Believing in God, but not acting on it

[Julian]

*** Mod's note: Split from another topic - sN ***

How will you resolve the contradiction of reason and religion? There is no room for supernatural beliefs in the Objectivist philosophy.

I know. I'm not ruling atheism out just yet. I just started reading the Virtue of Selfishness, and I've been really questioning religion lately. I'm only 17, so I've allocated myself this year to pull myself together.

There's one thing that I don't quite understand yet though. An objectivist doesn't let emotions guide him, but still lets himself have emotions. Is there not a contradiction between emotion and reason? Couldn't I believe in a Creator, but just not let those beliefs guide me?

In my last post, I was thinking more along the lines of writing an Objectivist critique of it. I have only seen decent Objectivist critiques of Christianity. The ones on Islam are incomplete and unconvincing.

Edited October 8, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added split-topic annotiation

[softwareNerd]

I know. I'm not ruling atheism out just yet. I just started reading the Virtue of Selfishness, and I've been really questioning religion lately. I'm only 17, so I've allocated myself this year to pull myself together.

Welcome to the forum. Honest questioning of oneself is all anyone can expect. Take your time.

There's one thing that I don't quite understand yet though. An objectivist doesn't let emotions guide him, but still lets himself have emotions. Is there not a contradiction between emotion and reason? Couldn't I believe in a Creator, but just not let those beliefs guide me?

Yes, I think one could believe in a creator, but draw zero inferences from that belief. However, the moment one makes some assumption about the Creator's intent, it would have an inference for action. Religions conceive of a Creator as a consciousness, as opposed to a non-living, unconscious entity or force. When one thinks of a Creator in that way -- as a consciousness -- it's pretty hard not to ascribe some intent, as in: "He created the universe, in order to... <fill in the blanks>".

If one did not take the route that religions do, but instead took the view that there is a creator consciousness, but this fellow does not care whether we kill people or love them, does not care if we blow up the world or cultivate it, and so on (i.e. a creator who doesn't give a damn), then the belief would have no implication for action, and therefore no significant consequence to your life. In other words, it would be quite a pointless belief.

Such a stance would be a type of "Deism". Some founding fathers held beliefs like this. However, they faced the basic conundrum that all deists face: if morality does not come from God, then how do we decide right from wrong? If one conceives of God as being so disinterested or so inscrutable, one has to throw any hope of deriving a morality from God.

Your analogy with emotions is interesting. I think it holds in one sense: one has to figure out the truth about the world, using reason rather than emotions. However, while emotions are not tools of cognition, they still are useful tools (and often fun tools) for humans. I cannot think of a really good analogy to compare the emotion-reason question to the God-Atheism question, but here's a not-so-good analogy. Suppose people believed that Calculus would help us derive morality. Now, one might reject that, but also point out that Calculus remains useful in some other human endeavor. Similarly, emotions are good, even if they aren't tools of cognition.

In contrast, any belief that has zero implications for action cannot be of any value.

[intellectualammo]

Yes, I think one could believe in a creator but draw zero inferences from that belief. However, the moment one makes some assumption about the Creator's intent, it would have an inference for action. Religions conceive of a Creator as a consciousness, as opposed to a non-living, unconscious entity or force. When one thinks of a Creator in that way -- as a consciousness -- it's pretty hard not to ascribe some intent, as in: "He created the universe, in order to... <fill in the blanks>".

Wait a minute...

"belief in a creator"? and "He created the universe..."? Either are enough to hold the Primacy of Consciousness over the Primacy of Existence, correct? The Primacy of Consciousness is diametrically opposite the Objectivist metaphysical view of existence, that of the Primacy of Existence. Consciousness, as such, does NOT come prior to existence, according to Objectivist metaphysics.

[edit to add another comment:]

Yes, I think one could believe in a creator, but draw zero inferences from that belief. However, the moment one makes some assumption about the Creator's intent, it would have an inference for action.

I disagree entirely with "I think that one could believe in a creator". What about even before intent...what about "the moment one makes the assumption" that there is such a "Creator"? Totally incompatible with Objectivism.

