To be an O'ist, do you have to be an Atheist?

[EC]

Also, how exactly can you be "adherent" to the ethics of two different philosophies?

I think what he means, and FC can correct me if I'm wrong is that the two ethics aren't mutually exclusive. Objectivism subsumes Aristotles' ethics and improves upon it; it doesn't negate his ethics. Another way to think about this is when Einstein introduced special relativity it showed that Newton's classical mechanics was just a low energy limit to relativity, and classical mechanics still held up in every day situations.

[JMeganSnow]

You agree with Aristotle's Ethics? Well and good. What about his metaphysics? Epistemology? Personally, I like his Esthetics.

I have read very, very few books that I was unable to identify with at least a little. Those were pretty awful books. Likewise, it would have to be a pretty awful philosophy to not contain at least ONE worthwhile idea.

What I have been saying (and not very well in the first post) was that, before Ayn Rand, you could not go down to the bookstore, pick up a book on philosophy, and have in your hands an entire, comprehensible philosophy for living a happy life on this earth. You could obtain volumes of useful information, but it was scattered across a hundred books and mixed with so much absolute GARBAGE that the process of separating the gold from the muck would daunt ANYONE.

Ayn Rand did that, then added the one necessary thing to make it all fit together. Voila, a complete, functional philosophy . . . if one's goals are happiness and living on this earth.

I did not EVER claim that everyone in history has been unhappy; you supplied that on your own. I claimed, and I repeat myself, that they did not KNOW (i.e. have fully, conceptually integrated) the entirety of the philosophy that is necessary FOR happiness. They may have acted on it. They may have been very happy. However, most likely (I'd say certainly but maybe someone somewhere repeated Ayn Rand's intellectual feat of conceptual integration and never published it) their avowed philosophy (and not "sense of life", philosophy) contained some contradictions, which, if they had acted on them fully and consistently would have made them very unhappy indeed.

It is this breach between thought and action, however tiny, that means they were not acting with FULL, EXPLICIT conceptual understanding and renders their happiness, at least in part, an "accident". Was it completely an accident? No. But any flaw in one's philosophy leaves one open to the chance that, faced with a choice, you will have to act on or against an internal contradiction, which introduces an element of randomness to your life.

The random, the accidental . . . these are not desirable to a human, they are not characteristics of man acting at his best, most efficient, and most effective.

[heizeus]

Also, Objectivists reject faith. If you believe in a god based on faith, then your epistemology is not in line with Objectivism. And if you cling to the arbitrary in the face of irrefutable logic against your god's existence, then you reject reason as your only source of knowledge, which is also contrary to Objectivism.

I consider myself agnostic because I haven't seen enough proof of the existence of a god, nor have I seen the "irrefutable logic against [God's] existence." You can't prove that what we know of as the universe isn't just some fishbowl of an enormous giant. (Or can you?) Doesn't mean that you should believe in it, but of course it's possible. It seems like atheism requires a leap of faith since you are saying you know that there is no such thing as a supernatural Daddy. Agnosticism is more like the scientific stance where you say, "I have not seen proof of this so I can't support it as a valid theory."

[TetrisGod]

You can't prove that what we know of as the universe isn't just some fishbowl of an enormous giant.  (Or can you?)

Actually, I agree. We can't prove it. But I also can't prove that little gremlins are hiding under my feet and force me to go everywhere, but that you can't see them because invisible and can't touch them. You can't PROVE such ideas because they are arbitrary. They are outside knowledge, and therefor on the scale of knowledge (false, possible, probable, certain) they aren't even on it. Such an idea is ARBITRARY and should be immediatly dismissed.

[TomL]

Actually, I agree.  We can't prove it. 

Even more than that. Not only can we not prove it, it doesn't have one iota of bearing on one's life. If such a thing were proven to be true, what would it change? Would you suddenly stop wanting to be happy? Would the facts of existence alter, inverting gravity and flinging us all out into space suddenly from the mere realization of it?

