Benevolent Universe

Robert D,

Not exactly true about atheism being irrelevant to philosophy if you get rid of cosmology.

The problem is epistemological, not metaphysical. Faith versus reason. That's the problem and that's philosophy.

Michael

Post 141

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:56pm

Michael,

Issues of faith would simply be absorbed into questions of irrationality in general, subsumed into discussions of UFOs and psychics. There would be no concern with man's creation, why are we here, or which banger created the universe.

Post 142

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:03pm

On page 426 of OPAR, Leonard Piekoff discusses sense of life and mentions benevolent universe and malevolent universe. If a man characteristically chooses to be mentally active, he will be led to a sense of efficacy and optimism that the universe is benevolent. But, if a man gives himself up to chance, he will be led to a feeling of helplessness and that the universe is malevolent.

Post 143

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:22pm

Robert D,

I don't think you understood what I was saying, nor what Rand was implying.

Philosophy is for human beings, not spirits or other imaginary creatures. Not even some gigantic "world view" that would be pure metaphysics divorced from man's awareness.

Human beings use reason to identify reality. The only way to affirm the existence of God as an objective fact is by negating reason and using faith.

Thus the question of a faith-based God is a "question of irrationality in general." Not at all irrelevant to a philosophy of reason..

Michael

Post 144

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 4:25pm

Michael Perel,

Welcome to Solo and thank you for that observation from OPAR. It shows the psycho-epistemological component of the term quite well.

//;-)

Michael

Post 145

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:46pm

Damn. Stepped away for a long weekend in Pensacola to watch the Blue Angels and all of this took place.

I'll have to look back to see which post it was, but Jason did an excellent job and concisely condensed what could have been an article into a single paragraph.

MSK has also had some valiant posts in this fight, which have been unanswered.

Side-stepping and subversion are the usual terms that fit the creationists here on SOLO and everywhere else they crop up.

Post 146

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 7:49am

Michael,

You simply don't know what you are talking about, but I wish you did if that is any comfort.

Post 147

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 7:57am

Robert,

Apparently you can't read too well. I posted a whole passage by Rand that you blanked out - and it said practically the same thing that I did.

You give me no comfort - nor hardly any inconvenience either. Just minor talk along the way in life. Shooting the shit with someone who doesn't matter.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/14, 7:59am)

Post 148

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:00am

There is the side stepping and subversion Jody is refering to above. Good work Davison. On this particular topic MSK knows exactly what he's talking about. If you want to engage in rationalizations and speculation about this or that "god" you are welcome to do so but you must understand that the genius of Rand's system is that is provides a label to such speculation -- it is called "the arbitrary" and it is not a part of Objectivism and provides no utility whatsoever.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 11/14, 8:02am)

Post 149

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 9:36am

Jason,

What you fail to understand is that I have been studying Rand for 40 years, you for what 2?

Michael, posing on his chin like the Thinker, writes "what Rand implies..." bullshit, Rand doesn't imply. He paraphrases her constantly pretending the thoughts are his own, because he can't work it out himself. Neither of you can sort out whether, at this point in the conversation, we are posting about philsophy with or without cosmology.

It is good to be an atheist, but only if you know why. Because Rand said so is not a sufficient reason.

Speaking of missing things you must have missed "�I said that religious abstractions are the product of man�s mind, not of supernatural revelation".AR, because you are both using the word mysticism or arbitrary like a crucifix before a vampire.

While I am at let me repeat a Jefferson quote for you:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

In other words, kids, Rand's ideas do not substitute for your own, no matter how much of genius she was. Anyone who thinks she worked it all out to spare him the effort of thought, is a fool.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/14, 9:57am)

Post 150

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 10:09am

"It is good to be an atheist, but only if you know why."

No, the question is why would you be anything else?

Post 151

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 10:18am

Robert you are the grand master of tossing in personal attacks and subtle diversions when you are on the ropes. Lets stick to the topic at hand.

"Neither of you can sort out whether, at this point in the conversation, we are posting about philsophy with or without cosmology."

Don't try to hide your own ignorance by asserting mine. It won't work. Let me explain the issue to you again. When the perceptual evidence is not present allowing us to infer an answer to a question we cannot simply invent an answer to suit our purposes. Philosophy (properly utilized) provides the integration parameters it does not provide answers by itself in a vaccuum. Rational thought needs to be grounded in a set of facts. When we ask the question "How did the universe come to be?" Or "Has the universe always existed?" answering with a vauge, definitionless superbeing called "god" is an intellectual foul and has to be swept aside. Inserting such an answer is arbitrary because there is zero perceptual evidence of this "god" and thus attempts to build a system on this basis is silly and fruitless. Philosophy simply integrates our scientific knowledge about the cosmos it should not run a step ahead of that knowledge and attempt to create the answers on its own.

If this isn't good enough for you there are plenty of philosophers and philosophical systems that will allow you to engage in elaborate arbitrary masturbation. Here is a list to get started with.