Isn't Julian trying to see if she or he could believe in a "God" or a "Creator" and be an Objectivist?

sNerd, are you saying an Objectivist can believe in such a "Creator" or "God" and still be able to call themselves an Objectivist?

There's one thing that I don't quite understand yet though. An objectivist doesn't let emotions guide him, but still lets himself have emotions. [...] Couldn't I believe in a Creator, but just not let those beliefs guide me?

"Couldn't I believe in a Creator.." Stop right there. NO. Not in Objectivism.

Edited October 8, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DavidOdden]

There's one thing that I don't quite understand yet though. An objectivist doesn't let emotions guide him, but still lets himself have emotions. Is there not a contradiction between emotion and reason? Couldn't I believe in a Creator, but just not let those beliefs guide me?

The most important thing to understand is what emotions are. They are not magical, primitive senses or sources of knowledge, they are reactions to knowledge. Integrate your knowledge of the value of your mother, and the fact that she just died, and you have a reaction -- an emotion, which is the product of that mental process. Of course you should feel horrible. Rationally-based emotions have no connection to the belief in a creator. There is no knowledge underlying the emotional belief in a creator. Now, if for some reason you believe in a creator but don't let that belief guide you, then that would be supremely irrational. The question you should be asking is, why in the world would you actually believe in a creator? What would impel you to not just accept a claim for which there is no evidence, but actually accept a claim that renders the universe logically incomprehensible and contradictory? I can't imagine why any rational person would entertain such a bizarre concept.

Do you believe that the nature of Allah is held to be in any significant way different from that of Jebus's dad? For example -- and I was surprised to learn this -- the Mormon god is actually supposed to have been an ordinary man living on some planet in outer space. That's a pretty fundamental break with normal JCM theology. Forget the differing mandates regarding smiting enemies, what about The Prime Deity himself? What makes you think there is any difference between Allah and Mr. God?

[Julian]

Welcome to the forum. Honest questioning of oneself is all anyone can expect. Take your time.

Yes, I think one could believe in a creator, but draw zero inferences from that belief. However, the moment one makes some assumption about the Creator's intent, it would have an inference for action. Religions conceive of a Creator as a consciousness, as opposed to a non-living, unconscious entity or force. When one thinks of a Creator in that way -- as a consciousness -- it's pretty hard not to ascribe some intent, as in: "He created the universe, in order to... <fill in the blanks>".

If one did not take the route that religions do, but instead took the view that there is a creator consciousness, but this fellow does not care whether we kill people or love them, does not care if we blow up the world or cultivate it, and so on (i.e. a creator who doesn't give a damn), then the belief would have no implication for action, and therefore no significant consequence to your life. In other words, it would be quite a pointless belief.

Such a stance would be a type of "Deism". Some founding fathers held beliefs like this. However, they faced the basic conundrum that all deists face: if morality does not come from God, then how do we decide right from wrong? If one conceives of God as being so disinterested or so inscrutable, one has to throw any hope of deriving a morality from God.

Your analogy with emotions is interesting. I think it holds in one sense: one has to figure out the truth about the world, using reason rather than emotions. However, while emotions are not tools of cognition, they still are useful tools (and often fun tools) for humans. I cannot think of a really good analogy to compare the emotion-reason question to the God-Atheism question, but here's a not-so-good analogy. Suppose people believed that Calculus would help us derive morality. Now, one might reject that, but also point out that Calculus remains useful in some other human endeavor. Similarly, emotions are good, even if they aren't tools of cognition.

In contrast, any belief that has zero implications for action cannot be of any value.

Thanks for the welcome! Hopefully, I'll learn something from you guys.

I know this may sound silly, but what if I believed that this Creator had a motive that was not in conflict with reason?

That's kind of what I had in mind from the beginning. I wouldn't waste my time believing in a Creator with no motive. Anyway, there has to be a motive. Otherwise, the Creator would not have created us.