If you wish to conjure up fictional god and super fish bowls, fine. Tell me exactly how their existence would change anything about how I live my life, and I'll listen.

The fact is, even if such things are true, nothing else we know about the universe will change as a result of it. So the rest of reality, including life, death, and the nature of man, all remain the same in the face of such "possibilities" (even thought they aren't, actually, since there's no evidence to even suggest it).

I'm still going to live my life the same way, the only way that is possible to me, in the best way I can manage with what is given to me by reality.

In that context, the context of human life in this universe, any such imaginative question is pointless, and any supposed answer to it is useless. That is why is it arbitrary, and warrants no consideration.

Edited February 25, 2005 by TomL

[BurgessLau]

Doesn't mean that you should believe in it, but of course it's possible.

"A conclusion is 'possible' if there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of it, and nothing known that contradicts it." (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 176.)

So, what is your evidence that the universe is a giant's fishbowl?

[JMeganSnow]

I consider myself agnostic because I haven't seen enough proof of the existence of a god, nor have I seen the "irrefutable logic against [God's] existence." 

You haven't seen enough proof? You've seen SOME, then? What is it?

[Cole]

I consider myself agnostic because I haven't seen enough proof of the existence of a god, nor have I seen the "irrefutable logic against [God's] existence."  You can't prove that what we know of as the universe isn't just some fishbowl of an enormous giant.  (Or can you?)  Doesn't mean that you should believe in it, but of course it's possible.  It seems like atheism requires a leap of faith since you are saying you know that there is no such thing as a supernatural Daddy.  Agnosticism is more like the scientific stance where you say, "I have not seen proof of this so I can't support it as a valid theory."

"Agnostic" is a popular stance to take these days- especially among intellectual hipsters (I'm not saying is necessarily the case with you).

However, most people use the word "agnostic" to refer to something that is irrational. They use it to imply that there exists a middle ground between theism and atheism. When in reality, there can be no middle ground. Everybody is either a theist or an atheist. This may sound like a surprising claim at first, but think about it.

[heizeus]

However, most people use the word "agnostic" to refer to something that is irrational. They use it to imply that there exists a middle ground between theism and atheism. When in reality, there can be no middle ground. Everybody is either a theist or an atheist. This may sound like a surprising claim at first, but think about it.

What's irrational about saying, "I don't know and I don't care"? When it comes to arbitrary questions where there is no proof one way or the other, why bother thinking of them? I don't give a sh*t (what's the stance on profanity here?) whether someone believes in a Sky Daddy or Gremlins or Fairies as long as it doesn't interfere with me. It's when they try to put a monument up on public land that it becomes something I think about and then just to say, "No monument."

I see no harm in keeping my mind open to a paradigm shift. Do I think it's likely that someone can prove the existence of God? No. Am I ready to hear what those people have to say? Sure. I have the suspicion that there's more going on in the world that science can't explain yet, and some of these unexplained phenomena will be explained some day. There are billions of people who believe in something supernatural, and maybe they are touching on something we just don't have an explanation for yet. Before science made it possible to see germs, people thought they were demons. So strange coincidences that seem meaningful and visions of dead people or whatever it is, maybe all these are tied to something that only seems mystical because we don't have the means to fully perceive it at the moment.

Now things like creationism, where they believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and other BS, no go for me. They have to go through a lot of mental hoops to hold onto these beliefs. If someone believed that God snapped his finger and that started the Big Bang billions of years ago, sure. I don't care. As long as it doesn't affect me, you can believe there's some f*cking invisible monster pulling our strings.

I think the flaw in thinking is those who are too dogmatic. If you are a devout Atheist, you are just being dogmatic about your unbeliefs. I never understood Atheist clubs where they get together and talk about how God doesn't exist. What a waste of time: The Anti-Church.

Edited February 25, 2005 by heizeus

[Cole]

What's irrational about saying, "I don't know and I don't care"?

