.