Since reason is manifested in the nature of ourselves and our existence, if we were created, that Creator created us as rational beings.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Julian

[Julian]

The most important thing to understand is what emotions are. They are not magical, primitive senses or sources of knowledge, they are reactions to knowledge. Integrate your knowledge of the value of your mother, and the fact that she just died, and you have a reaction -- an emotion, which is the product of that mental process. Of course you should feel horrible. Rationally-based emotions have no connection to the belief in a creator. There is no knowledge underlying the emotional belief in a creator. Now, if for some reason you believe in a creator but don't let that belief guide you, then that would be supremely irrational. The question you should be asking is, why in the world would you actually believe in a creator? What would impel you to not just accept a claim for which there is no evidence, but actually accept a claim that renders the universe logically incomprehensible and contradictory? I can't imagine why any rational person would entertain such a bizarre concept.

Do you believe that the nature of Allah is held to be in any significant way different from that of Jebus's dad? For example -- and I was surprised to learn this -- the Mormon god is actually supposed to have been an ordinary man living on some planet in outer space. That's a pretty fundamental break with normal JCM theology. Forget the differing mandates regarding smiting enemies, what about The Prime Deity himself? What makes you think there is any difference between Allah and Mr. God?

Thanks for clearing up the role of emotions.

Muslims believe that there is one God. They think that the Bible has been corrupted, so it's not really a matter of which God to them.

If anything, Islam is a more condensed version of the Old and New Testaments, despite the Muslims believing that God has never been on Earth in any person (i.e., they believe Jesus and Muhammad were just men). I would say that the Qur'an is generally better written and more concise. I say this as someone coming from a family of Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims.

For the above reasons, I would like to see a critique of it for the Objectivist community. This Ramadan, I have been reading one Qur'anic passage and one essay from The Virtue of Selfishness each night.

[Inspector]

Yes, I think one could believe in a creator, but draw zero inferences from that belief.

Actually, I believe this question was addressed specifically in OPAR and Dr. Peikoff very much disagreed. I don't have my source material on me at present, but he detailed how such a belief is ultimately catastrophic to one's consciousness.

[intellectualammo]

Thanks for the welcome! Hopefully, I'll learn something from you guys.

I know this may sound silly, but what if I believed that this Creator had a motive that was not in conflict with reason?

Since reason is manifested in the nature of ourselves and our existence, if we were created, that Creator created us as rational beings.

Julian, there is NO reconciling such belief with that of reason, and especially that with Objectivist metaphysics.

This leads to the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy: the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy-of-existence principle (including its epistemological implications) is one of Objectivism's most distinctive tenets.

This belief in a "Creator", that a conscious being created our universe, that is the primacy of consciousness metaphysical view of existence, that consciousness precedes existence. It does not. Consciousness arises from existence. Existence, as such, is not dependent upon consciousness, but can exist without it. Picture a universe with no conscious beings. But consciousness definately is dependent upon existence...so much so...it does not and cannot exist without it, since it arises from it, in it.

[Julian]

Julian, there is NO reconciling such belief with that of reason, and especially that with Objectivist metaphysics.

This belief in a "Creator", that a conscious being created our universe, that is the primacy of consciousness metaphysical view of existence, that consciousness precedes existence. It does not. Consciousness arises from existence. Existence, as such, is not dependent upon consciousness, but can exist without it. Picture a universe with no conscious beings. But consciousness definately is dependent upon existence...so much so...it does not and cannot exist without it, since it arises from it, in it.

Interesting.

Honestly, I haven't delved into Objectivist metaphysics yet. It looked kind of intimidating to me at the time, haha, so I skipped over it. I did read the Fountainhead, but that was more morality-bound. I think I'm ready to check it out now though.

[intellectualammo]

Interesting.

Honestly, I haven't delved into Objectivist metaphysics yet. It looked kind of intimidating to me at the time, haha, so I skipped over it. I did read the Fountainhead, but that was more morality-bound. I think I'm ready to check it out now though.

Great! That's the spirit!

OPAR is structured hierarchically philosophically speaking, so you'll start at the very metaphysical foundations of Objectivism and read your way on up. The very first chapter will address your present interest very well.

You are reading VoS...well in the first chapter you'll see why you don't use an intrinsic or mystical theory of values as a guide, but an objective theory of values...and the next chapter also addresses mysticism further. And when you take a closer look at the metaphysics of Objectivism, as per OPAR, you'll see just how the Objectivist ethics is based upon it, arises from it, logically.