You misconstrued what I actually said. What I actually said (make sure you comprehend what was said before you attempt to comment on it) was that the reason why the common notion of "agnostic" is irrational is because it refers to somebody being neither theist nor atheist- and that isn't possible. Everybody is either a theist or an atheist. There is no middle ground.

When it comes to arbitrary questions where there is no proof one way or the other, why bother thinking of them?

It's not a matter of "questions" here. It's a matter of allegations to the truth. A theist is somebody who holds a belief in God. An atheist is somebody who is without theism, or, somebody who is without a belief in God.

If you feel that there is a middle ground between these two catagories (I'm assuming you do, since you called yourself "agnostic"), then please give me an example of how somebody could be neither a theist nor an atheist. Describe to me how it is possible to neither believe in something nor not believe in it.

I see no harm in keeping my mind open to a paradigm shift....

At this point you begin to babble on about subjects that don't relate to anything I said.

[TomL]

What's irrational about saying, "I don't know and I don't care"? 

You don't live in a vacuum, or on a deserted island, so you don't get to not care. Plus, if you didn't care, you wouldn't be reading this thread and you definitely wouldn't be posting in it

Besides, accepting the existence of god(s) or not has very real consequences for the individual. You will live your life differently, utilizing different premises, depending on which way you go. Those who accept god(s) live for the afterlife, to please their god(s), etc... whereas, those who reject the notion live for this life, in this universe, on this planet.

And you know this, so to claim that you don't care means that you don't care if you live your life by any particular principles whatsoever. We are talking about the choice of the primary purpose of one's life -- and to say you don't care about that leaves you twisting in the wind, directionless and with no ultimate goal to seek. In this regard I have far more respect for consistent, principled theists than drifting, uncertain, unprincipled, fuzzily-brained agnostics.

When it comes to arbitrary questions where there is no proof one way or the other, why bother thinking of them?  I don't give a sh*t (what's the stance on profanity here?) whether someone believes in a Sky Daddy or Gremlins or Fairies as long as it doesn't interfere with me.

There's the rub. It always interferes with you to the extent to which the theist lives his life by his religion's principles. Most are heavily compartmentalized, but there is some negative effect, always.

I have the suspicion that there's more going on in the world that science can't explain yet, and some of these unexplained phenomena will be explained some day.

That's more than a suspicion, its a fact. Otherwise, we'd have a cure for every disease now known and yet to evolve, forever (as an example). The theists always argue "by design", and its getting old, at least for me. The false dichotomy of universe by design or universe by chance throws the truth out the window as a non-option. That truth (and the option they do not consider) is: the law of causality.

There are billions of people who believe in something supernatural

If billions of people jumped off a cliff, would you jump?

Good, then don't. Because they are, they just don't know it.

Before science made it possible to see germs, people thought they were demons.  So strange coincidences that seem meaningful and visions of dead people or whatever it is, maybe all these are tied to something that only seems mystical because we don't have the means to fully perceive it at the moment.

For someone who "doesn't give a sh*t", you sure put a lot of effort into thinking about this

I think the flaw in thinking is those who are too dogmatic.  If you are a devout Atheist, you are just being dogmatic about your unbeliefs.

Dogmatism is bad, to be certain. You'll get no argument from Objectivists on that point.

However, our atheism is not dogmatic. We do not have a list of things we must believe, that includes atheism. There is no "10 commandments of Objectivism". There isn't even one commandment.

The fact is that while you can't prove a negative, and hence cannot prove that god(s) do not exist, you can validate it by comparison to all other knowledge gained by starting with the statement "existence exists" and going forward rationally from there (i.e. Objectivism).

For example: if god(s) exist, then existence does not have primacy over consciousness, and all conclusions based upon that premise (just about all knowledge, including the concept "proof"!) are all actually flawed.

[TomL]

Describe to me how it is possible to neither believe in something nor not believe in it.