Pythagoras
Plato
Plotinus
St. Augustine
Aquinas
Descartes
Kant

After 40 years of Rand maybe it is time for you to move on to a less reality grounded philosophical hero. There are countless numbers of rationalists and mystics of all shapes and colors that will fit your needs. Let me know if you want more names. I suspect at this point you will come back with some snide comment about my age, or some irrelivent quote from Thomas Jefferson and will avoid dealing with the meat of my arguments. If you do this though who will be the real fool, you or I?

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 11/14, 10:21am)

Post 152

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:15am

Jason,

I guess you are because you can't see that I agree with you. You continually look for a problem where none exists. As to your list I can converse with you about any of them.

Post 153

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 1:04pm

To quote Rand again (from that journal entry above),

"Cosmology" has to be thrown out of philosophy.

and

"Existence exists" (or identity plus causality) is all there is to metaphysics. All the rest is epistemology.

I wonder what part of that is vague.

Now to quote Robert D

If you toss cosmology out of philosophy, you would'nt have to deal with questions of God at all. Atheism would be irrelevant in such a system.

I certainly don't remember Rand ever saying that atheism is "irrelevant" to her philosophy. (Objectivism does not have anything on cosmology that I remember.)

But then Rober D shows his massive powers of integration and irrefutable logic.

Michael, posing on his chin like the Thinker, writes "what Rand implies..." bullshit, Rand doesn't imply.

Gonna have to do some heavy thinking on that theory of the categorical chin fallacy. I'm having an awful hard time integrating my chin to cosmology.

//;-)

Michael

Post 154

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 1:25pm

Gee guys, from now on we have to be careful about the words we use on SOLO, because our words, even though they are used in a certain context might offend some people who use that word in other ways. In fact we should reconsider even using words like toaster in the fashion that we normally use them.  From what I understand the Relativistic Humanitarian Church uses this word instead in the place of microwave and even though SOLO is an Objectivist website we have to (somehow) be able to encompass into our definitions their meaning of these words too.

The literal, contextual use of words is offensive and simple minded and should be avoided. Instead our posts should contain irrelivant, superflous, trivial thoughts intermixed with petty pot shots against those who take rational discussion and the clear, contextual use of words seriously.

There are basic things that all people have in common ("happiness," for example). You don't have to chop logic.

Your post up here above me, observe the tone. Mocking, it is. Does mocking make you happy?

I wouldn't know about the Relativistic Humanitarian Church, other than that to guess you are making fun of my church, possibly. I think you have played with that toy before. To my knowledge there is no such church.  I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist church, and that is not the same thing, now, is it? Your use of that kind of thing is childlike, it is a reaction, not a thought. Perhaps you should play by your own rules, which most likely include manners, if they are civilized ones. To do otherwise, I think, makes you a hypocrite. I will say it again more simply: the word "God" is used in vastly different ways across the world. If you don't like that fact, I am so sorry, but it is so.

Post 155

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 2:40pm

Rich -- My post was designed to show that your critiques of the way we use words are superflous. Your strange concern over our definition of the word mysticism is the main example. When people use it here on SOLO we mean certain thing. Robert Davison actually gave the definition in post 102 in his attempt to argue that deism doesn't qualify as mysticism. Instead of keeping to the context of the discussion you decided to remind us once again that you dislike the way we use this word and imply that instead you want us to use your definition (or your church's definition) of it. Of course you still refuse to explain to us why we should use your definition.

The word god is generally used to denote a definitionless being that is outside of what we know as existence. This being is the supposed creator of the universe whom we are supposed to worship. This is the way in which the word is commonly used in Christian churches and among the Muslim and Jewish faiths. Using the word to denote "existence" is very much like deciding to use toaster in place of microwave and then complaining that we are not using the word in the way that this or that group uses it.

As far as me mocking you -- I think my mocking of you is well deserved after post 104 in this thread in which you mocked "students of Ayn Rand's system" without providing any legitimate reason for doing so. I don't intend to continue with this unless you post something similar again. If you do and I am in the mood for it I will respond in kind.

- Jason

Post 156

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:40pm

Michael

If you toss cosmology out of philosophy, you would'nt have to deal with questions of God at all. Atheism would be irrelevant in such a system.

I certainly don't remember Rand ever saying that atheism is "irrelevant" to her philosophy. (Objectivism does not have anything on cosmology that I remember.)

At least quote me completely I also said issues of faith would become questions of irrationality in general, subsumed into discussions of UFOs and psychics. There would be no concern with man's creation, why are we here, or which banger created the universe.

Cosmology deals with deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe. Without the issue of origin or creator there would be no need to talk about God, we could argue about the existence of ghosts instead.

Post 157

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:50pm

Tim,

Ask Locke, Voltaire, Jefferson, founders et al. They were not traditionalists or fools and they were not superstitious. They found a reason. It is an interesting puzzle.

Post 158

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 5:06pm

Robert,

Then I may presume that you consider one of the central fundaments of Objectivism, i.e., atheism, to be irrelevant.

Correct?

Just getting a bead on your thinking.

Michael

Post 159

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:58am