Oh, and I'd also recommend George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" for understanding atheism, arguments against religion, since as you say you're currently questioning religion. I've heard it referred to as "the atheists bible" and it has been one of the most influential books to me.

Edited October 8, 2007 by intellectualammo

[KevinD]

Is there not a contradiction between emotion and reason?

What sort of contradiction do you imagine exists between these two?

Couldn't I believe in a Creator, but just not let those beliefs guide me?

That's a pretty fantastic kind of idea. You're talking about placing your faith in the existence of an omnipotent, etherial being, one who created all things (including you), and who presumably has some sort of hand in every event which takes place in the universe. Yet this belief is to have nothing to do with how you live your life?

Edited October 8, 2007 by Kevin Delaney

[softwareNerd]

I know this may sound silly, but what if I believed that this Creator had a motive that was not in conflict with reason?

Good question. As I explained in my previous post, if one does not impute a motive, it would be pointless to believe in a creator. I think what you're saying is that you realize that a belief in a creator without motive is a theoretical position that one could hold for a little while, but would soon discard because there is no motivation to hold onto the belief. Or, if one does not discard it, then one has to go the next step, as expressed in your current question.

When you speak of believing that the Creator has a motive, are you also assuming that humans have at least some slight chance of knowing, or at least guessing, at that motive? For instance something like: "If He made the world, the He must have meant us to keep it clean..." or "If He made men and let them multiply, He must have wanted us to get along with one another...". Or, do you mean that the creator's motives are completely inscrutable...for instance, that it is equally probably that he could actually have all the features that folks ascribe to the devil, or any other random motive? Assuming a truly inscrutable motive would imply that one thinks that (say) a thief could be following the unknown dictates of a Creator just as much, perhaps even more, than (say) an honest and productive man. A belief in a truly inscrutable Creator is almost in the same category as a belief in a creator without motive.

Or, do you mean that the Creator has motive, and also that man is endowed with some means of gleaning this motive, even if not perfectly? If this is what you're asking about, then it's truly not possible, because what you're saying is that something other than reason is informing your decision-making. If there is an implication for action, then there have to be situations where you can act one way, based on reason and another way based on your guess about the Creator's motive. In other words, if one bases one's actions on reason, then one can trace one actions back to a principle, and trace that principle back to a wider principle, and so on, until one arrives at a fundamental principle for action. There cannot be two such fundamentals. [Again, there can be -- in a limited theoretical sense -- where you define them as being equivalent; but, then you're back in a situation like those described above, where the Creator's motivations become meaningless.]

[KevinD]

I know this may sound silly, but what if I believed that this Creator had a motive that was not in conflict with reason?

What if you chose not to "believe" in anything for which you saw no evidence or rational proof?

What if you adopted an absolutely naturalistic viewpoint — that is, you saw the universe is a lawful, intelligible realm of cause and effect, one in which contradictions and miracles are not possible?

Forget the Creator for the moment: What is your motive behind your beliefs?

Edited October 8, 2007 by Kevin Delaney

[Robert J. Kolker]

What if you chose not to "believe" in anything for which you saw no evidence or rational proof?

What if you adopted an absolutely naturalistic viewpoint — that is, you saw the universe is a lawful, intelligible realm of cause and effect, one in which contradictions and miracles are not possible?

Forget the Creator for the moment: What is your motive behind your beliefs?

The assumption that the scientific laws that we know of or use hold everywhere and everywhen is just that, an assumption. Since none of us have been everywhere and everywhen we make this assumption for two reasons:

1. We believe that it is true. We cannot know first hand that it is true.

2. Without this assumption we cannot do science and engineering. That would put us back to being afraid of the night, earthquakes and thunderstorms.

Bob Kolker

[Julian]

Great! That's the spirit!

OPAR is structured hierarchically philosophically speaking, so you'll start at the very metaphysical foundations of Objectivism and read your way on up. The very first chapter will address your present interest very well.

You are reading VoS...well in the first chapter you'll see why you don't use an intrinsic or mystical theory of values as a guide, but an objective theory of values...and the next chapter also addresses mysticism further. And when you take a closer look at the metaphysics of Objectivism, as per OPAR, you'll see just how the Objectivist ethics is based upon it, arises from it, logically.