You can reserve drawing a conclusion until sufficient evidence is obtained to order to be reasonably certain you are making the right choice. I do this every day, and so does every human being I've ever met.

This doesn't mean you can avoid drawing a conclusion forever, though. You still have to choose if you want to move forward, and this is such a basic question with such far-reaching consequences to one's life that most people actually make the choice implicitly, even if they are explicitly "undecided".

[heizeus]

I've always thought of Atheists as the people I mentioned earlier, with a devout, dogmatic view of the non-existence of God. To me, that's as silly as its opposite. When defined in the dichotomy of "believes" or "doesn't believe," then I'm surely an Atheist. But I'm always open to be proven wrong.

For someone who "doesn't give a sh*t", you sure put a lot of effort into thinking about this

I like to think about abstractions.

Edited February 25, 2005 by heizeus

[Atlas]

You misconstrued what I actually said. What I actually said (make sure you comprehend what was said before you attempt to comment on it) was that the reason why the common notion of "agnostic" is irrational is because it refers to somebody being neither theist nor atheist- and that isn't possible. Everybody is either a theist or an atheist. There is no middle ground.

It's not a matter of "questions" here. It's a matter of allegations to the truth. A theist is somebody who holds a belief in God. An atheist is somebody who is without theism, or, somebody who is without a belief in God.

If you feel that there is a middle ground between these two catagories (I'm assuming you do, since you called yourself "agnostic"), then please give me an example of how somebody could be neither a theist nor an atheist. Describe to me how it is possible to neither believe in something nor not believe in it.

At this point you begin to babble on about subjects that don't relate to anything I said.

Call it what you want, but its a valid argument.

All of the following come from dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic  (g-nstk)

n.

1.      a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

          b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Quite different from...

a·the·ism (th-zm)

n.

1.      a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

        b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2.      Godlessness; immorality.

the·ism   (thzm)

n.

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Simply applying an "either-or" condition to your argument does not refute the ideas that agnosticism expresses. The way I see it, agnosticism is a tangent that Huxley derived from the ideas of theism and atheism, and expanded it into his own interpretation. How can you, through reason, arrive at a conclusion that your lack of beliefs in the existence of a god (or gods) is true? You do not believe in god, therefore it must be true that a god does not exist? This is how I see your argument, and it simply isn't true. By observing definiton "b" as stated above in the agnostic entry, one must refer to the definition of atheism, as stated in the definition. By the stated definition of atheism, atheism is one who holds the doctrine that there is no god (or gods).

[Free Capitalist]

I think what he means, and FC can correct me if I'm wrong is that the two ethics aren't mutually exclusive. Objectivism subsumes Aristotles' ethics and improves upon it

I know what you're trying to say; however, Objectivist ethics don't entirely subsume Aristotle's, and make the latter irrelevant. There is a significant overlap, particularly in the fundamentals, but Aristotle covers some things AR doesn't, and similarly she covers things he doesn't. It would be wrong to say that Ayn Rand covers everything important from Aristotle, and as I've said in other places, there are things I have found in Aristotle that I sorely wished Ayn Rand would talk about. Edited February 25, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Cole]

You can reserve drawing a conclusion until sufficient evidence is obtained to order to be reasonably certain you are making the right choice.  I do this every day, and so does every human being I've ever met.

Reserving drawing a conclusion doesn't exclude you from that which is described by one of the two terms. If your inability to draw a conclusion results in you not having a positive belief in God, then you are an atheist.

Consider this example;

A man is born onto a deserted island. He never even hears of the concept of God, let alone holds a belief in God. This man is an atheist. He is without theism (a positive belief in God).

(My use of the word "positive" in this response doesn't mean "certain" or "good". It is used to differentiate between "theism," which is a postive claim, and "atheism," which describes a negative.)

[Cole]

Call it what you want, but its a valid argument.

No, the argument was out of context. It didn't respond to what I said. I was criticizing "agnosticism" as the position that there is a middle-ground between theism and atheist, which isn't true.

All of the following come from dictionary.com:

This, too, is out of context. I mentioned multiple times that I was criticizing the definition of "agnosticism" as used by most people. As I explained, this definition is different than the one you felt the need to quote from the dictionary. If the point you were trying to make is that the definition of "agnocticism" that most people use is different than the one in the dictionary, then I agree. But this was not my argument. If you want to disprove the argument I actually made, instead of making straw-men, then you can prove how it is possible for somebody to be neither a theist nor an atheist.

Simply applying an "either-or" condition to your argument does not refute the ideas that agnosticism expresses.

I wasn't merely "applying" the condition. The existence of the condition is the entirety of my argument. And again- I was never attempting to refute the definition as it is written in the dictionary. I expressed the usage of the term "agnosticism" that I was refuting (as it is commonly used). Altering my premises to the point that they no longer support the conclusion I made, showing that the new premises do not support the conclusion, and then declaring me wrong is fallacious logic.

The way I see it, agnosticism is a tangent that Huxley derived from the ideas of theism and atheism, and expanded it into his own interpretation.

Once again- my argument is focused on the term as it is most commonly used. I pointed out the definition in question, and why it is irrational. The fact that you see the definition as being something different is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't prove anything I have said to be wrong, because my argument wasn't focused on the definition as you see it.

How can you, through reason, arrive at a conclusion that your lack of beliefs in the existence of a god (or gods) is true?

What is the question? How do I know that it's true that I lack a belief in God? How do I know that God doesn't exist?

You do not believe in god, therefore it must be true that a god does not exist? This is how I see your argument, and it simply isn't true.

No, I never said anything like that. I never said that the fact that I don't believe in God proves that God doesn't exist. That is subjectivism. I don't understand why you would see my argument that way. Please quote me from when I said that reality is subjective and that my disbelief in God proves that God doesn't exist.

It would be more beneficial if you responded to direct quotes of mine. That way my argument can be shown as it really is, instead of as it is after being mangled by your poor cognitive skils.

By the stated definition of atheism, atheism is one who holds the doctrine that there is no god (or gods).

I disagree with this definition. I derive the definition from a more etymological standpoint, instead of a mere quote of the dictionary. The word "theism" means "the belief in God," and the preffix "a" means "without."

Using the proper definition, a person doesn't even have to have heard of God in order to be an atheist (as shown in my deserted island example).

Objectivists are no strangers to using definitions that are rational yet different than those listed in the dictionary.

[BurgessLau]

Ayn Rand was not an originator of this sense of life, and she herself often confessed that her original motive fuel was the last remnant of the Western heroic ideal from the 19th and early 20 century, which was inherited from the Enlightenment, which emerged from the Rennaissance, which was sparked exclusively and without exception by the millenium of ancient civilization that by then had become just a memory. In fact Ayn Rand many times said that her primary intention in life was to be a transmission belt of this sense of life to the future generations.

[bold added for emphasis.]

What are some examples of passages where she said this?

[heizeus]

Call it what you want, but its a valid argument.

Thank you. According to the everyday usage of the definitions, I'm agnostic. According to the either-or dichotomy that has been presented here, I'm atheist. Semantics.

[Styles2112]

You draw the distinction between reading many books and drawing facts from reality - ignoring the enormously ominous deductive and dogmatic implications of that statement - in this discussion the books are the facts of reality.

You know what's scary, is I've heard eerily similar statements from fundamentalist christians.

[redfarmer]

Thank you.  According to the everyday usage of the definitions, I'm agnostic.  According to the either-or dichotomy that has been presented here, I'm atheist.  Semantics.

Your "semantics" are what create misunderstandings and cause wars. For example, the "everyday" definition of selfishness is stepping on other people's toes in order to get what you want. Of course, this is neither the dictionary definition nor the logical definition of the word. However, I have been told many times that the ideas of Objectivism lead to the "Enrons of the world" because people don't logically understand their terms.