Oh, and I'd also recommend George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" for understanding atheism, arguments against religion, since as you say you're currently questioning religion. I've heard it referred to as "the atheists bible" and it has been one of the most influential books to me.

Thanks for the recommendations. I saw OPAR next to VoS on the shelf in Barnes and Noble. I'll pick that up next.

Wait a minute...

"belief in a creator"? and "He created the universe..."? Either are enough to hold the Primacy of Consciousness over the Primacy of Existence, correct? The Primacy of Consciousness is diametrically opposite the Objectivist metaphysical view of existence, that of the Primacy of Existence. Consciousness, as such, does NOT come prior to existence, according to Objectivist metaphysics.

I had some thoughts on this today. Maybe, you could help me out.

"Does God exist?" If the answer to this question is yes, then God could not have created existence (like you pointed out). Something could not have existed without existence, let alone be conscious.

This can lead to two conclusions:

(1) God does not exist.

(2) God exists, but did not create existence.

Is the second a possibility or am I misinterpreting Objectivist metaphysics?

Good question. As I explained in my previous post, if one does not impute a motive, it would be pointless to believe in a creator. I think what you're saying is that you realize that a belief in a creator without motive is a theoretical position that one could hold for a little while, but would soon discard because there is no motivation to hold onto the belief. Or, if one does not discard it, then one has to go the next step, as expressed in your current question.

When you speak of believing that the Creator has a motive, are you also assuming that humans have at least some slight chance of knowing, or at least guessing, at that motive? For instance something like: "If He made the world, the He must have meant us to keep it clean..." or "If He made men and let them multiply, He must have wanted us to get along with one another...". Or, do you mean that the creator's motives are completely inscrutable...for instance, that it is equally probably that he could actually have all the features that folks ascribe to the devil, or any other random motive? Assuming a truly inscrutable motive would imply that one thinks that (say) a thief could be following the unknown dictates of a Creator just as much, perhaps even more, than (say) an honest and productive man. A belief in a truly inscrutable Creator is almost in the same category as a belief in a creator without motive.

Or, do you mean that the Creator has motive, and also that man is endowed with some means of gleaning this motive, even if not perfectly? If this is what you're asking about, then it's truly not possible, because what you're saying is that something other than reason is informing your decision-making. If there is an implication for action, then there have to be situations where you can act one way, based on reason and another way based on your guess about the Creator's motive. In other words, if one bases one's actions on reason, then one can trace one actions back to a principle, and trace that principle back to a wider principle, and so on, until one arrives at a fundamental principle for action. There cannot be two such fundamentals. [Again, there can be -- in a limited theoretical sense -- where you define them as being equivalent; but, then you're back in a situation like those described above, where the Creator's motivations become meaningless.]

I would say the motives are completely scrutable, because it would be manifested in existence if a God does exist.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Julian

[Julian]

What sort of contradiction do you imagine exists between these two?

That's a pretty fantastic kind of idea. You're talking about placing your faith in the existence of an omnipotent, etherial being, one who created all things (including you), and who presumably has some sort of hand in every event which takes place in the universe. Yet this belief is to have nothing to do with how you live your life?

DavidOdden cleared up the emotion vs. reason issue for me.

As for the second question, I was misleading in my first post. I was kind of just testing the water out. My current disposition is towards a God of Reason so to speak.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Julian

[Julian]

What if you chose not to "believe" in anything for which you saw no evidence or rational proof?

What if you adopted an absolutely naturalistic viewpoint — that is, you saw the universe is a lawful, intelligible realm of cause and effect, one in which contradictions and miracles are not possible?

Forget the Creator for the moment: What is your motive behind your beliefs?

The assumption that the scientific laws that we know of or use hold everywhere and everywhen is just that, an assumption. Since none of us have been everywhere and everywhen we make this assumption for two reasons:

1. We believe that it is true. We cannot know first hand that it is true.

2. Without this assumption we cannot do science and engineering. That would put us back to being afraid of the night, earthquakes and thunderstorms.

Bob Kolker

I am studying the Qur'an to explore the rationality of its moral teachings. If it was rational, would trust be good enough evidence? Just as you might trust a friend about something? Or a scientist?

If I conclude that its teachings are not rational, I will have no problem denouncing Islam and becoming an atheist.

As for my motives, honestly it's probably insecurity and confusion right now.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Julian

[Inspector]

Yes, I think one could believe in a creator, but draw zero inferences from that belief.

Actually, I believe this question was addressed specifically in OPAR and Dr. Peikoff very much disagreed. I don't have my source material on me at present, but he detailed how such a belief is ultimately catastrophic to one's consciousness.

Okay, I have my material now:

No one seeks to evade the total of reality. Evaders believe that the practice is safe because they feel they can localize it. Ultimately, however, they cannot.

The reason is that everything in reality is interconnected. In logic, therefore, to sustain an evasion on any single point, one would be forced gradually to expand and to keep expanding the scope of one's blindness. For example, suppose that you decide to evade only in regard to the issue of God's existence, which you want to accept without evidence; in regard to everything else, you say, you will follow reason. What, in pattern, will happen to your mental processes thereafter? Can you remain rational in dealing with the rest of metaphysics, including such topics as the eternity of the universe, the absolutism of Identity, and the impossibility of miracles? Any of these topics, squarely faced, threatens to expose and upset your evasion. What about your thinking in regard to epistemology, including your view of the arbitrary and the issue of faith versus reason? What about ethics and God's supposed moral commandments? What about God's reputed political <opar_225> views—e.g., on pornography, prayer in the schools, abortion? What about the clash between Genesis and the theory of evolution? If you tried consistently to protect only your single starting evasion, turning aside methodically from everything that might threaten it, directly or indirectly, that single evasion would lead you step by step to one ultimate result: total nonperception.

The above is the negative expression of a principle discussed in chapter 4: man's need of integration. Just as every idea has a relationship to one's other ideas, and none can be accepted until it is seen to be an element of a single cognitive whole; so every fact has a relationship to other facts, and none can be evaded without tearing apart and destroying that kind of whole.

Softwarenerd, I think this is pretty clear. What do you think?

[KevinD]

(2) God exists, but did not create existence.

Is the second a possibility or am I misinterpreting Objectivist metaphysics?

If "God" did not create existence, then what precisely is His claim to fame?

God isn't GOD if He's just one more fact, force or phenomenon within the universe.

[intellectualammo]

Thanks for the recommendations. I saw OPAR next to VoS on the shelf in Barnes and Noble. I'll pick that up next.

I had some thoughts on this today. Maybe, you could help me out.

"Does God exist?" If the answer to this question is yes, then God could not have created existence (like you pointed out). Something could not have existed without existence, let alone be conscious.

This can lead to two conclusions:

(1) God does not exist.

(2) God exists, but did not create existence.

Is the second a possibility or am I misinterpreting Objectivist metaphysics?

The second is definately not a possibility in Objectivist metaphysics. The attributes of God alone, like "omnipotence", "infinite", "omniscience"...are all blantantly false metaphysical premises. Entities cannot have such attributes in our universe. Stick with the first conclusion.

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

Any way that you try to put it, if you say God exists, the burden of proof lies with you. Onus of proof principle. If you "believe in a God" but know nothing about it other than just "believing", that is not rational and you are not using reason.

Edited October 8, 2007 by intellectualammo

[softwareNerd]

Softwarenerd, I think this is pretty clear. What do you think?

Sure, and I agree with it completely.

[DavidOdden]

This can lead to two conclusions:

(1) God does not exist.

(2) God exists, but did not create existence.

Is the second a possibility or am I misinterpreting Objectivist metaphysics?