To quote from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

An objective definition, valid for all men, is one that designates the essential distinguishing characteristic(s) and genus of the existents subsumed under a given concept--according to all the relevant knowledge available at that stage of mankind's development.

So what is the genus of the concept "agnosticism?" We cannot classify agnosticism with atheism and theism easily because those two are systems of belief (or non-belief). They are antonyms to each other. Agnosticism does not profess to know or not know something. It is not a "system of knowledge" like atheism and theism are.

You see, agnosticism comes from the philosophy of Skepticism, the philosophy which holds that nothing can be proven or disproven. So, we can define agnosticism as "the belief that knowledge is beyond the range of the human mind." Why did I choose this definition? Essentially, that is the epistemeolgical judgement that an agnostic makes when he allows the arbitrary into the realm of cognition.

If your friend told you that gremlins were stealing his food, you would not say, "Well, I can't disprove you, so I will keep an open mind in the matter." The arbitrary must be dismissed out of hand. You cannot just say, "I don't know." Remember, in logic, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You don't have to disprove every superstition which comes along to not believe in it.

In summary, definitions should be obtained objectively and logically and should not be accepted simply because of "common usage" or usage in the dictionary.

Further reading: Leonard Peikoff has two good articles on atheism and agnosticism in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. You also may wish to read the article on "Open Mind" and "Closed Mind."

[Styles2112]

From what I can tell, you don't need to be an atheist to be an objectivist. You only need to throw the notion that God/ higher power/supernatural has anything to do with your life.

I like a lot of these ideas, but subscribing to only one philosophy, and only one set of books is really no different from religion. Maybe I missed something in those books, but I don't live my life according to Ayn Rand, I live it according to me.

[Cole]

Thank you.  According to the everyday usage of the definitions, I'm agnostic.  According to the either-or dichotomy that has been presented here, I'm atheist.  Semantics.

Do you not disagree that everybody is either a theist or an atheist? That "agnostic" may be a description, but it is not a category seperate from theism or atheism?

If you think it's a false dichotomy then tell me why.

[redfarmer]

From what I can tell, you don't need to be an atheist to be an objectivist.  You only need to throw the notion that God/ higher power/supernatural has anything to do with your life. 

Your statement is completely incorrect. You do need to be an atheist in order to be an Objectivist. The belief in a god is completely contradictory to many of the tenents of Objectivism, which has been pointed out many times on this thread.

I like a lot of these ideas, but subscribing to only one philosophy, and only one set of books is really no different from religion.  Maybe I missed something in those books, but I don't live my life according to Ayn Rand, I live it according to me.

Well, your essential attitude is a good one to have, but how is believing one philosophy no different from religion? Can you believe in Kant and Aristotle at the same time?

The dichotomy you seem to not be making is between your own philosophy and those of others. Every man has his own philosophy. Ayn Rand called hers "Objectivism." (This should be spelled with a capital "O" by the way.) You have the choice to rationally prove or disprove her philosophy or to evade the subject completly. Those of us who are Objectivists have rationally evaluated her philosophy and believe it to be correct on all essential points. However, we don't close ourselves to any further progress. For example, Leonard Peikoff is currently working on some theories in induction which could revolutionize our understanding of it. These theories will no doubt be valuable to Objectivists. However, his theories will not be a part of Objectivism because they are a part of his philosophy, not Ayn Rand's.

[Cole]

From what I can tell, you don't need to be an atheist to be an objectivist.  You only need to throw the notion that God/ higher power/supernatural has anything to do with your life. 

What do you mean when you use the term "Objectivism"? (I'll capitalize it, because I'm assumg that's what you meant.) It would seem that you use the term to refer to something other than "the philosophy of Ayn Rand."

How do you hold a belief in the supernatural without rejecting Objectivist metaphysics?