Would you agree that I am god? If not, why not? I do exist, and I didn't create existence. So how else do we identify god? You might eventually come to the position that god is a very tall grey-haired 10,000 year old hominid living on the planet Kolob, with a warp-drive engine in his car. The question about god's existence can be answered in two ways. Under the usual version of god, the answeris "No, he cannot, because he is a logical contradiction". But if you retreat to a weaker version of god, then the answer is "You have shown no evidence for his existence, so I can't consider your evidence". Reasonable men do not entertain baseless conjectures, but if you provide your proof that god exists, like bring him here so that we can see him, then we'd have something to contemplate.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The reason is that everything in reality is interconnected. In logic, therefore, to sustain an evasion on any single point, one would be forced gradually to expand and to keep expanding the scope of one's blindness. For example, suppose that you decide to evade only in regard to the issue of God's existence, which you want to accept without evidence; in regard to everything else, you say, you will follow reason. What, in pattern, will happen to your mental processes thereafter? Can you remain rational in dealing with the rest of metaphysics, including such topics as the eternity of the universe, the absolutism of Identity, and the impossibility of miracles? Any of these topics, squarely faced, threatens to expose and upset your evasion. What about your thinking in regard to epistemology, including your view of the arbitrary and the issue of faith versus reason? What about ethics and God's supposed moral commandments? What about God's reputed political <opar_225> views—e.g., on pornography, prayer in the schools, abortion? What about the clash between Genesis and the theory of evolution? If you tried consistently to protect only your single starting evasion, turning aside methodically from everything that might threaten it, directly or indirectly, that single evasion would lead you step by step to one ultimate result: total nonperception.

and none can be evaded without tearing apart and destroying that kind of whole.

It looks to me, in reading this, that Dr. Piekoff conflates the mere belief in God with the belief that the Bible is the inerrant truth. ("God" doesn't necessarily mean the Judaeo-Christian Yahweh jealous dude, nor does it necessarily imply that you think he wrote the bible as we know it today.) Not a big deal actually, because in a population like ours where the overwhelming majority of people are Christians of one stripe or another, most people hold the two propositions as being identical without a second thought.

However, once that is resolved (by changing "God's existence" to "inerrancy of the Bible") the example is a perfect illustration of the ripple effect from evading in one place while not doing so in others--then following the "logical" consequences. This was, of course his main intent in this paragraph.

Anyone have any thoughts or an example of the problems posed by being rational *except* for a belief in a deist God--i.e., one who doesn't give a damn what we do?

[softwareNerd]

I would say the motives are completely scrutable, because it would be manifested in existence if a God does exist.

This is where things get dicey.

To understand why, first understand that to use reason does not mean simply to apply deduction to already-known premises. More important, is the process of observing the world and drawing inferences and premises out of those observations. When one assumes a God, one assumes a non-observational explanation.

Take the example of ancient people assuming the existence of a God of Thunder. Being unable to explain the cause of thunder, they instead explained it away, by assuming a Thunder God. What does this do to their understanding of thunder? They start to see their God manifest itself in the existence of thunder: they actually indirectly "observe" that he is angry or happy and so on. In fact, a Thunder God is not manifest in thunder; to assume so is to beg the question. Practically, to assume so is to delay learning the truth about thunder.

Having found reasons for thunder and rain and the seasons, modern man has pretty much done away with God-based explanations for these. For most, God now exists as an explanation for the ethical questions of life. However, to see God's will as manifest in some particular ethical theory is to beg the question; it is to ascribe one's own arbitrary explanation to God. Any attempt to reason that God must have meant us to act a certain way, is based on an arbitrary assumption about the existence and nature of God. So, it is just as arbitrary as the idea that the thunder God is angry when he thunders... for all we know, thunder could be his way of laughing, or of taking a leak.... or, it could just be a natural phenomenon.

So, step back and think of reason as being "observation and reasoning based on observation". Then, you'll see why one cannot smuggle in something non-observation based into the mix. If one does so, then one can either do it in a way that renders it meaningless (as previously posted), or one can do it in a way that conflicts with observation-based reasoning.

[intellectualammo]

Anyone have any thoughts or an example of the problems posed by being rational *except* for a belief in a deist God--i.e., one who doesn't give a damn what we do?

Assuming the person is rational, or actually a given in the above, then that is an example of a breach of integrity, of consistency, to believe in a God and evasion on their part, since we already know that they are rational as such.

[...] integrity is a derivative of rationality and precludes any form of emotionalism. It does not mean loyalty to arbitrary notions, however strongly one feels they are true. [like the belief in a God] Integrity means loyalty not to a whim or delusion, but to one's knowledge, to the conclusions one can prove logically. Like every other virtue, therefore, integrity presupposes a mind that seeks knowledge, a mind that accepts and follows reason.

Edited October 8, 2007 by intellectualammo